Talk:Latino history: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>David Boven (questio) |
imported>David Boven (→Lead: Kirchners) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Lead== | ==Lead== | ||
The article starts out with "Latino history is the history of Mexicans and other Hispanics in the United States..." Surely that ought to say Mexicans and other Latinos. I haven't read the whole thing, but I believe that Latinos and Hispanics are distinct terms that should not be used interchangeably (at least among my Latino students).--[[User:David Boven|David Boven]] 10:56, 22 May 2008 (CDT) | The article starts out with "Latino history is the history of Mexicans and other Hispanics in the United States..." Surely that ought to say Mexicans and other Latinos. I haven't read the whole thing, but I believe that Latinos and Hispanics are distinct terms that should not be used interchangeably (at least among my Latino students).--[[User:David Boven|David Boven]] 10:56, 22 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
::that's a good point. But we can't define "Latino" using the word Latino. I think the common usage is Hispanic = Spanish language and Latino = from Latin America (which includes the Brazilians and French (Haiti) speakers who went to the US.) The English-speaking West Indies immigrants (Jamaica) are not considered Latino or Hispanic, I think. So our definition does leave out the Brazilians (very few in number in the US), and Haitians. Let's add complexity: there are milllions of people in South America of German, Italian and Jewish descent. They speak Spanish. If they move to the USA, are they Hispanisc or Latino or European or what? The issue has not been much addressed. (I would ask, where they live, who they marry). [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:35, 22 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
:::That's an excellent point, Dr Jensen. For example, the Argentine presidents Kirchner of the last five years are, I believe, of Swiss and Croatian ancestry. I'm not sure how I would classify them, and it might be interesting to know how they classify themselves (other than Argentine). Let me know when you get it all sorted out :) --[[User:David Boven|David Boven]] 10:51, 23 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:51, 23 May 2008
Lead
The article starts out with "Latino history is the history of Mexicans and other Hispanics in the United States..." Surely that ought to say Mexicans and other Latinos. I haven't read the whole thing, but I believe that Latinos and Hispanics are distinct terms that should not be used interchangeably (at least among my Latino students).--David Boven 10:56, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
- that's a good point. But we can't define "Latino" using the word Latino. I think the common usage is Hispanic = Spanish language and Latino = from Latin America (which includes the Brazilians and French (Haiti) speakers who went to the US.) The English-speaking West Indies immigrants (Jamaica) are not considered Latino or Hispanic, I think. So our definition does leave out the Brazilians (very few in number in the US), and Haitians. Let's add complexity: there are milllions of people in South America of German, Italian and Jewish descent. They speak Spanish. If they move to the USA, are they Hispanisc or Latino or European or what? The issue has not been much addressed. (I would ask, where they live, who they marry). Richard Jensen 11:35, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
- That's an excellent point, Dr Jensen. For example, the Argentine presidents Kirchner of the last five years are, I believe, of Swiss and Croatian ancestry. I'm not sure how I would classify them, and it might be interesting to know how they classify themselves (other than Argentine). Let me know when you get it all sorted out :) --David Boven 10:51, 23 May 2008 (CDT)