There is a lot of baggage with the name Latin America. First of all, North America is mostly Protestant- English. In the 18th Century they hated the Spanish-Catholics. (they still do). However, settlers in the US never got over the Spanish Papists either, and consider all Spanish speaking people Hispanic, (and not to be trusted- too many children.) This is like calling Navajos, Apaches, and Kenyans British. It is utter nonsense but Washington bureaucrats will fight to the death to protect their dearly beloved “Hispanic” appelation, because this obscures the fact that Mexicans are native and did NOT come from Spain. Spaniards were always a minority in the Americas, much like the Boers in South Africa. If Mexicans are Hispanic, the reasoning goes, then they are foreigners from Europe, not an indigenous people, therefore “illegal”. The continent is Latino because most speak a Latin-origin language, (yes, English is a minority) but let us not forget the millions who speak Aztec (Nahuatl), Maya and Quichua, to name only three native languages. In Guatemala and Bolivia the native languages are a majority. In many places tv and radio broadcasts are regularly sent in native languages, and the natives languages are taught in school. It is called America after Amerigo Vespucci, but it refers to the indigenous people. Americans are native, in the sense that Africans are native — not European-origin. A widely accepted term by native peoples for the Western Hemisphere is Abya Yala.
I have never seen such a stunning collection of nonsense in a single post. People in the US use the term Hispanic because they rightly or wrongly think it is what people want to be called. If they want to be rude they use ther term Mexican (regardless of where people are from) or even worse spic or beaner. It’s always hard to know what term is the current acceptable term. Is it Latino, Hispanic, Chicano, or …?
Do Americans hate Catholics? Just look at the Supreme Court, congress, and the current collection of presidential candidates.
And oh, if you want to complain about people being called “illegals”, then there is another term for people that break the law: “criminals”. Is that better?
What does Mexico call people that illegally cross the border from Guatemala and Belize?
First, a cite for the column:
Why do they call it Latin America?
Secondly, the point about “Latin” america is that it refers to the languages spoken there: principally Spanish and Portugues, languages descended from Latin. And “Hispanic” refers to those peple speaking Spanish – though it is ironic that people from Spain don’t get referred to as Hispanic, even if they speak Castillian.
And why would you be “calling Navajos, Apaches, and Kenyans British”? Because there isn’t a “British” language or language group. They might be referred to as English-speaking, however, if that helps.
Third, where does the comparison between Spanish in the Amerucas and Boers in South Africa come from? What’s the connection, except that both are minorities? So are French speaking people in Canada, and Xhosa-speaking people in South Africa.
And why does calling Mexicans “Hispanic” help in arguing that they are illegal? Just because they are descended rom the indigenous peoples of Mexico doesn’t mean they have a right to migrate to the US, just as the indigineous people of Canada or anywhere else don’t have such a right? And, indeed, calling them “Hispanic”, even if unsatisfactory, covers the fact that some are US-born US citizens, with all the rights of other US citizens.
I think you have one or two good points buried in there, but they are mixed in with some very strange arguments.
It depends on what Guajolotl meant by his/her original statement. From the figures in Wikipedia on “Religion in the United States”, a majority is pretty clearly Protestant. And “English” might mean English-speaking, and practically 100% of that Protestant majority is English-speaking. whether their ancestors come from England, Germany or even Africa.
Well if he meant it that way, then he is right. But saying that North America (I wonder if he includes Mexico) mostly speaks English is rather obvious and pointless.
Why is Mexican considered a rude term? Why is the word Mexican deemed derogatory? Are we viewed as inferior by the people that use this term derogatorily? Am I supposed to be offended? To me that mentality just shows the bigotry prevelant in the USA.
Don’t call me latino nor hispanic thank you very much. I’m Mexican.
It’s not derogatory if you are from Mexico, but may be viewed as derogatory if you were born in the US and your family has lived here for generations. Puerto Ricans, Salvadorans, and South Americans don’t appreciate being called Mexicans either.
Most people take pride in their nationality. But most people aren’t offended when someone mistakes them for a different one. Would you take offense at being called Canadian?
