The Katipunan, officially known as the Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan[1][a] (KKK; English: Supreme and Venerable Association of the Children of the Nation; Spanish: Suprema y Venerable Asociación de los Hijos del Pueblo), was a Philippine revolutionary society founded by anti-Spanish colonialism Filipinos in Manila in 1892; its primary goal was to gain independence from Spain through a revolution.
That’s why I call Wokeism a cult and make the analogy of the weaponized outrage at words and thoughts to blasphemy and sacrilege.
Or, for that matter, word formation. There are words that end in -INX but all are pronounced with a concluding “inks” - sphinx, and some much more uncommon words - and I don’t think “la-TINKS” is what they were aiming for.
I think it probably shares more etymological roots with SpaceX than any natural grammar.
I think there’s a better answer. LatinX. Clearly, hispanic people are actually Homo Superior - mutants. This explains why my friend Jose can shoot crimson beams from his eyes. I should have realized before.
(Hurries to get a quick message to Jan Bazaldúa to make a pitch to Marvel ASAP…)
The X in LatinX comes from the Nahualt Language which originates in Mexico and does have an X sound. It was first used to change Chicano to Xicano which was used to link people of Mexican origin back to Mexico. Using both Spanish and Aztec does highlight the combination that exists in Latin America of Native and Spanish culture. So it does not follow any Spanish language rules, but that was not the original point.
//i\\
Though I’ve never seen a Nahualt word formed the way “latinx” is (final x after a consonant with no vowel) – but then as in your example of “Xicano” that makes the word be bronounced “latinsh” or “latinch” which is not how it gets used.
Now I am curious if we can look up that having been the origin in fact (even if it were just some grad student saying to him/herself “oh, if we add an X we’re signifying Nahualt!”).
Meanwhile, myself and the majority of Latinos in the world having little or nothing to do with the MesoAmericans, and a vast majority of Latinos in the world not living in the USA, it runs again into the matter of a term made on purpose for the hyphenated-American environment not really sounding right to many of us.
Here is an article about the origin of the word Chicano which indicates the root of the word is from Nahuatl: https://www.jstor.org/stable/454588, but you are probably correct that a student (or a group of students came up with the spelling starting and/or ending with an X since it was a student group that supposedly coined the term (the Chicanx Caucus of Columbia University).
I also agree that for a lot of the people it describes it sounds incorrect, but that is true of many terms from different languages. When we try to describe a group, we choose what makes sense to us at the time of the choice. Which is why some words for foreigner refer to someone from a particular country since they were the first foreigners that that group encountered. Then as a need developed to say foreigner from this land, and foreigner from this other land, new words were invented. I think the same is true for Latinx where the term evolved from trying to describe a particular group and feeling that the existing terms did not do so adequately.
//i\\
Thank you. You see that’s the sort of information that does not get moved forward. Instead we get media figures and outlets giving it to us “just so, this is how it will be nongendered”.
Some may say “it evolved”, some may say “some people started deliberately promoting it” to extend beyond that to others who did not ask for it. But that’s not really determinant of long term or broad acceptance one way or the other.
I still find it mildly annoying, but qué le va usted a hacer.
In this particular instance the critic details what she thinks the director is overlooking, but even if she weren’t, it’s fairly obvious in a review of a movie that criticism of anything falls on the director. They made the choice of a work to adapt, they made the choice to change or not change any and all aspects of that work, or to explain why they kept something despite it being problematic. You seem to be saying “That’s in the original work” gets the director off the hook for producing/replicating problematic content. To me that’s nonsense.
What I’m getting at is that adaptations should only go so far in revising the source material. At some point, the source material’s problems are the problem of the original author, and not the responsibility of the adapting director.
