DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**hwood** · 03-25-2012, 10:57 AM

Because it wasn't meant to be a racial term at the time it was created in the first place. It's sort of like Turanism, in a way.

Latino was coined by the French, who are Latin Europeans. They were not coined by the majority of the inhabitants of "Latin America". Granted, a lot of countries' names were named by Europeans, but when it comes to Latino, it's blatantly Eurocentric to the core.

---------- Post added 2012-03-24 at 23:08 ----------

Can someone with Far Eastern ancestry be considered Mexican, Brazilian, Uruguayan, American, Peruvian, and Canadian since these terms are nationalities? So a full-blooded Far East Asian can be called Mexican then?

What does vulnerability have anything to do with it? If someone with full Far East Asian ancestry is born in Latin America, and especially if they spent a lot of time there, identify as being Latino, speak Spanish or Portuguese, practice Latin American customs, is Roman Catholic, then why isn't the Latino identity applicable to them?

Not that I'm trying to argue with you or anything, but Belize use to be called British Honduras. Many African countries have renamed themselves such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo which was formerly called the Republic of Zaire. In Asia, Myanmar was formerly called Burma. So even nationalities can be renamed despite a nationality being a legal identity. In fact, many legal identities are prone to being renamed as compared to non-legal identities.

Legal identities are backed up by law, whereas non-legal identities are backed up by other means such as cultural affiliation, the language they speak, their genetic heritage, the religion they practice, and etc. We tend to think that legal identities are rock solid and permanent, but they're often not. Moreover, why should all identities have to be legally based to be legitimate? Legal identities (such as a nationality) are just one type of identity.

They can call themselves whatever they want, but recognize that they're attaching themselves to a Eurocentric label. Of course a full-blooded Far Easterner can be Mexican, since Mexican is not a race or ethnicity. Sandra Oh is of Korean descent, but her nationality is Canadian. George Takei is of Japanese descent, but his nationality is American. However, would you call Sandra Oh and George Takei Anglos? Most people would not, which is the same reason why I don't consider someone like Keiko Fujimori Latina. The vast majority of inhabitants of "Latin America" aren't Latinos to me. I don't see Ricky MartÃ*n, America Ferrera, George LÃ³pez, Celia Cruz, Gael GarcÃ*a Bernal, Diego Luna, Marc Anthony, or Jennifer LÃ³pez as Latinos.

---------- Post added 2012-03-24 at 23:26 ----------

Let's demonstrate double standards.

This actor is American, but his mother is Mexican. His father is an American of Mexican descent.

Some of you will be quick to claim he is Latino, but is he not Anglo? He was born in the USA, so that technically makes him Anglo, does it not? Just like y'all are saying that if you're born and raised in "Latin America", then you're automatically Latino, despite your ethnic background. So, why wouldn't the same apply to all Americans as Anglos?

So, if Michael Trevino is an American with grandparents from Mexico, then is he Anglo? Is he Latino? Is he both? No, he's neither! He's a North American. The end.

03-25-2012, 10:57 AM	#23
hwood Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 341 Senior Member	Because it wasn't meant to be a racial term at the time it was created in the first place. It's sort of like Turanism, in a way. Latino was coined by the French, who are Latin Europeans. They were not coined by the majority of the inhabitants of "Latin America". Granted, a lot of countries' names were named by Europeans, but when it comes to Latino, it's blatantly Eurocentric to the core. ---------- Post added 2012-03-24 at 23:08 ---------- Can someone with Far Eastern ancestry be considered Mexican, Brazilian, Uruguayan, American, Peruvian, and Canadian since these terms are nationalities? So a full-blooded Far East Asian can be called Mexican then? What does vulnerability have anything to do with it? If someone with full Far East Asian ancestry is born in Latin America, and especially if they spent a lot of time there, identify as being Latino, speak Spanish or Portuguese, practice Latin American customs, is Roman Catholic, then why isn't the Latino identity applicable to them? Not that I'm trying to argue with you or anything, but Belize use to be called British Honduras. Many African countries have renamed themselves such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo which was formerly called the Republic of Zaire. In Asia, Myanmar was formerly called Burma. So even nationalities can be renamed despite a nationality being a legal identity. In fact, many legal identities are prone to being renamed as compared to non-legal identities. Legal identities are backed up by law, whereas non-legal identities are backed up by other means such as cultural affiliation, the language they speak, their genetic heritage, the religion they practice, and etc. We tend to think that legal identities are rock solid and permanent, but they're often not. Moreover, why should all identities have to be legally based to be legitimate? Legal identities (such as a nationality) are just one type of identity. They can call themselves whatever they want, but recognize that they're attaching themselves to a Eurocentric label. Of course a full-blooded Far Easterner can be Mexican, since Mexican is not a race or ethnicity. Sandra Oh is of Korean descent, but her nationality is Canadian. George Takei is of Japanese descent, but his nationality is American. However, would you call Sandra Oh and George Takei Anglos? Most people would not, which is the same reason why I don't consider someone like Keiko Fujimori Latina. The vast majority of inhabitants of "Latin America" aren't Latinos to me. I don't see Ricky MartÃn, America Ferrera, George LÃ³pez, Celia Cruz, Gael GarcÃa Bernal, Diego Luna, Marc Anthony, or Jennifer LÃ³pez as Latinos. ---------- Post added 2012-03-24 at 23:26 ---------- Let's demonstrate double standards. This actor is American, but his mother is Mexican. His father is an American of Mexican descent. Some of you will be quick to claim he is Latino, but is he not Anglo? He was born in the USA, so that technically makes him Anglo, does it not? Just like y'all are saying that if you're born and raised in "Latin America", then you're automatically Latino, despite your ethnic background. So, why wouldn't the same apply to all Americans as Anglos? So, if Michael Trevino is an American with grandparents from Mexico, then is he Anglo? Is he Latino? Is he both? No, he's neither! He's a North American. The end.
	Quote