Talk:Griqua people

[Untitled]

Since Griqualand East and Griqualand West were distinct territories, they probably need separate articles SteveH 09:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Ek is, soos baie sogenaamde 'witmense', eintlik 'n Griqua van bloed. My Oupa Roks het ons herkoms gaan navors in die Kaapse argiewe en ontdek dat ons via Ramatlabama, Botswana, uiteindelik in die misnoemde wes-Transvaal beland het. Oorspronklik deel van die eksodus uit Kaapstad is ons mense eers Kokstad toe en daarna het ons die Kalahari ingevaar, opsoek na vrugbare grond. As 'n kind in die (amper) wit skole van Pretoria en Johannesburg het ek snaaks on-van-plek gevoel tot ek later die waarheid van ons oorsprong geleer het. Natuurlik is meeste van ons familie (skein)heilig onbewus van ons werklike herkoms en ons mooi kombinasie 'blas velle' (soos Ouma Felicia diese graag beskryf).

Ek voel om te se^ dat die huidige nationalisme van die Griqua 'n tipe van afmuuring te wee bring, net soos ons vorige meesters die Afrikaanse Nasionaliste gedoen het. Ons moet ons Afrikansheid (meld my spelling) vereien en dit sal die basis van ons vooruitgang as Afrikane en Suid-Afrikane wees. Inderdaad, ons moet ons taal Afrikaans bewaar, maar moet diese behartig deur herintegrasie (is daar ooit so 'n woord?) met Khoi, Tswana en al die wonderlike tale van ons meoderland. Al daarie herkoms moet vereien word. Niemand wil 'n niemand wees nie. So, kom ons maak ons volgende punt op die agenda 'n wye een: Om moderne, geintegreerde, Nguni-behartige stammelinge van Suid Afrika te wees. Dit is die enigste toekoms wat ek vir Suider Afrika sien, Is ek die enigste een? Ek glo ek is nie aleennie ;). Werner 62.24.195.87 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect names

Are Korana and Koranna erroneous names, or are one or both of them synonym(s)? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Misleading Intro?

I am not at all an expert in this subject. I read the linguistic paper "Khoemana and the Griqua: Identity at the Heart of Phonological Attrition" (Killian 2009) which is linked in the Khoemana article. That paper indicates that "Griqua" is a native ethnic identity which originated with one or more native tribes. Instead, this article starts by saying the Griqua people, as a whole, began as Boers. I think this might be inaccurate and needs expert attention. Also, Korana redirects to this page, but that paper I read indicates that Korana and Griqua were separate tribal/ethnic groups which have eventually merged under persecution. Both names are used for what may be the same language, but as ethnic names they apparently weren’t synonyms. So they should be clearly differentiated in this article, or given separate articles. ~ 2601:441:4400:1740:BC53:6D33:E060:BCE8 (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no "San" ethnic group

Grikwa people are described as having "San" blood or ancestry. This is vacuous and meaningless. "San" is an economic term meaning "forager". It has no ethnic, genetic, or even linguistic meaning. It does not refer to any ethnic or tribal group. Saying somebody has "San" blood is like saying I have "Farmer" blood. The ethnic groups of their ancestors should be accurately listed (and disambiguated) by their real names. ~ 2601:441:4400:1740:BC53:6D33:E060:BCE8 (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Who is Alaric? How is he relevant?

Thehumantwig01 added a video of “Alaric speaking Afrikaans”. Who is Alaric? What does he have to do with this article? Is he a member of the Griqua community? What is he talking about in the video? Please explain these things in the article. Without an explanation (in an English article) this video looks completely unrelated and irrelevant to the entire topic. ~ 2601:441:4400:1740:BC53:6D33:E060:BCE8 (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree about the strange "Alaric" video. This article needs a cleanup, since there appears to be repetition and there is not a clear descriptive thread running through the article, it seems to jump all over the place. 164.160.37.123 (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Mythology and Racism

"The word "Afrikaner" itself was originally (for over 350 years) used as a description for not white Boers but a mixed-race bastard child. Note that the name Baster and Bastards were not derived from the English word "bastard", but rather the Dutch word meaning "hybrid"."

No source is given. Nor is it clear why alleged Boer or Afrikaner opinions of Coloureds has to be represeneted or are centered in an article about the Griquas.

Also, where in this article is Adam Kok of Kokstad?

2001:1C00:1E20:D900:7871:C551:1EB0:4DB1 (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The etymological claim is also confusing. The Dutch word ‘bastaard’ is used in the same sense as the English word, while the page on Basters says it does come from the word bastard.. 2A02:A210:2243:A980:A87C:68D4:46DC:C021 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Educational project?

Isaidnoway, I took your hint and checked a few accounts, but while they agreed in location (a location that made sense) there was nothing else there that told me something. It may well have been that many of those edits are part of a class assignment, of course. I wonder if this article shouldn't be semi-protected--dependent on how bad the edits were that you reverted. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: - This is the version I saw, and then there was content like this - Their adaptability and cross-cultural interactions paved the way for a rich tapestry of traditions and practices that further enriched the cultural diversity of the Griqua community and the broader South African landscape - seems like copy/paste to me. And it's obvious they don't know to make citations properly. Semi might be a good idea in case they want to continue. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Holy moly that was bad. If this continues it should be semi-protected, yes, so I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Standards of sources

Hello. I'm no Wikipedian, but I understand that the qualifiers for a 'reliable source' are stringent in a way that may sometimes not make much intuitive sense (rejecting first-hand witness accounts, accepting bald-faced nonsense provided it's in a source that has been accepted as reliable). With that preamble, is this a reliable source? https://panafricanrevoluntionmovement.wordpress.com/2017/10/08/griqua-people-of-south-africa-and-namibia/

It appears to be some guy's blog, the author of which states he is a mechanical engineer by profession. This source was cited as a note for part of the text that was not, in fact, in accordance with the source, claiming that the Griqua originate from forced sexual relations between colonists and Khoikhoi. So, as I see it, a triple whammy:

- Claim unsupported by the provided source

- - Claim also rather bombastic - primarily descended from instances of forced sexual servitude?

- Upon examination, the provided source seems like it should not have been used in the first place

Am I completely in the wrong here or is "the blog, of some guy with no professional expertise, which also provides no citations of its own" an acceptable standard here? I have taken the liberty of removing the unsubstantiated claim.

This is not a topic I am versed in, but perhaps someone better at this whole editing thing should take a look at the citations in this article. The source I mention seems to be used throughout the article - including other bits which are entirely absent in the actual source text, e.g. "Genetic studies of the 21st century have shown these people also had Tswana, San, and Xhosa ancestry."

Additionally, what is currently the sixth cited source - https://doi.org/10.15367%2Fcom.v0i0 seems to be some kind of mixup. This is a Pennsylvanian public policy journal. There is nothing about the Griqua, Africa, or history / anthropology / culture in there. 2A02:A311:403E:2B00:6C72:305A:BD99:A118 (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)