Jump to content

Talk:Latin America/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Haiti part of Latin America??? then, where is belize? or the Guyana countries?

or the caribbean? Canada is LATIN america too they have some of the frenchies!!! that leaves the united states alone? with certain islands of the caribbean and the falkan islands? not even if we count the southern states of the United States that include hispanics and french heritage; california, texas, arizona, florida, louisiana, etc The solution here is to first of all rename latin america, is too wide to be even considered and may be equal as criollo land, creole land not adequate because if you check canada and the united states they are also a mixture of european countries as well. We need a more wise subdivision. Hispanamerica and Portugalamerica. It might sound funny but it is less funny than latin america.

note: canada is NOT considered part of Latin America. just a little fyi. and "frenchies" are not considered part of latin america either. dont use racial slurs - Bagel7

Hi Mr. (fyu) For Your Understanding, I was being sarcastic and frenchies before some US/americans turned into a depictive adjective it was a friendly one. and fyi I'm in part french and don't have you ideas of racism!

The definitions that exclude Haiti from Latin America are usually based on two issues. First, Haiti is French speaking and the only French speaking country in Latin America (discussions around Canada are absurd and do not deserve comment, French Guyana is an overseas department of France, similar to Guadeloupe and Martinique and not a sovereign nation. Second, Haiti is almost exclusively populated by people of “pure” African decent unlike other countries in Latin America that have substantial mixed ethnic groups (Indian, African, European, Asian). This second reason is clearly racist, but that is the substance for another conversation. I can't find the first appearance of the term "Latin America", but at the time, Haiti was included as one of the original 20 member nations. Mostly because people are lazy, the term Latin America has been used to mean Spanish-Portugeuse speaking countries, but most educated historians confirm the inclusion of Haiti.


Don Quijote's Sancho 06:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Humm. Well aparently there is a 'Latin America' as defined by the United States: where everyone south of them is considered Latin America. And likewise there are a few European definitions of 'Latin America' where one prevails for example in the Commonwealth-Caribbean/British West Indies where-as certain ethnic bankgrounds make up 'Latin America.'
Belize, known as 'British Honduras' prior to 1973, is difficult to say. It was previously a part of Guatemala in centuries gone past, and since then- it was(historically) among 'hostile' nations that tried to erradicate the British forces and reclaim the land. Belize was historically administered from Jamaica to keep the government safe from invasion. Belize is a toss up. It is considered 'Commonwealth Caribbean' and it is in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), it is the seat country of CARICOM's fisheries unit ( http://www.caricom-fisheries.com/ ) and Belize's official language is English, unlike like surrounding Central American neighbours. you be the judge.
Guyana Formerlly known as (British Guiana) until independence from Britain in 1966. Similar to Belize it mostly associates with the Caribbean given hostilities towards it's territory. Venezuela claims the west half. And Suriname claims 1/3 of the Eastern half. Guyana *is* also the host country of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Again the official language is English with minor groups of Hindi. Much of the interior is empty but the aboriginal Amer-Indians of South Americans make up about 10% of Guyana's population of 700,000. Most ties of Guyana are with the Commonwealth Caribbean. CaribDigita 15:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, but most definitions of Latin America, include the Caribbean (Latin America and Caribbean are seen as a group). The concept of Latin America, as used in most universities north AND south of Rio Grande is not restricted to language: it has to do with a common history and tradition of colonization, struggle for independency and reciprocal influence. Therefore, Belize is Latin America, Jamaica is Latin America, Haiti and the Guianas are Latin America and the Falklands/Malvinas Islands are Latin America. The name "Latin America" was coined in a certain historical context, and it was then connected to Romance languages, but the meaning has evolved since then to encompass the whole region south of Rio Grande. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninarosa (talk • contribs) 08:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

It's simple, in the United States they are all "Latin America". Everywhere else in the world then Belize and Jamaica are not. Those countries themselves do not even consider themselves Latin American. CaribDigita 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. In Brazil they are Latin America. In Mexico they are Latin America. In Argentina they are Latin America. In Italy they are Latin America. And for most scholars studying Latin America, they are Latin America. See Marie Price, in Understanding Latin AMerica, or Karen Wigen, The Myth of Continents. The concept of including Belize and Jamaica in "Anglo America makes sense only in the colonial period, when the unit of analyses is the Empires. When we go back to precolombian times, the regions of Belize and Jamaica again belong with their neighboor countries.Ninarosa 18:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Links:
When the term "Latin America" was coined. The English Speaking Caribbean (which includes Belize(Indep. in 1981), Jamaica(Indep. in 1962), and British Guiana(Indep. in 1966) were all still a part of the United Kingdom. So it was accurate at the time to then say- "All independent countries south of the United States are Latin America. That statement however would no longer hold true.
Who studies topics on Jamaica as Latin America?????

P.S. The term "Latin America" didn't exist in Pre-columbian times. It only came about since Napoleon the III CaribDigita 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, CaribDigital, give me some credit. The term didn't exist in Colonial times either--yet scholars refer to "Colonial Latin America", and even Pre-Columbian Latin America. All these terms are historical constructions. The whole thing about Latin American being defined by language and not by common history and common heritage is problematic, also because it ignores the huge number of people who speak guarani, quechua, maya e other native american languages as their primary languages. The origin of the expression "Latin america" has little bearing on its use today (the same way "race" is not used today the way it was originally conceived), and I didn't find anything in the second website that implies that Belize is not part of Latin America--unless you are suggesting that Jamaica is not part of the Caribbean, or that Australia is not part of the OCeania, because the Commonwealth has relations with these regions (and therefore its members consider themselves outside of these regions). Again, in history departments across the world, you will find that Belize is studied by Latin Americanists. It may be studied by those interested in the British Empire as well, but Cuba and Puerto Rico are also studied by those who study Spain in the 19th century-and this does not mean that they are not part of Latin America. Overlapping of competences *is* possible.
Anyway, I am afraid we are turning this talk page into a discussion list. I will not convince you, and you will not convince me. So what is the authoritative source that we both would accept for this question? or how would be possible to frame the definition in a way that it is acceptable for most people? I suggested one sources that I believe is authoritative: the article of Marie Price "Latin America: A geographic Preface" in Understanding Latin America, ed. by Richard Hillman, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001, p. 11-37. You can find a more theoretical discussion on how world regions are defined in the The Myth of Continents: Critique of Metageography, by Karen Wigen and Martin W. Lewis.
To go for more popular (less scholarly) definitions, the Britannica says the following: "Countries of South America and North America (including Central America and the islands of the Caribbean Sea) south of the U.S.; the term is *often* restricted to countries where either Spanish or Portuguese is spoken." The United Nations uses the expression Latin American and the Caribbeanhttp://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/latinamerica.htm (See Belize in that page), so maybe your previous suggestion could close the issue. But it is more than just changing the title--the definition also has to be revised.Ninarosa 00:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is "Latin America" is about cultural identity. Just as "Anglo-America" or "British Commonwealth" are about cultural identity... If people want to know exactly what in the Americas are in-- Latin American all one has to do is look at who has joined the Latin Union. Countries which don't feel they have a foundation in Latin America haven't joined. Just pickout the countries in the Americas. My example, as I've brought up before was the period after independence for the majority of the British territories in the Caribbean. After joininh the United Nations bodes they lobbied for the name of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (as one example) to be renamed as the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Additionally the areas south of the United States at the U.N. are now designated as "GRULAC" The Group of Latin American and the Caribbean (GRULAC). Not "GRULA" You can put Barbados et. al. but just understand people in Barbados, Jamaica, or other parts of the English Speaking Americas etc. do not regard themselves as a part of Latin America.

Some quick examples:

  • Barbados: Haiti joins CDB -- Note last sentence: "Caribbean, Latin America, North America, Europe and Asia".
  • Barbados: ON THE BALL

-- Note 10th paragraph "one of the highest in the Caribbean and Latin America"

  • Jamaica: New IDB study puts Jamaica low on list of micro lenders... -- Note 2nd + 3rd paragraph " the IDB survey found that micro loans or financing reaching low-income individuals throughout Latin America and the Caribbean" / "'Microfinance in Latin America and the Caribbean: How large is the market?'"

P.s. this is also being debated on Yahoo Answers. [1] CaribDigita 22:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

CaribDigital, if I understood correctly, Latin Union is based on language --the concept of Latin America is not. The concept, in my point of view, is based on common heritage and common historical/social characteristics--as for instance, but not exclusively, the relationship with the European metropolis, the plantation system, the common pre-columbian and indigenous populations history, the African influence and labor. This common heritage brings Belize, Jamaica, the Guianas, and Barbados much closer to Latin America than to North-America (despite the spoken language, and despite how the citizens may identify themselves.) If you believe that we should change the entry to call it Latin America and the Caribbean, so the Caribbean identity is not "diluted" in the Latin American one, this is a reasonable compromise. The proposal of Karen Wigen, as I mentioned, would be to divide Latin American in Ibero America and Afro Latin America (which would include the North Atlantic part of Brazil, the Caribbean and part of the South of the US, such as Louisianna). But this is too bold and too controversial for Wikipedia. Latin America and the Caribbean would work fine for me.

