Is this discussion too hard for you? Maybe you need a nap? Let the grownups handle this. Name calling is a tactic that children use.

I'm providing sources (one from a sociology professor), while you're providing your opinion. You're just wrong.


Edit: And damn, you're just even wrong-er than I first thought.

>fifth, if you knew shit about the latino community, or even clicked
>around on wikipedia a little more you'd find this "The adoption of the
>term "Latino" by the US Census Bureau in 2000"
>Adoption. That word means it came from somewhere else. Like people
>saying we would prefer to be called "this" than "that" Do you
>understand top down vs. bottom up? Yes calling the area latin america
>can be seen as problematic. That is not the discussion. Many people
>have decided they are okay with calling the area that for now.

Adopted, from here (same quote in #150):

"
In its modern usage, the idea that a part of the Americas has affinity with the Romance cultures as a whole can be traced back to the 1830s, in the writing of the French Saint-Simonian Michel Chevalier, who postulated that this part of the Americas was inhabited by people of a "Latin race" and that it could, therefore, ally itself with "Latin Europe" in a struggle with "Teutonic Europe", "Anglo-Saxon America" and "Slavic Europe". The term Latin America was supported by the French Empire of Napoleon III during the French invasion of Mexico, as a way to include France among countries with influence in America and to exclude Anglophone countries, and played a role in his campaign to imply cultural kinship of the region with France. The idea was taken up by Latin American intellectuals and political leaders of the mid- and late-nineteenth century, who no longer looked to Spain or Portugal as cultural models, but rather to France.
"

lol, dude.