My point is that just because someone in the imperial core doesn’t think someone from Latin America is Western doesn’t change the fact that many of them are (excluding people who have kept to indigenous traditions, and say for instance some non-European immigrants). My point is simply that they’re wrong. It’s their error.
And by your logic Angola, Kenya, the Philippines, huge swathes of India etc are also Western. Pretty much the whole world uses Western technology, speaks some degree of English, wears Blue Jeans, and listens to the Backstreet Boys or whomever.
The only reason people bring up Latinos being western, is because the definition of Western is inherently racial, everyone knows this intuitively including every single person debating it--that's why they even brought it up in the first place.
And Latinos are obviously only partially European racially, and they don't look similar enough to pass in Northern Europe which is where the imperial core is. So when people say "the western world" they are almost never thinking about Latin America, unless they themselves are Latin American and want to feel included under this exclusive label.
So since Western is just a racial dogwhistle, AKA a polite way of saying "White" that doesn't sound as racist to the POCs ears, and since Latinos are basically only half white (from a darker than average white country like Spain), that means that Latinos are not Western in any way that matters. Are they west--ish? Sure.
I don’t know what kind of preposterous definition of “Western” you’re hoping to catch me on, but I’m not interested in playing it. Just because a country was once a colony of the UK is not by itself a sufficient reason to call its indigenous population Western.
If you say so. You’re right though, that this is all a fool’s errand anyway, because most people both within the imperial core and the periphery are creating their competing definitions of “Western” for the purposes of differentiating the in group from the out group.
this is all a fool’s errand anyway, because most people both within the imperial core and the periphery are creating their competing definitions of “Western” for the purposes of differentiating the in group from the out group.
Finally.
The only addendum I'd make is that Latin America doesn't benefit from including itself in this ingroup. As long as the (actual) West controls all the wealth and resources, vicarious ethnic identification with them only gives them more power, and gives Latinos a false sense of safety about their intrusive institutions, like the plan to eventually dot Latin America with their military bases (there are currently very few of these) and in a worst case scenario literal recolonization of Latin America
My point is that just because someone in the imperial core doesn’t think someone from Latin America is Western doesn’t change the fact that many of them are (excluding people who have kept to indigenous traditions, and say for instance some non-European immigrants). My point is simply that they’re wrong. It’s their error.
And by your logic Angola, Kenya, the Philippines, huge swathes of India etc are also Western. Pretty much the whole world uses Western technology, speaks some degree of English, wears Blue Jeans, and listens to the Backstreet Boys or whomever.
The only reason people bring up Latinos being western, is because the definition of Western is inherently racial, everyone knows this intuitively including every single person debating it--that's why they even brought it up in the first place.
And Latinos are obviously only partially European racially, and they don't look similar enough to pass in Northern Europe which is where the imperial core is. So when people say "the western world" they are almost never thinking about Latin America, unless they themselves are Latin American and want to feel included under this exclusive label.
So since Western is just a racial dogwhistle, AKA a polite way of saying "White" that doesn't sound as racist to the POCs ears, and since Latinos are basically only half white (from a darker than average white country like Spain), that means that Latinos are not Western in any way that matters. Are they west--ish? Sure.
I don’t know what kind of preposterous definition of “Western” you’re hoping to catch me on, but I’m not interested in playing it. Just because a country was once a colony of the UK is not by itself a sufficient reason to call its indigenous population Western.
Isn't that literally what you just did lol
If you say so. You’re right though, that this is all a fool’s errand anyway, because most people both within the imperial core and the periphery are creating their competing definitions of “Western” for the purposes of differentiating the in group from the out group.
Finally.
The only addendum I'd make is that Latin America doesn't benefit from including itself in this ingroup. As long as the (actual) West controls all the wealth and resources, vicarious ethnic identification with them only gives them more power, and gives Latinos a false sense of safety about their intrusive institutions, like the plan to eventually dot Latin America with their military bases (there are currently very few of these) and in a worst case scenario literal recolonization of Latin America
https://i.postimg.cc/1zSqXxFr/Screenshot-2023-12-21-at-01-28-27-Western-world-Wikipedia.png
Oh I agree. I still insist that a hot dog is objectively a taco, though.