Vive Le Quebec libre

1. In the US, "Latin" does not refer only to South Americans who are brown-skinned. It includes all of the Romance-language-speaking peoples of Europe and North and South America, regardless of skin, hair, or eye-color. (How many more times will I have to say this?)

Uriel silly girl that's you, that's YOUR OPINION against the entire US Media (The majority in the US). You did quite well in trying to disguise the strong ignorance of some people in your Land. Your strong nationalism blinds you to see the reality of your country (in my case that applies too).

Your passport is indeed indicative of your citizenship, no matter what your sentiments might be. (I really don't even need to explain this.)

As I said before this will be solved in the next referendum.

Trunks is right the US definition of Latino is not the one you said Uriel, even wikipedia admits it:


Most frequently the term Latino is restricted to immigrants from Spanish speaking countries in Latin America and their descendants. American inhabitants of Brazilian origin are sometimes considered Latinos, even though their language is Portuguese.

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

Los estadounidenses la usan para referirse a los sudamericanos o centroamericanos (y también a los mexicanos, cuyo país se encuentra en Norteamérica). Dependiendo del contexto, este término puede conllevar connotaciones xenófobas, pero es generalmente aceptado y usado. Los latinos son asociados a los países de habla hispana e incluso en algunos casos a los de habla portuguesa. Todos los países de centro y Sudamérica fueron conquistados y colonizados por el Imperio español o el portugués, y dado que estos reinos son de origen latino, se denomina latinoamericanos a dichos países.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino

What is sure is that the US never use the word Latino to describe romance speaking people as you said Uriel.

The US definition of Latino is All person with brown skin that speaks Spanish and that cames from South America this is reinforced by the Media in the US and also by wikipedia in both English and Spanish languagues.


Admit it Uriel there's some educated people in the US but there's a lot of amazing ignorant people in your country

Sweetheart, "Latino" and "Latin" are two different words in the US. You did not ask about "Latino". You asked about "Latin". They are not necessarily synonyms. "Latin" covers a broader range of people than "Latino".

I am not a particularly strong nationalist, Trunks. I spent half my childhood overseas, including my first five years. I am often quite critical of my country. However, I see no reason not to fight these silly and simplistic stereotypes that you insist on perpetuating, when I have lived all over the US for 25 years now and know the place far better than you do.

Wikipedia, although you all seem to love it so much (and it does have it's charms) is not the most reliable source in the world, because it can be "edited" at the drop of a hat by any Tom, Dick, or Harry with a keyboard and an agenda.

Wikipedia, although you all seem to love it so much (and it does have it's charms) is not the most reliable source in the world, because it can be "edited" at the drop of a hat by any Tom, Dick, or Harry with a keyboard and an agenda.

Yes but even Gjones loves to quote from wikipedia.

And that is Gjones' prerogative... not Uriel's.

I am with her that the Wikipedia is not too reliable when it comes to small and obscure articles.

For example, do you realize there is an article about LangCafe that Sander was able to start with no problem and it would never have been edited had Sander not told others about it. Simply stated, it's quite easy to have an article be one person's point of view on the subject if it's a small and obscure subject.

Bigger articles though (like an article about a certain country or on a major language like French) will be necessarily more accurate and reliable because more people will be interested in such a topic.

I was also going to post that I noticed a divide in English between Latin and Latino, but she beat me to it :) I have been raised with the same view.

For what it is worth, I consider that the Quebecois, that is the French speaking people in Quebec,constitute a nation. They have language, history, shared traditions, a territorial base, a government etc. The Acadians, Franco-Ontarians and other French speakers in Canada are merely part of the diaspora of the Quebecois even though they do have somewhat different histories. I consider that people of Haitian, Chilean, Greek, Tunisian, Irish, English or any other origin who have assimilated to the Quebecois are part of that nation. (Names like Blackburn, Johnson, McNeil, Blake etc. are not uncommon among Quebecois and do not mean that these people are English speakers). "Quebecois" refers to the culture and not necessarily to any ethnic origin, although there is a minority of Quebecois who would prefer to reserve this term for the people descended from the original French habitants.

I consider that English speaking Canadians of whatever ethnic origin also consistute a nation. They may share a language and many cultural traits with their neighbours to the south, but they have a different history, some different myths and symbols and a will to exists separately that is as strong as that of the Quebecois.

