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.
In general, no. No matter how we try, Latinos are from Latin America. Latins are poorly defined and might be the same as Latino or are something else and OP might be thinking of a broad historical view of Mediterranean. There might be a case for some North Africans being Mediterranean in some respects but I would not say Latin.
To be considered a Latin people, the most basic requirement is having a language such as French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc as a mother tongue. All those languages derive largely from Latin, the language that preceded them (and all masses of the Roman Catholic Church were celebrated in that language until the middle of the 20th Century). From my understanding, Latin based languages are not the mother tongue for most of the people in the Maghreb, unlike in Latin America.
With that said, there is a difference between Latin and Latino. It's basically impossible for any Latino in the true sense of the word to not be a Latin (hence the name Latin America), but not all Latins are Latinos too. Maghrebis have never bern Latinos and by the looks of things, never will be. In fact, there is no such thing as a Latin Africa or Latin Asia, because most people in Latin-controlled countries never had a Latin derived language as a mother tongue, it usually was a second language that was learned outside the home to deal with the government and other aspects of officialdom.
To be considered a Latin people, the most basic requirement is having a language such as French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc as a mother tongue. All those languages derive largely from Latin, the language that preceded them (and all masses of the Roman Catholic Church were celebrated in that language until the middle of the 20th Century). From my understanding, Latin based languages are not the mother tongue for most of the people in the Maghreb, unlike in Latin America.
For many Maghrebis, French is one of their mother tongue. It may not be their main, but neither is Arabic since many Magrhebis are Berbers, suchs as the Kabyles and the Rifians.
On the other hand, Not all Latin Americans speak Portuguese or Spanish. Native languages are still spoken. Furthermore, what is today Latin America was never part of the Roman Empire, unlike North Africa "Mauritania". It sounds a bit conflicting that the real "Latinos/Latins" were never under Roman domination.
Well, I guess that most if not all the people who were under Roman domination are already dead.
I have no idea why this kind of weird premises pop up here, like the other thread about Italians being Germanic (?!?).
Latino is an etymologically controversial yet firmly established denomination for the peoples from Latin America according to the Americans that have spread worldwide. As Latino is relative to Romance languages and it’s originally a demonym for Latium, either Romance speaking Europeans or just Central Italians sometimes challenge its usage (like “American” for the people from the Americas!).
So the Latin people can be either the people from the Latium region or the Europeans inheritors that kept the language (which evolved into the current Romance languages), whom also share a set of cultural traits, and formed various territorial entities and national identities: Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Romania, Wallonia, some Swiss cantons… As further conquest brought new lands for those inheritors, the area dominated by people who speak Romance languages expanded. In many “new lands” the influx of actual Romance speakers and/or their cultural influence was rather low; in others it was very significant, specifically in Latin America, which unlike Northern Africa, got major features from Europe and its nations were even founded by Europeans.
So who are Latin/Latinos?
It depends on the definition we use.
Do they conform a cultural unit?
In most definitions, especially the broader ones, they definitely don’t. For instance, Bolivians and Romanians have very little in common bar being from countries in which a Romance language is the primary language and the main religion is Christianity.
Can Northern Africans be considered Latin/Latinos?
Not at all, they fail to fit in every possible way.
Well, I guess that most if not all the people who were under Roman domination are already dead.
I have no idea why this kind of weird premises pop up here, like the other thread about Italians being Germanic (?!?).
Latino is an etymologically controversial yet firmly established denomination for the peoples from Latin America according to the Americans that have spread worldwide. As Latino is relative to Romance languages and it’s originally a demonym for Latium, either Romance speaking Europeans or just Central Italians sometimes challenge its usage (like “American” for the people from the Americas!).
So the Latin people can be either the people from the Latium region or the Europeans inheritors that kept the language (which evolved into the current Romance languages), whom also share a set of cultural traits, and formed various territorial entities and national identities: Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Romania, Wallonia, some Swiss cantons… As further conquest brought new lands for those inheritors, the area dominated by people who speak Romance languages expanded. In many “new lands” the influx of actual Romance speakers and/or their cultural influence was rather low; in others it was very significant, specifically in Latin America, which unlike Northern Africa, got major features from Europe and its nations were even founded by Europeans.
So who are Latin/Latinos?
It depends on the definition we use.
Do they conform a cultural unit?
In most definitions, especially the broader ones, they definitely don’t. For instance, Bolivians and Romanians have very little in common bar being from countries in which a Romance language is the primary language and the main religion is Christianity.
Can Northern Africans be considered Latin/Latinos?
Not at all, they fail to fit in every possible way.
Filipinos are sometimes regarded as Latinos by Latin Americans in spite of the fact that they don't speak a Romance language, and that some are Muslim.
On the other hand, Northern Africa has deep relationships to Europe. Portugal, Spain and France dominated North Africa for centuries. In fact, Algeria was considered a full-fledged french district until 1962, and many Europeans lived there.
"Latino" is any Latin country in the Americas. So no Maghrebis are not Latinos lol. Haitians actually have more rights to the term but we know the story.
Filipinos are sometimes regarded as Latinos by Latin Americans in spite of the fact that they don't speak a Romance language, and that some are Muslim.
On the other hand, Northern Africa has deep relationships to Europe. Portugal, Spain and France dominated North Africa for centuries. In fact, Algeria was considered a full-fledged french district until 1962, and many Europeans lived there.
According to whom? I never thought of Filipinos as Latinos and I don’t think any Latin Americans or a Romance speaking Europeans would acknowledge any sort of sense of belonging to a common cultural sphere with them. Yes, there is a significant Spanish legacy as for being a former colony and Catholicism is very strong there (unlike in North Africa), and it has some connections to Mexico as having been part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. Besides discussions about the position of the Philippines within alleged world cultural groupings are frequent around these forums, so I see where it comes from. However, Spanish ancestry is rather low and the current usage of the Spanish language is virtually non-existent, so they diverged a lot since colonial times. They are very Asian IMO.
By the way, why do you want to make a case for Maghrebis to be considered Latin or Latinos? Whatever their colonial past is, they have deep roots and overall culture and customs that make them very contrasting to either Latin America or Europe.
If anything, Maghrebi countries would fall in the umbrella of countries and territories who were part or colonies of Romance speaking countries from Europe, but you shouldn’t expect any kinship or common ground between Uruguay, Tunisia and Macau that differenciate them from countries who don’t belong in this group, so it would be a pointless categorization…
Could Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians be considered as Latin or Latinos, since most of them are French-speakers?
Good question because not that long ago there was fierce discussion that Angolans and Equatorial Guineans are Latin. And that Haiti is part of Latin America.
If the answer to this is "yes" than the Maghreb region is Latin.
Could Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians be considered as Latin or Latinos, since most of them are French-speakers?
Not in a modern, American political sense.
Certainly may North Africans lives under the Roman Empire.
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.
