And I think showing respect for the common good and another's boundaries allows them be tested much more substantively and meaningfully and enjoyably than simply satiating a drug-like addiction to and internal chemical and physical release and energy transfer. First and foremost, what 13 said, without many exceptions. It's as simple as learning to pronounce someone's name correctly.
An example of the gender police making everything about them. It's really dumb when the Seattle Times and others try and re-label a whole population of people based on the fact that 0. Neither "Latino" nor "Latina" came from white people, who were entirely content with "Hispanic. And we've got a lot to puzzle out if we want to shine a light on how "Wops" became "Italian-Americans," and what it means to be "white" to begin with.
Latinx doesn't work because you can't say it in Spanish la-teen-eh-kees? I suspect most people answering that poll just have never heard Latinx, can't think of how you'd say it in Spanish, and have other things to worry about moreso than anyone hating it.
The problem is that Latin America is an ethnically and linguistically and racially diverse region, but Americans usually just want a word to mean "brown people who come from places where they speak Spanish" so they don't have really clear categories. Neither Latino nor Hispanic has anything to do with the color of your skin or the language you speak. Hispanic refers to places that the Spanish colonized, but loads of people there speak languages other than Spanish. It doesn't work for many countries in Latin America because they were never colonized by the Spanish.
Latino refers to people from Latin America regardless of ethnicity or language, hence why it works for people for whom Hispanic does not.
As such, Hispanic should include Texans and Californians of all races though Latinos should not refer to anyone in those states regardless. In Texas, there's also the word Tejano to refer to people who have lived in Texas since back when it was under Mexican rule- they are usually brown, often have Spanish names and speak Spanish, and their families have been living north of the rio grande since before any white people came to Texas so, the whole thing gets complicated. This all before we get into "race"- none of these words refer to race, it's not even a legal category, hence why we have white and then white not hispanic to differentiate.
Because what race are Hispanic people or Latino people? White, Black, Indigenous, Mixed, any of the above? Is Fujimori Hispanic? What to do?
The prefix "Latin-" is inescapably loaded; it implies acquiescence to if not always identification with a European heritage. That heritage simply does not exist in substantial geographic regions of the Americas today, or in migrant populations throughout the diaspora. Many migrant farm workers in the US today do not speak Spanish, nor Portuguese, nor any other European-derived language. They are not, in any sense, Latinate. This idea, that "Latin-anything" ought to apply to peoples who have no ties to indo-European languages or heritage, should be on its face offensive. I do not understand how on earth you have managed to convince yourself that "Latin" somehow indicates a sort of generic origin in the Americas, and does not in any way refer to the legacy of Rome.
That's bonkers, Emma. Our current discourse is impoverished. We do not have a good inclusive term yet for people descended from the natives of the Americas. In the US, "Native American" is understood to describe only descendants of North American populations, which is ridiculous, but the historical baggage attached to the term can't just be magicked away.
I realize I'm not offering any helpful suggestions for a new nomenclature here, but then maybe it might be better if someone other than a north American descendant of Europeans came up with the new terms, you know? We could simply assign every person a 7-digit designator based on their genetic haplotype, but even this neutral system would be gamed by our species of tailless apes resisting all attempts to evolve. In the service of a system of "everyone is equal yet should not be viewed uniformly," we could adopt a digital designation based on our intestinal flora: eg.
A significant but intimately non-judgmental distinction unlike IQ, Gattaca-like robustness, sexual desirability, etc.
Yes they are English words created and used by culturally hegemonic Europeans to describe lands according to how they were colonized, but most of our identifying words are. Indians from India did not call themselves Indians nor their place India before the British did.
Middle Eastern, same. It's just a fact that "Latin America" refers to lands that were colonized by the Spanish and the Portuguese and they include a very diverse range of ethnicities, races, and languages. And people in any of these categories may be of any race, hence why neither of these words "Latino" nor "Hispanic" appear on a census.
I was referring to your post 12 which- from my interpretation- indicated that you thought Latino and Hispanic meant the same thing as one had replaced another and then accounted for the language distinctions. Regardless of how we feel about words being Euro-centric in origin and problematic because they apply labels of an other that do not encompass the reality of the people there, your description as I interpreted it of what Latino and Hispanic mean are not correct.
Latino refers to people from Latin America. And yes, it's called Latin America because the countries that have Latin languages Romance languages as you point out colonized that region. Hispanic refers to people from Spanish speaking parts of the world, which in Latin America means former Spanish colonies. Therefore, you can be Latino without being Hispanic, but you cannot be Hispanic without being Latino unless you are from Spain. None of these descriptions refers to an individual person's language, ethnicity or race.
