As an historian, I am normally leery of movies that claim to retell history, as film makers rarely tell history accurately and take too many liberties with the subject matter, all in the name of artistic license of course.

I have not seen “La Otra Conquista” but I did see “Apocalypto”, and I have to confess that I rather enjoyed the movie myself. I also read the comments that were posted on “Apocalypto” and it seems to me that most of the negative comments on the movie did not even come from Native Americans but rather from Latinos; therefore I feel that I should clarify the term “latino”, especially after the yearly brouhaha over the Columbus Day holiday.

So, here are a couple of definitions for the word Latino:
[Origin: 1945–50, Americanism; As an historian, I am normally leery of movies that claim to retell history, as film makers rarely tell history accurately and take too many liberties with the subject matter, all in the name of artistic license of course.

I have not seen "La Otra Conquista" but I did see "Apocalypto", and I have to confess that I rather enjoyed the movie myself. I also read the comments that were posted on "Apocalypto" and it seems to me that most of the negative comments on the movie did not even come from Native Americans but rather from Latinos; therefore I feel that I should clarify the term "latino", especially after the yearly brouhaha over the Columbus Day holiday.

So, here are a couple of definitions for the word Latino:
[Origin: 1945–50, Americanism; < Amer Sp, special use of Sp latino LATIN, perh. by ellipsis from latinoamericano LATIN-AMERICAN ]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

1. A Latin American.
2. A person of Hispanic, especially Latin-American, descent, often one living in the United States. See Usage Note at Hispanic.
[Short for Spanish latinoamericano, Latin-American, from latino, Latin, from Latin Latīnus; see Latin.]

La•ti’no adj.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Latino
“Latin inhabitant of the United States,” 1946, Amer.Eng., from Amer.Sp., shortening of Latinoamericano “Latin-American.” As an adj., attested from 1974.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

latino
adjective
1. related to a Spanish-speaking people or culture; “the Hispanic population of California is growing rapidly” [syn: Hispanic]

noun
1. a native of Latin America [syn: Latin American]

2. an artificial language based on words common to the Romance languages

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Please notice how the most noticeable commonality in these definitions is Spanish or Hispanic. The conclusion that I draw from the above definitions, and my own experiences are that Latino people and cultures are essentially a result of the mixing of Spaniards, who by the way are not Hispanics as they are Europeans and therefore Caucasians, and Native Americans with a tendency to favor the Spanish language and a fairly large number of Spanish cultural markers. In other words, Latino culture is essentially a result of the coming together of the native inhabitants of the America’s with the Spanish.

I am sure that some of you out there will not appreciate what I am saying, and please, before we get ourselves stuck in a wringer, do not ever get the impression I am somehow excusing, glorifying, condoning, or otherwise excusing what Francisco Pissarro, or Cortez did when they arrived in the America’s.

With that being said, what the Spanish did in South and Central America was not at all uncommon in the course of human history; let’s keep in mind that Cortez was successful in his conquest of the Mexica (Aztecs) not so much because of superior weaponry or tactics, but thanks to many factors that are simply too long to list. However, some of the most salient are the fact that the Mexica had many jealous and angry neighbors that were only to glad to help the Spanish in their military campaign, and the fact that the native Americans had no resistance to European diseases, just to name a couple.

I watched the movie in Mexico when it came out. What saddened me was the fact that there were only FOUR of us in the movie theatre, while theatres have been overflowing with people for movies such as American Pie II….sigh….

Anyways, I respect other peoples opinons but lets not compare Apocalypto to this movie just because of the “indigenous” factor. This movie was good, and offered a detailed, enlightened perspective on the psychological effects of not just Spanish conquest, but religious conversion and dehumanization processes through the portrayal of one human being.

You know M, over the years I have discovered some universal constants, and this goes for you too Mala; one of the constants is that people rarely like hearing the truth! I am not comparing these movies because I have not seen “Conquista”, but I do find it ironic that the movie’s title is in Spanish, the language of Cortez and Pissarro.

Again, I am not saying anything even remotely positive about Cortez or Pissarro or of the Spanish colonization of the Americas; as far as I am concerned these were some of the saddest, most repulsive, despicable chapters in human history and a stain on the honor of Spain. Nor am I trying to put a positive spin on what any of the European colonizers did in the Americas.

However, I will again point out that Latino culture is a direct result of the tumultuous and painful blending of the Native American cultures and peoples of pre-Columbian America and the Spanish colonizers. Like it or not, own up to it or not, that is the truth.

ok, i see your point a little clearer, mario lopez. however, since you were on the set of “saved by the bell,” you should answer something that really interests vivirlatino readers. what do you think scared kelly kapowski more, the dark meat or the wanna-be jerry curls?

ok, in all seriousness, as a historian, put up the links for your academic work–i’d love to go through your references and see what i come up with.

latinos, specifically when referring to those who are products of colonization, and those who somehow were able to maintain their indigenousness (because latino does emcompass both) are different from the african-american population here in the united states. african-american culture is a result of a people seeking to create a culture from scratch, since any connections slaves had to their homelands was forcibly removed from them through colonization, institutionalized discrimination, and generations having to deal with the previous two. latinos are different.

you’ve gotta give me something more than definitions from “dictionary.com.” and please don’t go w/ wikipedia, dogs…

Mario I agree with you 100 % I dont like to be classified as Latin just because I speak spanish which is the only thing we have in common in central and south america so id rather say im mixed