Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. "Kirchner" was the last name of her husband - who also served as president of Argentina.
Even other former presidents had foreign surnames: Alfredo Stroessner (Paraguay), Julio MarÃa Sanguinetti (Uruguay), Juscelino Kubitschek/Kubiček (Brazil), Ernesto Geisel (Brazil), Alberto Fujimori (Peru), Roberto Micheletti Bain (Honduras), are some examples.
You may also include former Ecuadorian presidents of Lebanese lineage Abdalá Bucaram and Jamil Mahuad...granted, not the finest of Ecuadorian politicians.
From Wiki:
Migration from Lebanon to Ecuador started as early as 1875.[1] Early impoverished migrants tended to work as independent sidewalk vendors, rather than as wage workers in agriculture or others' businesses.[2] Though they emigrated to escape Ottoman Turkish oppression, they were called "Turks" by Ecuadorians because they carried Ottoman passports.[1] There were further waves of immigration in the first half of the 20th century; by 1930, there were 577 Lebanese immigrants and 489 of their descendants residing in the country, primarily at Quito and Guayaquil.[
Yes, and it is very annoying. For example, I have a German last name through marriage to a Brazilian. People are always shocked that he is from Brazil. Also, I have 2 White Mexican coworkers with Lebanese and Italian last names. People get so confused about them.
I think the US only sees and learned about ITSELF being an immigrant receiving nation. They never learned about Latin America receiving immigrants as well, so it confuses them a lot.
It has mostly to do with education. American comedian Louis CK has spoken about this quite a few times. His father is Mexican of Hungarian descent and he lived in Mexico as a child. He has always had to explain this history to people. He has spoken about it publicly.
My favorite is when people meet Asian Latin Americans! They are speaking in Spanish or Portuguse and I have seen people stare at them with a perplexed look on their face. Lol
So true!
My cousins (ecuadorian-chinese) get a kick out of the "deer in the headlights" look they get when they visit family in the states, go shopping and people hear them speaking spanish with a south american twist.
Granted, their features are more asian than latin and this causes the mix up.
Maybe it is just the English-speaking media, but it seems like many people underestimate or don't realize that the entire western hemisphere is a melting pot of many nations.
I'm surprised at the number of people who don't realize that it ain't just the US (and Canada or Australia) who are descended from a mix of newcomers since Columbus, be they settlers, slaves, immigrations, colonists, indentured workers etc and just think of Argentines or Jamaicans as if they were always there, or see them as nations no different than Old World ones like Swedes, Germans or Japanese.
I also find it surprising when people don't realize how diverse Latin Americans are, either in the mix of original settlers of later immigrants. Brazil has possibly more black or African ancestry than other New World places and also more immigrant Lebanese- and Japanese- descended people too than any other, yet it almost seems like some people talk of Latin Americans too homogenously in a way they wouldn't talk about Americans, Canucks, Aussies and Kiwis, even though arguably Latin Americans can be more racially diverse or ancestrally mixed than many of the Anglo immigrant countries.
I have often heard Latin American and Caribbean countries spoken of in ways that seem to show that people aren't really thinking of them as "New World" countries even though they were some of the originally first New World countries to be settled by Old World people!
So true. It annoys the f_uck out of me. Old World nations are not homogenous either as different tribes and migrations and mixing over time. Your post is on point.
In addition I think many U.S. Americans forget how mixed race and multiethnic the USA as an how similar all people in the USA and what bonds them together as countrymen and fellow nationals and mutual citizens.
I hate it when people see in others what they don't see in themselves.
But gladly people are waking up and there is always more increasing information available at any individual person's disposal. So people shouldn't remain so ignorant and/or in the dark for long.
Also if people can afford it or get the opportunity, they should travel.
Latin America is not homogenous. Also, Latin American nations still get and recieve lots of immigrants daily everyday.
Oscar winning actress, Lupita N'Yongo is actually 100% Mexican, born and raised in Mexico. Salma Hayek's was born in Mexico to a Lebanese immigrant father and a Spaniard immigrant mother.
So true!
My cousins (ecuadorian-chinese) get a kick out of the "deer in the headlights" look they get when they visit family in the states, go shopping and people hear them speaking spanish with a south american twist.
Granted, their features are more asian than latin and this causes the mix up.
Uh, what is a Latin look? There is no Latin look. I hate it when people say that one looks Latin. If anyone can find me the Latin look, I'll be waiting to see what it is.
The immigration received in Latin America since independence has much less significant than that in the United States, and less likely to come from places outside of the 'mother country'. Yes, Lebanese, Germans, Italians, and so on moved to Latin America, but these waves were not as dramatic as, for example, the German migration to the United States, where the largest ancestry in the country is now German. If you open a ledger of Mexican surnames, the surnames are overwhelmingly Spanish; if you open a ledger of American surnames, English surnames will be in the minority. It has more to do with the actual likelihood of consistently coming across Latin Americans with non-Spanish or Portuguese names than it does with some notion of insular American culture. There are certainly some notable exceptions such as the German presence in southern Brazil and the Italian immigration to Argentina, but for the most part, post-colonial immigration just has not been as massive as that going to the United States, and thus is less recognized.
Many will be no doubt. Why? Because the minorities listed are very small minorities who usually make no appearance when you are dealing with Latin Americans in person or through the media. I don't think anyone would be surprised to see a black or Caucasian looking Brazilian through, Brazil is widely known for being a racial melting pot.