PS: Cuba is not part of the Organization of the American States. Does it mean it is not in part of the Americas?? :) --Ninarosa 02:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Misc.

The truth of the matter seems to be that Latin America is the poor countries in the New World. Full stop. By the way, it sounds rather offensive to open-minded people who live in these countries. Maybe this article should only mention the real physical and cultural regions: Caribeean, Central America, the Andesian Countries, with the large countries by themselves, as they are all very different one from the other.

This is the crux of this lengthy discussion. The term "Latin America" lends itself very well to the notion that "Latin America" ought to mean the countries or regions in the Americas where the primar language is a romance language (a descendant language of Latin). This notion is simple, yet highly deceptive. Setting regional orthographers aside, when the general population refer to "Latin America" they mean something entirely different. It is often used to describe a certain state in economic progress, or a common colonial heritage. Many people employ it to mean those countries where either Spanish or Portuguese are the primary languages. The term has always been somewhat of an ambiguous one, and has always had its problems, ever sicne its inception. It has since taken on many meanings none of which are close to its original intent, and its original intent has nothing to do with "Latin America" means today.

The term is used more often in the United States than it is in all the collective countries it purpotedly includes.


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

actually north south and central were one continent, and still are though many pl said that was changed by americans in panama... tough is still one continent a lot of people ae ignorant to that

"Nice try"

Nice try. No doubt there are other competing designations. By the way, can you disambiguate "North America" from norteamericano? My atlas says Mexico and Central America are both in North America (since the only other nearby continent is South America). Ed Poor

The problem comes from citizens (and I suppose residents) of the United States referring to themselves as "Americans." THIS is the real thing to "disambiguate" since Mexicans and Panamanians and Bolivians (and so on) are all "Americans" too -- but given US power and cultural dominance, anyone who used the term "Americans" in 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.

So what ? In many modern Latin American cities like São Paulo or Buenos Aires the local white middle-class is very westernized and has a way of life that in many ways is not unlike the Anglo-American one. The 'Latin' label refers exclusively to language, not to one's broader culture. As long as Quebeckers are majoritarily French-speaking, they should be considered 'Latin' as French is a Romance language which evolved from Latin.

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

The title of Miami as the "Capital of Latin America" has been used mostly as a joke. The truth about this is that the only acceptable criterion for defining what is Latin America and what is not is the same as for deciding ethnic membership: self-identification. Do your parents consider themselves Latin Americans? Does Miami as a whole? I haven't been there in a while, but I believe the answer is no. From what I gather, the Continental countries of South America (three Guyanas excluded) and Central America (Belize excluded) consider themselves Latin America. Other countries (specifically the Neolatin-language-speaking Caribbean island countries, like Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic) do not. So basically that is what I would call Latin America.

"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?" They fit in North Americans. Just because you know a language and are familiar with that culture, doesn´t mean that you are latin. I´m Portuguese. I know English, I´m familiar with their culture, I´m living in england and that doesn´t make me English or Anglo (I hope!)I think that´s a stupid question. If their mother tongue isn´t Spanish, Portuguese, etc., they aren´t Latinos.

  • I don´t know why, but I think you are gringo (no offense)mnmh

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.")

I thin someone should remove "offtenly" because... I was gonna say that there are only Portugal and Spain there, but now I saw the word America. What the hell is IbeeroAmerica? I only know the Península Ibérica.

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".

Learn to paragraph, that was the most painful and spasmodic thing I've read in ages man. 202.173.202.189 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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?

I think the irony is the fact that 'latin america' has as much as a potato has to do with rocket science as they do to the word 'latin'. Latin is Italian in origin. Spanish is more arabic / basque influenced than Italian. The only influence of the Latin language on Spanish was vulgar latin anyhow, so the entire concept of 'latin america' is utterly moot and illustrative of a hideous detachment of reality and a failure of cognitive understanding of history. 202.173.202.189 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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 [2]:
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.

Veo que muchos de ustedes son de habla hispana, la persona que dice de los Guatemaltecos déjame decirte que ignorante que eres. Yo siendo sur americano (hijo de italianos) me siento muy ofendido de cómo se utiliza La palabra o el término latino en los estados unidos de norte América Que país es denominado latino no me interesa pero si se porque. Otra cosa que me ofende mucho es cuando los cubanos, puerto riqueños La gente de Miami y otros países de centro América y el caribe se denominan latinos siendo negros O indígenas, por que me ofende, primero ofenden a los latinos y segundo Deniegan su propia raza o descendencia. Si hablar español escuchar salsa y comer frijoles les hace sentir que son latinos Sigan creyendo eso. Pero ser latino es mucho más que eso. Si tengo que decir quien es mas latino que quien o que país es mas latino. Diría sur América y norte América usa. Por que, Sur América y u.s.a tienen la mayoría mas grande de latinos europeos A pesar de que latino América fue colonizada por hispanos (españoles) Otra cosa que me cae muy mal es cuando me llaman hispano, porque hablo español no soy hispano / soy ítaloamericano o ítalo argentino. Los estados unidos de América están muy acostumbrados en poner sobrenombres y alimentar la ignorancia de los que nacen en este país u.s.a Esto es un tema muy largo pero solo entramos en este tema cuando entramos a los estados unidos de América.

As a Guatemalan of pure European descent, I found the first entry ignorant and offensive. Latinos are any one who comes from a latino American country whether Mexico, Guatemala or even Argentina. Ladinos are the the latinos with indigenous and spanish blood. And also, dragging the name of Guatemala through the dirt like you did is idiotic and very unpatriotic. There are Guatemalans WHO ARE WHITE for example, in Chimaltenango, where the majority of citizen are blond hair and green eyed.

We are just as latino as you are but possibly not "Ladino" as you most likely are. P.S. There are no pure natives left in Guatemala cause for years they have breeded in between themselves mixing spanish blood and other types of European descent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.76.205 (talk • contribs)

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)

I've always found odd to refer to Romance-language speakers as "latinos". Latin was spoken by the ancient Romans and has been basically a dead language since the early Middle Ages. The modern Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan) have evolved from Latin (which forms the basis for their vocabulary), but are clearly no longer Latin. In fact, a modern Romance speaker cannot even ordinarily understand Latin. In particular, the grammar of most Romance languages is far simpler than Latin grammar (no noun or adjective inflection for case, only two grammatical genders as opposed to three, fewer tenses and irregular verbs, etc...). Calling Spaniards, Lusos, Italians or Frenchmen "Latin" as if the Roman empire still existed and they all still spoke Cicero's language is a complete nonsense. Using the same criteria, should Englishmen, Anglo-Americans, Dutchmen, Flemings, Afrikaners, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, and Austrians be all generically called "German" for speaking languages that belong to the Germanic branch of the Indo-European family ? Furthermore, referring to Brazilians, Argentinians, Mexicans, Quebeckers, or Haitians as "latinos" is even more ludicrous since their respective countries were never part of the Roman Empire (which actually had already fallen more than a thousand years before the Americas were settled by the Spaniards, the Portuguese, or the French). 161.24.19.82 12:14, 4 May 2006 (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.


As an American born of Puerto Rican parents of European ancestry I couldn't agree more


Im sorry but to say that Romania should be included in latin american is not going to pass. Let us first examine what continent's comprise american, and then determine if Romania is on one of those continents. Rekov

Caribbean

Welcome to the Caribbean, Love! 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)
    • What restricted definitions of Latin America would exclude "the Caribbean islands"?? These definitions should exclude non-Spanish speaking countries in the Caribbean, perhaps. But if you exclude all Caribbean islands from the definition of Latin America, you would leave out Cuba and potentially the Dominican Republic (Haiti's neighbor). Doesn't that seem odd? The definitions that exclude Haiti from Latin America are usually based on two issues. First, Haiti is French speaking and the only French speaking country in Latin America (discussions around Canada are absurd and do not deserve comment, French Guyana is an overseas department of France, similar to Guadeloupe and Martinique and not a sovereign nation. Second, Haiti is almost exclusively populated by people of “pure” African decent unlike other countries in Latin America that have substantial mixed ethnic groups (Indian, African, European, Asian). This second reason is clearly racist, but that is the substance for another conversation.
  • 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.
As your links show, there is disagreement over the facts, and that's something that's really hard to prove one way or another, other than through extensive genetic testing. It is probably true that most Brazilians, after hundreds of years of miscegenation, have some black ancestry in them. However, it would also be true that most of them have also have European ancestry, and even Amerindian ancestry. That doesn't mean that they are black, white or amerindian (hence my refutal of the argument that Brazilians are "mostly black", or that "half of the population is black"). In fact, a lot of the people who have black or indian ancestry don't even (and probably never will) know that, as the phenotypical traits of those different ancestries have been diluted over time. I would dare to suggest that, in Brazil, unless you can trace all your ancestors to before they came to the country, it is almost guaranteed that you have either black or native (indian) blood, if not both, no matter how white or japanese you look. But I guess this is now way past off-topic for this page... --Cotoco 11:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The figures in the Wikipedia article are quoted from the official census of the Brazilian population. 161.24.19.82 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but what is your point, if you don't mind me asking? I don't mean to be rude, I just don't understand what you're trying to say. --Cotoco 15:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
Im sorry, but your statement is very inacuratte; Brazil's population is not mostly black. All those references you made are from studies that consider every non-white "black".

