© Mr.mt



In an earlier blog posting, an interesting comment was posted that brought up the question of the definition of culture. What is culture? Is it language, religion, people, habits, food... or all of these?

I think of this blog and the ongoing dialogue to define what is and is not within the boundaries of the term Latin. I'm a linguist, so I can't resist a little etymology.

The term Latin America was first used in 1856 by the Chilean philosopher Francisco Bilbao Barquín and then later by Napoleon in his effort to legitimize expanding the French empire to include part of Spanish-speaking America. It wasn't a term linked to affection... it was a political tool of its times.

Does that mean Latin is the right term or the wrong one? Like most things, that depends entirely on your point of view. There are many Americas, including a Luso America and a Mayan America and an Algonquian America and a Chipaya America. The list goes on.

As individuals, we are able to define our self. As part of a group, we can participate in the ongoing definition of what it means to be in that group. This includes names used for the group, shared practices, common avoidances, and shared history. As distinct from that group, we participate in defining the group precisely through our differences.

One reader asked on a past blog if we indeed still need to label ourselves and one another in this day and age. Negotiating identity is something we all do every minute of every day. What we choose to include in those definitions is more of an individual choice.

Whether the labeling itself is a Machiavellian practice depends entirely on human motives. Any word can be made evil or righteous. Just think of what Gandhi did for the word "protest" and what Hitler did for the word "purity." I worry less about the name tag, and more about the heart and mind of the one using it. That's one writers opinion.