Talk:Latin America

Misc.

The fact of the matter is that when the average person from the United States refers to Latin America, he or she means Mexico and everything south of that in this hemisphere. (If they think about it, which they usually won't, they will probably exclude English and Dutch speaking places.) It's not intended to be racist, that's just the way it is, however the term may have come to be used originally. Latino is generally used to mean people from that area, with the probable exception of the English and Dutch speaking people. Hispanic generally refers to people from Spanish speaking countries. I often wish there were a standard English term for United States citizens... I'm visiting Honduras now, and thankfully they just know, I don't have to worry about making the mistake of saying I'm from America. -brbigam

casual conversation to refer to, say, Bolivians, would be misunderstood. It is pretty to say "Estadounidense" in Spanish -- but, it is pretty awkward in English , which is perhaps why I have never heard any "American" refer to themselves as a "United Statesian."

Well, ANYTHING would be better than to continue callin United Statesians "Americans." And you are quite right that technically Canadians and Mexican's are also North Americans. But at least, calling USians "norte AMericanos" is a lot more specific than calling them "Americanos." Slrubenstein

Is it appropriate to sermonize in an wikipedia article on how we wish people would use the terms ? (Not rhetorical; I don't know the answer.) -- ll

Actually, most references I have seen (World Book, Britannica) include Haiti as part of "Latin America".

TO EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO DISCUSS THE ORGINS OR CORRECTNESS OF THE TERM "LATIN AMERICA", PLEASE CONFINE THIS DEBATE TO THE "ETYMOLOGY" SECTION OF THE ARTICLE. YOUR OBSESSIONS WITH THIS DETAIL IS RUINING THE REST OF THE SECTIONS.

It is not appropriate to turn this article into a debate on the term "Latin America". The fact is that the term "Latin America" is widely accepted and used in the English language, and therefore the article should use that term. If "Latin America" ever becomes politically incorrect in English, then and only then will Wilipedia not use it. As a reference to Wikipedia serves a descrptive, not perscritive role. We should explain the world to our readers, not shove our view of it down their throats. This article is the worst of the Region articles because its development has been held up by this pointless debate. Follow standard English Language practice, use the term Latin America. Save the debate for the "eytmology" section. I'm out. Grow up.

---

It is not question not using the term "latin-America", but using it correctly, knowing to what it refers. what defines latin-America is not being situated south of USA but being speaking latin languages, that's the way it is. If you want to include english or Dutch speaking countries like Jamiaca, Belize, Guyana or Surinam in it, it just means that you don't understand the meaning of the term "latin". It would be as incorrect than if I define "Anglo America" to be every country situated north of Mexico, so to include French-speaking Quebecers in that concept that canno't reffer to them.

---

The whole problem of this discussion come from the fact that wikipedia defines latin America as a geographical concept while it is a cultural one. " Latin America is a geographical region consisting of countries in the Western Hemisphere south of the United States. " How this first definition could be correct !? First of all it is a very American-centred point of view, the rest of the planet don't define latin-America with being situated south of the USA but with being the countries of America where latin languages are spoken. Secondly, why just being situated south of USA would make a country part of a specific geographical region ? Are "Tierra del fuego" and "Tijuana" really part of the same geographical region ??! They are not even in the same mass continent, have completly different climates and are separated by thousands of miles (or kilometers)... "latin-America" canno't be anything else than a cultural concept (especially a linguistic one).

You've got a point, regarding the 'Latin' bit, but the 'America' bit is geographical (unless you take it to mean the US - another confusing aspect). Anyway, how far would you be prepared to take this? Is Quebec part of it? And the swamps around New Orleans? That would put the term on a meta-level. Which might have been fine if it were not that that is not how the term is ever meant, as far as I know. DirkvdM 08:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Quebec is not inclued in "latin america" for the simple reason that Quebec is not a country but a provinced part of a majoritary english-speaking country. When the term "latin-america" was introduced Canada had already falled under english rule, and the french-speaking population was decreasing rapidly. So, at this time one one thought that a part of it would still being of latin culture. The quebecers were obliged to use english at work, school, etc. So the expression were not"latin-america was only applied to the countries were the official language and the majoritary culture was of latin origin. The things have changed in Quebec in the20th century when the catholic church tried to unify the french-speaking people and increasing their population (incitaing them to make a lot of children). In a few decades the number of french canadians become much bigger and this people obtained much reconnaissance of their identity in the seventies in the proveince of Quebec were they are a majority. French become the official language in this province (at work, school, etc.) The fact of having being ruled long time by anglo-saxons (english candian culture) has made that Quebecers ahave lost a big part of their latin identity outside of the language much of their way of life, food, music, mentality is quite similar to the anglo-american one.

---

Taking the inverse of the Quebec argument, what would areas of the United States which are majority Spanish-speaking, or very heavily-"Latin American" influenced, be considered? What is a native Miamian of non-Hispanic descent (meaning my parents do not speak Spanish as their native language), but who speaks Spanish and is familiar with many Latin American cultures, considered? Where do they fit in? Where does Miami, the so-called "Capital of Latin America" fit in? Realize there is an anomalous non-Hispanic-descended "Anglo" population of the United States that could very well get away with being called "Hispanic," the same as if they had emigrated to Buenos Aires and grown up there. Are they Latin Americans? I'd say at least as much as i.e., Jennifer Lopez is. :P

Ibero America

"IberoAmerica offently includes Spain and Portugal." -- Can't figure out what writer was trying to say. Removing "offently". ("Often"? I don't think it would be quite right to write ""IberoAmerica often includes Spain and Portugal.")

