Latin culture
- Thread starter terence
- Start date
Latin-America is huge! We are talking about twenty-plus countries, all of them divided into countless regions and multiple social strata. Plus, the Latin-American diaspora, from North-America to Europe, the middle East and even Australia; all these millions of people have only their linguistic roots in common. Not only are all of them changed by the environment in which they live, they are also changing the societies in which they live.
A hundred years ago the term Latin Culture may have had some relevance. Not today.
A hundred years ago the term Latin Culture may have had some relevance. Not today.
miércoles
Changui
I agree with the point I believe you are trying to make.
Especially if you remember that the term "Latin America" was coined and introduced to common usage, somewhat deliberately and unnaturally (and cynically?), by the French as a replacement for the term "Hispanic America" in an attempt to reinforce the infleunce of French culture throughout the world.
To be fair, you can open your cultural umbrellas as wide as you see fit. You can claim there is a "latin culture" which groups together all nations speaking a romance language with Latin roots if you wish to do so.
A Frenchman can quite rightfully claim cultural common ground with a Portuguese speaking Brazilian based purely on the fact that a lot of the words they use look similar when written.
There are no rules when it comes to defining culture. Everything to which we are exposed as human beings makes up our culture; language, music, art, food, weather, clothing, television ....
However, terms like "latin culture" - often muttered in the same sentence as words like "passion", "flair", "fire and "spirit" - are overused clichés which kind of stretch a largely stereotyped point.
The portrayed image works well in adverts for Spanish wine, Central American holiday resorts and, dare I say it, Salsa classes but doesn't describe much more than a prejudiced generalisation, too broad for anyone to truly identify with.
My wife is Spanish and I'm quite definitely Anglo Saxon but she still had to learn to dance Salsa from a teacher like I did, she doesn't sing, dance or play music any better than I do, nor does she get more worked up in an argument.
Being from another rich EU country, she has much in common with me culturally which she doesn't share with someone from a less wealthy rural area of Bolivia, for instance, who just happens to have the same mother tongue.
Especially if you remember that the term "Latin America" was coined and introduced to common usage, somewhat deliberately and unnaturally (and cynically?), by the French as a replacement for the term "Hispanic America" in an attempt to reinforce the infleunce of French culture throughout the world.
To be fair, you can open your cultural umbrellas as wide as you see fit. You can claim there is a "latin culture" which groups together all nations speaking a romance language with Latin roots if you wish to do so.
A Frenchman can quite rightfully claim cultural common ground with a Portuguese speaking Brazilian based purely on the fact that a lot of the words they use look similar when written.
There are no rules when it comes to defining culture. Everything to which we are exposed as human beings makes up our culture; language, music, art, food, weather, clothing, television ....
However, terms like "latin culture" - often muttered in the same sentence as words like "passion", "flair", "fire and "spirit" - are overused clichés which kind of stretch a largely stereotyped point.
The portrayed image works well in adverts for Spanish wine, Central American holiday resorts and, dare I say it, Salsa classes but doesn't describe much more than a prejudiced generalisation, too broad for anyone to truly identify with.
My wife is Spanish and I'm quite definitely Anglo Saxon but she still had to learn to dance Salsa from a teacher like I did, she doesn't sing, dance or play music any better than I do, nor does she get more worked up in an argument.
Being from another rich EU country, she has much in common with me culturally which she doesn't share with someone from a less wealthy rural area of Bolivia, for instance, who just happens to have the same mother tongue.
Jones said:
By the very definition of the word " Cult " -=- a gathering of like kind-- with discernable tenets-- And you are saying that this does NOT apply to Latin countries ?--- of course they have been influenced by Western culture - but their language-- food , music, surely is intact ?.After all, that IS their culture .
Remove your self from the major cities, and life goes on pretty much as always .
Having travelled and lived for short periods in many of the S. Amer. countries, I failed to see any drastic cultural changes . The # of friends I had in the states. from numerous Latin countries, invariably spoke of the cultural differences-- even those from PR !!
And--" changing " their soc. ? to what ? and how ?--- I dont mean this to be rhetorical, I,m curious to know your ideas on this.
sweavo
Changui
"Latin Culture" is a placeholder for a collection of ideas and information. It doesn't make sense to tell people there is no such thing as it, or to tell them to stop using it. It does however make sense to explain things that allow people to refine and re-categorize their ideas in this field, e.g. like Nikka's point about the breadth of "latin culture"
Personally, I view "Latin" as applied to music to really mean (mainly Afro-European) fusion music having roots in Latin America, and the shorthand "Latin" applied to culture is really a New World term and does not apply to Old World folk like Italians & Spaniards.
