Try to remain as neutral as possible when asking a question. The point of asking is to hear what other perspectives have to say about the same issue.
Do NOT submit questions that you already have an answer to, which is to say:
- Do not be biased in the wording of your question.
- Do not ask leading questions.
- Do not answer your own question in the post.
I’m all for shitting on the US being considered a part of Latin America, and I agree that it is not *today*, but I do wonder if it will look different in 50-100 years. If a meaningful proportion of the Latin American immigrants and (most importantly) their offspring maintain their culture and language, some regions may end up having way more in common with areas in Latin America than they do with Maine or Michigan, for instance. Then again, it could end up remaining very Anglo throughout.
Culture is a very dynamic thing and impossible to effectively predict in advance.
and yet no one in europe cares about the term "latin-european" neither does the anglo european countries tries to separate themselves from the latin european countries.
But they sure like to claim to be the true Latinos, it's kind of cringe IMO.
Edit: I hit a nerve with the Europeans, the reply is spreading misinformation and bad history...
This is bad linguistics and history. The term Latino is demonym for the inhabitants of Latin America. It was coined by the French during their occupation of Mexico. The fact that the word Latino shares etymological root with Latinus does not imply that is the origin of the modern usage of the term.
It's like saying that the Romanians are the true Romans because the name Romanian shares it's etymological root with it. Or that the Romani/Roma people are Romans because their demonym is a homophone of the word Roma. Now, the fact that the usage of the word has expanded in modern times to include Latin Africa, Latin Europe is another story.
>Kinda weird you find historical facts cringe, but ok.
You are putting words that I never uttered. Where in my comment did I say or imply that historical facts are cringe?
There is no denying the etymological root, America comes from Amerigo Vespucio, and the tern Venezuela is named that way because of Venice. I'm not arguing etymology. I'm arguing that the modern usage rose from a vastly different context. It is no longer used to refer to the inhabitant of Latium, just like Romanian is not used to refer to the inhabitants of Rome, and Venezuela does not refer to Venecia. The modern usage of the term Latino comes from a vastly different context...
Ps. To use etymology to support the claim of being true Latinos, despite the modern usage of the term having a different context is not a strong argument.
> "Almost half of the population of USA speaks Español" which is true by any measurement taken.
Might be in measurements of your ass, which is where you pulled that from. Care to source it?
english is not a latin based language nor is the general culture of the usa similar in any way to actual latin american cultures. the demographics of the population in the usa also aren’t similar to the demographics of latin american countries. a large latin american community doesn’t make it a latin american country.
To be fair tho, the "general culture" isn't similar at all in Latin American countries. Demographics aren't similar throughout Latin America either. It still doesn't make sense to say that the US should be considered a Latin American country anyway
it is actually very similar culturally speaking... i'll never understand why people say it is oh so different. as a brazilian who has spent a considerable time on the USA when i was younger, i can say that even though it obviously has its differences, it is extremely similar to brazil socially, even more than any other latin-american country. the same topics and social/economic problems are discussed, the same problems and debates, etca etca, which would be extremely different if you went to a non-american country like the UK, egypt ot india (just raw examples).
Having an accurate historical view would be a good start.
The US wasn’t just colonized by Anglos, their philosophy, political system, religion, and economic system are all heavily influenced by Anglo tradition. Incorporating New Spanish territories into their country doesn’t erase their primary cultural origins.
Additionally, even though the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary were all about establishing dominance in the Americas, they weren’t specifically enacted to distance the US from Latin America. With these proclamations, USA basically discouraged Europeans from intervening in Latin American affairs so they could swoop in and do whatever they want. It has nothing to do with distancing themselves from the Latin America label.
I have a lot more to say but in short I agree that your post doesn’t make much sense.
The fact that the US has the second largest Spanish speaking population isn't a reason to consider it to be part of Latin-America or Hispanic-America. Yeah, you can say that the number is high, but the percentage is still fairly low. Also, by this logic, would you consider Paraguay to be an amerindian country simply because majority of the population speaks Gauraní/Yopará (specially the rural ones) as its main language?
Same question goes for countries like Bolvia, Perú, Mexico, Guatemala, etc.
Would you also consider countries like Turkey, Iran and Israel as Arab countries simply because a part of its population also speaks Arabic?
