Latino ≠ Latin American

[OrthodoxHipster]

OPINION

As defined by Associate Professor of Spanish & Portuguese at Northwestern University, Dr. Dario Fernandez-Morera. Latino "refers to someone who belongs to the cultures of the Romance Languages, that is, those peoples whose language, and to a varying extent, whose culture, too, derive from the language and civilization of Rome, which was latin. Among these Romance languages are Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Rumanian. Therefore, all Italians, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Rumanians, and Portuguese, as well as all those Latin Americans whose language is Spanish or Portuguese (an English-speaking person from Jamaica would not qualify) are latinos. This last meaning can be found in the English language as well, in the English word 'Latin'".

In essence, Latino simply means Latin and quite literally refers to someone belonging to the people of ancient Latium, in Italy, whose language was Latin, including the Romans from which the Romance languages are derived.

Historically, the terms Latin / Latino have been used in a handful of international contexts. One such is the Latin Union (Unión Latina^(es)) whose member countries included the following:
•Spanish:
· Bolivia
· Chile
· Colombia
· Costa Rica
· Cuba
· Dominican Republic
· Ecuador
· El Salvador
· Equatorial Guinea
· Guatemala
· Honduras
· Nicaragua
· Panama
· Paraguay
· Peru
· Philippines
· Spain
· Uruguay
· Venezuela
•French:
· France
· Haiti
· Ivory Coast
· Monaco
· Senegal
•Italian:
· Italy
· San Marino
•Portuguese:
· Angola
· Brazil
· Cape Verde
· East Timor
· Guinea-Bissau
· Mozambique
· Portugal
· São Tomé and Príncipe
•Romanian:
· Moldova
· Romania
•Catalan:
· Andorra
•Observers:
· Argentina
· Holy See
· Mexico
· Sovereign Military Order of Malta

Another such organization was the proposed union of Romance-language-speaking Central African countries, the United States of Latin Africa (Estados Unidos de África Latina^(es)), composed of...:
•Angola
•Burundi
•French Cameroon
•Central African Republic
•Chad
•Democratic Republic of the Congo
•Equatorial Guinea
•Gabon
•Republic of Congo
•Rwanda

Though these organizations do not encompass all the Neo-Latin nations, they serve to prove my point: Latino/a (a.k.a Latin) is broader than just Latin America. It includes Latin Europe, Latin Africa, as well as the arguably unattested Latin Asia and Latin Oceania, etcetera.

Returning full circle, Dr. Dario Fernandez-Morera notes that "the word Latino now serves to categorize those people who come from Latin America, or descend from people from Latin America, where the spoken language is Spanish, but who are not happy with a noun such as 'Hispanic,' which is too redolent of Spain, a country to which many of those formerly categorized as 'Hispanics' do not want to be connected. This is the case, for example, of some residents of Mexican descent in the United States, who do not want to be called 'Hispanics, but 'Latinos'".

Nevertheless, it appears that the term Latino has been debased, especially in the U.S. where predominantly Hispanic, Latin American, bronze race groups have seemingly appropriated it, inadvertently and thanks to the U.S. government, and in effect denies those of meta-ethic Latin background from identifying with their Romanic roots.

Attached is an imperfect world map of the Latin countries:
→Latin-Countries-World-Map.png←

[Gallop]

Los pobres como les quieran llamar se tienen que conformar y como les llamen lo aceptan encantados, no lo entiendo.

[OrthodoxHipster]

Los pobres como les quieran llamar se tienen que conformar y como les llamen lo aceptan encantados, no lo entiendo.

Neither do I; it alludes me too.

[B01AB20]

OPINION


Returning full circle, Dr. Dario Fernandez-Morera notes that "the word Latino now serves to categorize those people who come from Latin America, or descend from people from Latin America, where the spoken language is Spanish, but who are not happy with a noun such as 'Hispanic,' which is too redolent of Spain, a country to which many of those formerly categorized as 'Hispanics' do not want to be connected. This is the case, for example, of some residents of Mexican descent in the United States, who do not want to be called 'Hispanics, but 'Latinos'".

Nevertheless, it appears that the term Latino has been debased, especially in the U.S. where predominantly Hispanic, Latin American, bronze race groups have seemingly appropriated it, inadvertently and thanks to the U.S. government, and in effect denies those of meta-ethic Latin background from identifying with their Romanic roots.

