This is an archive of past discussions about Chicano studies. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Chicano Studies Should NOT Be Merged With/Under "Latino Studies"

It should not be changed to Latino studies or any other name but Chicana/o studies. The constant changing of labels shows a weakness and immaturity on part of the Mexican origin peoples in the United States. The term Latino and the constant merging into its generic label is a market device used by business and academe to package all Latin Americans to better market and manipulate them. This is not only hurtful to Mexican origin peoples but to other Latin Americans trying to form an identity in the United States. They are literally swallowed up by the Mexican or Chicana/o/ and their own development is stunted. At California State University at Northridge, the Chicana/o Studies Dept sat down with CAUSA students and worked out a minor in Central American Studies. Within five years CAS had a major and now functions as its own department. Approaching the question in terms of Marx's National Question -- you must examine whether the is anything such as a Latino Nation -- a definable people within a nation. Go to http://forchicanachicanostudies.wikispaces.com/ for further discussion. Through the use of a Timeline it is clear that only Mexican Americans were identifiable since 1836/1848 to the present. The Puerto Rican since 1898 (both as occupied people), and Cubans since 1959. Most other groups were formed after their arrival in the 1980s. This is not to say that they did not exist as nationalities before their arrival to the United States -- they had rich separate histories. However, once in the US transformations that take decades or more occurred began. Quite frankly before we make changes we should think about the impact of these changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudyacuna (talk • contribs) 15:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Mexican-Americans (Chicanos) are NOT Latins. The term Latino is Orwellian Newspeak introduced by Non-Mexican-Americans in the 90's. Personally, as a 4th-Generation Chicano (U.S. Citizen), I can remember never being called Latino by anyone. I take offense at being labeled as some kind of leftover from the Latin (Roman) civilization. I see this recent zeal to subsume Chicano Studies into something Roman (Latin) as an effort to kill a field of ethnic studies that has the potential to critically challenge White Supremacist logic.

The following are reasons why Mexican-Americans are NOT Latins (Romans or otherwise):

Mexican-Americans do not speak Latin (even though the English language is comprised of at least 40% Latin, English speakers are never called Latinos)
Mexican-Americans do not exist within the Roman Empire (Latin Civilization).
Mexican-Americans are not citizens of the governments of Latin America.
Mexican-Americans are no more Latins than African-Americans are Anglos (the languages are a function of European colonialism.

The mainstream media loves to try to portray Mexican-Americans (who are U.S. citizens) as being immigrants and therefore, non-Americans. The effort to (re)label Mexican-Americans as Latinos is a recently-constructed project. This false labeling is Eurocentric and reveals an insistence by the mainstream American media to force everything into a European paradigm; it is an obsession with seeing Mexican-Americans through a European prism.

The vast majority of Mexican-Americans possess a preponderance of Indigenous ancestry and genetics. Labeling this group of people with a European identity (Latin/Hispanic/Roman) is tantamount to cultural ethnocide: it kills the true Indigenous heritage of Mexican-Americans. Dropmeoff (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

From the Latin America article of Wikipedia:

"In most common contemporary usage, Latin America refers only to those territories in the Americas where the Spanish or Portuguese languages prevail: Mexico, most of Central and South America, plus Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean, as well as the smaller numbers of French and Papiamentu speakers that reside in the region" --Zslevi (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)