Talk:Zoot Suit Riots: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Repitition/Slant/Geography: new section |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:I fail to see how the term Chicano can be used in an article for an event that occurred in WWII. In the 1940s the term was rarely used and when it was it had negative connotations. There was definitely no "Chicano Culture" in the 1940s as Mexican Americans were then known as Latinos. Chicano became a popular term only in the 1960s and is still largely unrecognised outside America where the term is known mainly from watching U.S. movies and seen as applying mostly to criminal gangs and the culture they live in. Although no longer seen as pejorative in the U.S. the term Chicano remains somewhat pejorative in the rest of the world that still sees Mexican Americans as Latinos. If you go to the dictionary definition for Latino (Encarta U.S. Edition) you find: ''somebody of Latin American descent who lives in the United States''. For Latin American descent the definition is: ''a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race'' which obviously applies to the victims of the riots as “Mexican American” is generally used as a catch all phrase meant to include Latin Americans.<br />For Chicano (same dictionary) you find: ''a North American man or boy of Mexican descent'' which does not really apply to the majority of victims as Chicano refers '''only''' to Mexican Americans and excludes those descended from other Latin American backgrounds. The definition of Chicano itself also differs between various U.S. Mexican American communities making use of the term problematic if not inappropriate. [[User:WLRoss|Wayne]] ([[User talk:WLRoss|talk]]) 07:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC) |
:I fail to see how the term Chicano can be used in an article for an event that occurred in WWII. In the 1940s the term was rarely used and when it was it had negative connotations. There was definitely no "Chicano Culture" in the 1940s as Mexican Americans were then known as Latinos. Chicano became a popular term only in the 1960s and is still largely unrecognised outside America where the term is known mainly from watching U.S. movies and seen as applying mostly to criminal gangs and the culture they live in. Although no longer seen as pejorative in the U.S. the term Chicano remains somewhat pejorative in the rest of the world that still sees Mexican Americans as Latinos. If you go to the dictionary definition for Latino (Encarta U.S. Edition) you find: ''somebody of Latin American descent who lives in the United States''. For Latin American descent the definition is: ''a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race'' which obviously applies to the victims of the riots as “Mexican American” is generally used as a catch all phrase meant to include Latin Americans.<br />For Chicano (same dictionary) you find: ''a North American man or boy of Mexican descent'' which does not really apply to the majority of victims as Chicano refers '''only''' to Mexican Americans and excludes those descended from other Latin American backgrounds. The definition of Chicano itself also differs between various U.S. Mexican American communities making use of the term problematic if not inappropriate. [[User:WLRoss|Wayne]] ([[User talk:WLRoss|talk]]) 07:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
== |
== Repetition/Slant/Geography == |
||
In this article, the incidents from May 31, 1943 onward are told twice by two different authors. Can we combine them into a single account? |
In this article, the incidents from May 31, 1943 onward are told twice by two different authors. Can we combine them into a single account? |
||
Revision as of 23:43, 13 December 2009
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zoot Suit Riots article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | California Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Mexican-Americans
|
|
Latino or Chicano?
Hello, edit warriors. Might I ask you to discuss this matter here instead of revert warring? I have fully protected the article pending a resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I fail to see how the term Chicano can be used in an article for an event that occurred in WWII. In the 1940s the term was rarely used and when it was it had negative connotations. There was definitely no "Chicano Culture" in the 1940s as Mexican Americans were then known as Latinos. Chicano became a popular term only in the 1960s and is still largely unrecognised outside America where the term is known mainly from watching U.S. movies and seen as applying mostly to criminal gangs and the culture they live in. Although no longer seen as pejorative in the U.S. the term Chicano remains somewhat pejorative in the rest of the world that still sees Mexican Americans as Latinos. If you go to the dictionary definition for Latino (Encarta U.S. Edition) you find: somebody of Latin American descent who lives in the United States. For Latin American descent the definition is: a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race which obviously applies to the victims of the riots as “Mexican American” is generally used as a catch all phrase meant to include Latin Americans.
For Chicano (same dictionary) you find: a North American man or boy of Mexican descent which does not really apply to the majority of victims as Chicano refers only to Mexican Americans and excludes those descended from other Latin American backgrounds. The definition of Chicano itself also differs between various U.S. Mexican American communities making use of the term problematic if not inappropriate. Wayne (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Repetition/Slant/Geography
In this article, the incidents from May 31, 1943 onward are told twice by two different authors. Can we combine them into a single account? Also, the first of the two accounts mentioned above has a clear slant depicting the event as an unprovoked attack by mislead and vengeful white servicemen against law abiding innocent Latinos. While there was clearly racial bias in the events, it should be stated in a way that does not seem to side with one group or the other. We can all agree that tese events were a travesty of liberty and freedoms on the Latino men, but the hostility was brewing from both sides and the events were instigted by action from both sides. Maybe more attention needs to be given to the rising conflict and culture prior to the event to make the situation clear. Last, Main Street in Los Angeles is not in East L.A, but runs north and south from the downtown area. To place it in East Los Angeles (a primarily poor Latino neighborhood) further fosters the image of white servicemen as interlopers or "not in their own neighborhood", possibly looking for conflict.