The racial diversity and intermingling that exits in Brazil is something not common around the world, and there is a wide spectrum of specific skin colours between white and black. Citizens from the US, for example, would consider a mullato, a mestizo, a mameluco, a cafuzo and a deep tanned white person to be all blacks, and that is not accurate, not by a long shot. As I said before, if you look in specific regions of Brazil, you will find greater concentrations of a specific human race. That holds true to blacks, but also whites, mullatos, mestizos, etc.

For further confirmation of this, check Demographics of Brazil, and it will show that the population itself qualifies them as 55% whites, 38% mixed, and about 10% black.~~LtDoc~~


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..

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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)

To Kelisi: Quebeckers for the most part speak a Latin-derived language (French), are majoritarily Roman Catholic, and use a legal system based on Roman civil law (as opposed to the English common law tradition). On the basis of language, religion and law, it is undeniable then that Québec traces its culture in part to the old Roman civilization, just like any other nation that is normally labeled "Latin" (or "neo-Latin") under the same criteria. As I said before, I personally think it is silly to call anyone "Latin" considering that the true "Latin" civilization (i.e. the old Roman empire) actually disappeared 1,500 years ago, i.e. long before modern France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or even more so, "Latin America", came into existence. Nevertheless, if we decide to stick to that somewhat controversial label, Québec should be considered part of Latin America, or else the definition of Latin America as implied in the Wikipedia article would become inconsistent.161.24.19.82 15:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I find it odd that Kelisi mentions above that: "Frenchness" is not really what I consider "Latin"; more what I consider "Gallic". The reason why I find the statement odd is that the ancient Gaulish people of course were Celts whose civilization actually disappeared even before the fall of the Roman empire. Their language,Gaulish, has been dead for centuries and , even in Roman times, had already been replaced by Latin (which later formed the basis for modern French, together with a minor influence from Germanic languages, most notably Frankish). In any case, I really have a hard time identifying France with any form of Celtic culture (like maybe that of Ireland, Wales or even Galicia in Spain). Ironically, the only remaining Celtic language that is still spoken in France, Breton _which was imported from Britain and is distinct from Gaulish _ actually has minimal support from the French national government, which still refuses to grant it official legal status. So much for France's alleged "Gallic" culture ! Mbruno 20:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The best definition for Latin America is parts of the Americas explored by Columbus that were founded for the southern European countries where Romance Languages are spoken since French-speaking areas aren't generally included with Latin America. Italian, however, is spoken throughout Latin America by a small minority predominately in Argentina and their influence in cuisine is also very notable. I don't get why Italians, Spaniards, and Portuguese aren't labeled as Latins in Latin American countries and why Columbus Day celebrations are strongly discouraged by the likes of Hugo Chávez and its not fair that they aren't allowed to speak Latin. - Cantor

Setting personal oppinions aside (as to what is fair or not), you must note that Italian is not spoken widely in Argentina, because it was not widely spoken by the immigrants. You have to remember that Italian (or what you know as Italian) is a nineteenth-twenieth century standardized version of Tuscan, in a recently created country. Immigrants spoke their original languages (most notably Sicilian, Napolitan and Calabrian... all three influencing the Spanish of Buenos Aires) but not necessarily Toscan, and just a few the standardized Italian. --theDúnadan 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

Why do those from the U.S. have to put their ethnic and racial concepts on Latin America. Why not try and assume that there are more nuances in the demographic descriptions of groups. For example, the term Black is quite vague, but mostly because people will not recognize someone of mixed race background as Black, because Black means dark skinned. The U.S. concept of race in this instant does not work for Latin America. Chriscarlos

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)
He is probably confusing Spanish "cono sur" with the equivalent Portuguese expression "cone sul". Yet another example that knowledge of Portuguese does not necessarily imply being able to speak Spanish. Mbruno 14:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________

I made a few changes to the "Demographics" section today. First, I added southern Brazil to the list of regions with majoritarily European populations (alongside Argentina and Uruguay). Second, I clarified that large mulatto populations are found throughout southeastern and northeastern Brazil. I understand that it might be controversial to refer to subnational units in the article, but, in the case of Brazil, regional diversity justifies that different sections of the country be described separately as far as demographics and culture are concerned. I also edited the "Language" section to clarify that Portuguese is both an official and a national language in Brazil. The term "official language", when used in isolation, might suggest a situation similar to one that exists in several African countries where there is an official (usually European) language used by the government and for instruction at schools, and several local native languages that are spoken most often at home. In Brazil, of course, that is not the case, as nearly all families speak Portuguese at home (even though there may be significant differences between the standard language and the popular vernacular). Mbruno 16:03, 7 May 2006 (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)

Except from the fact that Mexico (and Panama) are in both categories.


Where is the cultural split between latin-America and north-America ? Where is Québec then ? In north America (geographically and socio-politically) and linguistically and culturally in latin-America... I think that it has no meaning to oppose latin-America with North-America (most of Mexico is in North America too). We can only oppose Latin-America with Anglo-America.

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.


" 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. "

I agree with that there are differences, but we have too notice that the same kind of major differences are existing inside Iberian-american ex-colonies too : differences between Bolivia and Républica Dominicana are bigger than between Quebec and Argentina.


Keep in Mind there's a 1) geographic 'North America', there's a 2) geo-political 'North America'. And there's now a 3) what I'd call 'North America' that is basically just to 'one-up on Europe'. Geographic-- North America would be Canada/US/Mexico. As they lie on the actual North American plate.
Geo-political 'North America' if you will- changes. It's about convenience in winning an argument. Currently Geo-political North America includes Canada/US/Mexico.
'One-up on Europe - North America' = Canada/US/Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean which are outside of the North America geographic plate. But their economies are included in North America, just to ofset some of the large-ness of the European Union mostly. This changes all the time. The EU talks expansion so North America talks Free Trade Area of the Americas to offset the EU and so on. P.S. General comment to all: Caribbean = one 'r' two 'b's... CaribDigita 16:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I like very much this objective distinction based on the tectonic plates. Actually there isn any region of the world where this is as simple: The North American plate which includes of course 95% of Mexico AND Belize, Bahamas AND... Cuba, which is plain north of the ridge , actually it is the range formed by it. Nicaragua is almost 50/50 but the main active region and its capital lies south of the ridge so one has almost surely to place it in Central Amrica. And yes there is a Central American plate which include all the Caribbean, which in geophysical terms is indeed a pond. The Caribbean as we all know are the eastern internal side of the plate. And finally the South American plate is very well defined, just biting a good side of Northwest Colombia (say 10%). Again, very clearly Tobago is Central America and Trinidad just in the middle like Nicaragua,but then we have probably to stick with it belonging to CA . In this case geography goes in the same sense of history and culture and language (as for Curaçao and the Dutch isles, and even Panama). Actually I'm always surprised how this so simple and how difficult to agree. Of course Cuba being indeniably North America is a major issue ;-) 201.32.182.11 13:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

Anyone who has been to Brazil (Portuguese), Mexico (Spanish) and Quebec (French) and understands the meaning of the words: 'Latin' and 'America' will agree, Quebec is very 'Latin', culturally and linguistically and it is in the Americas.

  • I've always seen Haiti and French Guiana defined as Carribean. More akin to the British Carribean than Spanish central America. I've been to Montreal, been to Mexico, and been to Miami and California, and Quebec is much more European (like London, from what I saw of it. Besides which, we should be trying to stick to the normal definition. I'm pretty sure the French areas aren't normally considered "Latin." Wikipedia is about "is" not "should." --Quintucket 06:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Defining the extent and limits of an exotic region

Hm.. the more I click my way around on these pages, the more I come to realize that perspectives and understandnings on all these exotic regions and continents vary and are highly subjective and even biased. Perhaps the English usage is much more inconsistent, unprecise and overlapping than the native-speakers' usage. If so, this is similar to other vaguely-defined regions that are found in the minds of distant groups of people and mean different things to them. See also Talk:Siberia, Talk:Scandinavia, Talk:Middle East and Talk:Balkans, and also exonym versus autonym for similar discussions of namings and meanings. //Big Adamsky 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


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.

