8 ms·

Seriously, who say Latinx? We talk now about Withex, Axians or Blacus?

proc0 5y ago
The same people who think they are saving the world, and then do so by imposing their views and changing other cultures' languages.
vmception 5y ago
It is a distinctly a US term There is an articulable enough reason that requires history to know why people would gravitate to that term, now, and why it is not the end all be all of consensus. Basically, somewhat unlike White, Asian and Black, there are no specific phenotypes or looks that encompass people from Latin America. And Latin America doesn't encompass all parts all of the other Americas or the Caribbean, to all people depending on who you ask. So since A) White, Asian and Black people can be from Latin America, plus B) People can be from other parts of the Americas that are not always considered part of Latin America C) The United States lacks a shorthand to address that population who lacks an adequate form of representation within the United States then D) some people that want to signal that willingness to acknowledge these realities as Latinx. But yes, it can be ignorable as it doesn't reflect the wishes of people with heritage from Central and South America and some parts of the Caribbean, but understand that perspective too is because many people from any distinct country in Latin America don't come from a diverse place to begin with as its mostly just their countrypeople with its own unique phenotypes (or not giving representation or to other people in a caste system), whereas in the US there already is a history of grouping people by race for better or for worse for any reason, and the idea falls apart fastest when it comes to Hispanic or Latin America groupings. White, Asian and Black terms have the same problems when you dive deep enough into it, but the history of migration to the US by those groups makes it easier to ignore that for those groups. For example, if 25%+ of our Asian population had stopped in Peru for a few hundred years before coming to the US, then yeah we actually might be saying something like Axian by now, and there are many people who do wish for more nuanced representation.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > There is an articulable enough reason that requires history to know why people would gravitate to that term, now, and why it is not the end all be all of consensus. Are people really "gravitating" to it, though? All we hear about as of late is the Latinx folks who refuse to endorse it. It seems to be mostly the product of a vocal minority, pushing for a sort of cultural appropriation of actual 'Latinx' identities. > whereas in the US there already is a history of grouping people by race for better or for worse, Come on, are we seriously arguing that Latin America, of all places, does not have a centuries-long problematic history of grouping people by race? Where do you think all those funny words like "quadroon" and "octoroon" were imported from? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta Latin America is the best existing case study for the reality and long-run societal consequences of structural and institutional racism, far more so than the U.S. !
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - vmception 5y ago
    > Come on, are we seriously arguing that Latin America, of all places, does not have a centuries-long problematic history of grouping people by race? Nobody is arguing that, its more about non-"latinx" people in the US not being able to tell and not know and picking a term for people, alongside some of this generation's US residents that have latin american heritage that aren't represented adequately also picking the term, specifically to not perpetuate a caste system. I'm saying that the folly of the term is that it masquarades as representation of central and south america when its just for some US residents that want amorphous representation. It doesn't really factor in what the other US residents with the same heritage think, and it doesn't factor in the history of the places they came from. Its not a factor at all.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  The correct name is latinos (or latinoamericanos), not latinx. Easier to remember, easier to write, more precise (you can talk about latinos or latinas, with latinx the difference is lost) and everybody was happy with it. Latinx is clearly derogatory. Is like choosing to call 'japos' to japanese in 2022. Or like choosing to use 'blacky' to refer to blacks in 2022. Is ideological and insulting and speaks volumes of the people using it.

The same people who think they are saving the world, and then do so by imposing their views and changing other cultures' languages.

vmception 5y ago

It is a distinctly a US term There is an articulable enough reason that requires history to know why people would gravitate to that term, now, and why it is not the end all be all of consensus. Basically, somewhat unlike White, Asian and Black, there are no specific phenotypes or looks that encompass people from Latin America. And Latin America doesn't encompass all parts all of the other Americas or the Caribbean, to all people depending on who you ask. So since A) White, Asian and Black people can be from Latin America, plus B) People can be from other parts of the Americas that are not always considered part of Latin America C) The United States lacks a shorthand to address that population who lacks an adequate form of representation within the United States then D) some people that want to signal that willingness to acknowledge these realities as Latinx. But yes, it can be ignorable as it doesn't reflect the wishes of people with heritage from Central and South America and some parts of the Caribbean, but understand that perspective too is because many people from any distinct country in Latin America don't come from a diverse place to begin with as its mostly just their countrypeople with its own unique phenotypes (or not giving representation or to other people in a caste system), whereas in the US there already is a history of grouping people by race for better or for worse for any reason, and the idea falls apart fastest when it comes to Hispanic or Latin America groupings. White, Asian and Black terms have the same problems when you dive deep enough into it, but the history of migration to the US by those groups makes it easier to ignore that for those groups. For example, if 25%+ of our Asian population had stopped in Peru for a few hundred years before coming to the US, then yeah we actually might be saying something like Axian by now, and there are many people who do wish for more nuanced representation.

zozbot234 5y ago
> There is an articulable enough reason that requires history to know why people would gravitate to that term, now, and why it is not the end all be all of consensus. Are people really "gravitating" to it, though? All we hear about as of late is the Latinx folks who refuse to endorse it. It seems to be mostly the product of a vocal minority, pushing for a sort of cultural appropriation of actual 'Latinx' identities. > whereas in the US there already is a history of grouping people by race for better or for worse, Come on, are we seriously arguing that Latin America, of all places, does not have a centuries-long problematic history of grouping people by race? Where do you think all those funny words like "quadroon" and "octoroon" were imported from? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta Latin America is the best existing case study for the reality and long-run societal consequences of structural and institutional racism, far more so than the U.S. !
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vmception 5y ago
  > Come on, are we seriously arguing that Latin America, of all places, does not have a centuries-long problematic history of grouping people by race? Nobody is arguing that, its more about non-"latinx" people in the US not being able to tell and not know and picking a term for people, alongside some of this generation's US residents that have latin american heritage that aren't represented adequately also picking the term, specifically to not perpetuate a caste system. I'm saying that the folly of the term is that it masquarades as representation of central and south america when its just for some US residents that want amorphous representation. It doesn't really factor in what the other US residents with the same heritage think, and it doesn't factor in the history of the places they came from. Its not a factor at all.
pvaldes 5y ago
The correct name is latinos (or latinoamericanos), not latinx. Easier to remember, easier to write, more precise (you can talk about latinos or latinas, with latinx the difference is lost) and everybody was happy with it. Latinx is clearly derogatory. Is like choosing to call 'japos' to japanese in 2022. Or like choosing to use 'blacky' to refer to blacks in 2022. Is ideological and insulting and speaks volumes of the people using it.