---

Suggestions

"Most usually it only refers to the nations" I find that awkward to read. What about "Usually it refers specifically to the nations"... ? -- ll

Also, what about mentioning Hispanoamericana, or should that occur only in the Spanish version ? -- ll

---

it would be a good idea to exclude the non-latin countries of the list...

---

A mention or a link to "latin Europe" page would be necessary.

---

" There are, however, many people in Latin America who do not speak Latin-derived languages, either speaking languages indigenous to the region, or other European languages such as English or Dutch. "

No this is false! The countries of English or Dutch language Canno't part of LATIN-America !!! but of Germanic-America or Anglo-America in the case of english-Speaking countries.

Anglo-america : - USA - Canada (mainly) - Jamaica - Belize - Guyana - Bahamas - Virgin islands - other english-speaking west indies

Germanic-America : - anglo-america + - Dutch America (Surinam + dutch west indies)

Irony?

Why retaining "Latino" is an irony? Somebody care to explain?

yeah, is an irony because when france seize control of Mexico there where still many Mexicans that's just want them to go away, so they created the term expecting the whole population to accept them ("hey, look, we aren't that different from you, what are you so mad about?") to give legitimity to their authority. but, the Mexicans has already had an invasion form United States, which more them letting them with bitterness against the "americans" left them with a bitterness against foreign authority so even if Maxilian were able to prove he would had been a wonderful emperor he wouldn't had been accepted, laterly they expelled most of the frenchs out, and I supose killed the rest because don't know anyone with french last name but I know many wong's, the irony mostly lays in the fact that they didn't where willing to accept the frenchs but they accepted their term and made an effort to promote it. the term latin american is related most to a feeling of belonging and close cultural relations (altough not homogenized, of course!) than to the gramatically correct definition that's why Canada isn't normally counted in.

if the canadians start saying they are latin americans they will join the "family". I'm Mexican and personally I don't have anything against frenchs neither against "americans".

---

No I think that Canada is just not counted in "latin america" for the simple reason that Canada is not a latin country but a country with a majoritary anglo-saxon (english-derived) culture. Only the Province of Québec has a majoritary latin culture in Canada. But since Québec is not an independant state it cannot be counted appart than the rest of Canada.

---

Eh, actually, there are millions of French-descended Mexicans epicentered around Jalisco. Um, Sabine Moussier, anyone? Famous telenovela star?

Latin America

I'm from a latin european country,

It is sad to see how so much american people make wrong use of words...

"latin" is a cultural reference to language and culture coming from a latin-language speaking country... that is to say from spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Romanian and French. French is as much a latin language as spanish  !

So "latin america" means countries where official language and culture is coming from spanish, portuguese or french. Excluying french speaking countries of america is a non-sence. If Quebec would be a independent country it should be considered as much as a latin american country than argentina, and even maybe more than mexico, guatemala or peru, whose countries are almost as much native indian than latin...

In the same time I saw so much of US websites considering Jamaica, Belize, Guyana or Surinam as "latin" !!!... Those countries are ENGLISH and DUTCH speaking !! In this cas why not include USA in latin america !!!!!! (I'm kidding!)

I'm sometimes asking myself if some american people know the signification of the words they use !!

Can any american people can explain to me why they don't consider french speaking countries of america as "latin" ?

In europe it is something that we have difficulties to understand...

Is it because in north america the anglosaxon people gave a negative meaning to the word "latin". Especially about poverty and underdevelopment ?

In this cas if in ten or twenty years, if some latin american countries become as developped as north american countries, will they be not considered as "latin" anymore ?...

Is it the reason why Quebecers are not considered as latin americans...Quebec is a developped and rich latin country and is in america, so why not is not considered latin-american by the people in USA ??!

Because it is a Canadian province belonging to the commonwealth country of Canada. Canada has two major languages, French and English. Since it is mostly English speaking it cannot be considered a latin country. Unless you want to call Quebec a latin province. I live in Canada and when I hear someone say latin America I think South America immediately. I do not think of Haiti or any other French speaking nation, however. Perhaps thats due to ignorance. I associated latin with Spanish and Portugese speaking all my life.

=> Strangely enough: 1) There are French, English and Dutch speaking countries/regions in South America 2) Portuguese descendants in South American don't consider themselves any more "Latin" than French and Italian descendants in North America. So what is the difference? I would say it is lack of imformation on South America.

M.S.

....In Response...

I will be your American explaining to you why anyone, not just us, does not all the countries of Central and South America, 'Latin America.'

You say how sad it is to see how American's make wrong use of words, well I find it sad that you would go ahead and criticize American's when you yourself do not know the origination for the term 'Latin America'. Yes it is true that French is derived from the Latin language, but it is also the French that deemed the Central and Southern American Countries as 'Latin America'. So it was not the Americans who coined this term, it was the French themselves. I therefore do not believe that they were as upset about the term as you seem to be. It will always be Latin America, not just when they are no longer in a state of poverty, but because the French were so influential in the 1850s.

