So I think that Latinos = Spanish/Portuguese folks from the Americas and Hispanic = those same folks plus the two European nations. All the other European "Latins" (such as the Italians, Romanians, French, etc.) are excluded.
So, let's assume that the definitions, as I understand them, are correct: if you're born (or have ancestry from) any Latin American nation, then you're a Latino.
But as soon as we examine this uniquely American ethnic label, it falls apart. Never mind if your parents were born in Japan and immigrated to some South American nation (there are more Japanese immigrants in South America than in the US), or born in Wales and immigrated to Argentina (there are more people of Welsh ancestry in Argentina than in Wales). Or my personal favorite, the millions of Native American tribes south of the border, who find themselves labeled as "Latinos" in the US instead of Maya, or Inca, or whatever Native American nation they truly belong to.
But that is another issue which reveals spectacular cultural ignorance on the part of the people obsessed with labeling everyone with an ethnic or racial label.
Let me think out loud on the issue of a major American museum collecting "Latino artists who transform personal experiences and cultural heritage into vivid artworks."
I'm fairly sure that Ms. Broun didn't really mean this statement in the way that it came out (or as I interpreted it), but to me it shows an immensely limited view or expectation (and worse: knowledge) about the kind of artwork produced by those we have labeled in this nation "Latino" artists.
Simply visit any major Latin American museum or examine an art book on Latin American artists and you will soon discover that (just like most Western artists) they explore all sorts of things in seeking the inspiration for their work, and not all of them deliver "vivid artworks" and not all use their "personal experiences and cultural heritage" as a inspiration for their artwork, at least not all the time.
Not all Latino artists are Frida Kahloesque in their artwork, and certainly not all Latino artwork is "culturally specific." In fact, one could submit that most Americans of Latino ancestry are equally (if not more) influenced by their American culture than by their parents or grandparents.
Article comments
1 - Jon Sobel
A fascinating question. How much of this is legitimate cultural inquiry, and how much is false American racial conceptualizations? What do you think of El Museo del Barrio in New York?
2 - Lenny
Good questions. I have less of a problem (but I still have them) with focused "neighborhood" museums and cultural entities which seek to address their immediate surroundings. Thus El Museo del Barrio in the Bronx, or the Nordic Museum in Seattle fit under that category. I have even more issues with the National Museum of Women in the Arts segregating artists by sex.
The goal should be to fight to include in our major museums all of the artists who deserve to be there, regardless of race, sex or ethnic background. Clearly there are some clear holes which need to be filled, but segregating by ethnic, racial or sexual identity is not the answer.
As one travels in Latin America and Europe, the "made up" American labels for some ethnicities often confused as races by some, falls apart. No one in Spain, or Argentina, or Brazil, etc. considers themselves "Hispanic" and in some Native Central American cultures it is even an offensive term: someone with Native American bloodlines who is trying to "pass" for white.
I'm still a little confused as to what "Latino" means, to be honest. Most Argentineans are of Italian ancestry, so an Argentinean is a Latino, but his Italian parents are not? Weren't the Italians the original Latins?
Makes my head hurt.
3 - andreatks
Thank you for your refreshing perspective!
We -- individuals, organizations, the media -- have been using the term "Latino" for years, without any clear idea of what it means.
It's great to take a step back and ask, what DOES it mean?