There are white, black, indigenous, asian, etc Latinos and Hispanic people. This is why, on American legal forms such as the census neither Latino nor Hispanic are available as racial categories- they are not. A person from these regions may be of any race. If you've ever had to help the public fill out forms that require this distinction, you will find that Latino and Hispanic people are frequently themselves confounded by their choices- there is only white, black, indigenous, asian, etc to choose from.
While black, white and indigenous Latinos find their "category" pretty easily, the majority of immigrants and descendants of immigrants from these regions in the US are mixed- they are of both white and indigenous ethnicity.
This has prompted the census and most official documents to include the category: white not hispanic , white hispanic. This is problematic for a whole slew of reasons, but that's how it currently is. And, as I tried to point out, if you apply these words according to these definitions, then you will run into problems in the Southwestern United States which, by definition, should be considered part of Hispanic Latin America.
Many of the people living there, in fact, consider themselves that way. Tejanos are people who came to Texas when it was still a Spanish colony or while it was still part of Mexico after independence. They are a separate voting bloc in Texas, have distinct culture from other Hispanic people in Texas who are mostly descendent of immigrants after Texas became a part of the US. Likewise, there are indigenous people who consider themselves a tribal identity rather than a national one, and some of those tribes are Texan in origin, others are Mexican or Central American and they are the descendants of immigrants.
So while I agree the whole thing is muddled and confused and came about due to cultural hegemony and imperialism, that doesn't change the fact that these words have meanings. Likewise meanings of words change. But if we are going to start getting very nit-picky about it, then we'll deconstruct the entire thing and we'll have no ethnic nor regional descriptions that accurately describe any peoples- as race itself is a social construct and falls apart when you examine it closely and using descriptors that refer to nations cannot accurately account for indigenous nations nor the people placed in these categories under imperialism but do not identify with them.
This is not a problem unique to Latin America as I tried to point out both with the Texan and Indian examples - it is literally a problem all around the world, and in the end you come down to the question of whether or not it's useful to describe people according to race and ethnicity at all and how you go about doing it. I think it's probably smart to ask most people themselves, and most people- anywhere you go in the world- usually have other things to think about.
They usually have a language that matters among themselves and then that they use in a general sense in the greater world. For example, Indians are content to be referred to generally as being from India, but within Indian culture itself, it matters quite a bit if you are actually Punjabi, Gujarati, Tamil, etc. But for the most part, everyone understands that this clumsy historically-inaccurate umbrella term "Indian" is a useful handle to describe people from this one nation on the subcontinent, despite the fact that this designation is a product of British imperialism- Indians did not think of themselves as Indians in India before the British called them that.
So that's why I said, what are we to do about it? Language changes with time, it's a slow process and must be organic. It's unlikely that whatever we choose now is going to have a longer shelf life than anything else. Identities with deeper roots tend to persist- you trace the roots of Latin back to the Romans of course, exactly despite that being an empire from centuries ago.
It's indigenous movements leading the fight against capitalism and climate change and imperialism right now throughout Latin America- those deeper identities persist despite the fact that we know what we mean when we say "indigenous people in Latin America". Reading the article I found myself wondering exactly the same thing. It struck me as very odd and I am not sure if the author was trying to be wry or ironic, or perhaps she is just obtuse, or maybe intentionally offensive. Still confused. So conservatives believe that Spanish speakers in the U.
It's incredibly amusing how many people who have never spoken - let alone studied - a romance language are chiming in on this. Many Indo-European languages - not just the Romance languages - are gendered. Why, it's almost as if people tens of thousands of years ago did not subscribe to woke notions of gender identity! McDonald's Brazilian subsidiary tried to hop on the woke language train on Twitter, and floated "amigX" to see if that worked with Lusophones.
Some observers cited the rare circumstances of the case as a factor in the rare outcome, as officer-involved shootings of unarmed black people are sometimes prosecuted, but often result in acquittals. Others will point to the guilty verdict as evidence of progress, said Georgetown University law professor and former federal prosecutor Paul Butler.
The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3. Respondents were first selected randomly using address-based sampling methods and later were interviewed online or by phone. Open main navigation Live TV. Full Schedule. Live Radio. Live TV. English voanews. Learning English learningenglish. Shqip zeriamerikes. Bosanski ba. Srpski glasamerike. Azerbaijani amerikaninsesi.
Central Asia. South Asia. Bahasa Indonesia voaindonesia.
Khmer voacambodia. Afaan Oromoo voaafaanoromoo. Bambara voabambara.