So there are two dominant nations in Canada. There are also aboriginal nations. The other immigrant diasporas have and will continue to largely melt into the two main groups, despite the poltically correct ideology of "multiculturalism" promoted by our Federal government, self-styled intellectuals and ethnic leaders. (In Vancouver the interracial (not just interethnic, but interracial) marriage rate amongst young couples is over 15% if I am not mistaken).

There is no law anywhere that says a nation must have its own separate country. Most countries in the world consist of more than one nation. It really depends on what people decide. If Quebec decides to separate, based on a clear question and with a clear majority, they will do so, and then they will have to deal with the English-Canadian national diaspora remaining within its borders, as well as with the aboriginal peoples who occupy quite a bit of territory. I am in favour of a separation of Quebec and Canada but it should proceed democratically and is not a question of "droits fondamentaux" or any other such nonsense spouted here by dogmatists frothing at the mouth.
.
Latino is not a pejorative term. Latinos come in all colours from black, to brown, all the way to pink. Latino is a term to describe the culture, not the race. I think that is how most people see it.

I am certainly not responsible for anything Gjones decides to quote or post. He doesn't run it by me first.


Here's a question regarding these posts:


Admit it Uriel there's some educated people in the US but there's a lot of amazing ignorant people in your country (Sigma)

Uriel silly girl that's you, that's YOUR OPINION against the entire US Media (The majority in the US). You did quite well in trying to disguise the strong ignorance of some people in your Land. Your strong nationalism blinds you to see the reality of your country (Trunks)


Do you honestly think that I am the only one in the entire country who has these opinions? Do you honestly think that I am deliberately lying to you when I tell you the definitions of words in the US, or that I am so out of touch with the rest of my compatriots that I just don't know any better?

Tiffany has backed me up on many of my posts. Do you think that you have somehow stumbled across two strange, unrelated Americans who inexplicably share the same rare delusions?

It flatters the "amour propre" of some people to believe that there are more ignorant people in the US than elsewhere. It has become part of the dogma of the US bashers. People who otherwise consider themselves enlightened, progressive, tolerant, anti-racist etc. feel that any unsubstantiated generalized insult hurled at Americans is not only justified, but a significant "statement" that marks them as sophisticated. Such people are over-represented here on this forum. I consider such people pathetic and of little interest.

As a Canadian I can say that there is no shortage of ignorant people everywhere, including Canada.

=>By the way Sander, I feel I am a citizen of the world first myself. But I would imagine that I do not have the right to feel so because it is not written on my passport, right? <=

You may FEEL like whatever you want as long as you remember what you really ARE.

<<You may FEEL like whatever you want as long as you remember what you really ARE.>>

That's where lies our difference, Sander. You think that what the law says is more important than the feeling of belonging or non-belonging to a group.
I, for one, think what you can identify yourself to is more important than what the law says.

Apparently you still don't see what I mean so let's go down to the kindergarten level:

I am a human, a homo sapiens, but I FEEL like I'm a Giraffe.

Does this MAKE me a giraffe? No, I'm still human.

<<Apparently you still don't see what I mean so let's go down to the kindergarten level: >>

I understand your point of view perfectly but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It would be a good thing if you would avoid such comments as "let's go down to the kindergarten level".

<<I am a human, a homo sapiens, but I FEEL like I'm a Giraffe. >>

That you are a homo sapiens sapiens (and not just a homo sapiens) is written in your genes. Such is not the case of what's written on your passport or my feeling of being something else than what is written on my passport. Nationalities, as well as any other label you choose (or not) to bear are purely arbitrary. The difference between those two arbitrary choices is that nationality is an arbitrary choice of YOUR GOVERNMENT, while my feeling to be a citizen of the world is an arbitrary PERSONAL choice. Nonetheless, that I don't identify myself to what is written on my passport doesn't mean its not written on my passport. Also, that my feeling to be a citizen of the world isn't written on my passport doesn't mean I don't feel such. Those realities, although arbitrary, do exist. What matters then is which reality is regarded as more important by you or by me. As I said before, we differ on that matter. But I refuse your allegation that my set of priorities is less worthy of consideration than yours.

Quoi qu'il en soit, vive le Québec libre de choisir son destin !

VIVE LE QUEBEC LIBRE !!!!!!!!!

Il n'y a qu'une solution pour mon peuple : les armes!

Le feu et le sang parleront bientôt, et ce jour là, l'indépendance du Quebec sera la seule issue, sinon ce sera la mort!!!