"latino" robs us of our indigenous heritage

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

why are so many native americans from mexico, guatemala, peru, bolivia, and elsewhere in "latin" america called "latinos" and "hispanics"? a product of 500 years of european colonialism? it is good to see groups like the zapatistas in mexico and various other militant indigenous movements in the andes, i.e. tupac amaru, tupac katari, movimiento indigena pachakutec. what do all of you think? about an indigenous revolution?

[Ian]

Hispanic has its roots in the name of a slave ship, the Hispanoila, so it's pretty shitty name really

[Commie Rat]

Calling all South American peoples Latino's is ignorant and stupid, is akin to calling all African Tribes people Negros or such.

[Eleutherios]

An indigenous revolution? The revolution shouldn't care about whether your ancestors lived in the Americas or Europe. If you're going to restrict your revolution to one race, don't expect any help from me.

[Clutch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:51 PM
An indigenous revolution? The revolution shouldn't care about whether your ancestors lived in the Americas or Europe. If you're going to restrict your revolution to one race, don't expect any help from me.
Well said. The marginalised of the world deserve emancipation irrespective of their ancestry or 'race'.

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

well u dont understand the reality of the indigenous situation. it wont help us by pretending race doesnt exist

[Cult of Reason]

Biologically, race does not exist. The genetic difference between different skin colours is miniscule.

[MurderInc]

I don't believe the use of any word robs you of anything. Unless you are very weak. Develope a thicker skin. I'm not saying this to be mean, it's only that I've been called "cracker" before, and though I don't accept it or tollerate it, it doesn't rob me of anything per se.

We are all members of the human race. Period.

As it happens, some people came to America before others. No one is actually native to either North or South America.

America is a beautiful land and there is room enough for all of us.

This name thing can drive youcrazy anyway, even in the world of the political left. Some wish to be called Chicanos, which has political implications; others prefer their national origin in their description, such as Mexican-American. Some their national title, such as Peruvian, or American (nickname for U.S. citizen).

BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH PASSION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, GOBBS OF TIME IS SPENT ON MEANINGLESS GARBAGE.

You are human. Enjoy it!

For a better explaination, see, "Monte Python's Life of Brian", and crack up as the radicals spend the entire movie defining themselves and giving themselves action plans and titles, while not really doing anything.

[bayano]

buena, now for a latino perspective. firstly, ive written else where of my hatred for the term hispanic, so i wont go into that.

as for an indigenous revolution, this does not make sense over all of latin america. it does, however, in some places: most especially Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Ecuador, perhaps Guatemala. but the vast majority of Latin Americans and members of the diaspora in north america are mixed by the forces of globalization (by imperialism, but other elements of it as well). most of us are mestizo, mulatto, or one of the hundreds of other terms for different mixes. Latino in part comes from the word ladino, which in different countries meant different mixes (sometimes Black/Indigenous, sometimes African/European, sometimes something else). i think that unit thru the term Latino does not rob us of anything, just as Africans and many of those of the African diaspora use African to unite them, or Arabs use Arab to unite them, or South Asians in the USA use Desi to unite them. I am a mestizo, a Panameno, and a whole lot of other things, but i am also a Latino, which gives me a much bigger continental/hemispheric community with shared histories and cultures with which to unite.

you can be both. a Bolivian-American can be that, and a Bolivian, and a Quechua (or Aymara), and a Latino, and an America. there is no innate contradiction, but there is benefit from it.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:03 PM
I don't believe the use of any word robs you of anything. Unless you are very weak. Develope a thicker skin. I'm not saying this to be mean, it's only that I've been called "cracker" before, and though I don't accept it or tollerate it, it doesn't rob me of anything per se.


I understand your basic point, but I doubt being called cracker was accompanied by you being enslaved or so on. If you're a fellow worker than we're both wage slaves, but we're not being driven off the land to starvation as some indingenous tribes still are.



We are all members of the human race. Period.

As it happens, some people came to America before others. No one is actually native to either North or South America.

America is a beautiful land and there is room enough for all of us.

This name thing can drive youcrazy anyway, even in the world of the political left. Some wish to be called Chicanos, which has political implications; others prefer their national origin in their description, such as Mexican-American. Some their national title, such as Peruvian, or American (nickname for U.S. citizen).

BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH PASSION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, GOBBS OF TIME IS SPENT ON MEANINGLESS GARBAGE.

You are human. Enjoy it!

For a better explaination, see, "Monte Python's Life of Brian", and crack up as the radicals spend the entire movie defining themselves and giving themselves action plans and titles, while not really doing anything.

I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, and I share your frustration with the over emphasis on identity politics and all the potential pitfalls. However, I think comrades are making the point that indigenous people need to lift themselves out of mental slavery before they can move forward and stand beside european americans as equals.

[MurderInc]

Repoman,

Thank you for your well reasoned resposes.

Well, slavery ended in the United States in the 1860's, so no person who has called me cracker has ever been a slave.

Interestingly, these nasty words for people are hardly ever used in anger from one person to another during t his generation. I'll make a guess that fewer black people have heard the word nigger used in a mean way by another versus those who haven't heard it used such. In fact in my whole life I've never heard someone call someone a nigger in an angry way (a white person speaking to a black person.)

