Latin America is a broad term that people use to refer to a group of various countries in the west where languages such as portuguese, french, and spanish are predominantly spoken. This includes countries like Brazil, Mexico, and Haiti among 30 more countries. Most people would not consider these countries to be very similar to each other despite being being considered a part of the same region. Despite being all put together as one many of the cultures vary intensely compared to one another culturally and racially. Many Latin Americans themselves are not perceived as or view themselves as Latin American, but rather part of their perspective country (Colombian, Jamaican, Cuban).

 It is not until they leave the region they become viewed as Latin American. This along with the geography of this region tends to lead to questions about whether or not Latin America is even a good term to use. The cultures of these countries are so diverse that referring to all of it as simply “Latin” makes it too vague of a statement to tie to a specific location. You wouldn’t refer to all music in the United States as American, the different cultures of this region appear to be oversimplified when put into a region like this. Another common criticism is the basis that countries that are put in that region not being geographically sound.

 Since the region is based on language, countries in the Americas such as the United States (besides Puerto Rico) and Canada, are excluded meanwhile countries near Europe such as Portugal and Spain, are classified as being Latin American despite being nowhere near the Americas and closer to Europe. So how did this happen and why? The term “Latin America.” was first popularized by Napoleon The Third as part of an incentive to colonize Mexico.1 Prior to this many indigenous people were not referred to as Latin American but rather as by their specific ethic groups such as the Moors, the Mayans, and Africans, to name a few.2 In fact, back during the rise of colonialism and the Atlantic slave trade that many of the territories where constantly shifting between each other in a way that they don’t respond with what we know of today as Latin America.3 With many of the boundaries from country to country being an aftermath like Spain’s colonization of Mexico leading to its existence today.

 This raises the question of why Spain is included if the term arose from a desire to colonize the Americas as Spain was one of the colonist countries which is responsible for the widespread use of the Spanish language across Latin America. Since the geography is supposedly based on romance languages why aren’t France and Italy considered part of Latin America instead of being considered western countries. It is very clear that this is simply just a way to separate people based on their skin color rather than describe a geographical area. I feel like if we were to change what is considered a Latin American country rather than abandon the term altogether, for it to make sense we would have to also include Canada and the United States, consider the Carribean its own region, and make Portugal and Spain apart of Europe/Africa. Otherwise latin america is simply a term to separate people under the guise of being a geographic location.

 Some people would say that we need this system to study countries in the Western Hemisphere excluding the United States and Canada but why must they be excluded. As mentioned earlier if used to study culture, the cultures of the countries included are too diverse to easily put into one group so why is it that two countries in the same area are excluding but not the one spanish speaking territory that is part of the United States? I feel Latin America is overall an incredibly dated way to study this portion of the western hemisphere because it is too vague and the requirements to meet being apart of that location doesn’t even apply to all the countries. Do I feel like we need to be aware of the differences in people from location to location to understand them better?  Yes.

 But I feel like reducing them to continents which are often based on the vaguest of requirements does more harm than good because it only causes us to generalize various countries to have a vague depiction of what we perceive as a dominant culture and people while stripping people of these cultures of their identity of where they live.

Footnotes

1. Leslie Bethell. “Brazil and ‘Latin America’.” Journal of Latin American Studies 42, no. 3 (2010): 457. Accessed January 31, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40984892.
2.  John Charles Chasteen, Born in Blood & Fire: a concise history of Latin America. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2016), 25.
3. James Mahoney. “Long‐Run Development and the Legacy of Colonialism in Spanish America.” American Journal of Sociology109, no. 1 (2003): 63. Accessed January 31, 2020. doi:10.1086/378454.

Biblography

Bethell, Leslie. “Brazil and ‘Latin America’.” Journal of Latin American Studies 42, no. 3 (2010): 457-85. Accessed January 31, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/40984892.

Mahoney, James. “Long‐Run Development and the Legacy of Colonialism in Spanish America.” American Journal of Sociology109, no. 1 (2003): 50-106. Accessed January 31, 2020. doi:10.1086/378454.

Chasteen, John Charles. Born in Blood & Fire: a concise history of Latin America. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2016.