Yea, it’s not really a useful label. I’ve never liked it as it was always ambiguous.
Even though historians often rely on common language to identify groups of people - “Latin America” is just too large an area with too much variation to have a meaningful label, let alone one so simplistic.
Yup. I think a way better cultural description of the Americas would be 10~20 partially overlapping regions, disregarding country borders and the likes. There’s a catch though — some of those regions would necessarily, disregard the borders between Teutonic and Latin America.
And, like, language is a good “rule of thumb” for culture. It’s just that in the Americas you got a lot of exceptions, throwing that rule of thumb into the mud — the presence of forcedly assimilated native peoples, recent immigration, border changes + governments promoting genocide/patriotism/culturecide, so goes on.
Yea, it’s not really a useful label. I’ve never liked it as it was always ambiguous.
Even though historians often rely on common language to identify groups of people - “Latin America” is just too large an area with too much variation to have a meaningful label, let alone one so simplistic.
Yup. I think a way better cultural description of the Americas would be 10~20 partially overlapping regions, disregarding country borders and the likes. There’s a catch though — some of those regions would necessarily, disregard the borders between Teutonic and Latin America.
And, like, language is a good “rule of thumb” for culture. It’s just that in the Americas you got a lot of exceptions, throwing that rule of thumb into the mud — the presence of forcedly assimilated native peoples, recent immigration, border changes + governments promoting genocide/patriotism/culturecide, so goes on.