But I won't try and base life on only my experiences.

Most people believe that racism is more subtle and instutionalized than overt. For example, Katrina, and the belief that life would have been different for them had they not been majority poor and black.

But I degress.

I suppose I'm just not interested in labels. Eventually they are used because one group wants to claim WE ARE DIFFERENT, SO WE DESERVE A DIFFERENT SLICE OF PIE THAN ANYONE ELSE.

That is not my concept of socialsim.

Right now, the issue of making reparation payments to modern blacks for the "crime" of slavery is a big thing. But what happens if Socialism ruled the day? From where would those who support this idea get their damages (read money)?

Should American Indians get certin areas of land, or should socialist concepts be the rule? Obviously I could go on, but I do not believe that granting anyone a title other than "human" is beneficial.

[bayano]

i get really frustrated by white leftists who give full validity to the identity 'working class', but denigrate identity politics relating to those areas where they have privilege. race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc. are EXTREMELY important battlefields for liberation struggles, and not simply on any consciousness realm, but in the REAL WORLD

[PRC-UTE]

I think what you're avoiding MurderInc is that though slavery was abolished, Indians are no longer hunted down like animals, and so on, these conditions were not completely abolished, they were modified. Indians still live in third world conditions and many african americans live in extreme poverty. I think the extreme overemphasis on 'race' by Yankees is very troubling and shockingly backwards, but there are genuine issues there as well to address.

[MurderInc]

I'm not overlooking the problem, just pointing out that socialism does not offer a way of compensation outside of abolishing caitalism.

Unless you suggest that somehow, in postrevolutionary times, people will use their racil identification to get a "better position" than before.

But what would exist for them to obtain. If all material needs were met, and production was equally distributed, what can be gained?

I don't see that it matters, only because there is no money-based remedy.

Today many minority groups are arguing they need damages of SOME KIND. Where money is no longer needed to benefit oneself, how can there be damages paid?

Unless you have some solution to the past ills inflicted by one group to another not based in wealth.

Please enlighten me about postrevolutionary compensation of the oppressed. What would it look like and who would pay it and paid to whom?

[bolshevik butcher]

Right, I agree that the indigenous poeples are oppressed. I think that whats happening in Venezuela just now is fantastic actaully, where we see the indigenous people forming a vital part of the bolivarian movment. I was just wondering you call yourself a radical islamist, are you a fan of some sort of racial seperation as x was in his early years or are you mroe fo a fan of x's later stuff, like I am.

[MurderInc]

RE: The discussion Repoman and I were having over the above issue unrealted to the originator of this thread, I have established this discussion in the Theory board.

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

well i like all aspects of malcolm x, where i might not agree with racial seperation i do understand the sentiments behind it: self-determination, self-realization, that one race, whether it be black or native american, is capable of doing the same as another race, and that people dont need to be always integrated with white people in order to obtain their salvation. but no i am not for racial seperation, i am a muslim and believe in the brotherhood of all humans, BUT i have to look at the reality of the conditions in latin america and i see indigenous people with no confidence that they can take care of their own problems. indigenous people shouldnt feel that their salvation depends on the white man. ;) i hope that answers ur question. by the way i like your quote.

"the white man knows how to make everything, but can't distribute it"- sitting bull, the first native american "communist", but communalism has always been apart of the native american culture way before marx

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 06:16 PM
i get really frustrated by white leftists who give full validity to the identity 'working class', but denigrate identity politics relating to those areas where they have privilege. race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc. are EXTREMELY important battlefields for liberation struggles, and not simply on any consciousness realm, but in the REAL WORLD
Yes! :)
And one of they main points f identity politics is the ability to define yourself, and what your goals are, so I definitely agree that people should calll themselves what they want- what frees them from linguistic baggage or whatever.

[Prawn Connery]

People are ridiculously ignorant, they see something and pin it with a stupid generalisation, often offensive. Clear case of that here. They see someone with skin slightly darker in colour to them, and brand them all 'latinos'. It's ridiculous, but true.

Che didn't see any difference. He saw the whole of Latin America as a race of mestizos, deserving one thing, freedom from the shackles of oppression and complete unity. Sadly, most people are too stupid to see things the way he did, that's why he died.

[LSD]

All "racial" terms are nonsensical and overgeneralized; that's the price you pay when you use nineteenth century "science".

Races don't exist, so is it really any surprise that their terminlogy makes no sense?

In terms of "latin America" and whether their inhabitants are really "latin" or not, it's really a nonissue. Sure, the name is a product of European colonialism, but so are most third world names.

Most Nigerians are not actually from the Niger river bed; and most Congolese live nowhere near the Congo river. Regardless, for whatever historical reasons, that is what those countries are called and its what their inhabitants are called as well.

Would it be more "historicall accurate" to come up with a new name for South and Central America? One that better reflected on its multi-ethnic past? Possibly, but it would also be highly confusing and very artifical.

Forced "political correctness" like that tends not to work. In all likelyhood the new name would be summarily ignored and people would just go on using the terms they were used to.

Much like how most Native Americans still call themselves "indian".