Clearly Americans are not using this term of 'Latin America' incorrectly and neither is anyone else for that matter. I found it most interesting how quick you were to assume that the Americans of the United States were the ones who classified Central and South America as Latin America when it was your own ancestors in the 19th century. So before you start pointing fingers at other countries for their ignorance, perhaps you should check on your own. So all in the while of trying to make a fool of The United States, you have only embarrassed yourselves. And by the way, Americans is a term that is used to categorize everyone in North and South Americas. You can find more about this in John Charles Chasteen in his book 'Born in Blood and Fire' a Concise History of Latin America on page 156.

reply to above:

I´ll be your american (not as united statesian) telling you to read the text above again. You only go on and on about how the french created the expression. Who created it isn't important, what matters here is that it's being used incorrectly.

You then states that no one is using the term incorrectly but fails to explain why.

The term "latin america" is being used incorrectly, read all texts on this talk to find out why.

---

vs. South America

The article says that Latin Americ acovers South America, but the latter counts three more island states. Please clarify. Mikkalai 17:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

You didn't answer to the question

I know the origin of the expression "latin america", I know that it was created during Napoleon III at the time of the intervention in Mexico, with the purpose of including in a same concept the former colonies of Spain, Portugal and France : It was a political strategy. But at this time, the origin of this concept the french speaking countries of america were included in it...

I never said that the people of USA invented the word "latin america" !!! I agree with that fact to include portuguese and spanish speaking countries of america under the label "latin-america", but I'm just asking why nowadays In the mind of the people of USA the francophones americans are excluded of this concept... I still don't have my answer...

Ps: I know that "american" means all the people who live in america (north and south), but your country is the only country without name... in spanish we can say "estadounidenses", in french you can say "états-uniens"... I'm not sure to be understood I say "united-statians"... even in this case it is not a precise name because there is also "the united states of mexico" (the true name of mexico)

The "United States of Mexico" is a common misconception and is certainly not "the true name of Mexico". Under the 1917 constitution the name is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos", which gets officially translated as "United Mexican States" (check, eg, the English text of NAFTA) although "Mexican United States" would reflect the sense of the Spanish word order more closely. However, no one ever uses the short form "Estados Unidos", or the adj. estadounidense, to refer to Mexico -- it just doesn't, can't mean that. –Hajor

---

"Latinamericanization" of Latin America

"This mixture of cultures and keeping of certain traditions and doing away with others has made Latin America the unique, yet very influenced culture that it has today. Culture mixes are not only about the languages and religions, but also about the dance and music of Latin America as well. A Latino is a person of Latin American heritage, or from a Latin American culture."

I'm a Brazilian and a South American. Although one has to admit that Latin American countries share some traits, the idea of a Latin American culture seems a gross simplification, drenched in stereotypes and misconceptions about the region. This idea can be dangerous in the sense that it might foster discrimination and downplay ethnic issues in Latin America.

Here are my thoughts on the subject:

ON LATINO, HISPANIC AND BRAZIL

According to American laws and most Brazilians? self-perception people who come from the Portuguese former colonies are neither "latino" or "hispanic". Although they might be consider themselves as "Latin" if they are talking solely about the place they come from.

This is because Brazil ? as well as many South American countries ? has been a main immigration area just like the US. Brazil has German, Angolan, Arab, Jewish and Japanese descendants - to quote a few. These people don?t identify with the term ?latino? as it is used in the US. They do identify as a single nation (Brazil) but not as a single ethnic/cultural group. The idea that a relatively more intense miscegenation has given South America, and particularly Brazil, a homogenous and easily identifiable ethnic/cultural background has been contested by many authors. Miscigenation has varied greatly according to area and ethnic group, and they rarely resulted in a common ethnic/cultural background, since we are talking about many immigration waves, coming from every corner of the world over the centuries.

To quote Alan P Marcus: ?The Portuguese language spoken in Brazil, Brazilian ethnicity, and Brazilian culture are not interchangeable with "Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" (These three words are defined as synonyms by the US census). The Jeitinho Brasileiro ("The Brazilian way"), the Jogo Bonito ("The Beautiful Game", a Brazilian reference to Brazilian-style soccer) and Samba (Unique Brazilian Samba music), are not interchangeable with "Spanish/Hispanic/Latino". In addition, the Brazilian raison d'être is devoid of any relationship within the "Hispanic-Latino" paradigms.

In a sense, "Hispanic" and "Latino" have inaccurately "racialized" all Latin Americans, and have thus "latinamericanized" all of Latin America monolithically and homogenously.

The implication is that there is an illusory "Hispanic" or "Latino" "race" or that there is a single imaginary country where "Hispanics" and "Latinos" come from, and of course, neither is true. ?

THE DISCOURSE OF HOMOGENOUS CULTURAL BACKGROUND AS A FORM OF ETHNIC EXCLUSION IN BRAZIL

The idea of an homogenous ethnic/cultural Latin background has been used to deny ethnic struggles in South America and allianate ethnic minorities from power (particularly African and Native descendants). Gilberto Freire's idea of "Racial Democracy" in Brazil, which overstresses white/native/African miscigenation, has been extremely criticised for its conservative and anti-democratic content. It downplays the fact that white European descendants still rule the country and have far more access to schools, jobs and wealth.

BRAZILIANS IN THE US

The terms ?latino? and ?latin? are not interchangeable. Latin refers to French, Portuguese, Spanish, Romanian and Italian speakers . ?Latino?, as used by the US law, is an inaccurate, simplistic and stereotypical term to describe the diverse emigrants from Spanish America. Sometimes these terms are also wrongly applied to Brazilian emigrants by the American media.

