[prmnwoks]

Doesn't change the fact that the world is confused on its definition. Latino does not mean the same thing everywhere.

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.

[SteantyjetMaw]

No, because Mexican, Brazilian, Uruguayan, American, Peruvian, and Canadian are legitimate nationalities. There is no "Latin American" passport or ID. There is nothing federal or legal about the term "Latin American". The geographical region currently known as Latin America is not invulnerable to renaming. There is no substance to the term "Latin America", it can be easily renamed. Nations, on the other hand, are not as vulnerable to be renamed.

If you want to be more general, then there are more appropriate labels like South America, Central America, North America, and Caribbean/West Indian.

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.

[hwood]

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 López, Celia Cruz, Gael GarcÃ*a Bernal, Diego Luna, Marc Anthony, or Jennifer López 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.

[myspacecoo]

Wow, I pick them mixed Japanese/Brazilian over any Mesticas. lol

[celddiskend]

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?

Because the term Latino is by definition more inclusive than Anglo. Why it's so hard for you to grasp this? Anglo have never had the cultural republicanist meaning that the term Latino had when the French initially created it (at a time when the continent was certainly less mixed than now), so I don't see the reason for your attempting to equate the two.

[SkHukV3N]

I was using 'Latino' to refer to people associated with Latin America or Latin base speaking European nations which is how many people define 'Latino'. But after re-reading your (Marllon) first and second post in this thread, you define it differently. You define it as someone with significant ancestry from a Latin base speaking European nation - someone who looks like a castizo or criollo. And that's why you instead prefer the nationality terms such as Asian-Brazilian or Asian-Uruguayan or Asian-Mexican. Okay that makes sense if we go by your definition . I understand where you are coming from now - that Latino is a colonial term, and according to you it should not be used for everyone in Latin America. Okay, I won't argue with you too much on that. I understand that the term 'Latino' may (to some people) unfairly rob a person of their other heritage whether it be Amerindian, African, Asian, or even other European/Caucasian heritages such as Polish, Lebanese, or Indian.

[loan4younow]

Wow, I pick them mixed Japanese/Brazilian over any Mesticas. lol

You can't mix Japanese with Brazilian. Brazilian is not an ethnicity. There are Japanese Brazilians who aren't admixed. Also, almost all the women ItaloPortuga posted are mestiças, so I don't know what you're talking about. You're saying you prefer mixed-race people over mixed-race people? I'm lost...

[Angelinaaiiiiiiiii]

You can't mix Japanese with Brazilian. Brazilian is not an ethnicity. There are Japanese Brazilians who aren't admixed. Also, almost all the women ItaloPortuga posted are mestiças, so I don't know what you're talking about. You're saying you prefer mixed-race people over mixed-race people? I'm lost...

I prefer a little dose of that hinty Japanese blood in them.

A mixed Asian from Brazil or a mixed Mestizos from Brazil, I prefer those Japanese Brazilian models.

The word Mestizos to my knowledge in the west refers to "Spanish and Indigenous."

---------- Post added 2012-03-24 at 21:02 ----------



they are just hot and sexy. *winks
now those are some good marriage materials and specimen.

[mesZibeds]

Because the term Latino is by definition more inclusive than Anglo. Why it's so hard for you to grasp this? Anglo have never had the cultural republicanist meaning that the term Latino had when the French initially created it (at a time when the continent was certainly less mixed than now), so I don't see the reason for your attempting to equate the two.

Regardless, my sister and I are vastly more culturally "Anglo" than Lusitanic, does that make us Anglo? Are we Lusitanic? No. No matter how you want to paint it, both Anglo and Latino are on the same level of what they're supposed to encompass.

[arcalmanard]

Look at that!!!

[bredkumanfirst]

I prefer a little dose of that hinty Japanese blood in them.

A mixed Asian from Brazil or a mixed Mestizos from Brazil, I prefer those Japanese Brazilian models.

The word Mestizos to my knowledge in the west refers to "Spanish and Indigenous.

You're confused. Brazil speaks Portuguese, not Spanish. The Portuguese word mestiço is not synonymous with the Spanish word mestizo. A mestiço is simply a mixed-race person regardless of what the mix is. As you can see, the winner of the Miss Nikkei Brazil pageant IS a mestiça, since she has admixture. The Portuguese word for mestizo is caboclo, which Brazil doesn't have much of in the first place. Also, most Brazilian caboclos are mixed with Portuguese and Amerindian, not Spanish. The Spanish influence in Brazil was not as significant as the African, Portuguese, or Italian influences. The majority of Brazilians do not possess Spanish ancestry.