This is a source of amusement as a local salsa teacher touts himself as the only genuine latin salsa teacher - when he's as Euro as me or Kraftwerk. Ok, not as Kraftwerk.
Personally, I view "Latin" as applied to music to really mean (mainly Afro-European) fusion music having roots in Latin America, and the shorthand "Latin" applied to culture is really a New World term and does not apply to Old World folk like Italians & Spaniards.
This is a source of amusement as a local salsa teacher touts himself as the only genuine latin salsa teacher - when he's as Euro as me or Kraftwerk. Ok, not as Kraftwerk.
Steve- I agree with you in principle-- but latinos I know, have a totally different viewpoint--
its the old chestnut-- are you british ? or are you english ?-- a distinction with or without a difference ?-- think the scots would have a very firm opinion on that !! ( probably the irish and welsh as well )
its the old chestnut-- are you british ? or are you english ?-- a distinction with or without a difference ?-- think the scots would have a very firm opinion on that !! ( probably the irish and welsh as well )
Culture [kuhl-cher] noun. 1. the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc. 2. that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc. 5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture. 6. Anthropology. the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.
[above taken from dictionary.com]
If the term Latin can be said to have a useful meaning in describing a group of people - which I think is true - then the term Latin culture too is a reality.
One can argue about who can be considered Latin, and one can also argue about what is true or real about Latin culture. Ditto for Latin stereotype.
Not every Latin has to fit the definition. Not every Latin has to like his/her own culture.
Hip Hop, Country Western, and Salsa music can be considered a part of American culture despite the fact that majority of the American people don't care for one or more of them.
[above taken from dictionary.com]
If the term Latin can be said to have a useful meaning in describing a group of people - which I think is true - then the term Latin culture too is a reality.
One can argue about who can be considered Latin, and one can also argue about what is true or real about Latin culture. Ditto for Latin stereotype.
Not every Latin has to fit the definition. Not every Latin has to like his/her own culture.
Hip Hop, Country Western, and Salsa music can be considered a part of American culture despite the fact that majority of the American people don't care for one or more of them.
The person that made the original statement, was quite adamant about its NON exsistence, so those, are their words --
it seems to show the divide that truly does exist, even in a" global " world.
I think from a personal viewpoint-- it is important that we recognise those differences and embrace them, rather than deny their existence .
it seems to show the divide that truly does exist, even in a" global " world.
I think from a personal viewpoint-- it is important that we recognise those differences and embrace them, rather than deny their existence .
El Caobo
Son Montuno
I'm not sure how this subject has come up in the dance section of this forum, but it is a very interesting topic. I've seen it discussed in other forums. The "Hispanic versus Latin" discussion is always very interesting. I have seen that there are Latinos/Hispanics who prefer one term over the other, and at times, very passionately so. On the other hand, there are Latinos/Hispanics who don't have a preference.
I once had an experience in college when I was discussing something with a classmate and I used the term Hispanic. He actually became angry and I didn't understand why. He went on to explain that he rejects the term "Hispanic" because it representative of Spain and he would rather be associated with the native Indian populations, who were nearly completely eliminated by the Spaniards. He said that the term Latin or Latino is not a perfect term, but he prefers it over the term that he absolutely hates: Hispanic.
Since then, I've met many other Latinos/Hispanics who feel the same way. However, I've met others who do not share this point of view. I think it has to do with one's perception of history; which we get mostly from family and school.
I once had an experience in college when I was discussing something with a classmate and I used the term Hispanic. He actually became angry and I didn't understand why. He went on to explain that he rejects the term "Hispanic" because it representative of Spain and he would rather be associated with the native Indian populations, who were nearly completely eliminated by the Spaniards. He said that the term Latin or Latino is not a perfect term, but he prefers it over the term that he absolutely hates: Hispanic.
Since then, I've met many other Latinos/Hispanics who feel the same way. However, I've met others who do not share this point of view. I think it has to do with one's perception of history; which we get mostly from family and school.
El Caobo
Son Montuno
Terence2 said:
"Hispaniola" is what the Spaniards called the first island that they ran into in the Carribbean and later colonized as their own. Hence, many associate the term with Spain's conquest and its accompanying evil.
This is a touchy subject for many and for some it is insignificant. You probably shouldn't be overly concerned about which term you use. As for the case of the guy who became angry with me because I used the term Hispanic, I just apologized and knew not to use that term around him. Since then, I generally use the term Latino, but that is just my preference. Of course, you are going to find that some Latinos/Hispanics will tell you that there is no such thing as a Latino!
These are 2 terms that can unnecessarily be polarizing; much like the difference between dancing On1 and dancing On2. There are those who are passionate about one or the other, and those who feel it's of no great importance.
Just for the record, and speaking as a cultural anthropologist, the idea that there is such a thing as "Latin" culture is absurd.