But you still haven’t explained why “Mexican” is considered a slur? You did say that the word was used when they want to be rude, didn’t you? So what is rude about it?
What he said was that using the term “Mexican” as a catch-all for anyone who looks in any way Hispanic is rude. And it is. See, for example, the byplay in the movie Crash between the one detective and his partner, whose parents are from El Salvador and Puerto Rico.
The rudeness is in not taking the time to bother to find out the real ethnicity. Kinda like the old “all asians look alike so you can’t tell where they come from” mentality.
Actually what he said was " If they want to be rude they use ther term Mexican (regardless of where people are from) or even worse spic or beaner."
Maybe I misunderstood but the verb “want” infers choice and then he finishes off the sentence with “or even worse…” in which seems he lumps Mexican along with stronger ethnic slurs. The rudeness is not lazy ignorance of different nationalities but a choice of how strong an ethnic slur one chooses.
BTW great anecdote, a movie screenplay. Get real.
CBEscapee, I think you’re taking that the wrong way. To my ears it sounds like DanBlather was refering to a specific kind of racist practice, that of deliberately ignoring or mistaking a persons country of origin.
I think what he meant by this was “If they want to be rude they use the term Mexican disregarding where people came from.” (I admit, if I didn’t already have some idea what he was talking about, it could be read the other way.) Of course it isn’t rude to call someone from Mexico a Mexican. But to refer to all Latinos/Hispanics as Mexicans regardless of their actual country of origin is offensive – analogous to calling all East-Asians Chinese (even if they’re from, say, Vietnam), or calling anyone of Muslim ancestry “Arab” (even if they’re from, say, Pakistan).
Of course, if it’s an honest mistake people should be understanding, but the point is that some people (at least in my anecdotal experience) deliberately lump all Latinos together as “Mexicans”, and all East-Asians together as “Chinese” and so forth. The thing that’s offensive is the attitude of “all you ___ look the same to me, and I can’t be bothered to tell you apart”. Of course if you haven’t personally had the misfortune of witnessing this form of prejudice I could see why the above statement was confusing.
But unless I was misunderstanding, the point being made was “deliberately calling all Latinos ‘Mexican’ whether they are or not is offensive, but not as offensive as using a racial slur like the one listed above.” Not because “Mexican” is a bad thing to be, but because the people who do this (at least in the way I’ve described above) are doing it to deliberately be insulting or demeaning.
Thanks tim314 that is what I meant. Furthermore, bigots often refer to American-born Hispanics as Mexicans, as though they were not “real” Americans. The bigger point, however, is that I don’t see much support for the OP’s claim that the use of “Hispanic” is a deliberate attempt of the US govt to disparage people from Latin America.
Yeah, the original poster makes a lot of rather badly unsupported claims, including but not limited to:
[ul]
[li] Currently there is widespread hatred of Catholics in North America.[/li][li] People in the federal government love the term “Hispanic” and will “fight to the death” to keep it in use.[/li][li] The reason “Hispanic” is used to refer to Mexicans is to make it sound like they came from Europe.[/li][li] All Hispanics in the U.S. are considered “illegal” (or perhaps he’s saying even Hispanics in Mexico are considered “illegal”).[/li][li] “Illegal” refers to whether they’re from North America or not, rather than any issue relating to U.S. immigration law.[/li][/ul]
To the original poster: If you have any actual evidence to support any of the above, by all means present it. (Although I can’t imagine what this evidence could be. Clandestine recordings of private conversations between U.S. Senators?)
I appologize if any of the above bullet points don’t accurately represent your views. If I’ve made such a mistake, please indicate which of the above points you admit are false.
Well, first of all, you are wrong. See his above post. Second of all, as to the movie, it is simply an example offered of the type of behavior being referenced.
Occasionally, simply saying, “I’m sorry, I misunderstood” is a good idea around here. 
I think they call them “prisoners”.
I agree! There is nothing at all derogatory about the term “Mexican” any more so than there is about the term “American”.
That was a really strange comment to make.
Not by itself, but like others have said, it can be quite annoying and a bit insulting to be constantly called a Mexican when you have told them you are not. It doesn’t help that people who do that then have prejudices about Mexicans and extend them to you (idiots!).