When Brazilians refer to themselves as South Americans or Latin Americans, they don?t mean to describe their ethnic or cultural background, since there are Italian Brazilians, Angolan Brazilians, German Brazilians, Japanese Brazilians, Portuguese Brazilians, Spanish Brazilians and so on. Ethnic and cultural background will vary according to each individual. When Brazilians refer to themselves as South or Latin Americans they mean only the place they come from.

However, in the US, the terms Latin American and South American seem to have acquired a cultural/ethnic meaning, which most Brazilians find very disturbing, since that represents a denial of their specific cultural backgrounds and the identities they learned to have as point of reference.

To call Brazilians ?Latinos? is very comparable to state that every American -Anglo saxon American, African American, Asian American, etc - is an ?Asian?. It downplays social and ethnic struggles over the centuries of colonization and make ethnic "minorities" such as African and Native descendants invisible and powerless.

---

GUATEMALTECS ARE THE TRUE LATINOS !

"latino" is a word that only reffers to the cultures with the native indian origins !!!!

Only the people with native indian origins can be said "latino". That the reason why argentinians are not latins. Us, the people of Guatemala we are the true latinos (like Peruvians, Bolivians, Ecutorians, Mexicans...) because we have a few european blood. I think we should exclude definitivly the people of argentina, Brazil or uruguay from the term "latin-america" because thay have nothing in common with our indian(latino) culture. We should stop to speak spanish and stop being catholics because it is a european language and a european religion, AND NOT LATINO ONES !! But I think we should include in "latin-america" all the native indian reservations of USA and Canada were are living our latin brothers !

I don't know why some Europeans that are not latinos at all want to be condidered as native indians like we are !!! Please leave that label for the true latinos... The fact that people of spain and portugal colonized our latin countries doesn't make latinos of themselves !! Those countries colonized some countries of Africa but nobody say that Spain and Portugal are African... They stole our gold, but they won't stole our name !!! -- 172.210.87.127

ur a little bit stupid ain't u? latino is derived from latium a region in italy, from where the romans came from, and in that region they speak latin. when the roman empire spread across europe the influentiate the language spoken there that's why portuguese castillan, catalan, galician, french, romanian and italian are the latin(pure ones, specially italians) european countries. when spain and portugal colonised america they influentiate, and mixed (in some cases others not, and in different scales, for instance argentina and uruguay have the majority of the population white(arg-95% uruguay-85%) with the natives. and these new societies have a lot of latin or iberian influence speaking spanish or portuguese so they are latin americans, and if ur saying that 2 be latinos u must stop speaking spanish or being catholic, u'll not be a latino u would be aztec or mayan or so on, because the true latins r europeans.

and i can't underdtand how the americans( ppl from united states, america is a continent, not a country) don't consider ( in some cases) portuguese and spaniards white saying they r hispanic. well, i thought hispanic was created to separate the ppl with mixed blood(amerindian and spaniard) from white. the ppl from us is more mixed than me for sure, cause they have a lot of indian and black mixing(not all of course but more than potuguese with moors or blacks for sure). when i'm in german or sweden, they won't say that i'm non-white or that i'm hispanic, they'll say im white(i'm portuguese) because ~i have a light skin but my eyes and hair is dark, so the usa ppl is really stupid and instead of trying to unite pll they kept ppl apart by dividing ppl by race.

besides, aren't there fully indigenous Argentines...and Guatemalans of European descent?

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. For your information, the word latino does not mean Native American Indian.

Here's a definition from WordNet:

Latino

adj

related to or derived from the people or culture of Spain; "the Hispanic population of California is growing rapidly" [syn: Hispanic]

n

1: an American whose first language is Spanish [syn: Spanish American, Hispanic American, Hispanic]

2: an artificial language based on words common to the Romance languages

Another definition from The American Heritage [1]:

Latino

NOUN:

1. A Latin American.

2. A person of Hispanic, especially Latin-American, descent, often one living in the United States.

ETYMOLOGY:

Short for Spanish latinoamericano, Latin-American, from latino, Latin, from Latin Latinus.

And a Usage Note from Hispanic, in the same dictionary:

Though often used interchangeably in American English, Hispanic and Latino are not identical terms, and in certain contexts the choice between them can be significant. Hispanic, from the Latin word for “Spain,” has the broader reference, potentially encompassing all Spanish-speaking peoples in both hemispheres and emphasizing the common denominator of language among communities that sometimes have little else in common. Latino—which in Spanish means "Latin" but which as an English word is probably a shortening of the Spanish word latinoamericano—refers more exclusively to persons or communities of Latin American origin. Of the two, only Hispanic can be used in referring to Spain and its history and culture; a native of Spain residing in the United States is a Hispanic, not a Latino, and one cannot substitute Latino in the phrase the Hispanic influence on native Mexican cultures without garbling the meaning. In practice, however, this distinction is of little significance when referring to residents of the United States, most of whom are of Latin American origin and can theoretically be called by either word. •A more important distinction concerns the sociopolitical rift that has opened between Latino and Hispanic in American usage. For a certain segment of the Spanish-speaking population, Latino is a term of ethnic pride and Hispanic a label that borders on the offensive. According to this view, Hispanic lacks the authenticity and cultural resonance of Latino, with its Spanish sound and its ability to show the feminine form Latina when used of women. Furthermore, Hispanic—the term used by the U.S. Census Bureau and other government agencies—is said to bear the stamp of an Anglo establishment far removed from the concerns of the Spanish-speaking community. While these views are strongly held by some, they are by no means universal, and the division in usage seems as related to geography as it is to politics, with Latino widely preferred in California and Hispanic the more usual term in Florida and Texas. Even in these regions, however, usage is often mixed, and it is not uncommon to find both terms used by the same writer or speaker.

