[zozbot234]

> There is an articulable enough reason that requires history to know why people would gravitate to that term, now, and why it is not the end all be all of consensus.

Are people really "gravitating" to it, though? All we hear about as of late is the Latinx folks who refuse to endorse it. It seems to be mostly the product of a vocal minority, pushing for a sort of cultural appropriation of actual 'Latinx' identities.

> whereas in the US there already is a history of grouping people by race for better or for worse,

Come on, are we seriously arguing that Latin America, of all places, does not have a centuries-long problematic history of grouping people by race? Where do you think all those funny words like "quadroon" and "octoroon" were imported from? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta Latin America is the best existing case study for the reality and long-run societal consequences of structural and institutional racism, far more so than the U.S. !

[vmception]

> Come on, are we seriously arguing that Latin America, of all places, does not have a centuries-long problematic history of grouping people by race?

Nobody is arguing that, its more about non-"latinx" people in the US not being able to tell and not know and picking a term for people, alongside some of this generation's US residents that have latin american heritage that aren't represented adequately also picking the term, specifically to not perpetuate a caste system.

I'm saying that the folly of the term is that it masquarades as representation of central and south america when its just for some US residents that want amorphous representation.

It doesn't really factor in what the other US residents with the same heritage think, and it doesn't factor in the history of the places they came from. Its not a factor at all.