There are real problems in South America and real pressing concerns that must be met. The name of the place, however, is not one of them!

[Ultra-Violence]

ok heres my 2 cents......

I HATE IT! when they call me and my people "hispanic" or "latino". 500 years of genocide and slavery and explotation has gone on too long and when they call me a "hispanic" i get ficking pissed off.Why? cuase their denying my existince my people dont have an IDENTITY! we are constantly like all other poeple of color in america that were not o.k they way we are so we have to assimilate to PLEASE THEM! so we blend in. Thier denying my culture and heritage! wtf! and regardless what you guys say about one human race etc........... not all people belive that and i have to deal with this every day and it gets frustrating.......any ways....
BROWN IS BUETIFULL!
BLACK IS BUETIFULL!
YELLOW IS BUETIFULL!
WHITE IS BUETIFULL!

dont let any body tell you the way you are is wrong!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by hassan monwar al-[email protected] 24 2006, 06:15 AM
well u dont understand the reality of the indigenous situation. it wont help us by pretending race doesnt exist
It appears that you have no understanding at all of the reality of the class situation my brotha.

Nothing shocking.

This is actually something I would expect from a superstitious nut-job who still has not read enough to know that "race" does not actually exist.

That's without even considering you condone "racial segregation" of people of "colour" from the "blue-eyed devil" and think Marx was a "communalist".

Do us all a favour kid, take your tired-assed rhetoric back to never-never-white-man's land and shove it straight up Allah's ass.

[redstar2000]

Some background on the word "Latino"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinos

Names are, these days, always a "hot button" issue. :unsure:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 04:16 AM
i get really frustrated by white leftists who give full validity to the identity 'working class', but denigrate identity politics relating to those areas where they have privilege. race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc. are EXTREMELY important battlefields for liberation struggles, and not simply on any consciousness realm, but in the REAL WORLD
I wholeheartedly agree. There seems to be a very strong tendency amongst some people people on this board to dismiss non-class based organising as distracting, separatist or as Scars (a member of this board) continues to assert a form of 'pseudo nationalism' that reinforces stereotypes of oppressed people/turns off people who are not members of these groups. The importance of self-determination for the oppressed seems to have been lost to some members, the idea that the oppressed are the people best positioned to understand their own oppression, how it should be fought and how such a struggle should be organised. Many people still advocate assimilating 'minority' issues into generic 'communist' organisation, actively denouncing oppressed people who wish to organise autonomously from white hetero males.

[Tekun]

As a Guatemalan livin in the US, I too am incencesed with the word "latino" or "hispanic"
After all my ancestors were enslaved, oppressed, and murdered by the Spanish when they invaded our lands
And neither "latino" or "hispanic" correctly defines who we are or our culture

But, just as X said, our ppl have been brainwashed into believing what the European wants us to believe, and even identifying ourselves with what they provide
For example...
U see it in "Latin" America and in the US
People who are of a light complexion or have non-brown eyes or are blonde receive preferential treatment from the entire population
While ppl who are mestizo or ladino (to use the right words) or are of African ancestry are regarded as less or not "attractive" (whatever that means) to the public eye
Rarely do u see dark skinned news anchors, or models, or actors on soap operas
It is this type of brainwashing that allows words like "hispanic," "latino," or "mexican" to permeate throughout society

IMO, "hispanic" and "latino" and "negro" should be forgotten
And our nationalities should replace them (Mexican for ppl from mexico/guatemalans for ppl from guatemala, etc), however, this may spurn a high degree of nationalism, which is also an evil

However, I doubt we can accomplish it, like X said, ppl are far too brainwashed to change the system that the Spanish created
In addition, we would need a high degree of education to change it, which is lacking in central and south america
Doubtful but not impossible

[bayano]

to the other people with Latin American blood in this discussion, what do you think about my position, that Latino becomes a unifying term for a larger collection of oppressed people with similar histories and cultures, similar to Arab or African or Desi. there is nothing wrong with the use of national labels, as i prove i believe by my idetification as a panamanian and a panamanian-american, but thse national labels are not mutually exclusive with the unifying terms like Latino. i have written articles in defense of the term myself, as have relatives of mine, and i think it is a mistake for us to destroy any labels that might unite us as a common people against a common oppression

[MurderInc]

It is my view that there is no "official" concept of being a decendant of the Mestiso Indian. All terms, whether hispanic or latino or chicano all have their agendas and philosophies, and trying to find the "correct" definition is futile.

I know Mexican-Americans who display the Stars and Stripes and are proud of being Americans. I know hispanic-Americans who are proud of their Mexican/Guatemalan heritage and also celibrate being American (s U.S. citizen).

I know Chicanos who think they're in "Occupied Mexico/Aztlan" who are waiting for the Revolution to turn it to their advantage and reclaim large areas of land for the Chicano movement.

Go figure.

[Correa]

I'm Puerto Rican and Cuban and I don't have a problem with the word "latino" or "hispanic". I mean I don't have a problem with the word "nigga". Unless of course it is used by a white person in a derogative way. However if I know the white person he or she can use it in a friendly/comradely fasion and that's cool. I think it's all in the intent.