--Cantus 19:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Why isn't the contents list at the top of the page, instead of in the middle. This is driving me crazy. I would fix it my self if i knew how. February 2005

---

Wow, this is the most asinine claim I have ever seen. Yeah, you should definitely stop using your LATIN LANGUAGE, you Latino, you. What a retard.

My experience

First, I consider the term Latin-America has incorrect. And the use of the word "Latino" has gross!

My experience: I worked at the same office (not very big) with latin heritage ppl, and we were all Portuguese, Spanish, Argentinians and Brazilians. Truthfully, our cultures are really very similar and so I understand the British and American point of view. There's no civilizational chock, no cultural chock, our social behaviour is very similar and conversations went very easily (often choose one language to speak (Port. or Spanish), there were 3-4 native languages - if you consider galician has one: Spanish, Catalan, Galician and Portuguese). What doesnt happen when a German or a British comes around, that are culturally completly different, but in the "Latin" point of view Germans and British have similar cultures.

I think the term Latin American is not fully correct. For me, really Latin cultures are in Portugal, Spain and Italy, and in not has big extent in France/ Belgium and Romania. Greece (has many cultural similarities with latins). If you consider the Latin American countries has an all, with all its population, its not Latin (even if there are many people that are real Latinos). I find upsetting that Anglo-saxon people consider Latino has a mixed blood. Not that I dislike mix blooded people, in fact, by the contrary! But you cant name something with a name that has nothing to do with it. Latin is a culture that started in the centre of Italy and spread to some European countries in a cultural influence that toke centuries that even today pagan festivities and culture persist. My mother went it thounders uses to say "god is furious!" "Deus está furioso". She doesnt know but the Deus (dios) is not the Christian god, but Jupiter (aka Zeus or Dios or deus). Obviously, Latin culture is much more than this. BTW, I'm Portuguese.

A better term is Ibero-American (due to language and History and partially culture). I think Latin American is just a missconception. The Latins (aka Romans) didnt rule over the Americas... but over Europe and due to imigration/influence their culture prevailed in Iberia, French Riviera and Italy - Places of the Empire that were similar in weather to their original Place (central Italy). Portuguese and Spanish settlers in the Americas, they toke with them their particular Latin culture (Portuguese and Spanish), but they mixed it with African and Amerindian cultures. You register your Children (forgive me the term) after your name and not over your father's! While Latin culture completly overtook the real Latin countries (can easily be seen by the similar cultures of Portugal and Spain even thought both are seperated a thousand yrs), the Portuguese and Spanish culture overtook in some places in the Americas (it really did), but most South Americans have also a mixed culture, very far from the Latin one. Terms like "Latin American" has to be erased and wikipedia is not helping much, it is even spreading the missconception. -Pedro 02:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

THIS WHOLE DISSCUSSION IS REDICULOUS!!!

People come to the Wikpedia for information on the topic, not to see a mismanaged mess created by political correctness. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE TERM 'LATIN AMERICA' DERIVES FROM THE LATIN BASED LANGUAGES SPOKEN BY THE MAJORITY OF LATIN AMERICA'S INHABITANTS. THE TERM HAS COME TO DESCRIBE ALL LAND IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE SOUTH OF THE UNITED STATES. THAT'S WHAT LATIN AMERICA IS, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IF THE TERM HAS DRIFTED FROM ITS ORIGINAL MEANING. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS TODAY. LET'S FOCUS ON GETTING PEOPLE THE MOST ACCURATE, UP TO DATE INFORMATION ON LATIN AMERICA, WITHOUT ENGAGING IN SILLY DEBATES ABOUT SEMANTICS!!!

THIS IS REDICULOUS!!!!!

REDICULOUS!!!!!

THIS ARTICLE IS HORRIBLE, AND ALL OF YOU ARE MAKING IT SO!!!

SO WHAT IF THE TERM IS A MISNOMER???

AMERICOS VESPUCIE DIDN'T DISCOVER AMERICA EITHER????

SHOULDN'T IT BE THE "UNITED STATES OF COLUMBIA"??

AND AMERICOS WAS ITALIAN!!!!

NOT ALL AMERICANS ARE ITALIAN!!!!

THERFORE THE TERM "AMERICA" IS CULURALLY INSENSITIVE.

REDUICULOUS.

ABSURD.

ABSURD.

ALL OF YOU

ABSURD.

I'M GOING TO FIND INFOMATION ON LATIN AMERICA.

Y'ALL CAN STILL GO WHINE ABOUT HOW ROMANIA SHOULD BE INCLUDED!!!