Judging from your comments, it's inherently clear that you have not travelled to Latin America or not travelled throughout the region extensively enough or studied or researched each culture at least.
I also suggest you look at migration and immigrant patterns. If you look at those, you'd know that Latin American immigrations recieved a huge bulk of immigration well in the 19th century and of course in the 20th century. Argentina has a huge Irish diaspora population.
Brazil has the largest population of people of Japanese descent of any nation in the world outside of Japan.
Dominican Republic has the largest German descent population out of any nation in the Caribbean.
Argentina has the largest Jewish population in Latin America
Brazil has the largest or second largest Italian descent population out of any nation outside of Italy.
Colombia has the third largest Afrodescendants population in the Western Hemisphere.
Panama is said to have the oldest Chinatown in the Western Hemisphere dating back to the 1840s and 1850s.
Panama to date is the only nation outside of Israel that has had at least 2 Jewish presidents. Yes Panama has had 2 Jewish presidents.
Argentina has an extremely significant huge Irish diaspora and Irish descent population
So true!
My cousins (ecuadorian-chinese) get a kick out of the "deer in the headlights" look they get when they visit family in the states, go shopping and people hear them speaking spanish with a south american twist.
Granted, their features are more asian than latin and this causes the mix up.
Yes, part of my family is from Mexicali Mexico which had a sizeable Chinese presence. I have Chinese Mexican cousins, so Asian Latinos are pretty normal to me.
Interestingly, mexicalenses love bragging to people about their Chinese food above all else!
Judging from your comments, it's inherently clear that you have not travelled to Latin America or not travelled throughout the region extensively enough or studied or researched each culture at least.
I also suggest you look at migration and immigrant patterns. If you look at those, you'd know that Latin American immigrations recieved a huge bulk of immigration well in the 19th century and of course in the 20th century. Argentina has a huge Irish diaspora population.
Brazil has the largest population of people of Japanese descent of any nation in the world outside of Japan.
Dominican Republic has the largest German descent population out of any nation in the Caribbean.
Argentina has the largest Jewish population in Latin America
Brazil has the largest or second largest Italian descent population out of any nation outside of Italy.
Colombia has the third largest Afrodescendants population in the Western Hemisphere.
Panama is said to have the oldest Chinatown in the Western Hemisphere dating back to the 1840s and 1850s.
Panama to date is the only nation outside of Israel that has had at least 2 Jewish presidents. Yes Panama has had 2 Jewish presidents.
Argentina has an extremely significant huge Irish diaspora and Irish descent population
Yes, Cordero, I am quite aware of all you have posted. I think you may misunderstand me. I am not claiming that Latin America received no immigration. I am asserting that it received per capita less sustained immigration than the United States, and as a result this immigration is often overlooked in the American mind. The reality is that Latin American countries generally did not receive large scale sustained immigration from allophone countries to the extent that the US did. It's not a matter of opinion or traveling, it's a matter of statistics. Again, this does not mean Latin America did not receive immigration, but that immigration there was not as consistent or massive as that going to the United States. Let's take Argentina, for example, since it was the richest and by far the most popular Latin American destination for immigrants during the 19th century.
Between 1871 and 1890, net immigration was usually about about 10-50 thousand a year. There were exceptional years such as 1887-89 when Argentina received between 100 and 220 thousand each year. 75% of the immigrants were Latin Europeans, from Spain and Italy. Only a quarter were from anywhere else - notably Portugal, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, France. Only an extremely small minority came from Wales, and an even smaller minority came from Ireland. By 1900 Argentina was in economic decline, and fell from what we consider to be first-world status. Accordingly, after 1890 immigration to Argentina dropped off, and became a trickle by 1914. Today Argentina is not a primary destination for immigrants because Argentina never recovered from it's economic failure. My sources are as follows:
Ernesto Tornquist and Co. The Economic Development of Argentina in the Last Fifty Years (Buenos Aires, 1919), 15.
Rock, David. Argentina 1516-1987: From Spanish Colonization to Alfonsin, (Los Angeles, 1987) 140-144.
I also offer you to compare Mexican and Brazilian immigration during the same time period. Brazil was the second most attractive Latin American country for immigration. Immigration to Brazil largely mirrored Argentina in immigration patterns and origin of immigrants, with a primary difference being Brazil received more significant numbers of Germans settling in her temperate southern regions. Similar to Argentina, most immigrants to Argentina were Latin Europeans, with a disproportionate representation of Portuguese. Mexico, on the other hand, never received large scale immigration to the same extent as either country. Mexico's immigration was diverse but small in scale and centered around her western regions. Like Argentina, most Mexican immigrants were Latin Europeans such as Spaniards, and only a minority came from other parts of Europe. Both Mexico and Brazil attracted large numbers of landed immigrants (ie. displaced European aristocrats, those possessing skills in-demand) and did so to much more significant degree than Argentina which tended to attract poorer unskilled immigrants. I have drawn this information form these two sources:
Robert Ryal Miller. Mexico: A History (Los Angeles, 1986), 195-200.
Fausto, Boris. A Concise History of Brazil. (London, 1999). 142-48.
For your viewing, I have included some maps illustrating immigration to Latin America since the turn of the 20th century. It is interesting to see that countries that received so many immigrants during the late 19th century receive so few today:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
