Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I ask this question b/c many indigenous ppl of america are called latin although they may not share genetics and may simply speak spanish while spanish being a small language spoken across south america compared to the various indigenous ones.

1. If language is the bases for referring to someone as Latin should a person be referred as an anglo once he speaks english and its his main language?

Rome brought the Latin/Greek alphabet which we now use along with pronunciations and new words introduced to the english language which I am sure is far different than its earlier germanic roots.

2. If it is cultural influence of Latin people impacting the indigenous people of the land should not the British and Irish also be considered Latin due to the Roman occupations and its introduction of the Catholic Church and educational system?

3. If is through genetic influx of Latin blood should not the Irish and English also be referred as Latin due to their intermingling which lasted over 400 yrs during their occupation in england and Ireland DNA showing a large percentage of spanish ancestry?

http://marie-mckeown.hubpages.com/hub/Irish-Blood-Genetic-Identity


It seems to me the Irish and English are more influenced by Latin Culture and genetics than those in America who are called Latinos and yet people refrain from calling irish and english latinos while using the term liberally to describe american indigenous people.

discuss

I hardly think racial/ethnic distinctions are based on anything close to a scientific interrogation of language, genetics or culture.

otherwise, wouldn't all europe be considered proto-Indian?

Originally posted by Nietzschean
I ask this question b/c many indigenous ppl of america are called latin although they may not share genetics and may simply speak spanish while spanish being a small language spoken across south america compared to the various indigenous ones.

No they're not? The "Latin" peoples of "Latin America" are the descendants of the Spanish, Portuguese, and French colonists. Natives are just natives, you wouldn't call a guy who speaks Mayan as his first language Latino.

The whole "Latin" thing is one of those crazy European cultural hatred deals. Indeed Michael Chevalier (who had the idea) did consider half of Europe to be Latin, while the other half was made up of malevolent Teutons. In the same vein he considered the Irish and English to be too tainted by the Anglo-Saxons (read: malevolent Teutons) to be Latins.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No they're not? The "Latin" peoples of "Latin America" are the descendants of the Spanish, Portuguese, and French colonists. Natives are just natives, you wouldn't call a guy who speaks Mayan as his first language Latino.

and english and Irish are also descendants of Roman and Spaniard occupation. so do we call them Latino or what?

some native americans may be tainted by latin blood but they are still majority native genetic wise. especially in places like Mexico. where about 30% to 40% are pure native and those who claim to be mixed on average share 98% match to their pure blood counterpart. (Mexican Genome project)

Originally posted by Nietzschean
and english and Irish are also descendants of Roman and Spaniard occupation. so do we call them Latino or what?

If we're going to follow arbitrary racial divisions created by a guy from the 1800s who wanted support for his cultural war against the Germans we might as well actually follow the rules he came up with. After all no one is forcing you to call anyone from South America "Latino," you can just say "south american" or "beaner" or be like my grandfather and call all of them "Jose".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If we're going to follow arbitrary racial divisions created by a guy from the 1800s who wanted support for his cultural war against the Germans we might as well actually follow the rules he came up with. After all no one is forcing you to call anyone from South America "Latino," you can just say "south american" or "beaner" or be like my grandfather and call all of them "Jose". what were his rules?

Originally posted by Nietzschean
what were his rules?

Completely arbitrary?

He saw similarities with the peoples in South America, who happened to have a genetic lineage to his people but without the pre-existing hatred that came with thousands of years of constant warfare. Consequently he felt they also shared a cultural similarity or at least could. The English and Irish hated the French as much as the Germans so they were out as Latins in his system, he considered them Anglo-Saxons. Farther north were the Slavs, who happened to hate the French as well.

Irish are Celts, English are descendants of Celts and Germans.

English is a Germanic language.

/thread

I don't want to say anything about the topic, I decided.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't want to say anything about the topic, I decided.


Therefore you must hate British people, which makes you a racist. And every racist beats up women. So stop being a sexist and talk about Latin.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
After all no one is forcing you to call anyone from South America "Latino," you can just say "south american" or "beaner" or be like my grandfather and call all of them "Jose".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No they're not? The "Latin" peoples of "Latin America" are the descendants of the Spanish, Portuguese, and French colonists. Natives are just natives, you wouldn't call a guy who speaks Mayan as his first language Latino.

The whole "Latin" thing is one of those crazy European cultural hatred deals. Indeed Michael Chevalier (who had the idea) did consider half of Europe to be Latin, while the other half was made up of malevolent Teutons. In the same vein he considered the Irish and English to be too tainted by the Anglo-Saxons (read: malevolent Teutons) to be Latins.


What about the Mexican, Puerto Rican, and other Latino people? They appear to be descended from Indians. Don't they?

English and Irish are latino? Fohh no. It is bull shait, in it, may?

Also what's this crap about Roman occupation of Ireland? That never happened.

And I highly doubt there's a significant amount of Spanish blood in the Irish gene pool just from fewer than a hundred stranded sailors from the Armada who didn't even stay long in Ireland.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Also what's this crap about Roman occupation of Ireland? That never happened.

And I highly doubt there's a significant amount of Spanish blood in the Irish gene pool just from fewer than a hundred stranded sailors from the Armada who didn't even stay long in Ireland.

Ireland really has almost no spanish blood at all...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Irish are Celts, English are descendants of Celts and Germans.

English is a Germanic language.

/thread

Dont forget the Viking/French element.
William The Conqueror, 1066 etc etc

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Dont forget the Viking/French element.
William The Conqueror, 1066 etc etc
The Vikings would be included under 'Germans'

Normans, if you want to be pedantic

Originally posted by Oliver North
Normans, if you want to be pedantic
Normans and Vikings were different.

Normans were the descendants of Vikings in Northern France, mixed with the French, who in turn were the product of Celtic Gauls and Germanic Franks--as well as the Italic Romans.

I meant William the Conqueror was Norman, afaik I suppose

'Norman the Conqueror' just has a geeky feel to it.