Talk:Hottentot (racial term)

Proposed merger with Khoikhoi
has proposed merging this article with Khoikhoi. I suggest that the term Hottentot  merits a separate article. Alarichall (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Although its main early use was to denote the ethnic group now known as Khoikhoi, it is far from being a straightforward synonym of Khoikhoi (and never has been). So a user who encounters references to Hottentots and wants to look up what is being referred to will not necessarily be helped by a redirect to Khoikhoi.
 * The term has been an object of scholarly study in its own right, and is notable as such. In particular, the history of the term is an important chapter in the history of racism. A redirect to Khoikhoi elides this complex and important history.

Well, it isn't clear to me that the term is notable in its own right. If we can establish as much, of course it should receive its own entry. Note that every word is the "object of scholarly study", in philology and etymology. This type of study is covered on Wiktionary, Wikipedia has decided against keeping "one page per word" long ago. Study of the term would need to go significantly beyond mere study of etymology. Also note that works such as François-Xavier Fauvelle-Aymar, L'invention du Hottentot: histoire du regard occidental sur les Khoisan (XVe-XIXe siècle), 2002, are not about the term "Hottentot". They are about the perception of the Khoisan or Khoikhoi, and as such part of the history of the people, their ethnography, their image, etc., and certainly not in any particular way about the exonym they happened to be known by. --dab (𒁳) 14:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your considered response, here and below. It would be interesting to address a number of the points you make, but I think it should be sufficient, as you suggest, to show that the concept of the Hottentot, rather than merely the term Hottentot, has been the object of study, and that this concept is distinct from the concept of the Khoikhoi. There's a solid body of recent work which takes care to use the term Hottentot to denote a concept in occidental colonial thought, and which sees the study of the Hottentot as quite distinct from the study of actual Khoikhoi people (or other ethnic groups which have also been labelled Hottentot).


 * Fauvelle-Aymar's book is actually an example of this. (I confess I haven't read much of it though, so correct me if I'm wrong; but I think you've misunderstood the scope of the book.) The introduction is clear that the book is about the Occidental concept of the Hottentot rather than actual South African people(s). It sounds like you know French, but let me know if you'd like a translation of these quotations from the first couple of pages:

Cet ouvrage retrace l'histoire d'un sauvage qui a connu, dans la représentation occidentale, un destin remarquable ; il s'agit de Hottentot. Qu'on ne s'attende donc pas à lire ici une histoire des populations d'Afrique australe aux noms divers, aux identités multiple et aux pratiques mouvantes ... On lira donc ici l'histoire de ce que les Européens ont aperçu on vu, compris, deviné, de ce qu'ils ont dit et écrit au sujet des habitants de l'extremité de l'Afrique, des hypothèses qu'ils se sont cru autorisés â émettre, des certitudes qu'ils ont transmises aux générations suivantes, des actions qui en ont découlé, des remises en question, des changements d'opionion. (p. 9). Somme toutes, les destins de ces topoi qui forment le Hottentot d'Europe restent largement indifférents à leur degré d'adéquation avec les Khoisan d'Afrique. (p. 10)
 * Envisioning the Worst: Representations of "Hottentots" in Early-modern England is likewise firmly about the Occidental fantasy of the Hottentot rather than Southern African people(s). These articles study the concept of the Hottentot on the same lines: Nicholas Hudson, "'Hottentots’ and the evolution of European racism", Journal of European Studies, 34.4 (December 2004), 308-32, ; David Johnson, 'Representing the Cape "Hottentots," from the French Enlightenment to Post-Apartheid South Africa', Eighteenth-Century Studies, 40.4 (Summer 2007), 525-52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30053727.


 * Obviously, I didn't cite these in the article I created and did focus on the history of the term Hottentot, so there's more work to be done. But hopefully these make it clear that the concept of the Hottentot has been the subject of serious study beyond etymology and independently of the history of the Khoikhoi or other actual ethnic groups, and that it's worth developing the article in line with this work. Alarichall (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we understand one another here. The "concept of Hottentot" is indistinguishable from the "concept of Khoikhoi", it is simply the term that has changed: Even the most erudite and factual account of Khoikhoi or Khoisan published before 1900 will have been under the term "Hottentot", the inaccuracy of historical depictions in the 1800s have nothing to do with a change of terminology in the 1980s. It is a dangerous practice of historical revisionists to de-legitimize historical terminology.