Ron Obvious
Son
El Caobo said:
Yes, well Hispaniola is the island consisting of the countries Haïti and the Dominican Republic. I thought this was a geographic fact, how can it be touchy?
SDsalsaguy said:
You may be a cultural anthropologist based upon having written a thesis on a small sub-topic, but I doubt that your position reflects the position of all cultural anthropologists. After all academics thrive on arguments and controversies.
No doubt there are academics who find large groupings problematic (e.g. placing Russian, French, English and German into a "European" culture or Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese into "Far East" culture) and finds the same problem with "Latin" culture spanning Mexico, Cuba, Argentina and Brazil. It's an arguable point, but I don't think it makes the terms absurd in my opinion. There will always be grey area of boundary no matter how small you make cultural groupings (unless possibly if you make groups out of individual people - even then you'll get people who will object to being "pigeonholed" into a category someone else defined).
Sorry sweavo, I was posting in a hurry so hadn't had more time to elaborate. Ultimately the issue is that culture (form an anthropological standpoint vs. the "high culture" model of art, opera, and fine dining, etc.) is about learned, shared, ideas, and patterns of behavior (e.g. Heider 2007). A key element to this is, of course, that such sharing is far from complete and is always "fuzzy." How much sharing makes people members of the same culture? How deeply do those things need to be shared? Are there some things that have to be shared within a culture? Are there things that do not need to be? (And so forth). Lave and Wenger's (1991) model of "legitimate peripheral participation" helps in this regard, drawing attention to the incremental and participatory nature of learning. Unlike a "society," which has clear and definite rules regarding membership and belonging, as shared ideas and behaviors a "culture" lacks solid edges.sweavo said:
Understandably this lack of solid edge is part of what contributes to the grouping together aspect of trying to describe a "Latin," "Asian," or "European" culture, but the "absurdity" I was noting stems from the numerous differences that are being ignored in such groupings. In the same way as we tend not to conflate members of different societies, the same is really the case for different cultures albeit with fuzzy delineations involved.
So is it true that there are some systematic differences that can be noted in the aggregate when looking at the populations of entire continental land masses? Sure... but there are also just as many internal differences that "blanket" terms ignore. Speaking about a "Latin" identity or experience doesn't work when you look closely and realize that that's like saying there's no significant difference between growing up Argentinian, Bolivian, Cuban, Mexican, and Brazilian (etc.).
Also, historically speaking, its important to realize that blanket terms/categories such as "Latino" and "Asian" are actually products of census construction on the one hand, and of political activism work on the other hand. In the first case its the political elite who are defining what categories even count, and in the second it is members of many different cultures who are creating a singular "label" so as to have greater political power and efficacy. Worrying about the Chilean-American voting block may not count for much in US politics, for instance, but when combined into part of "the Latin vote" it has power and demands political attention. Such efforts after a more powerful collective political voice and representation should not, however, be mistaken as a lack of very distinct cultural heritage and identity.
hyh, I think that my response to sweavo, above, explains part of what I'm getting at. Just to be clear though, I am not a "cultural anthropologist based upon having written a thesis on a small sub-topic," but upon haven taken years of schooling and training in cultural anthropology, read hundreds of books on the subject, presented at professional conferences, written published scholarly articles on the subject, and being a university professor who teaches more cultural anthropology classes than any other faculty member at my university.hyh said:
While you are undoubtedly right that there are probably other cultural anthropologists who would disagree with me, I feel confident that my position is the mainstream one within the discipline. Likewise, while you may be right that argumentation is a key element of the academic enterprise, it is not for the sake of arguing and controversy as your post suggests, but for the sake of deeper learning and understanding.
You are correct about large groupings being problematic, and much of that is because where do you then draw the line on how large you go? If its OK to ignore the differences between Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese, why not also ignore their differences from the Germans and talk about human culture? The reason is because the lack of specificity in speaking about "human culture" makes any statements rather meaningless (i.e. no more than overly generalizing abstraction), and this is really true of "Asian," "Latin," and "European" categories as well.
You do have a point that ever-smaller specification can be a problem on the other side of this picture, and various modern theories of culture speak to this issue in suggesting that each individual represents a unique nexus of internalized cultural schemas (e.g. Strauss and Quinn 1998). Still, if we look at where ideas and patterns of behavior are shared—specifically which ones (i.e. key vs. optional ones)—and with whom, we can begin to assess the fuzzy borders of cultural groups. Likewise, as I have suggested elsewhere (Marion, forthcoming) “cultures” are best understood as the largest levels of such sharing, with “sub-cultures” representing more specific share-sets beyond the sharing of their “umbrella” culture.
Hope that helps clarify a bit more.