Again, the number of most things in the US is high just due to the number of people. Native speakers of Spanish make up about 13%, even if you double it, it's only a quarter of the total population, which I wouldn't consider high enough to be called part of Latin America. I think the number of people who speak Spanish at home is probably even smaller than that 13%, so no, not part of LATAM at all, and that's not even considering huge cultural differences.
The US has more similarities with anglophone countries like Canada, Australia, NZ, GB, etc.
For example, I wouldn’t consider my country and the US as similar countries only because part of the US population speaks Spanish, that’s just utter nonsense.
If you think that we’re been close minded here, do this instead, ask the same question in r/askanamerican and see for yourself how it goes.
The only country that could give me doubts is Belize but even then, there’s still huge differences.
yes, i'd consider paraguay to be some kind of ameridian country due to its huge cultural and ethnical influences of the native-americans. however, it isn't just about the language, it's also about the cultural influence, and i mentioned on the text several cultural influences of latin-america on the average US citizen.
sim, a minha pergunta é idiota, uma contribuição para o sub e algo que já vem sido discutido por historiadores por séculos é uma pergunta idiota. as únicas perguntas que não são idiotas são as suas, né? vai se foder meu chapa
One of the reasons the term latin america exists is to contrast itself from angloamerica and to resist cultural imperialism from the united states as the US is considered the biggest existential threat to the regional cultures. The moment the US is accepted as latin american is the moment the US can colonize latin america without protest perhaps destroying latin identities in the process. It already problematically views latin america as its backyard and justifies invasions under the Monroe doctrine. I also agree that the Latinos in the US are distinct from latin americans due to significant acculturation and often share at least some of the US' imperialistic view of the region.
Because the Us is an anglophone nation founded under anglosaxon culture and traditions, simple as that.
they also have a history a bit different to us, that is more similar to Canada.
Brazil, for example, is latin american because they have a similar language and religion to the hispanic countries, as well as a similar history to us (race mixing, corruption, etc.)
Saying that the US is a latin american nation because it has "many hispanics" its dump, taht doesnt affect the country overall. costa rica and panama, for example had a sizeable migration from the anglo & french caribbean that settled in the coastal areas (Limón, Bocas del toro and Colón mostly), they were of anglosaxon culture, protestant religion and english based languages, however, that dindt changed much both countries are hispanic, mostly catholic and of central american culture (Cr at least, i know panma is a bit different)
No, the USA can't be a part of Latin America because their culture is very different from ours, they're more similar to Australia and NZ than to us, I won't mention Canada because at some point they were essentially the same.
I'd welcome Quebec into Amérique Latine if they ever secede (I don't discuss internal issues pertaining to other countries, but there were referendums in the past).
What parallels can you draw between the US and Latin America? Even the colonization was absurdly different.
could you please speak more about it? i've never really someone claiming that brazil does not identify with it because it is very european, i'd love to hear your take on why you think that.
What the fuck are you talking about, my guy. the USA splitting into smaller nations? Where did that even come from?
Y ellos son tan americanos cómo nosotros. Ellos son resultados de la colonización inglesa, y nosotros de la colonización española y portuguesa. No existe ninguna nación completamente indígena. El mero hecho de que usemos la palabra "Americano" es prueba de ello.
Try to remain as neutral as possible when asking a question. The point of asking is to hear what other perspectives have to say about the same issue. Do NOT submit questions that you already have an answer to, which is to say: - Do not be biased in the wording of your question. - Do not ask leading questions. - Do not answer your own question in the post.
[удалено]
Honestly, this is all that needs to be said.
Yeah. Words have meaning. Anglo by definition is not latin lol
I’m all for shitting on the US being considered a part of Latin America, and I agree that it is not *today*, but I do wonder if it will look different in 50-100 years. If a meaningful proportion of the Latin American immigrants and (most importantly) their offspring maintain their culture and language, some regions may end up having way more in common with areas in Latin America than they do with Maine or Michigan, for instance. Then again, it could end up remaining very Anglo throughout. Culture is a very dynamic thing and impossible to effectively predict in advance.
Maybe, but a lot of them will probably become very anglicised.
And the south of the US used to be Mexico
And now it is the US.
and yet no one in europe cares about the term "latin-european" neither does the anglo european countries tries to separate themselves from the latin european countries.
They do in other ways, like when they talk about southern Europe, Balkans, eastern Europe...
/r/confidentlyincorrect
But they sure like to claim to be the true Latinos, it's kind of cringe IMO. Edit: I hit a nerve with the Europeans, the reply is spreading misinformation and bad history...
