I actually was waiting for Midknight to come back in de thread so that he could tell us more about the good folks at the 'institut' and how offended they would be if we left out the Brazilians from de 'latino' label. He conveniently ran to Wikipedia and got the first definition that suited his purpose, posted it here and disappear. And you...ever the willing parrot, lap it up like the trained poodle you are...and run with it "thanks fuh de education"...and yuh gone. Now we know how yuh get to where yuh is. Well as I was just telling someone else, what Midknight failed to do was post the rest of that article...or at least this part:
There are several definitions of Latin America, none of them perfect or necessarily logically consistent:
In most common contemporary usage, Latin America refers only to those territories in the Americas where Spanish or Portuguese prevail: Mexico, most of Central and South America, plus Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean.
Strictly and technically speaking, Latin America designates all those countries and territories in the Americas where Romance languages (i.e. languages derived from Latin, and hence the name of Latin America) are spoken: Spanish, Portuguese, and their creoles. Indeed, this was the original intent when the term was coined by the French. This would then include former French colonies such as Quebec in Canada, Haiti, Martinique and Guadeloupe in the Caribbean, and French Guiana in South America.
The former Dutch colonies Suriname, the Netherlands Antilles, and Aruba are not usually considered part of Latin America, even though in the latter two, the predominantly Iberian-influenced language Papiamento is spoken by the majority of the population.
Look at that...ah bet yuh didn't know de Quebecois were also 'latin americans'... and the Netherland Antilles...people from Aruba, Bon Aire and Curacao would also be latinos...according to a definition derived by Napoleon.
I could listen to that...or I could heed the words of a former college roommate from Bahia, who vehemently rejected the "latino" label. So who do we believe...Wikipedia? De fellas dong at de 'Institut of Latin American sumting sumting'? or Actual Brazilians?
I like how you who so quick to read the ENTIRE Wikipedia entry didn't notice this part lower down in the 'Etymology' section 
It is important to observe that the terms Latin American, Latin, Latino, and Hispanic differ from each other.
The evidence need not even be that subjective...today's Brazilians are in part descended from the Portuguese and it's from this that the reasoning to label them 'latin Americans' is derived. Except that the 'latin' part has to do not only with the linguistics of the 'romantic' languages...but it's cultural...and there is no one Iberian culture. Doh worry about it...Iberian is one ah dem 'know it all' words...yuh could go look it up later...then come tell we how Cristobal Colon and Amerigo Vespucci were really from de same culture.
I have no idea what Kaka identifies with...but it's accurate to describe all Brazilians as 'Latin American'...just as it's accurate to call all Trinidadians 'Africans'. then again, from the same source Midknight conveniently forgot to quote:
Sometimes, particularly in the United States, the term Latin America is used to refer to all of the Americas south of the U.S., including countries such as Belize, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, and Suriname where non-Romance languages prevail.
Indeed, in historical terms, Latin America could be defined as all those parts of the Americas that were once part of the Spanish or Portuguese (and arguably also French) Empires. Hence much of the US Southwest plus Florida (and also French Louisiana) would be covered by this definition.
Look thing...congrats, you too are 'Latin American'...ah bet folks on dey way back from Miami fuh carnival dis weekend di'n realize they left de country and went Latin America.
Maybe now Bare Ass can appreciate why "infinitissimal" was used.
When I see the direction this thread was heading, I just lay low because I doh like to get involve in alyuh shit talk. Ah shoulda know that somebody woulda consider it as disappearing.
B&S (nice choice of initials by the way), I not on the belittling small mindedness scene some of alyuh does be on. Berris interpret my post as a 'rough up' - is his prerogative, everybody know his scene - that doh make a accomplice in anything.
The only reason i brought up this is because I spent 2 years studying in depth the whole cultural and geographic sub region that we talking about here, and I doh like to think that I waste all the time I pass on Brazil political and econmic history. The 'Institute of something something' is the place where I get mih Master's degree so yuh could disagree with them, but if you are actually capable of it, I would prefer you show the same respect you would want in relation to the degree that you studied/studying for.
Now I knew you were confrontational - but I didn't realise you were BLIND-
The self same quote I posted INCLUDES 5 or 6 different definitions of the topic INCLUDING the one that you say I 'conveniently left out'
http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=31361.msg360741#msg360741I only highlighted the global definition for clarity - thats how its laid out on the Wikipedia site. (I only used Wikipedia because it has a clear format and is easily accessible, but the same thing is found in at least 5 different books of reference in 3 different languages that I could not possibly link to)
Now the point that everybody (Berris and yourself included) seems to have missed is that the term is by nature an ambiguous one. However, I find it strange that in NONE of the said definitions, is Brazil excluded from Latin American - your original point - and the one i was contesting.
The fact that TNT and Jca should or should not in some weird semantic twist be designated as latin american is not something I will dispute, because it is completely off topic. Its very disputable but as a matter of fact, it is this very broad definition that allowed me to do my master's thesis on 'race and ethnicity'
in TNT and Guyana at the suggestion of this self same institute of something something as opposed to being 'forced' to do it on Haiti and the Dominican Republic as I was initially informed. THUS the reason I posted ALL of wikipedia's definitions!
You could quote how many 'actual Brazilians' you want. I know quite a few who studied with me as well and enough people ask me how come I could study Trinidad in LAtin American studies, NONE of them ever ask the same question for the people doing subjects on Brazil.
In any case, all of this backbiting and spitefulness wasn't necessary, I just thought that posting that definition could have brought some thoughtful debate to the board. Obviously I was wrong. I suppose I in the wrong section nah