Although I am not a historian, I support your input on the definition of Latin America. Rather than searching for the exact meaning of the word "latin", and its correspondence to the phenomenon it is meant to describe, the notion of "Latin America" should be considered from the perspective of its use in History, Geography, Geopolitics etc. These are not natural sciences. Expressions are thus frequently perverted or imprecise (from a linguistic point of view). So is the case of the appropriation of the term "latin" to describe a region that includes also non-latin cultures and languages whithin the borders of nation-states (indigenous people, for example). But the colonization criteria should not be considered the only one to determine the boundaries between Latin America and non-Latin America.

I think the current use of the term Latin America clearly excludes certain latin-colonized regions within the borders of other american States (the Québec case). In international affairs and diplomacy, the term might encompass some countries such as Belize, Suriname or Guyana. These are sovereign States that share with Ibero-American States not only the lands usually refered to as Latin America (geographic criteria), but also the developing-country aspect of the region (economic/political criteria). The opposition between developed and developing countries is, I tend to believe, one that should not be downplayed when defining Latin America. (it further explains why québecois do not consider themselves Latin Americans). By the same token, even though French Guyana, Guadaloupe and Martinique (departments of France) could be considered as part of Latin America geographically and culturally, they are not independent-developing States, a reason for possibly excluding them from the Latin America scope (technically they are part of the European Union). Haiti, a former French colony independent and underdeveloped, is usually considered as part of Latin America.

On the other hand, take the case of Puerto Rico. It is a US territory, economically developed and politically dependent. And yet nobody will doubt that Puerto Rico is part of Latin America, in a certain sense at least. In the Puerto Rico case, culture and language seem to be the most determinant criteria. In the Québec case, quite the contrary.

The bottom line is that there is no exact formula to determine which countries or territories are part of Latin America and which are not. Geography, History, Politics, Economics, Culture, Language are elements to take into consideration. And these elements may apply differently for each case. Savvy words such as "usually" and "often" are very welcomed in the article. --- Adelius

While not necessarily disagreeable, little of the above is sourced and should be treated accordingly. As well, this ambiguity is discussed below and also treated in a dedicated article regarding terminology. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


One of the most comprehensive history collections about Latin America (Bethell, Leslie. "The Cambridge History of Latin America". Cambridge University Press - ten volumes published between 1984 and 1985; I have some volumes of the Brazilian Translation - "História da América Latina. São paulo: EdUSP, 2002) adopts the following criteria for determining the scope of "Latin America": (i) continental America south of the US in which Portuguese and Spanish languages are predominately spoken; (ii) the Spanish-speaking Caribbean islands; and (iii) Haiti ("by convention"). It expressly excludes (i) North American territories conquered by Spain and currently part of US; (ii) British, Dutch and French islands of the Caribbean; and (iii) the Guyanas (Guyana, Suriname and French Guyana). The preface of the collection treats this definition as an "assumption". Another interesting case is the so-called Latin America Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, instituted by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco), of 1967 (please see http://www.opanal.org/). In spite of the somewhat restricted term "Latin America", several British, Dutch and French ex-colonies or dependancies, in the Caribbean and in continental America, were parties to the treaty. In 1990, by resolution, it was decided by the States parties to the treaty, in recognition of "the fact that the adhesion of various Caribbean States to the Treaty of Tlatelolco reflects the growing plurality of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America", that the expression "and the Caribbean" should be added. It seems that, in that context, Caribbean Anglo and Dutch ex-colonies and dependencies are (or feel they are) less Latin American than continental Anglo and Dutch ex-colonies (ex vi Guyana and Suriname). Again, both cases show there is no perfect distinction between Latin America and non-Latin America. -- Adelius adelius 20:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The problem is that none of the different definitions of "Latin America" proposed on this talk page seem to be consistent with the article. If the criteria to define "Latin America" are language (derived from Latin), religion (Roman Catholicism) and law (civil law as opposed to common law tradition), then majoritarily French-speaking Québec should be included in Latin America, together with other Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries. If on the other hand the criterion is a racial one, then not only Québec, but also majoritarily-white Argentina or Uruguay should be excluded. The economic test as suggested by E Pluribus Anthony seems to be valid and is consistent with the map shown in the article. However, if economic criteria are used, then I suggest we change the title from "Latin America" to "Low-Income Countries in the Americas" as opposed to "high-income countries in the Americas" (i.e. the US an d Canada). Personally, I think the article should be simply deleted or perhaps broken down into 3 separate categories (respectively Spanish America, Portuguese America and French America). Mbruno 12:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Mariachi" is not a music style

but rather a band whichs plays traditional music from Western Mexico. The music style Mariachi bands play and that is known all over the world is called "ranchera" music...

Not absolutely true.

Nice article!

Please try to improve it with more data.

Julepix

Overview

From all of this discussion I think it is important to acknowledge that the term "Latin America" does not one meaning which everyone agrees on. That alone teaches us something about the term itself. Some view it as a useful term, but the list of countries which ought to fall under its umbrella is somewhat subjective.

It seems that the problem arises from trying to find too many similarities in a large and varied region.

If we look at is as a linguist term it ought to include places such as Quebec and Haiti and not places such as Aruba, the Bahamas, or Suriname. To reverse this is to put the linguistic definition in jeopardy in favor of one of two more common usages of the word- the economic one. "Latin America" has, in many circles, particularly business and political ones- to describe the so called developing countries of most of the western hemisphere. This definition also has its flaws, as it tries to group multiple countries with various economic aspects under one common banner. Cuba, Peru, Haiti, and Brazil are very different economically, but they are all considered "Latin American" countries.

The other popular usage of the term is the cultural aspect, one which tries to suggest some sort of singular identity from Juarez all the way down to the southern tip of Argentina. This latter usage is of benefit primariy to those who produce and market cultural products- such as music, hoping that regardless of what "Latin America" is or isn't, if everyone in "Latin America" would buy their products- that is just fine with them. Those who produce the "Latin Grammies" fall among this category. Could someone who spoke Papiamento win such an award? How about someone who had lived their entire life in the United States?

The people who live in the countries under consideration generally don't find it useful. They identify very little with those of neighboring countries. They play football together, and haggle over oil, and mountains, and sea access, and they tend to enjoy rice and perhaps beans. They may speak similar languages, or not, but they don't want to be called by a blanket term which tears them from the uniqueness of their own nation. Most of them only use the term after they come to the United States. A Brazilian is very proud of their land and people, and rightfully so, so there is no reason to group them with others who have equal reason to be proud of their accomplishments.

There is an element in the United States that encourages division along some sort of illusory ethnic lines by promoting "latin americanism" in the United States, and preaching that they must band together to resist those that would do them harm. They preach this because they profit from it, and it gives them power. It is by these individuals more than anybody else that the term "latin america" is used and promoted in the social circles, the business circles, and perhaps above all else, in the education circles, creating division where there need not be any and preaching some sort of unity which is not present and never has been.

Read this to see exactly the reasons why. white_people

Does the article still need cleanup?

This page is still listed on the list of featured articles Wikipedia should have as an article needing cleanup. The {{cleanup-date|May 2005}} tag was removed without explanation by the anonymous IP User:86.131.132.163 at 02:10, 27 November 2005. The article has come a long way since it was tagged with the original Cleanup request, but since this is said to be an essential topic (with the corresponding high standard of quality), and the requested Film section still isn't there, I think this article should still be tagged with a Cleanup template. I'm adding {{cleanup-priority}}.
--Mr. Billion 06:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree; arguably, there are still challenges in the lack of citations, etc., particularly regarding ethnocultural constituency. Let's do what's necessary to improve it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The item "Arts" of Latin America should be more representative of each country. I doubt that most of the artist of the "continent" are from Ecuador and none from argentina or other counties

Maps

Without Belize and Guyanas, .PNG, on commons.
File:Latin America Map.JPG
With Belize and Guyanas, .JPG.

There is two maps, you can talk about them and they can be improve. Talk to improve this article, not for your own opinion. Yug

The article ought to use the map without Belize, Suriname and Guyana as those countries are not part of Latin America. Thanks for making that change. I was thinking of doing it myself, but you beat me to it :) NoIdeaNick 14:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that i've found this

Another choice

I think it is probably a better choice. It's much easier to see which countries are and are not included. NoIdeaNick 14:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Great map! Two comments here:
  1. Jamaica is coloured Latin American, in error.
  2. Falkland Islands and Galapagos Islands are not shown at all.
  3. French Guyana and Haiti are arguable inclusions, which is best reflected by using a lighter shade (cf. Central Asia). This might apply for Belize, as well (?).
Cheers! //Big Adamsky 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the error on Jamaica. It shows up as so small on the map that I didn't notice the error. NoIdeaNick 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree about the medium green for French colonies if you're going to include them at all. I'd make one myself except that I can't get it to look right. Nothing between "anti-alias" and "feather" on Fireworks, and neither of them looks quite right.