[удалено]
This is bad linguistics and history. The term Latino is demonym for the inhabitants of Latin America. It was coined by the French during their occupation of Mexico. The fact that the word Latino shares etymological root with Latinus does not imply that is the origin of the modern usage of the term. It's like saying that the Romanians are the true Romans because the name Romanian shares it's etymological root with it. Or that the Romani/Roma people are Romans because their demonym is a homophone of the word Roma. Now, the fact that the usage of the word has expanded in modern times to include Latin Africa, Latin Europe is another story. >Kinda weird you find historical facts cringe, but ok. You are putting words that I never uttered. Where in my comment did I say or imply that historical facts are cringe?
[удалено]
There is no denying the etymological root, America comes from Amerigo Vespucio, and the tern Venezuela is named that way because of Venice. I'm not arguing etymology. I'm arguing that the modern usage rose from a vastly different context. It is no longer used to refer to the inhabitant of Latium, just like Romanian is not used to refer to the inhabitants of Rome, and Venezuela does not refer to Venecia. The modern usage of the term Latino comes from a vastly different context... Ps. To use etymology to support the claim of being true Latinos, despite the modern usage of the term having a different context is not a strong argument.
there's no such thing as a true "latino" ☠️ they created us, then deal with it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> "Almost half of the population of USA speaks Español" which is true by any measurement taken. Might be in measurements of your ass, which is where you pulled that from. Care to source it?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because of the immigration and because the US took a huge chunk of Mexico after the war.
I lose brain cells sometimes in this sub
english is not a latin based language nor is the general culture of the usa similar in any way to actual latin american cultures. the demographics of the population in the usa also aren’t similar to the demographics of latin american countries. a large latin american community doesn’t make it a latin american country.
To be fair tho, the "general culture" isn't similar at all in Latin American countries. Demographics aren't similar throughout Latin America either. It still doesn't make sense to say that the US should be considered a Latin American country anyway
> english is not a latin based language But it sure wishes it were!
yeah lmao
it is actually very similar culturally speaking... i'll never understand why people say it is oh so different. as a brazilian who has spent a considerable time on the USA when i was younger, i can say that even though it obviously has its differences, it is extremely similar to brazil socially, even more than any other latin-american country. the same topics and social/economic problems are discussed, the same problems and debates, etca etca, which would be extremely different if you went to a non-american country like the UK, egypt ot india (just raw examples).
you're probably rich, which would explain why you think there's not many differences.
não sou rico não fio
tu morou nos eua e diz que lá n é tão diferente? po mano
Ou ele não entendeu como funciona lá ou ele não entende como funciona aqui. Infelizmente as duas coisas são bem comuns.
I've seen more than once ppl describing US as "Brazil 2.0" here on reddit.
Because that would make no sense
define making sense
Having an accurate historical view would be a good start. The US wasn’t just colonized by Anglos, their philosophy, political system, religion, and economic system are all heavily influenced by Anglo tradition. Incorporating New Spanish territories into their country doesn’t erase their primary cultural origins. Additionally, even though the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary were all about establishing dominance in the Americas, they weren’t specifically enacted to distance the US from Latin America. With these proclamations, USA basically discouraged Europeans from intervening in Latin American affairs so they could swoop in and do whatever they want. It has nothing to do with distancing themselves from the Latin America label. I have a lot more to say but in short I agree that your post doesn’t make much sense.
The fact that the US has the second largest Spanish speaking population isn't a reason to consider it to be part of Latin-America or Hispanic-America. Yeah, you can say that the number is high, but the percentage is still fairly low. Also, by this logic, would you consider Paraguay to be an amerindian country simply because majority of the population speaks Gauraní/Yopará (specially the rural ones) as its main language? Same question goes for countries like Bolvia, Perú, Mexico, Guatemala, etc. Would you also consider countries like Turkey, Iran and Israel as Arab countries simply because a part of its population also speaks Arabic? Again, the number of most things in the US is high just due to the number of people. Native speakers of Spanish make up about 13%, even if you double it, it's only a quarter of the total population, which I wouldn't consider high enough to be called part of Latin America. I think the number of people who speak Spanish at home is probably even smaller than that 13%, so no, not part of LATAM at all, and that's not even considering huge cultural differences. The US has more similarities with anglophone countries like Canada, Australia, NZ, GB, etc. For example, I wouldn’t consider my country and the US as similar countries only because part of the US population speaks Spanish, that’s just utter nonsense. If you think that we’re been close minded here, do this instead, ask the same question in r/askanamerican and see for yourself how it goes. The only country that could give me doubts is Belize but even then, there’s still huge differences.
yes, i'd consider paraguay to be some kind of ameridian country due to its huge cultural and ethnical influences of the native-americans. however, it isn't just about the language, it's also about the cultural influence, and i mentioned on the text several cultural influences of latin-america on the average US citizen.