If they like to be called 'latinos' and use it, there's nothing we can do.

But I don't think we're affected by that. In Europe is only a linguistic group, not a meta ethnicity. Identities in latin derived speaking Europe are quite different and 'latino' here doesn't mean much.

[HannibaltheGreat]

OPINION


Though these organizations do not encompass all the Neo-Latin nations, they serve to prove my point: Latino/a (a.k.a Latin) is broader than just Latin America. It includes Latin Europe, Latin Africa, as well as the arguably unattested Latin Asia and Latin Oceania, etcetera.

Returning full circle, Dr. Dario Fernandez-Morera notes that "the word Latino now serves to categorize those people who come from Latin America, or descend from people from Latin America, where the spoken language is Spanish, but who are not happy with a noun such as 'Hispanic,' which is too redolent of Spain, a country to which many of those formerly categorized as 'Hispanics' do not want to be connected.
This is the case, for example, of some residents of Mexican descent in the United States, who do not want to be called 'Hispanics, but 'Latinos'".

Nevertheless, it appears that the term Latino has been debased, especially in the U.S. where predominantly Hispanic, Latin American, bronze race groups have seemingly appropriated it, inadvertently and thanks to the U.S. government, and in effect denies those of meta-ethic Latin background from identifying with their Romanic roots.

Attached is an imperfect world map of the Latin countries:
→Latin-Countries-World-Map.png←

This is strange to me because older hispanics generally ask if you are hispano not if you are latino if they were trying to find out if I was hispanic or latin american like them. At least in my experience

Spaniard are latino to me.
Just not latin American. Because spaniards are mixed with roman ancestry.
And by extention latin Americans are as well.

However africans generally arent because they generally arent decendants of them. They just speak a language derived from vulgar latin. Didnt even know there was a organization called such thing in africa reffering themselves as latin.

The notion that only italians could be latin is quite strange since italians were already heavily with greeks who had substantial mena ancestry. After greeks from greek colonies migrate into rome after being absorbed by rome, the romans are no longer full european/ italian european. And then they have substantial goth admixture and longobard and other substantial non italic and germanic admixture.
But many would have iitalic haplogroups still. Being direct decendants of ancient latinos





My haplogroup J-L283 in spain is generally associated with roman expansionism although I think my particular clade of J-L283 is most likely originated from sardinia and maybe expanded with punic migration I believe. On mytrue dna an ancient sardinian punic era is my most shared dna segment.

Etruscans and southern italians are closer to ancient roman populations than the rest of northern italy I believe.

[Incal]

There's always the theory and the practice. Whatever it might have meant in theory, nowadays Latino is short for Latin American in the practice, that is, the real world.

[OrthodoxHipster]

If they like to be called 'latinos' and use it, there's nothing we can do.

But I don't think we're affected by that. In Europe is only a linguistic group, not a meta ethnicity. Identities in latin derived speaking Europe are quite different and 'latino' here doesn't mean much.

Personally, I think that Latino is a pseudo-ethnicity whether it encapsulates all Latinos or just those from Latin America. Essentially, I bunch of people with little in common have been lumped together for whatever reason. That being said, language is probably the most important pillar of ethnicity. Indeed many meta-ethnicities are simply linguistic groups i.e. Latinos, Germanics, Anglos, etcetera. Identities in latin derived speaking Europe are quite different, as are the identities in latin derived speaking America are quite different from one another. I guess what I'm getting at is that the whole thing is quite absurd.

[OrthodoxHipster]

However africans generally arent because they generally arent decendants of them. They just speak a language derived from vulgar latin. Didnt even know there was a organization called such thing in africa reffering themselves as latin.

I've generally considered language to be one of the core, if not the most fundamental dimension of ethnicity. That being said, I like your rationale. You make a good point illustrating that Africans are not Latin descendants, something I would think's important.

[Mortimer]

If there are such organisations, it seems pretty real to me. I didnt know there are such organisations which are a union of many countries seems like the common wealth.

[Mortimer]

I've generally considered language to be one of the core, if not the most fundamental dimension of ethnicity. That being said, I like your rationale. You make a good point illustrating that Africans are not Latin descendants, something I would think's important.

True, I mean mostly amerindian countries like bolivia can they be considered latin by descent? I guess language and politics is more important. If there is a latina organisation, i guess it is pretty real at least politically.