My dear friend, you seem to have no idea of what it means to be latin. This discussion is not about political corectness but about the meaning that the words have outside of the american slangs. "latin" is an expression that had always had its own meaning and that doens't mean "latin-american" - but refers to the culture of the south-west european countries plus Romania and the countries that had a strong influence of them. This is not a question of etymology, but that is the real meaning of this word as it has always been used in Europe (and still be used now!). In Europe more than 200 millions people are refered as latin people and are proud of this identity!!. That the popular use of this word had changed recently (since 20 years not more) in the USA to refer ONLY to south/central americans is a wrong use, I'm sorry! And the role of an encyclopedia (especially an international one!) is not to spread to the world (since english is now a sort of lingua franca) the misconceptions that were born from a Typical US devied use of this word. Us, latin-Europeans we feel quite bad to be excluded from own own designation just because the American use of it have arbitrary decided to applied it to another group only. Excuse me for my bad english.

Caribbean

Some consider the term to include the Caribbean as well is just plain wrong. Is Madagascar part of Africa? Japan part of Asia? England part of Europe? Then the Caribbean is part of America, simple as that. And since it has undergone Spanish colonization, it is part of Latin America. Mind you that even Dutch or French colonized countries are, as of now, part of Latin America, due to the miscigenation in which none of these countries have a majority of unmixed ("pure") european blood. Besides that, the term Latin America is not supposed to mean just a group of people; it should also contain the proposition to include speakers of launguages that have its root on Latin. Surely, Spanish and Portuguese speakers make the most numerous group, but lets not forget Italy, France, Rumania, etc.LtDoc 22:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

In the end I agree with you, but just have a look at the caribbean article. There is a listing of former colonisers and there are only six Latin colonised islands,compared to a whole bunch of British. But among these are Cuba and Dominican Republic / Haiti, by far the largest islands. I assume that these also represent by far the larger part of the caribbean population. DirkvdM 08:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed.LtDoc 16:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to group all the caribean region in one unique category. caribean regions can show a wide panel of cultures. the main cultural (and "racial") common point of this region is the African influence. all these countries have recieved very important african populations in various proportions, that had left it mark on the people and its culture (salsa, merengue, reggae, ska, zouk, bachatta, etc... all these musics and danses are mostly based on african rythms (and not latin ones like the expression "latin music", wrongly applied to caribean music" can lt people think. Salsa has very few latin things in it, a lot of people wouldn't want to recognise it but these rythms are not latin but african) In fact, the latin cultural influence (Spanish, french)is important in some countries (cuba, haiti, rep dom, guadeloupe, martinique, puerto rico), but completly absent of some other (jamaica, virgin islands, dutch islands, etc.) - what unify the caribean is the african influence, not the latin one. So there is absolutly no reason to include all the caribean in the concept of "latin america" but only the countries of this region that derive (even if it is partly) their culture (especially the language in this case) from the latin european countries.

Man, youre tripping. What youre saying is that South America has no african influence, and the caribbean has. Come on now. You dont know much what youre talking about, do you?

Where did you read that I said that south America has no African influence ?? The subject was the carobean, I said that the caribean has African influences. That's doesn't mean that south America don't have too !

" UP TO DATE INFORMATION ON LATIN AMERICA, WITHOUT ENGAGING IN SILLY DEBATES ABOUT SEMANTICS " To up to date informations about somthing you have to know what about you are talking. that why semantics is important in every discussion because it is what defines a concept. Once the concept is clearly defined we can speak about it... and defining concepts is the role of an encyclopedia, not bringing the false stereotypes of the popular collective imaginary.

Québec

I have a number of points to make on this score:

• I have never heard Québec referred to as part of Latin America;
• If you include it, you will have to include other parts of Canada where French is spoken, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Haiti, and even parts of Louisiana.
• The more commonly accepted definition of Latin America is the countries with Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking majorities.

I am going to delete all references to Québec in this article. As a Canadian, I can tell you what utter bosh it is to call any part of our country Latin American. Others may reinstate them if they wish, but to do so would be to put in this article something that most Canadians, including most Québécois, would find laughable. Kelisi 17:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Kelisi, here's what I have to say about your comments and your edits:

• The article clearly states: Quebec, Acadia, (...) are traditionally excluded despite significant populations speaking a Latin-derived language, because they don't exist as independent states, and/or because they are geographically isolated from the rest of Latin America. So it seems to me that most people here would agree that Quebece is not considered part of Latin America;

• Even without including Quebec (and other francophone Canadian areas), yes, Haiti, as well as French Guiana, are included. They are usually considered part of Latin America. (in more restricted definitions of what LA is, the Caribbean islands, and therefore Haiti, would be excluded; I haven't heard of a definition where French Guiana is, and this differentiation between the two is merely due to their geographic location, because FG is on mainland South America)

• The more commonly accepted definition of Latin America (as far as I can tell -- I don't intend to say I hold the true answer to anything) is simply what the name implies: Latin (i.e., with Latin culture, language, traditions) countries situated in America (in "the Americas" for some of you). I don't think you can deny that French is Latin (most French and French-Canadians I know don't have a problem with that; by the way, it briefly crossed my mind now that the motivation behind someone making your arguments could be to try to distance themselves from Latin America or the notion of being Latin, but that's not to make any accusations towards you). "Countries with Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking majorities" (in America) is the definition of Ibero-America.