I mean, it’s a good thing in a lot of ways to revise the Oompa-Loompas into creepy little people instead of literal Pygmies, but it would be another thing entirely to expect a director to revise them out of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory adaptations, and make them everyday workers from the community, paid a living wage, provided child care, etc… It might be PC, but it is IMO, overstepping the editorial latitude a director ought to exercise when adapting a work. The overall problem with the Oompa-Loompas is with Roald Dahl’s original work, and is not Tim Burton’s or Mel Stuart’s to fix.
That’s a perfectly fine position to hold. I see how that could lead to your issues with this review. I disagree with it though. I think a modern Charlie and the Chocolate Factory could make the Oompa-Loompas adorable little robots, or write them out and let the factory be self-maintaining, or just leave them out entirely. Unless there are rights holders to the original work who have a case for refusing an adaptation, anything goes, in principle.
Doesn’t mean I’d like every change, but then I can just … not watch it and not recommend it.
I don’t know if anything goes. Could Willy Wonka be sane, for example? 
Sure. At some point people will start going “this isn’t really an adaptation though, is it?”, but you could replace Willy Wonka for a board of directors for all I care and write a side plot where they answer “no comment” for 20 years after an industrial accident.
And in that case, or if there is something problematic that is integral to the plot, then you (the director, producers, and so on) are also able to pass on a project.
I’m not sure I agree with that. If totally overhauling the source material makes for a better movie, great.
Famously, “Jaws” makes significant changes from the source material; those changes make it vastly, vastly better than it would have otherwise been. Unless there is some contractual issue, a director’s job is not to be faithful to the source material, it’s to make a good movie.
If the director puts racist Oompa-Loompas on screen, it’s the director’s fault. No one is forced to make a Roald Dahl adaptation (and are the Oompa-Loompas really the most important part of the story? Why couldn’t they be little robots, as per naita’s suggestion? Honestly, I think you absolutely could change that and still have a solid movie; Burton’s adaptation had Oompa-Loompas and I thought it sucked donkey balls, albeit for other reasons.)
The essence of a story doesn’t require all of the original details. What’s the essence of Jaws?
- A shark starts eating people near a resort town
- Police chief wants to kill shark, mayor is worried about tourism
- Shark keeps eating people so chief and two other guys go out to kill the shark
You don’t need the police chief’s wife, bitter over having kids and living in a sleepy town, banging the marine biologist who just happens to be the son of an old flame, or a big thing where the crusty fisherman is using a baby dolphin to bait the shark and Hooper gets angry over it, but that is in fact a significant change from the book. The movie even makes a major change to who lives and dies. It’s still awesome, and all the changes are for the better. They got the essence right.
In the book and the Gene Wilder interpretation, he WAS sane. He was odd, but he didn’t look and sound like a meth-smoking lunatic like the Johnny Depp version.
The other day, I had someone accuse me of being transphobic because I mentioned that the Romance Scammer I was baiting was a character presenting as a female US Soldier, but in reality most likely being driven by a non-American scammer who is quite probably male.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s just a statement about statistical likelihoods, as an illustration of how scammers routinely lie about their identity. Maybe the scammer might have a reason to take offence if I made a wrong assumption, but I don’t really see much reason to worry about that.
Some people look quite hard to take offence where none is given.
Can there be too much woke? Sure. Every knife has an edge, every movement has a fringe, etc. Certainly the left is guilty of its rhetorical excesses at times, and I personally am critical of it on occasion.
But it’s important to consider the critique in context and in proportion. I have zero worries about people who are over-obsessed about portrayal of marginalized people in film, I have no detectable worry over white actors being replaced in traditionally white roles.
By contrast I am quite worried about what happens when right-wing rhetoric gets excessive… it goads a group of murderous lunatics into the Capitol to kill people and subvert Constitutional governmental processes. It goads people to spurn lifesaving vaccines in favor of some bullshit from the feed & seed store.
So yes, the left can get excessive a times, but I have zero pearls to clutch or fucks to give when I consider what the murderous lunatic fringe on the right is up to. The wokies might make me roll my eyes sometimes, but the right-wing crazies almost have me shopping for firearms at this point.