Edit: arrgg forgot siggy and Wikipedia wouldn't let me add it. Here.--Quintucket 07:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


I don't understand your problems to include Haiti or French guyana in latin America. I heard some of you pointing that they would share more with English speaking nation such as Jamaica and Belize. Haiti and Guyana are lands are situated in America, speak a latin language and are with a huge catholic majority... while Belize or Jamaica speak a germanic language and are mainly of protestant traditions. the comparision with Jamaica and Belize has nothing to do with the latin/germanic thing, but with the fact that all those countries have mainly a population of black people (african origins). It is interesting to point that Dominican republic for exemple have also a population whose genetic origins is found in West Africa while most of you don't have any propblem to include it in the latin American concept. French Guyana and Haiti are much closer to Dom. Rep. than to Jamaica because they share not only racial origins but also linguistic and religious similarities. So, I oppose to show a ligther green over F. Guyana and Haiti since it has no meaning to do so. if you want to differenciate countries with heavy African population to the latin concept, so you should put Dominicn Republic and Also Cuba in light green. But It would be quite racist to my opinion.

GDP

Can the author of that section please give us a link to the sources? I've searched all through the IMF and World Bank's websites, and I could not find GDP per capita figures for 2005, not even with the link provided, which gives us data for 2004. The figures in this article seem to be taken ONLY from the CIA Factbook, which by the way are only "estimates" (since not all countries of the world have finished calculating last year's GDP; in fact, Mexico will announce this week the figure for 2005 and the growth rate, which means that whatever you find about Mexico's GDP for 2005 is only an estimate; remember, CIA does not calculate GDP, each country does that, CIA Factbook gives a report). The author of that section says he "calculated" himself (or so I understand) GDP per capita by taking GDP (from whatever source that I have not been able to corroborate), with the list of countries by population. Why would he have to do that? I mean, the last report of GDP made by the World Bank in 2005 for GDP 2004 gave you both GDP and GDP per capita, as well as GNI and GNI per capita. Why would the World Bank and/or FMI only report GDP so that we would have to make the appropriate calculations ourselves? In summary, could you please provide a link to the World Bank's and IMF reports of GDP 2005? I could use that information for 2005, if it does exists, in many other articles. --J.Alonso 18:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, what does this phrase mean: The Latinamerican G7 is composed of: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela. And between them increase commerce in the region, improving the "smaller" countries that surrond them. First of all, I've never heard of a so-called Latinamerican G7. It might exist though, could you please site your source? (I know that a G-3 exists which is a free trade agreement between Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela). Secondly, what does the second phrase mean, that the increment in trade improves smaller countries? --J.Alonso 18:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Caribbean are not in "Latin America."

It is not giving a clear definition. Part of the article claims the Caribbean is in "Latin American" then another part says its not. The former British West Indies are *not* in Latin America nor have they ever been in it. The British West Indies, do not speak Spanish/Portuguese and they are not "Latin American". "Central America" yes, but not in Latin America. "Latin America" is all about countries that relate to the Iberian Peninsula. Which inlcudes Portugual and Brasil which was a part of Portugal. "Latin America" Is all about persons of Latin/Hispanic decents. CaribDigita 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you, except that Latin America is not only countries related to the Iberian Peninsula (that would be Ibero-America) but those related to Latin Europe, i.e., it would include French-speaking places. Remember, "Hispanic" is not the same as "Latin" (and Brazilians are not Hispanic by most definitions).
I've kind of given up on this article for a while, as there's a lot of people here who think their own definitions should be imposed on everyone else. Furthermore, those definitions are sometimes not based on much other than the submitter's own personal, informal knowledge and preconceived ideas, without any research.
I hope some experts (which I'm definitely not) will come in to help fix this mess... --Cotoco 15:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The Caribbean is in LA, but also in Anglo-America and there is overlap: dissect each term. Apropos: I share similar frustrations, C. Partially arising from that: I recently created this article, which is based on cited definitions in various reputable publications. The defs for Latin America therein hark of those in the Oxford English Dictionary (if you're wondering, for instance, why French isn't named but it is still included by virtue of being a Latin-derived Romance language). Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Actualy Haiti is in Latin America because Hispaniola was briefly controlled by Spain. Hence, that's why Haiti is in Latin America, while Quebec is not, and French Guiana are not. Likewise the British West Indies are not in Latin America because they were formerly a part of Britain. Likewise Guyana was was formerlly known as British Guiana, and Suriname Dutch Guiana as to why they in South America are not in Latin America. CaribDigita 23:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Source? They vary. One, though not necessarily agreeable, definition (in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) is all territories in the Americas south of the US. Also note that Creole languages are widely spoken in the Caribbean and (the three) Guianas. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It has been a bone of contention for years. I read through the Comptons Encyclopedia which is long after all of the major British territories of the Caribbean broke off from Britain and it doesn't mention the Caribbean as Latin America. I can also cite U.N. resolution 1984/67 where the British Caribbean states pushed the vote to change the name of the United Nations - Economic Commission for Latin America instead to the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and The Caribbean. [3]

The UN doesn't regard them as the same region.

Both Britain [4] , and Canada [5] both break the Caribbean out as a separate individual area. It is only really a trend in the US of calling the British West Indies as "Latin America". The British West Indies (along with Canada) would be the Commonwealth. The French countries also no longer use "Latin" America either they go by Francophonie. CaribDigita 21:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing, but the point is that the term is somewhat tenuous and has various definitions. More to point: it consistently includes those countries/regions where Latin-derived languages (namely Spanish and Portuguese) are primarily spoken, but sometimes includes other regions ... and that includes the Caribbean. Also note that it is primarily a linguistic and ethnic definition (hence Latin) and less one of geopolitics and even less so of physiogeography, etc., and that's where some confusion may arise from. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Folks, every classification is arbitrary until one specifies its purpose. So the first question should be, why Latin America? I.e., what is the purpose of classifying countries (or parts of countries) into "Latin America" and "Not Latin America"? Once we have an answer to that question, the "correct" classification will probably be obvious. If there are several distinct important purposes, it is likely that there are several distinct "correct" classifications as well; and that should be noted in the article. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 21:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Didn't I say, and arguably answer, that? ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I was just "me-tooing". 8-) Jorge Stolfi 03:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


It seems difficulty to some of you to realise that to be part of latin-America, a country should be in America and beign of latin roots. This is the reason why all the caribean is not included in the concept. A part of the caribean is latin (Cuba, Dom Rep, Haiti), others are not at all (Jamaica, Antigua, Virgin islands, etc.) whose cumture has been influenced by the English one (language, protestantisme), in opposistion with countreis with Spanish, portuguese or French influences. The same way, all south America is not latin America too (Guyana and Surinam have nothing latin in them). Latin america is a CULTURAL concept and not a geographical one even if some people use it wrongly with geographical conotations.

French spoken in Brazil?

French is also spoken in Argentina and Brazil

Where? You aren't reffering a small numbers of french descendents capable to spoke a very weak french, right?
French in Argentine (and I believe the same stands for Brazil) is only spoked by language students. I wouldn't include that in the article. Mariano(t/c) 19:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, but French is not taught in brazilian schools, only Spanish (private schools) is. French, Italian, German and many others can be learned in Language schools as in any place of the world. The fact that you can learn a language in private schools doesn't mean this is spoken in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.83.184 (talk • contribs)
This doesn't add anything to the article itself, but just for the sake of this particular discussion: students have to study at least one foreign language at regular school (i.e., not private language school). Most schools offer only one language, with no alternative. Traditionally, over the last decades, this has overwhelmingly been English, with Spanish growing in the last two decades (mostly due to the Mercosur, I'd guess). However, there are schools that offer French (which would probably be a distant third at the moment, although it was probably very common, maybe the norm, during the first half of the 20th century), and a few schools offer other languages, like German for example, although in those cases they are usually alternatives offered at some top schools, and not the only option, as is often the case with English and sometimes with Spanish.
Mostly I just wanted to clarify that it's not true that "only Spanish" is taught. --Cotoco 16:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That's why I said the phrase should be removed. Mariano(t/c) 06:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Latin America / South America

I'm positive that titling this article "Latin America" is a little politically incorrect, or at least an example of American dialect, the article should be named properly - it isn't too difficult to write a subheading "otherwise known as Latin America". Also, other pages referring to "Latin America" should be edited accordingly. It would be like having a Wikipedia page titled "Yanks" describing the americans - that's the British term for Americans btw.