• Since I speak French and have studied Latin, of course I cannot deny that French is a neo-Latin language, but "Frenchness" is not really what I consider "Latin"; more what I consider "Gallic". France is quite a different place from, say, Italy, owing to the former's absorption of rather a great number of former, very influential, cultures, mainly Gaulish, Frankish, and yes, Roman. These have affected French culture and traditions — and language — sometimes in very profound ways. Of all neo-Latin languages, French is the one that's least like Latin, mainly owing to Frankish influence. By the same token, Iberia has done some cultural absorption of its own. The Islamically based Moorish culture was predominant in Spain for centuries, and although Arabic didn't affect Spanish quite as profoundly as Frankish affected French, a certain "Arabicness" can still be seen in Spanish vocabulary (Alcanzo la alfombra del alcalde is a Spanish sentence whose only truly Spanish elements are the function words and the verb ending). Moreover, I suppose I tend to associate "Latinness" with "Mediterraneanness", although not all Mediterranean peoples are "Latin".Kelisi 12:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course each part of Latin Europe developed in different ways after the fall of a central Latin (Roman) influence; their languages too diverged with time. Yes, French is nowadays probably the one neo-Latin language that diverges the most from a supposed common denominator amongst them. Portuguese would probably come next (this study supports that point of view; I'm surprised, though, to see the relative position of Romanian, but I really know next to zero about Romanian). Romanian and Portuguese's divergence can be easily explained by their positions in the extreme East and West of the Empire. But one would otherwise expect France, being somewhat in the "middle of the road", to be more conforming to the neighbours, so you can see there's obviously an influence, as you said, from both indigenous (at the time of the Roman Empire) and later invading peoples. I wouldn't argue with that. I don't think, however, that "being" Celtic/Gaulish, Germanic/Frankish, Latin or Chinese are necessarily mutually exclusive. To say that France is Latin is not to deny the rest of its heritage. Plus, if that were the case, I think Latin America's culture has already diverged so much from that of Europe that it shouldn't be called Latin anymore either. By the way, both the USA and, especially, Brazil are prime examples of the mix; both could ultimately be called, respectively, an Anglo-Saxon and a Latin country, but at the same time African cultures too. They draw heavily from both heritages, even the different sections of the population that could, on a purely racial basis, be sharply identified with only one of the two.

As an addendum to your comments, Iberia also had its share of natives and invaders influencing the legacy of the Roman Empire; most of those groups are related to the ones that are important for France: Celts and Germanics (mainly Suevi, Visigoths, plus others). Portuguese, as you probably know, also contains many of those Arabic words.

Most people, Latin and non-Latin alike that I know seem to identify Latinness with something they tend to call hot-blood, a joie de vivre or something, an innate, intrinsic kind of happiness, which is of course a very broad generalization (I'm sure the depressive/depressed Latins don't particularly agree with that).

--Cotoco 22:56:17, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

In spite of the agreement in the first suject above... The fact that "most Quebecois would find it laughable" to have Quebec included as part of Latin America doesn't really mean much. Many Brazilians don't really think they are "latin" (whatever definition they may have of that), but that doesn't change the facts.

Their reason might be colour. Brazilians are mostly Black.

While ethnicity -- not only a much higher percentage of black people, but also of white Europeans, plus, very importantly, a smaller amerindian component (overall) than several of its many, many neighbouring countries (and the rest of Latin America too) -- is a major factor, I'd say it's far from being the main factor. It seems to me like the fact that the territory was invaded from East (the Atlantic) to West, with the result (due also to other factors; of course we can see the same isn't true in the USA) that, to this day, those areas, which happen to be the ones neighbouring other countries, are amongst the least populated in the whole territory. Therefore, there was historically not much exchange or integration between them and Brazil. (notice any similarities to the geographical argument for not including Québec in L.A.?) Moreover, most of Brazil's dealings were with European powers (Portugal, England, France) and, later, the USA, of course. (The Southern Region of Brazil is the exception, as it is very narrow, somewhat densely populated, and also has the southern border, shared with Uruguay.

That said, your second statement is very inaccurate. Since you mentioned colour (and not culture, for example), saying that Brazilians are mostly Black, whether meaning that generally individuals have mostly Black genetic heritage, or that the majority of the population is Black (period) is far from the truth. It is true of some regions, but you can't analyze the whole population by them. Otherwise, depending on the sample picked you'd have to say that Brazilians are 'mostly German' or 'mostly Amerindian', which is definitely true for different regions.

I would hardly call my statement "very inaccurate, especially in view of this, and this, and this, all of which put Brazil's Black population at about half the total. I have come across other sources that put it at more than half. It's interesting though what Wikipedia says here about that.

But it is true that Brazilian culture, nowadays, owes a great debt to African culture (something that many Brazilians would not be easily convinced to admit, but that permeates culture and everyday life), and that is probably one of the contributing factors to the development of a national identity (even if still in development) that sees itself as essentially different from its neighbours. (of course, that always happens with neighbours; bordering regions inside comparatively tiny countries see themselves as radically different, when an outsider, even when not from a very distant culture, would have a hard time telling the differences).

So, to sum it up, a different genetic/ethnic makeup (not only in percentages but also in contributors; most Brazilian amerindian cultures are very different from the ones from the Andes and other regions in Latin America); mother cultures that started diverging before they arrived in America, centuries ago; geographical isolation; and political games between the European powers, all contributed to Brazil's singularist self-image.

I hope this all doesn't sound too confrontational or anything, it's not my intention; I'm still just learning to live here in Wikipedialand. Actually I don't feel I'm contributing much in the discussion and my points may be off-topic; what the hell, I just can't help it, it forces me to type.