[Nupbeaupeteew]

Regardless, my sister and I are vastly more culturally "Anglo" than Lusitanic, does that make us Anglo?

Only if Anglos consider you part of their brethen, which is the thing that it all comes down to.

Are we Lusitanic?

Yes, from my point of view, that is. One label doesn't need to exclude others.

No.

That's a shame, I guess.

No matter how you want to paint it, both Anglo and Latino are on the same level of what they're supposed to encompass.

No, that's YOUR point of view. Any social scientist worth his/her dime will tell you this.

[KirillAristov]

To all the LatAms here (and to everyone actually), I'd like to hear your definition of 'Latino'.

[rorsvierwelia]

I was using 'Latino' to refer to people associated with Latin America or Latin base speaking European nations which is how many people define 'Latino'. But after re-reading your (Marllon) first and second post in this thread, you define it differently. You define it as someone with significant ancestry from a Latin base speaking European nation - someone who looks like a castizo or criollo. And that's why you instead prefer the nationality terms such as Asian-Brazilian or Asian-Uruguayan or Asian-Mexican. Okay that makes sense if we go by your definition . I understand where you are coming from now - that Latino is a colonial term, and according to you it should not be used for everyone in Latin America. Okay, I won't argue with you too much on that. I understand that the term 'Latino' may (to some people) unfairly rob a person of their other heritage whether it be Amerindian, African, Asian, or even other European/Caucasian heritages such as Polish, Lebanese, or Indian.

Thank you! That is my point precisely. To be honest, I don't even consider castizos as Latinos either, only people who are more than 90% Latin European in ancestry, but you got most of what I meant from what I meant by posts.

[vulikox]

To all the LatAms here (and to everyone actually), I'd like to hear your definition of 'Latino'.

Anyone born in the countries conforming Latin America that practices the language/religion/culture of the countries in question, regardless of racial background.

[ASSESTYTEAH]

You're confused. Brazil speaks Portuguese, not Spanish. The Portuguese word mestiço is not synonymous with the Spanish word mestizo. A mestiço is simply a mixed-race person regardless of what the mix is. As you can see, the winner of the Miss Nikkei Brazil pageant IS a mestiça, since she has admixture. The Portuguese word for mestizo is caboclo, which Brazil doesn't have much of in the first place. Also, most Brazilian caboclos are mixed with Portuguese and Amerindian, not Spanish. The Spanish influence in Brazil was not as significant as the African, Portuguese, or Italian influences. The majority of Brazilians do not possess Spanish ancestry.

Portuguese-Europeans are Latins. :-)

[ElenaEvgeevna]

Only if Anglos consider you part of their brethen, which is the thing that it all comes down to.

Then that depends on what even constitutes an Anglo.

Yes, from my point of view, that is. One label doesn't need to exclude others.

Portuguese people do not consider us Lusitanic, nor do many of us Brazilians identify with such a label.

That's a shame, I guess.

To you. I don't see why it's a shame to not want to adopt Eurocentrism.

No, that's YOUR point of view. Any social scientist worth his/her dime will tell you this.

And the same goes for you. You need to take into account that different people are bound to have different takes on things.

---------- Post added 2012-03-25 at 00:28 ----------

Portuguese-Europeans are Latins. :-)

Yes, they are... I don't know why you replied to my post with that, since it doesn't have anything do with what I said.

[ResistNewWorldOrder]

To all the LatAms here (and to everyone actually), I'd like to hear your definition of 'Latino'.

This is my definition, as stated in another thread (What is the Latino appearance?).

Anything from blonde with blue eyes to amerindian or even black. I never saw Latinos as a distinct race or ethnicity. To me "Latin" is a cultural and geographic concept that refers to the people Latin America but can also include Europeans who speak a language derived from Latin, such as Spaniards, French, Portuguese, Italians and Romanians.

[compiit]

Yes, they are... I don't know why you replied to my post with that, since it doesn't have anything do with what I said.

http://inside.sfuhs.org/dept/history...asconcelos.pdf

The day in which Angloness gets to be defined under a similar ideology, then that will be the day in which the two concepts will be able to be compared.

[tLO0hFNy]

Identities are not also necessarily mutually exclusive of one another. For example, one can be a Latino and at the same time be an Asian-Brazilian or Afro-Brazilian? Is that correct or okay, or not? I'll let everyone here decide.