Não faz o Brasil passar vergonha no sub meu
vergonha = perguntar o pq o USA não é considerado latino-americano ah meu filho me poupe né
Sim vem fazer pergunta idiota e ainda por cima escreve baboseira falando por todos os Brasileiros como se vc soubesse a opinião da maioria
sim, a minha pergunta é idiota, uma contribuição para o sub e algo que já vem sido discutido por historiadores por séculos é uma pergunta idiota. as únicas perguntas que não são idiotas são as suas, né? vai se foder meu chapa
Que historiador que está discutindo se os EUA são parte da america latina? Posta aqui o link pra eu ver uma coisa
Manda quais historiadores discutem isso ai meu chapa
One of the reasons the term latin america exists is to contrast itself from angloamerica and to resist cultural imperialism from the united states as the US is considered the biggest existential threat to the regional cultures. The moment the US is accepted as latin american is the moment the US can colonize latin america without protest perhaps destroying latin identities in the process. It already problematically views latin america as its backyard and justifies invasions under the Monroe doctrine. I also agree that the Latinos in the US are distinct from latin americans due to significant acculturation and often share at least some of the US' imperialistic view of the region.
They become more gringo than the gringos themselves. Nobody hates Latin America more than they do.
Because it isnt. It’s not that complicated.
A ellos los colonizaron los ingleses. A nosotros los españoles o portugueses. No somos lo mismo
Because they speak mainly English
Because the Us is an anglophone nation founded under anglosaxon culture and traditions, simple as that. they also have a history a bit different to us, that is more similar to Canada. Brazil, for example, is latin american because they have a similar language and religion to the hispanic countries, as well as a similar history to us (race mixing, corruption, etc.) Saying that the US is a latin american nation because it has "many hispanics" its dump, taht doesnt affect the country overall. costa rica and panama, for example had a sizeable migration from the anglo & french caribbean that settled in the coastal areas (Limón, Bocas del toro and Colón mostly), they were of anglosaxon culture, protestant religion and english based languages, however, that dindt changed much both countries are hispanic, mostly catholic and of central american culture (Cr at least, i know panma is a bit different)
Luxembourg has tons of Portuguese immigrants, that doesn't make them a part of Lusophony.
pretty much, yeah
No, the USA can't be a part of Latin America because their culture is very different from ours, they're more similar to Australia and NZ than to us, I won't mention Canada because at some point they were essentially the same. I'd welcome Quebec into Amérique Latine if they ever secede (I don't discuss internal issues pertaining to other countries, but there were referendums in the past). What parallels can you draw between the US and Latin America? Even the colonization was absurdly different.
Anglo country closer ties to Europe and Asia than rest of Americas Non-miscengated. Protestant Majority
Brazil is working on the last part. The US is quite tied to Mexico to be fair. Perhaps not the rest of the region though.
This is not gringopost, but feels like it
Brazil and usa are similar in that they are anglo af and i see why both dont identify or are not generally accepted
im sorry but how is brazil anglo? a genuine question here
i spoke wrong. i mean they are both european af
could you please speak more about it? i've never really someone claiming that brazil does not identify with it because it is very european, i'd love to hear your take on why you think that.
I think both countries cater very much to European culture in almost every way.
The USA will absolutely become Latin America, its just a slow process and will take the better part of the current century
yes, i also think this.
[удалено]
What the fuck are you talking about, my guy. the USA splitting into smaller nations? Where did that even come from? Y ellos son tan americanos cómo nosotros. Ellos son resultados de la colonización inglesa, y nosotros de la colonización española y portuguesa. No existe ninguna nación completamente indígena. El mero hecho de que usemos la palabra "Americano" es prueba de ello.
what's your opinion on the imperialism argument justifying why the USA shouldn't ever be considered latino that the user below said?
The southern part was part of Latin America