I don't agree with you. Latin America, both in English and Spanish is neither pejorative nor a "nickname" to refer to a group of countries otherwise known as South Americans. It is not politically incorrect, since all presidents in Latin America use the term themselves, and it is almost (at least academically) universally accepted. Moreover, South America does not coincide with the definition of Latin America, unless you redefine the concept, and include Central America and Mexico into your own definition of South America, and exclude Surinam, Guyana and Belize. --J.Alonso 17:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a short question. Should we follow the United Nations' terminology that the Caribbean is not part of Latin America? If you see UN's website, they always use "Latin America and the Caribbean" as if the two aren't the same (or Caribbean is not part of Latin America). I know there's already some pretty heavy discussion above on whether we should define Latin America in terms of political correctness or cultural (linguistic) similarity, in which case somebody complained that French is not Latin. OK, all this is getting confusing. So what to do? Follow the UN?? Or leave it as it is? Heilme 07:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The UN language is not meant to oppose, in the same level, "Latin America" and "Caribbean". There is overlapping between the two terms (Dominican Republic, Cuba, etc), and some countries in the region may not fall within neither category (Guyana, Surinam, Belize). "Caribbean" is a concept based in geography; "Latin America" is not primarily based in geography, although geography can play a part to exclude or include countries, regions or dependencies (Quebec, for example). When used together, as in "Latin America and the Caribbean", the expression seems to be comprehensive of all the region south of the US, including Guyana, Surinam and Belize. That is the case for the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and other international institutions, such as the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (www.opanal.org). In both cases, "and the Caribbean" was added to the original institutions' denominations. I think the article addresses the ambiguous meaning of "Latin America" well enough. -- adelius 17:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Watch Newsnight this week

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm - You can watch the latest edition of Newsnight online at it's website, as it's a daily show, the latest is only online for 24 hours. This week, is "Latin America" week and will focus on a different aspect of Latin America in each show. Monday's program covers the upcoming elections in Peru, Venezuelan oil and has interviews with many latin america commentators. Keep an eye on these programs, they could help an upcoming AID. - Hahnchen 15:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Brazil is Latin America?

I just want to add my opinion on this issue. I have lived half my life in Brazil and can say that I have never seen a Brazilian consider himself latino/hispanic/etc. (which the Boston article mentions, for example) and nobody would ever say that Brazil is part of Latin America. Even outside of Brazil I have never seen this reference.

Of course, I realize that Brazil was originally part of Portugal and the language is Latin-based and all that, so of course I understand the logic, but the way this term is used in the present-day and how all this is considered, I would never say Brazil is Latin America.

I would vote for Brazil being removed. Haiti too, I suppose. The Spanish-speaking countries of the Americas are the only ones I would consider Latin America. -04:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You are mixing Hispanic America with Latin America: Brazil is as Latin American as it gets. Mariano(t/c) 06:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm really not. Hispanic America and Latin America is the same in the minds of all Brazilians (who would consider themselves neither). Again, I've also never seen anyone consider Brazil Latin America. Dan1113 21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I know more than one Brazilian that consideres himself/herself Latin America, but you are most welcome to provide relevant sources that support your thoughts. Mariano(t/c) 07:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, Brazil is part of Latin America in the same way Portugal is part of Latin Europe. And they are both part of Iberoamerica. baloo_rch 03:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"Hispanic America and Latin America is the same in the minds of all Brazilians (who would consider themselves neither). Again, I've also never seen anyone consider Brazil Latin America."
A lot of people don't include themselves in the concept of "animal", while they would include their dogs and cats in it; In reality humans are as much animals than cats and dogs, even if for some a superiority complex we try to exclude us of that group. It is the same for the concept of "latinamerican". some Brazilian can exclude themselves of that group for different concious or incouncious reasons but it doesn't change the fact that Brazilians ARE latinoamerican as much as Mexicans. what they are not is HISPANIC (wich relates to SPAIN and SPANISH LANGUAGE ONLY)
While it's important that thoughts and feelings of Brazilians are noted, alse there should be room for thoghths and feelings of all the rest of people. Who, by far, consider Brazil Latin America. As it was said both earlier and below, there is a controversy about what is LA. I think that all opinions (if somehow creditable) should be noted. PLEASE sign your comments.--RockyMM 20:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
First I think the tentative Aristotelic argument from above does not apply, animal category cannot be placed on par with "latin". Even France may be considered as a not Latin (even if on the contrary most frenchmen consider themselves). The population from the power centre (Paris) is mainly celtic and germanic (frankish). The language is latin, granted. But even worse is to deny, in case brazilians are indeed latins, that they are not hispanic. Funny. Hispania in ancient Rome covered Lusitania fully. They are not Spanish, for sure. And no, hispanic does not mean spanish (at least in latin languages ...). Please reming that still today poetically Portugal and Spain can be called "the Spains" (at least in portuguese)

I think this is an interesting point. The term Latin America is so ridiculous, that some are trying to force people who see no point in identifying themselves as such to do so. Most people who are interested in the term use it as a way to group OTHE pR people, primarily for their own benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Crumm (talk • contribs)

An Anonymous user keeps saying that Brazilians don't feel Latin American. I challenged that thought, and the user not only did not provide any sources to that, but kept going on his attempt to remove Brazil from the article without any bases. Mariano(t/c) 06:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I was just sharing my opinion. I don't think that it is fair to say that I "kept going on [my] attempt to remove Brazil from the article" when I not only *never* edited the article, I just simply shared my opinion on the talk page. That is hardly attempting continuously to remove Brazil from the article. I never touched it. I would also hardldy call myself anonymous; I don't remember if I had registered or not when I made the first post, but considering I responded to a comment on my comment and signed that one with my username, I most certainly wasn't anonymous. The other anonymous comment here was obviously not me considering it was a reply to my comment. Obviously, most people disagree with me and wish to include Brazil in Latin America; that's fine, and that's why I haven't exactly fought that or anything. I shared my opinion and most disagreed so the issue was over. Dan1113 17:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this section is indeed relevant. As a Brazilian, I can attest that basically Brazilians don't view themselves as Latin Americans but accept (or resign to) the fact that "by definition" others may put them in this box. So I think it's Ok to include Brazil in the overall definition BUT necessarily with the mention, at the top of the page where the US-centric definition is given, that according to most Brazilians, Latin-American corresponds to Spanish-speaking America or rather anything in "LA" but Brazil (again, Hispanic America is as wrong , as Hispania in ancient Rome included Portugal, thus Spanish America should be the right word instead). People seeking proof of this should only see companies with offices for "Latin America & Brazil". In general most Brazilians actually will challenge being called Latin-Americans, except for opinionated, ideological, left-wing beliefs (I would say 20% of the population at best ). Bottom line: while mentioning what LA means to (wrongly) to US (south of the border), it is fair to mention what it means (wrongly also) to Brazilians ("North-West of the border"). Mpbb 21:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add my tuppence worth - as a Politics Student, I am doing a course entitled "Politics of Latin America" and that includes Brazil. It doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong, but that would be the perspective received from British Universities.

Actual contenct of the article

IMO there's a high level of repetitevness in the article, and yet lack of actual content.
Languages spoken in LA has been discussed at three occasions in the article. At least information given in the second paragraph (introduction) of the article is redundant. This information should be moved into apropiate section(s).
The same goes for political definition of the LA. There should be a spearate section that should (try) to clear up what is and what is not LA. And my opinion is that Quebec IS NOT Latin America.
Speaking of politics and relating to history, I think that the article would benefit from more historical content and observation or two on current political situation in the region. It is ridiculous that economy section is lot bigger than history section, and all that because of a single table. I wonder if that table has a place in this article.
On the other hand culture section needs to be expanded and cleand up. List of painters should belong to ... list of painters. Or only notable painters should be mentioned with a sentence or two about their influence and significance. Other painters should be mentioned in their respective country's culture articles. And what about sculptors, modern artists that make instalations ...?
On the other other hand film section, although it bears "please expand" tag is quite good compared to other subsections.
I know it easier to criticize than to do actual work, but I don't have much knowledge about LA, and not too many time on my hands, and this points that I have made should be only taken as suggestions and are open for discussion.--RockyMM 13:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I read this article many times and also I followed the discusions. Here are my comments:

  • Considering the fact there are no consensus about a definition about Latin America and this issue is controversial, I think the article should be inclusive and explain all the variants: from de Napoleonic definition, a linguistic definition considering its paralell with Latin Europe, Latin American POV's and uses of the term in other societies. As someone said, it is important to regard that English language wikipedia is not only a reference for English native speakers but for non native speakers as well (english is today's lingua franca).
  • I think it is also important to emphatized the meaning of the term as a big framework to describe nations and country with their similar yet unique culture. If you think of Latin Europe there are diferences between France, Spain and Romania and there are diferences between Germany and New Zealand in the Germanic world too (if such definition exists).

