Talk:Latin Americans

Collage proposal

File:Latinoamericanos.png

1st row: Garcilaso de la Vega, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, Porfirio Díaz
2nd row: María Montez, Emiliano Zapata, Eva Perón
3rd row: Gilberto Gil, Rigoberta Menchú, Evo Morales
4th row: Piedad Córdoba, Kaká, Taís Araújo

I've composed this collage proposal, trying to roughly respect national, ethnic and gender proportionalities:

National: 3 Mexicans, 3 Brazilians, 1 Peruvian, 1 Bolivian, 1 Dominican, 1 Colombian, 1 Argentine, 1 Guatemalan

Ethnic: 4 White Latin American, 3 Mestizo, 3 Afro Latin American, 2 Amerindian

Gender: 6 women, 6 men

Please, help improve this collage so we can have an illustration for the article. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 20:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

New Collage Proposal

File:Latinoamericanos2.png

1st row: Garcilaso de la Vega, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, Julio Argentino Roca, Michelle Bachelet
2nd row: María Montez, Emiliano Zapata, Sylvia del Villard, Benito Juárez
3rd row: Gilberto Gil, Rigoberta Menchú, Evo Morales, Daniele Suzuki
4th row: Piedad Córdoba, Kaká, Taís Araújo, Rafael Correa

New Proposal:

National: 4 Brazilians, 3 Mexicans, 1 Colombian, 1 Argentine, 1 Peruvian, 1 Chilean, 1 Ecuatorian, 1 Guatemalan, 1 Bolivian, 1 Dominican, 1 Puerto Rican

Ethnic: 5 White Latin American, 4 Afro Latin American, 3 Mestizo, 3 Amerindian, 1 Asian Latin American

I'll wait for more opinions. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the newer better. I propose you add some more, to at least 20 individuals.

Did you arrange them that way on purpose? I notice that one row is entirely non-white in both proposals (Gil, Menchú, Morales, Suzuki). I think we should mix them up. SamEV (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Haiti?

Why isn't Haiti here? Haiti speaks French, so it can't be part of Anglo America, and by pure definition of Latin America, it is part of Latin America. And some mention of Quebec must be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.13.221 (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to research that in some considerable depth and will have a response by this weekend, though I hope sooner. SamEV (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, won't be this weekend. Still researching it. Sorry. SamEV (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: Not yet.

BTW, I chose to do this because I'd been meaning to for years. I figured that if I committed to it, publicly, I might follow through, finally. We shall see if I do. SamEV (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Belize?

Should Belize also be added here? After all, they use Spanish as a recognized language, even though English is official. And the people of Belize are more similar to Latin Americans per se than Anglo Americans.--Fernirm (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mexico is not indomestizo/indigenous in general population or culture.

Pages 13 & 15 of the source that states Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, & Guatemala as indigenous/indomestizo countries does NOT include Mexico, Mexico is specifically included in the "mestizo" nations. And Mexico cannot be thought of as an indigenous nation, given the fact that it has the largest mestizo population in Latin America. Its culture is mixed, for example: only 5.4% of Mexicans speak an indigenous language, while most of those 5.4% also speak Spanish, and the rest of the 94.6% of the Mexicans don't speak a Native language, but they speak Spanish (a Euro language); Mexican cuisine is a fusion of different cultures, predominantly Spanish & Indigenous, (good example: tacos are a fusion of indigenous maize and European beef/chicken); many Mexican traditions originate from Spanish ones or are culturally between Spanish & Indigenous; the grand majority of Mexicans adhere to Roman Catholicism, not an indigenous religion. So in almost every way, shape, and form, Mexico is clearly mestizo, so I don't know why it would be considered "indigenous" when the great majority of its people, culture, gastronomy, language, traditions, religion, etc. are all mestizo in origin (or sometimes even solely European), and not indigenous. Bolivia & Guatemala are majority indigenous, indigenous is the largest majority group in Peru, & natives make almost the biggest group in Ecuador, but what about Mexico? Mexico's majority is mestizo, not indigenous, and most estimates put indigenous Mexicans to be between 10-14% of the Mexican population, even the CIA's 30% is still too low (it's like calling Venezuela a "white country" just because 30% of its people are white and most of the rest of the population are partially white.) While I would have liked to see more countries in the Americas to be more indigenous, I think that it's just simply wrong to deny the European/Spanish part of Mexico, because it would be like denying the indigenous side of Mexico and saying Mexico is a "white country", given that the white/partial white population combined reach up to 85.5% of the Mexicans, which is 1.5% higher than the indigenous/partial indigenous combined population (these are the stats from the ethnicity table of the article).--Fernirm (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are undoubtely right in your argument, Fernirm, but the source by Larraín does not state what you say. At least not on the pages you mention. But I'm sure you can easily get some verifiable reliable sources to support and reference your argument in the article. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I clicked the wrong source, but the source I clicked on said on pages 13 & 15 that four indomestizo countries are Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, & Guatemala. While Mexico was classified as mestizo. This is the source I clicked on (I believe) -<http://convergencia.uaemex.mx/rev38/38pdf/LIZCANO.pdf> , check pages 13 & 15 (the source has 48 pages).-Fernirm (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Lizcano is the source for the table above. The reference for the line we are discussing is from Larraín (ref Nr 36). The clasification is from Mario Sambarino (himself based on D. Ribeiro), and it is cited on pages 3 & 4 in Larraín. Find another realiable source to support your argumentation, and maybe we'll find a way to introduce it in some place. For further editions, take into account that the info that is sourced should represent what the sources say. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose we replace Mario Sambarino's classifications with Lizcano's classifications (given that Sambarino is just copying Ribeiro) and Lizcano is more precise. Saying that Mexico is indigenous and comparing it to REAL Indigenous countries seems wierd and unprofessional in this page and would be like comparing and grouping Venezuela with Argentina and Uruguay. We should be more open, and, if we have Lizcano for the ethnic compostion, then why not for the classification?--Fernirm (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Lizcano is giving an ethnic panorama, and he is already widely mentioned in this article. The paragraph incluiding Riberiro's classification, and Sambarino's, is focused more on cultural identity. At least Ribeiro's is a consistent clasification, which of course takes into account the post-Revolutionary Mestizo identity of Mexico, but underlines the indigenous component in it. Anyway, as the end of the same paragraph states, Ribeiro's classification is grossly approximative and changes substantially if you look at subnational regions. I'd propose that we expand this paragrpah into a new section (ethno-culture), adding other approaches to the subject. But I'd preserve the current info, as it is probably the best developed comprehensive comparative study on the subject across the region (Case studies may be far more accurate, but it would be a lot more difficult to establish valid comparisions cross-national). Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, actually Larraín says that Sambarino bases his classification (not his study -he is not "copying") on a classification by some Elman Service. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Fernirm. Mexico's 13% of indigenous people and 70% of mestizos are missrepresented in the work of Ribeiro. And if you are talking about cultural classification that is even more wrong, since Mexico's culture is a mixture of Catholic Spanish traditions and some native american elements, which is a mestizo culture (mixed culture). I think that must mean something. Promoting Ribeiro's work that so hard is opposite to Mexico's reality seems a little harsh. I think Lizcano should be used, or other author. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's always bothered me, too, since I saw that content at the Latin America article.

A solution might be to clarify that despite the Service-Sambarino classification, most or all sources show Mexico to be a majority mestizo country. SamEV (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism

Buddhism should be mentioned in this article. 67.175.103.146 (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)