|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criollo people article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Since whoever tagged this did not start the discussion, so I will. The merge should actually go the other way, Criollo (people) should be merged into White Latin American, as this is the English-language Wikipedia, the English-language term should be used. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is the English-language Wikipedia, but the word Criollo is widely used in historiographical literature. There's a reason for this, Criollos represent a specific phenomenon in Spanish America's colonial history, especially it's Casta system. (Again, we could use the word caste, but that would lose the particularities of the caste system that existed in Spanish America from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries.) Calling historical Criollos, White Latin Americans would dump them in together with modern descendants of more recent European (Irish, Portuguese to Hispanic America, Central and Easter European) migrations to Latin America, and would make for a needlessly long article. "White Latin American" should reference "Criollo people" and "Criollo people" should focus on the historical phenomenon, with some mention of how it impacts contemporary society (i.e., how the identity of being descendent from Spaniards or Portuguese is used by modern Latin Americans).TriniMuñoz (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, well I want to correct that reference about the criollo flag mixed with the aymara flag, The Bolivian flag is the one that's going to be merged with the aymara flag: Bolivan Flag has a totally different origin than the criollo flag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
what is it
Wouldn't it be better to start a Lemma with a definition of what it actually is? I read the article and still dont know exactly what a Criollo is other than that they are some kind of class inferior to Iberians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Apart from the not-very-used (and ultimately inclusive of all Hispanics/Latinos) Bandera de la Raza I have never heard of a "Criollo" flag. It seems this needs more research. The phrase "criollo flag" in cited forum seems to have been misunderstood: "And there is a proposal for a new Bolivian flag. It won't be accepted at the end, but I like it mixing the former Inca banner with the traditional criollo flag." It doesn't mean that there is a "Criollo" flag, that is a flag that represents Criollos everywhere, but rather, the forum contributor was saying that the Bolivian flag was designed by Bolivian Criollos, and that the new addition was meant to represent the Indigenous population of the country. Nevertheless, I think that an off-handed reference in a forum is not a substantial reference to make the claim that there is a Criollo flag.TriniMuñoz (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Your understanding seems spot on to me. There is almost certainly no such flag, and if there is, an offhand comment in some forum is not a reliable source. So I removed the section. SamEV (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge with "Creole class"
- Support. Creole class is the more recent of the two (created five months ago) and is an obvious duplicate of this article. SamEV (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support. For the same reasons stated above.TriniMuñoz (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Criollo is not an ethnich group but a class in the Casta system - obvious merger.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Article is not a hoax
This article has recently been tagged as "hoax", "original research", and many other epiteths. Those labels are unwarranted. Most of the contents was gathered from many sources that are at least moderately trustworthy, filtered by prudence and good sense. It probably contains errors, but that is true of almost any WP article. The article has few references simply because most of it was written well before WP started to require (or allow) references. More references are surely needed, but they are easy to find by googling around. Please help by adding them, or at least by pointing out *specific* parts that you suspect are wrong. Merely tagging the whole article as "hoax" helps neither the editors nor the readers. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Does this article apply to Brazil/Portugal?
This article, and the "Criollo class" article that was merged into it, originally claimed that the casta system of the Spanish colonies existed in all of Latin America, hence including Brazil. It also claimed that peninsulares meant people born in Spain or Portugal, and criollo meant people with pure Spanish or Portuguese ancestry.
I an uncertain about the fist part, and highly skeptical about the second.
As for the first part, in my Brazilian history classes there was never any mentin of such a rigid caste system as the article describes. But, admittedy, that may be an instance of politically convenient amnesia on the part of textbook writers and teachers; or I may have slept through that particular class. 8-)
In any case, the Portuguese word crioulo does not seem to have ever been associated with purity of Portuguese descent. Rather it seems to have retained its etymological sense of "born in the land but of foreign ancestry" -- 'any' foreign ancestry. Then a Brazilian-born person with African ancestry would be a crioulo too.
As for the second point, given the intense rivalry between Spain and Portugal in the colonies, it seems quite unlikely that the Spanish crown would consider Portuguese nationals equivalent to Spanish ones for the purpose of caste classification. Perhaps the editor (or his sources) took the word peninsulares in the literal sense "from the (Iberian) peninsula", that is, "from Spain or Portugal". But in the Spanish colonies peninsulares may well have meant "native of Spain" only. Note that the top caste could not be called españoles ("Spanish"), because the criollos, being Spanish speakers and subjects to the Spanish crown, were españoles too. To distinguish the two classes of españoles, it would be quite natural to say españoles peninsulares and españoles criollos. Then the term espanõles, being quite redundant, would be omitted.
So, I have removed every mention of Portugal and Brazil from this article. I am ready to restore those parts if someone can point me to sources that support them. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Is does not apply to Brazil/Portugal. I'm a History graduated form Universidade Federal do Parana, and can assert that this caste system never existed in Brazil and "criolo" kept the meaning of "born in foreign land", with the more recent meaning of a pejorative term for black people. There was, in fact, prejudice against natives and blacks during colonial times of course, but it was never officialize d like in the SPanish Americas. And mesticos were much more accepted too (most of the Bandeirantes were "mesticos"). On the contrary, every century the portuguese crowd would issue a "Decreto" re-affirming that a crowd subject was a crowd subject regardless of color skin (this was a necessity in the Portuguese empire, given the small number of portuguese).
This is whole article is typical american centrism in action, the stupid notion that "Latin America" means Spanish America (I live in San Francisco nowadays and I can attest that, in practical terms, that's what the term means for them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Basic errors in the structuring of the article
Sorry, but the definition of the input is not consistent with the development of much of the article, since "Criollo" (as the initial categorization stated) refers only to ethnically Spanish people born in America, and not the full range of White or European descent in Latin America.
Pictures of "Criollos" in the article
Does anyone else find it unnecessary to have the pictures of people born in 20th century in the article? Even the picture of Jose Marti looks out of place in the article, from a historic perspective. --User:LoserTalent
- Those were added by Special:Contributions/184.108.40.206 and then Gael Garcia Bernal was added by Special:Contributions/220.127.116.11. IP even added Cameron Diaz, who was later removed. No sources where they self-identify as "criollo". --John KB (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)