Just for polemize: If we put in a broader definition of Latin America french parts of Canada and Lousiana, what about US? I'm not talking only about historical Spain colonial territories (Florida,Texas, California, etc.) but I'm also considering the fact that US has the 5th largest concentration of spanish speakers. baloo_rch 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with assertions above, but I see nothing in this opinionating that is actually sourced. That should determine the article content. For instance, I've recently tweaked the definitions in the introduction to hark of those in common English compendiums (e.g., Oxford English Dictionary, also see Americas (terminology)); I will add references. In any event: if any definitions are added, English or otherwise, they should be sourced ... something which this article largely lacks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
IMO This article lacks focus. I would suggest framing the topics around the history of latin america because that is what makes the article's existence worthwhile. When opening the page I want to know how the region's language, culture and politics have been influenced by the region's "latinisation". If we don't have this as a reference point, all the sections will end up being copy and pasted from the south america and country pages. Andeggs 10:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with this assessment: the intro should be general (with defs, as above), while sxns below detail ethnocultural characteristics of the region. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I made some small changes to the etymology section, I feel that there needs to be a consideration to the ACTUAL historic context of the term, rather than just have a section that deals with the gripes and issues that anybody believes are right. I am sure that the hounds will make me pay for these changes (in fact, I know a nasty retort will probably come from my friend Pluribus Anthony, who seems to have a strong opinion about every article related to terminology south of the U.S. border). I will be checking back on comments. And no, I'm not hiding, this is the very first WP article that I edit, so I have no idea how to set an account.--71.128.47.121 22:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Painters

Do we need the long list of painters? Or does anyone know enough about the subject to trim the section? Maurreen 17:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


History

The language is crude, at least in regards to the European conquest of Latin America. For example, the amount of people killed by small pox ranges wildly, even among the finest historians in the field. For example, there is not nearly enough evidence to justify that only 15% of the former population lived after the European conquest. Birth rates actually went up during colonialism, the sizes of cities grew--not because of European expansion, at least in Mexico and Central America--and archeological evidence points towards a large die off of people a few hundred years before the Europeans came in the 15th and 16th centuries. The European elites merely removed older elites from power. The Aztecs were also very despotic, so let's not try and moralize this thing to fit our 21st century ideologies. I agree that colonialism caused many wrongs, many of which exist today, but to be so partisan is rediculous. To publish in the form it was in would be horrible. Still, my edits might need a little grammar, as I am not trying to lay down the "law", but to remonstrate and correct as necessary.


The history section also has nothing about Latin American history after the independence movements. As the Latin American History page itself has little to no information in English pertaining to this era, I think that more information here is especially needed considering the lack of it elsewhere. CrashCart9 08:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the History of Latin America article badly needs to be translated. If you want to bring this section of this article up to date, you could use material from History_of_South_America#Recent_history and History_of_Central_America#20th_century.-gadfium 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The French text at History of Latin America was supposed to be on the list of requests at Wikipedia:Translation/_fr, but the request was wrongly formatted so it did not appear. I've fixed that.-gadfium 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Culture and identity

What people "identify" with is up to each individual, of course, but sociologists find that broad classes of people tend to group themselves together.

Those who regard the term "Latin American" as describing them well may indeed feel a kinship or "identity" as "Latin Americans". Whether or not Brazilians apply the label "Latin American" to themselves or not can best be decided by sociologists or pollsters. Let's see some research on this, anyone want to google it up or (shudder) actually read a book?

As for Hyphenated Americans, if people use terms like "Mexican-American" to refer to U.S. citizens of Mexican heritage, then that's what the word means to them. Others, perhaps, may insist that the "American" part of "Mexican-American" ought to refer to America (continent) rather than America (country); so that term doesn't work for them.

We contributors ought not to prescribe what terms ought to mean - that would make us advocates. We should describe neutrally how people in general use these terms. --Uncle Ed 18:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Most Brazilians, I believe, identify themselves simply as "Brazilians" rather than "Latin-American". Except perhaps for some mild form of "third-world solidarity", I would also doubt Brazilians in general feel any kind of "kinship" to their Spanish-speaking neighbors. Keep in mind that, although Brazil borders nearly all South American countries, the majority of the Brazilian population actually lives along (or near) the Atlantic coast , very far from the borders. Accordingly, Brazilians historically have had little or no contact on a regular basis with their Hispanic neighbors. The only exception perhaps is the southern border where contacts between Portuguese and Spanish settlers (e.g. Argentineans and Uruguayans) were (and still are) frequent. However, until recently, that relationship was one of rivalry (in colonial times, even confrontational rivalry), more so than "kinship". In many aspects though, Brazil is indeed quite similar to Hispanic America: its language (Portuguese) is very close to (although not always mutually intelligible with) Spanish; its legal system is based on Roman civil law; its economy, although quite big in absolute GDP terms (1.5 trillion US$), is nonetheless underdeveloped compared to the U.S. and Europe, and is characterized by large disparities in living standards between the poor and the middle/upper classes; and, finally, Roman Catholicism is still the dominant religion in Brazil, although the percentage of self-identified Catholics is somewhat lower than in Hispanic America (only slightly over 70 %). On the other hand, from other points of view, Brazil has some unique features that clearly set it apart from other so-called "Latin American" countries. In particular, Brazil has a far more multicultural and non-homogeneous society than most of the Hispanic countries. First of all, the native American/indigenous influence on modern Brazilian culture is insignificant compared to what one sees in Mexico, Central America, or the Andean countries. In fact, apart from numerous Tupian geographic toponyms and a few Tupian lexical borrowings into Brazilian Portuguese, indigenous culture in Brazil is now confined almost exclusively to a few remote and isolated regions in the Amazon and the center-West. Conversely, Brazilian popular culture has a very strong and quite distinctive African component as people with some kind of African descent (generally mixed with European and, to a lesser extent, native American heritage) make up approximately half of the Brazilian population. One could argue that, in that respect, Brazil resembles somewhat the Hispanic Caribbean countries like Cuba, the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico. However, alongside the Afro-Brazilian culture, there is also a fairly broad white middle-class culture (especially in São Paulo and in southern Brazil) which was originally mostly southern European/Mediterranean (Italian, Portuguese, Galician, Christian Lebanese) and, to a lesser extent, central/eastern European (German and Polish) in nature, but is now heavily influenced by Anglo-American culture. In that sense, Brazil, depending on your point of view, can be as "African" as Cuba or Puerto Rico, or as "European" as Argentina or southern Europe properly. There are also a few ethnic minorities in the country, like the Japanese-Brazilians (and, more recently, the Koreans and the Chinese), who are in turn a separate category in their own right . That sense of diversity and multiculturalism, combined with the aforementioned geographic isolation and differences in language (Portuguese in Brazil x Spanish in the neighboring countries), is what gives Brazilians their feeling of "distinctiveness" and make them reluctant to identify themselves with a generic, broad and somewhat artificial label such as "Latin America". Mbruno 13:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

English isn't descended from Latin?

As a native speaker of English and a student of both Latin and Ancient Greek, I protest the sentiment expressed in the beginning of this article that English is a Germanic language. I will yield that English is not a true Romance language, as it did not descend directly from Latin, but it is likely made up of more Romance language derivations than Germanic, some would say a majority of English words are from Latin and Ancient Greek, and at very least it is not to be considered Germanic. DougOfDoom talk 23:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

American-English or British-English??? :-) *jokes* CaribDigita 01:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Great! Problem solved. Everything in the Americas is "Latin"- except the dutch speaking parts.

Just kidding. Fine! English is considered a Germanic language as it has Germanic roots from the "Germanic" tribes (the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes)which migrated from the European continent to the island of Great Britain. The underlying structure of the language stems from this Germanic genesis. Although both contemporary English and German are very different from what they once were, this linguistic heritage is still used to describe the commonalities.

There are 3 primary methods by which English became heavily influenced by Latin. Although the Romans did rule England for a time, there are actually very few remnants of this in the language. Later, as Christianity spread to England, a number of terms entered the language- Bible, Baptize (which itself is of Greek origin, the word, not the practice), Pope, Bishop, Saint. There are a surprising number of words which were NOT imported, apparently because there was a sufficient one either already in use or a ready substitute (God, sin, Holy Ghost, Church) in the local vernacular.

The second, and perhaps the most enduring stems from the Norman invasion. This brought French to the royal court, and English has never been the same since. However, the bulk of the grammar and the structure were never supplanted by French. Most of the words absorbed were nouns and verbs, but the structure of French, much of it of Latin origin, never made it to English. Among these would be the use of gender in both nouns and adjectives, and the various conjugations. Most of the words taken already had a commonly used word, and this is a great source of the many synonyms in English, many of which have taken on their own subtle differences (example door and portal).