I do not dispute that there was a "colonial concept" of the Khoikhoi at all, and you are perfectly welcome to research and write a full page on "Khoisan history in the colonial period" or "Western perceptions of the Khoisan", the entire point is that this has nothing to do with the term, because every reference to the Khoikhoi in the 19th century will have been under the term "Hottentot".

The topic of "Representations of 'Hottentots' in Early-modern England" is  perfectly valid, but it has nothing to do with the term "Hottentot", and it is 100% equivalent the topic of "Representations of 'Khoisan' in Early-modern England". The "Occidental concept of the Hottentot" is just another way of saying "Occidental concept of the Khoisan". The semantic heavy lifting here is done by the "occidental concept" part, not by the "Hottentot" part of the phrase. Such concepts may or may not have been arbitrarily inaccurate, racist and colonialist, it doesn't change the fact that they are not about terminology, but about depictions of physiology, language, warfare, cannibalism, etc., all topics which are perfectly unrelated to terminology. --dab (𒁳) 09:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it will become clearer if I cite an analogy: There are two separate pages, Neanderthals and Neanderthals in popular culture. This is because depictions of Neanderthals in popular culture are wildly inaccurate, and I daresay would be considered extremely racist if there were any surviving Neanderthals, but the difference between the articles is not terminological at all. Similarly, there is an important difference between the history of the Jews and a list of antisemitic conspiracy theories. This is a topical difference, not a terminological one at all, both will be using the term "Jews", but one will be a hopefully neutral ethnographic account, the other will be about a history of wildly inaccurate but notable claims. Both are notable. Nothing about them is about terminology. --dab (𒁳) 09:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt and thoughtful reply, dab. Clearly the issue is whether you're right that 'The "concept of Hottentot" is indistinguishable from the "concept of Khoikhoi", it is simply the term that has changed'. I absolutely agree that, in some writing, Hottentot has been used with the same denotation as Khoikhoi (and it may indeed have been used by people with no intention to denigrate Khkoikhoi people). But we need to recognise that in lots of other writing, it hasn't. The Oxford English Dictionary has plenty of citations showing the use of the word in the sense Khoisan as well as Khoikhoi: sense 1b, "The Khoekhoe and San peoples collectively; = Khoisan n. 1. Cf. bushman n."

1795   C. R. Hopson tr. C. P. Thunberg Trav. 		(ed. 2)	 II. 185  				Hottentots is the common denomination of all those nations which inhabit the southern angle of Africa, and are extended on either side of the Cape of Good Hope. 1881   T. Hahn Tsuni-‖Goam 2  				We should apply the term Hottentot to the whole race, and call the two families, each by the native name, that is the one, the Khoikhoi, the so-called Hottentot proper; the other the Sān (Sā) or Bushmen. 1924   A. C. Haddon Races of Man 		(ed. 2)	 41  				An early migration of Hamites mixed with this population [sc. Bushmen] and gave cattle and elements of their language to the mixed people who in South Africa are known as Hottentots. 1973   P. A. Whitney Blue Fire 118  				‘Hottentot’ itself meant stammerer and was what the Dutch called the Bushmen because of their odd language. 1983   D. Hughes et al. ''Compl. Bk. S. Afr. Wine'' 16  				Bands of Hottentots (Xhoisan, or Capoid, people), the only indigenous population here..had no settled community or agriculture.


