![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hmm
Something I've encountered rarely but it seems to be on the rise: Using "Latin@" to designate Latino/Latina in non-gender-specifying way.
Positive: The amphora can be read to combine both a and o. Using Latino as generic is kind of sexist default=male, using Latina as generic draws condescending "correction". (My preferred solution, possibly: Using "Latin". But that's also the name of a language...)
Negative: I, and I suspect many others, read "Latin@" as "Latinat". Unless pronouncing it Latinat, how the hell do you pronounce that? As a byproduct, not least, of the way I read text (I "hear" it in my head, unless I'm deliberately reading fast/skim-reading, in which case it gets more complicated), and also as a direct product of my perception that spoken language is important and central, I object to words that can't be pronounced. (Da5id in Snow Crash, despite my recognition that the 5 was a play on V, was Dafivid in my head, kinda. Only the /fiv/ part is really elided.)
I'm pretty sure there's a difference between Latino/Latina and Hispanic, that explains why they're different words, but as an ethnic group it's not collectively identified in Australia, that I'm aware of. I've known Mexicans and people from various Central American countries, and they were identified by nationality.
Which has, I only just realised, produced a reflexive negative reaction in me to San Salvador and people therefrom. Because I think I've only known one family from there, and I had barely any contact with anyone other than the man in that family, and he sexually assaulted me. So references to the San Salvador, and people therefrom, make me think of that guy. (Because I only know two things about him: That he's from the San Salvador, and that he did bad things to me.) Clearly, after I deal with some of my ongoing-trauma stuff with my psychologist, I need to learn more about San Salvador, so I can build some new cross-references in my brain.
Because that's how my brain works; it cross-references things with other things. This is why I'm good at history - I automatically process new information in relation to existing information, and make connections. However, when I have minimal related information about something, that thing is strongly linked.
Note that I'm not saying I automatically think everyone from San Salvador or El Salvador is a rapist; I'm saying that mentions of the city or country remind me of the one Salvadorean I knew, who was. He also enters my thoughts when considering Central America generally. I don't hate Central Americans.
I suspect that the difference is that the Central American/Latin-descent Caribbean population in Australia is small enough that identifying them collectively seems sort of wrong all by itself. Along with, I think, a minimal tendency here to group ethnicities at all. European doesn't work - German is different from French is different from Spanish, etc, and so, since everyone identifies with a specific ethnicity, be it where they/their ancestors immigrated from or as Australian without descent markings, everyone can identify with a distaste for mass categorisation. Or something.
Possibly I'm over-generalising. What do I know? I meant this to be a two-line post and I'm having a disordered few days.
Positive: The amphora can be read to combine both a and o. Using Latino as generic is kind of sexist default=male, using Latina as generic draws condescending "correction". (My preferred solution, possibly: Using "Latin". But that's also the name of a language...)
Negative: I, and I suspect many others, read "Latin@" as "Latinat". Unless pronouncing it Latinat, how the hell do you pronounce that? As a byproduct, not least, of the way I read text (I "hear" it in my head, unless I'm deliberately reading fast/skim-reading, in which case it gets more complicated), and also as a direct product of my perception that spoken language is important and central, I object to words that can't be pronounced. (Da5id in Snow Crash, despite my recognition that the 5 was a play on V, was Dafivid in my head, kinda. Only the /fiv/ part is really elided.)
I'm pretty sure there's a difference between Latino/Latina and Hispanic, that explains why they're different words, but as an ethnic group it's not collectively identified in Australia, that I'm aware of. I've known Mexicans and people from various Central American countries, and they were identified by nationality.
Which has, I only just realised, produced a reflexive negative reaction in me to San Salvador and people therefrom. Because I think I've only known one family from there, and I had barely any contact with anyone other than the man in that family, and he sexually assaulted me. So references to the San Salvador, and people therefrom, make me think of that guy. (Because I only know two things about him: That he's from the San Salvador, and that he did bad things to me.) Clearly, after I deal with some of my ongoing-trauma stuff with my psychologist, I need to learn more about San Salvador, so I can build some new cross-references in my brain.
Because that's how my brain works; it cross-references things with other things. This is why I'm good at history - I automatically process new information in relation to existing information, and make connections. However, when I have minimal related information about something, that thing is strongly linked.
Note that I'm not saying I automatically think everyone from San Salvador or El Salvador is a rapist; I'm saying that mentions of the city or country remind me of the one Salvadorean I knew, who was. He also enters my thoughts when considering Central America generally. I don't hate Central Americans.
I suspect that the difference is that the Central American/Latin-descent Caribbean population in Australia is small enough that identifying them collectively seems sort of wrong all by itself. Along with, I think, a minimal tendency here to group ethnicities at all. European doesn't work - German is different from French is different from Spanish, etc, and so, since everyone identifies with a specific ethnicity, be it where they/their ancestors immigrated from or as Australian without descent markings, everyone can identify with a distaste for mass categorisation. Or something.
Possibly I'm over-generalising. What do I know? I meant this to be a two-line post and I'm having a disordered few days.