The third instance began in about the early 1700s and lasted until abou the late 1800s. This is the deliberate introduction of primarily scientific terms of Latin origin into the English language. Much of this was to have standard scientific terms among all the languages of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Crumm (talk • contribs) 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


No, English is not derived from latin, but from Germanic, that is just a fact. that English have borrowed words of Latin origin doesn't make it a Latin language. Mst Romance words in English are more used in "official", scientific, diplomatic or "literary" speech. But most of the words used in everyday english are 80%germanic; The struture and origin of the language is almost 100% Germanic. Above this, in Europe, the term "latin", when applied to peoples has cultural, ethnical and geographical conotations that English culture don't have at all : - A geographical situation and direct cultural link to the mediterranean sea, (settlments of Greeks, Romans, phenicians, etc) - Influence of mediterranean way of life : - food (wine, olives, etc). way of life linked to a warmer climate. mainly mediterranean-based behaviours. - societies with a catholic history and herency

To be clear, latin-America is the part of America whose countries have been mainly build on those latin cultures, by opposition to those buid on English and Dutch ones. That is quite simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabb leb (talk • contribs) 00:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I disagree with your statement above that the structure of English is "almost 100 % Germanic". The fixed SVO word order in English for example is actually more similar to French (introduced by the Norman invaders) than to German, Dutch or Afrikaans, all of which have verbs in final position (i.e. 0-V order) in subordinate clauses and split auxiliary verbs from infinitives or past participles when the main verb requires an object. Nevertheless, English still has some characteristic Germanic grammatical features such as the distinction between strong and weak verbs in the formation of the preterite and the past participle, and the formation of comparatives/superlatives of adjectives by adding the suffixes -er and -(e)st. Other elements of English grammar, e.g. the continuous tenses (I am working) are found neither in German/Dutch/Afrikaans nor in French, but curiously also exist in Spanish/Portuguese. Finally, English grammar has a few idiossincracies of its own that are not found anywhere else either in Romance or Germanic languages, like the use of the auxiliary do in interrogative and negative statements in the present and simple past tenses overriding verb conjugation/inflection , e.g. I knew x I didn't know. Mbruno 15:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Compared to romance languages and to the countries of latin culture, English culture are definitively a country of Germanic (northern European) culture. (Unsigned comment from an anonymous author).

  • Sticking to language only (as opposed to "culture" in the broader sense), I certainly agree that English is a Germanic language. A quick look for example at any list of the most frequent English words will immediately reveal the strong lexical similarity between English and related West Germanic languages such as German and, even more so, Dutch/Flemish. Just for the sake of illustration, take a look at the comparisons between English, German, and Dutch words in the Afrikaans and Dutch language articles (if you can read Portuguese, see also the excellent Portuguese-language article on Afrikaans) . I also agree that, unsurprisingly, English grammar shares many common features with other Germanic languages, e.g. verb morphology (strong x weak verbs) and the syntatic distinction between attributive and predicative adjectives. In many aspects though (e.g. word order, use of auxiliary verbs in interrogative/negative statements and existence of progressive tenses), modern English deviates substantially not only from other modern Germanic languages, but also from Old English itself (which was incidentally far more "Germanic" in nature, e.g. with V2 word order). Furthermore, although English lexicon is majoritarily Germanic, English nonetheless is the Germanic language with the most Romance lexical borrowings. Note that, unlike in German, Romance influence on English vocabulary is not restricted to "learned" words borrowed directly from Latin (which are abundant in English BTW), but also extends to every-day words borrowed from French as a result of the Norman invasion (e.g. danger, arrest, pray, please, table, dinner, gain, etc...). The lexical divergence due to Latin/Romance borrowings, plus different evolution in English and other Germanic languages of Germanic root words (which may make it difficult to spot otherwise obvious cognates), plus substantial differences in grammar may explain why English is not mutually intelligible with either German or Dutch/Flemish/Afrikaans. On the other hand, heavy Romance/Latin borrowing and a relatively simple morphology/syntax also explain why English is actually easier for a native Romance speaker (like myself) to learn than any other Germanic language. Mbruno 12:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What is Latin America?

I did some research and it seems like "Latin America" is a synonym for Central America, maybe including parts of Columbia, Venezuela and some other South American countries. I think this is the best definition of the area in respect to geography. The map should show the core Latin American countries in a solid color and the other ones included only sometimes in a lighter shade or even in stripes.

At the same time, I think Central America defines a geographic region and Latin America defines a cultural region. --Shawn 16:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Far as I know, Latin America usually refers to the region from Mexico to Argentina, mainly due to language and geographic continuity. It's all rather subjective as many Latin American countries are as different from each other as the US and Canada are. Tombseye 19:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see my comments on "Culture and Identity" above. Mbruno 22:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I read your comments and I agree.

Once again, Latin America is NOT defined by a US-centred geography or the popular mediatic stereotypes (like "something south of US, with tropical food and climate, rythmic danses and exotic mixed peoples"). This caricatural, almost racist definition would be just a little bit correct (with heavy generalisations), only to central America, Spanish Caribean and northern Part of South America. Excluding half of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and most of Chile of the concept (wich in reality represent an important part of the region, maybe half of it, wich is "latin" in the European meaning and not follows at all the "US latinAmerican stereotypes"). The definition of latin America is so simple, you just have to forget the preconcieved ideas you have about it : it is made of just two words with simple meanings : - "Latin", a reference to South European cultures of romance languages (Latin Europe). - "America", a reference to the contient(s) call America (North, South and Central, not just "U.S.A")

I'm not a fan of US stereotyping either, even as an American myself, as I've been to Mexico and Argentina, the two countries although sharing many traits also have vastly different histories and cultures (the former with a large Native American contingent and the other with a large Italian and Euro melting pot contingent). To most Americans, thanks to the media etc., the view of Latin America is one of homogeniety that is patently false. The further away this article can be from US stereotypes and reflect reality, the better. Tombseye 01:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe that confusion arises when people try to understand or define LA culturally-ethnically (even though the article doesn't do it) . I have heard many South Americans say they are offended by the term lest they be identified or grouped with the mestizo or Native American conception of Mexico and Central America, which shows how delicate the subject of ethnicity is in LA. And this can be seen in the Demographics discussions of every single country of LA in the Spanish wikipedia, even in that of the "European" Argentina where a recent genetic reserach showed that close to 50% of the population had Amerindian blood and caused quite a big controversy in the Argentina article.
I agree, the view that LA is homogeneous is false; it would be equivalent to say that Europe is homogenous. Yet, any non-European (especially non-Westerners) can easily identify those traits that make European nations alike, and without a doubt classify both Spanish and Norwegians as Europeans, in spite of the vast cultural and historical differences amonst them. LA is not a comprehensive and detailed cultural concept, it is, for the most part, simply a geographic, economic and/or linguistic concept, as it is used in business and by international organizations like the UN and the WB. Nonetheless, like European countries, LA countries while culturally diverse do share some common characteristics in their culture, history (without a doubt), and their economic development -both historically under the Spanish and Portuguese Empires, and today as less developed countries-, and therefore can be grouped in one multicultural entity. The cultrual section should be written in such a way as to define the multicultural essense of a single entity called LA, in the same way as one can describe the multicultural composition of Europe and even US.
I don't think "Latin Europe" is an appropriate equivalent. Latin Europe is a loose concept and rarely used; a better equivalent would be "Western Europe", in which the "common trait" was historical (after WWII), political (non-communist governments) and economical (similarities in their economic structures and policies); and it was widely used in business, the academic world and by international organizations, in spite I must add, of the differences amongst the countries (compare 1970's Portugal with 1970's Germany). In this case LA is similar and even a stronger concept, in that it includes the linguistic unifying component, in spite of their differences.
--J.Alonso 22:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Bravo, J. Alonso.
baloo_rch 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Latin American Literature

I have included the names of Carlos Drummond de Andrade, Clarice Lispector, and Jorge Amado in the list of "other notable Latin American writers" to make the list more representative of Brazilian literature (there was no Brazilian author on the list before). 200.177.26.201 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Discrepancy

In the beginning the article says that 20 independant countries make up Latin America and in the picture caption. However, later on there is a listing of countries with 21. I also looked up links and found that most said 20+ countries. Someone should straighten this out, and preferably put up a couple refs for whichever choice is decided upon. Strongfaithin1 22:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)strongfaithin1Strongfaithin1 22:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Western World

Is Latin America a part of the western world? I'm asking this because at the western world page this issue became a very passionate discussion.


Yes it is part of the western world, because it derives its culture from Western European countries as much ae US and Canada. LAtin America is not a copy of Europe, but US and Canada are not either and had African an native influences too. some countries in Latin America, such as Argentina have more Population of European descent that the US, why it would be not western ?--Fabb leb 23:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Chile is a pretty eurocentric nation... baloo_rch 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In the discussion in Talk:Western world we came to that European descent does not mean anything, for example, some European countries such as Belarus are never considered part of Western World.--Nixer 02:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latin_America/Archive_1&oldid=1144212075"