 * The OED also offers these citations for sense 2, "derogatory (offensive). In extended use. A person of inferior intellect or culture; an uncivilized or ignorant person":

1710   ''Divine Rights of Brit. Nation & Constit. Vindicated'' 112  				Our British Hottentotes, the Perkinites. 1726   N. Amhurst Terræ-filius 		(ed. 2)	 xxxv. 190  				Surprized..to find a place, which he had heard so much renown'd for learning, fill'd with such grey-headed novices and reverend hotten~tots. 1763   ''Brit. Mag.'' July 338/2  				England..yet abounded greatly with such kinds of Hottentots. 1831   ''New-Eng. Mag.'' July 39  				Oh barbarian! Hottentot and Kangaroo! Never will I live with a man who does not eat mustard with his beef! 1871   M. J. Holmes Millibank ix. 67  				The girl is growing up a perfect Hottentot, with no more manners or style than Dame Floyd herself. 1921   Times 29 Aug. 5/4  				Grown-up men and women calling themselves gentlemen and gentlewomen, who..were little better than Hottentots in disguise. 1998   Washington Times 		(Nexis)	 31 Mar. a4  				Everybody thinks all we do down here is drop our drawers and behave like Hottentots.


 * Correspondingly, sense 2 of hotnot is given as the ethnically unspecific "derogatory and offensive. A coloured person".


 * Usages of this kind, and they are very widespread, might include Khoikhoi people, but also include other ethnic groups, or simply mean 'barbarian'. I think it's a misunderstanding to imagine that these examples are particularly part of the history of the representation of Khoikhoi people: they are, however, part of the history of a distinct Occidental concept of 'the Hottentot'.


 * I think your comparison between Neanderthals and Neanderthals in popular culture is helpful. My concern is that Hottentot is not equivalent to 'Khoikhoi in popular culture' (which would, however, be a great topic for an entry), but rather to Caveman (because the term caveman includes not only Neanderthals but also other prehistoric people who have been jumbled up with them in popular imagination, and is also now seen as unscholarly). It's also worth noting that Wikipedia editors have thought it prudent to include separate entries for Jew and the colloquial and often derogatory Yid. People have also found it helpful to have an entry for Kaffir (racial term). Like Hottentot, Kaffir is now viewed as a racist term, and like Hottentot it was used with varying degrees of ethnic specificity (though I recognise that it was certainly always a broader term than Hottentot, and came to be seen as racist sooner).