--Cotoco 22:56:17, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

I saw you didn't really remove the references to Quebec as you said here, which is good. But you made other edits which I think are not really very accurate... I'll revert or fix some of them in a little while. In the meantime, I'll be looking for comments and suggestions here. --Cotoco 07:23:55, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

alot of u ppl need to start realizing and accepting that mexico is not or no longer an indian country alot of light skiined mexicans say that the spaniards took their culuture which is absolulty stupid u probly are from spanish descent duh, ok look mexico has 106 million ppl thats more than anyother country except brazil in latin america, so with that said their is more diversity in mexico than alot of other latin american countries. everyone assumes that just becuz ur mexican ur indian..lets get facts straight here i bet u you all dint kno that in puebla there is a italian population that speak a dialect of the language venetian and in i think chiuahaha ther is dutch and german settlers who speek this language similar to dutch and in the state of zacatecas theirs alot of spaniards, englishmen,irish and so on..so if u refer to latinos as indians then southern mexico cood count considering that southern mexico has the majority of indians but as a whole mexico is mixed so stop confusing us for indians... also id like to point out that u dont have to be white looking to be of european descent look at spain there are more tan skined meditrean ppl than anything else and also remeber to the spaniards in mexico that we have moor ancestry wich cood also explain ur tan skin, dont think that just becuz ur tannd that ur indian thats just my opnion. so yea u shood think of peru as indian the majority off ppl their are indian and so on..

Demographics

Isnt the expression "cono sur" misspelled? I believe the spanish equivalent would be "cone sur" since cono in spanish means... well, its a bad word for somethig nice! :) LtDoc 16:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. In Spanish cone means nothing. And the "bad word" is coño, not cono. --Viktor 22:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

French? Mais, non!

Cut from the intro:

• to a lesser extent, French
• Some people also include non-independent states or regions, such as South Florida or Québec because of their heavy Latin populations.

I think we can all agree that people who describe themselves in their language as Latino are the primary residents of "Latin America".

I disagree with that. Brazilians don't usually call themselves latinos (e.g., when a recording artist records an album in Spanish to be marketed to other countries in Latin America, it is often said that the they recorded an album "for the latinos"), yet I think "we can all agree" that Brazilians are Latin-Americans. Plus, I guess "latino" isn't a proper word in French, so even if the French-speaking residents of the Americas considered themselves Latin-Americans they wouldn't call themselves "latinos". --Cotoco 09:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I see the divide in two ways: geographical and cultural:

1. geopraphically, the split is between South America and North America (continent), with the boundary falling between Panama and Columbia.
2. linguistically and culturally, the split is between Latin America and North America (region)

Okay? Entiende? D'accord? Uncle Ed 20:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What about the Carribean?

Are the French-speaking islands of the Carribean generally considered part of Latin America?

1. No, Latin America refers to the mainland south of norteamerica, i.e. Mexico, Central America, and South America.
2. No, same as above but let's not forget Cuba and the Dominican Republic.
3. Yes, they have to go somewhere!

Parts of the Americas which currently speak French or were former French colonies, constitute part of Latin America. To suggest that the French somehow fall out side of the Latin category is absurd, certainly there are some major differences between Franco-American colonies/nations and Iberian-American colonies/nations they still remain Latin in a cultural-linguistic context. Also keep in mind that for the last hundred years of the Spanish Empire (roughly the 18th century) the kings of Spain were from the French Bourbon family!! Ultimately, to choose to separate the French from Latin Aemrica is absurd and completely ahistorical and acultural.

Latin America - A Historian's Perspective

As a historian I feel that Latin America refers to those parts of the Americas which were conquered and colonized by Europeans speaking Latin-based languages. This would include all areas and nation-states of the Americas which were previously Spanish, Portuguese, and French colonies. The distinction between Latin America and the rest of the Americas is not necessarily a North/South distinction although it certainly becomes one in popular conceptions of the Americas. The main distinction between Latin America and the rest of the Americas has to do with the imposition of European culture (including traditions of law, government, social institutions, relgion, etc.) and language. Spain, Portugal, and France all cultural traditions which were more similar to eachother than to English or Dutch traditions. For example, in terms of law all three of these imperial powers followed the codified Roman tradition where as the English followed a common law tradition. To reiterate, the use of "Latin" in "Latin American" highlights a general cultural-linguistic background imparted to the colonies of Spain, Portugal and France.

Is this term biased? Yes. Does this term overlook the important differences in the cultures of the Americas caused by indigenous cultural groups or African cultures? Yes. Is this term horribly flawed and in need of replacement? No

While certainly the term Latin America overlooks the presence and influence of Native American and African cultures on European colonies and later American nation-states, this term does serve a function in describing a large part of the Americas and making a distinction between regions conquered and colonized by "different" traditions of European culture. On the one hand, in this sense Latin America is euro-centric and devalues the history and culture of the Americas prior to 1492. Yet, this term has become so standard that it will be very hard to abandon it or replace it. On the other hand, the conquest and colonization of the Americas did affect every indigenous culture in this hemisphere. While many Native American cultures exist and flurish today, they cannot be seen as perfect recreations of a pre-European tradition. Every culture in the Americas changed as a result of Europeans. Some changed more than others and a different rates, but all indigenous cultures saw some changes. In this sense, the term Latin America can encompass the changes that European colonization brought to native cultures and the way in which modern cultures in Latin America have grown out of indigenous, European, and, in most places, African cultural traditions.

French speaking areas in the new world should be considered: Latin America

Anywhere that French is the official language and widely spoken in the new world should be included in the category: Latin America