 * It would be interesting to see what other people think. If we do integrate the material in Hottentot into Khoikhoi, I think we would also need to advert to it in Khoisan. And rather than making Hottentot a redirect to Khoikhoi, we could make it a disambiguation page, linking to Khoisan, Khoikhoi, Khoekhoe language, Hottentot (fish), etc. Alarichall (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thinking about, it, maybe it would be best to make Hottentot a disambiguation page, and to move the present material over to its own page: something like 'Hottentot (racial term)'? Alarichall (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As per this discussion and the section 'Page move' below, I think we can now remove the merger notice, so I'll do that. Just wanted to note that here though. Alarichall (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The article about Hottentot does not warrant a seperate article. It also isn’t a proclamated word under South African legislation as a derogative term. Hottentot doesn’t relate at all to the word Hotnot (derogative word) as per legislation in South Africa. This article is plagued with misleading and false information with unreliable and irrelevant references. Spazzature (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The article jumps from a view the word Hotnot is a short version of Hottentot. That’s false and incorrect. The article further assumes as the word Hotnot (derogative term for coloured, mixed race or bastard) is derogative, the word Hottentot that is the Afrikaans word for the Khoi people and all it’s categories are as well. There are no reliable references supporting this false and misleading view. The article further ignores the facts that the Oxford and all dictionaries in South Africa doesn’t refer to the word as derogatory. The article go so far to use the word “merely” as the author try and justify their personal misleading view. Spazzature (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Section headings
Hi there ! I see you've made various edits to this article, which is of course fair enough. I'm not sure why you took out the section headings though: surely it's considered good style in Wikipedia to have a clear distinction between the header and the rest of the article, and to divide articles into sections? Alarichall (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I am thinking of a merger into Khoikhoi, as most of the material here is either dictdef, or relevant to the history of the Khoikhoi during the 17th to 19th centuries. I do not think there is enough material here to keep an entire article on terminology outside of a well-developed Wiktionary entry. It appears to be the case that the term "Hottentot" per se only came to be described as offensive in ca. 1995. It was certainly used innocently in perfectly respectable literature as late as 1989. The earliest evidence of the term being proscribed we have so far dates from 1995. This is not to dispute it is offensive now, but this should not be taken to imply that pre-1990s (or even pre-2008) use of "Hottentot" can be assumed to be used offensively or with racist connotations (while of course there can be 'offensive' depictions, under any name, but this isn't tied to terminology). --dab (𒁳) 14:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I also think that it may be better to merge this into the terminology section at Khoisan, due to the historical confusion in usage ("Hottentot" could, over time, refer to either Khoikhoi specifically, or to Khoisan more generally), so perhaps it will be best to keep a single detailed section on historical terminology. --dab (𒁳) 14:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Found an early reference to "Khoikhoi (formerly known as Hottentots)" (without comment on the term being offensive) in Tobias, History of Physical Anthropology in Southern Africa (1985). This seems to indicate that (same as with other "politically correct" term replacements), this is a trend that began in the early 1980s, and was mostly complete by the late 1990s. --dab (𒁳) 09:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I note that Richard Elphick, Khoikhoi and the Founding of White South Africa (Cape of Good Hope: Ravan Press, 1985) says 'The word Hottentot is occasionally heard even in the 1980s, but few outside South Africa know its precise meaning' (p. xv), suggesting the term was deprecated for most speakers by the 1980s.
 * I've had a closer look at your version of the article, and while I see you've made some helpful improvements, I'm sad to see that some of your rephrasings now mean that statements are being made that are inconsistent with the references given. I'll go back through and tidy things up. Perhaps when editing in future, you could include edit summaries as well? It would be very helpful for other editors! Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * While this page remains, I'm going to put the section headers back in. If it ever does get integrated into Khoisan (though personally I still wouldn't support this), they can always be removed again. Alarichall (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Page move
Following from discussion above, since no objection has been raised, I've moved this page from Hottentot (which is now a disambiguation page) to Hottentot (racial term) (paralleling Kaffir (racial term)). Alarichall (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now checked all entries that link to Hottentot and for those where it's appropriate to change the link to Hottentot (racial term) or to other pages like Hottentot (fish), I've made the change. I haven't attempted yet to change entries where Hottentot should be replaced with Khoikhoi or Khoisan because I don't have enough specialist knowledge to tell which is the most appropriate term in each instance. Alarichall (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Changes to article
An editor wants to make some substantial changes to the article, as they consider the content to be false. They need to discuss those changes here, rather than pushing their changes in the face of opposition from multiple editors. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 08:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * See new section below... 10mmsocket (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Misleading and false
Hottentot is not racial. Hotnot is. Please provide reliable references and to the proclamation in the ACT where this is a derogative word. Stop making up nonsense! Spazzature (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific about which statements are false in your opinion and which references are unreliable? Better still can you share here any alternative definition supported by reliable verifiable references (WP:V, WP:RS)? 10mmsocket (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hottentot meaning
The Hottentot is one of three tribes of South Africa which may be divided — Bantus, Hottentots, and Bushmen. When the first Europeans (the Portuguese) came to South Africa, they found what is now Cape Colony divided between Bushmen and Hottentots. The Bantu tribes were chiefly north of the Zambesi not near the Western Cape is assumed and incorrectly presented in this article. The Bushmen were smaller than the Hottentots physically.

This article is so false, misleading and incorrect and plagued with irrelevant and unreliable references. It even stipulates incorrectly the Dutch people arrived from Europe first and try to link the Afrikaans word Hottentot to Dutch. British and South African English borrowed / adopted the Afrikaans word. The article ignores completely the Afrikaans context and definitions of the word. Spazzature (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused by this post, @Spazzature: regarding the second paragraph, is your concern that the etymology section talks about 'Dutch' rather than 'Afrikaans'? Alarichall (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Europeans?
> is a term that was historically used by Europeans

What's the source for this? Do you think all Europeans speak English? 46.33.152.203 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)