/lit/ - Literature

>>19799329


ASÍ ES.

>>19018572
>THIS FALLACIOUS IDEA WAS THEN COOPTED BY UNITEDSTATES IN PRO OF THEIR EXPANSIONISTIC PRETENSES, AS A MEANS OF NEGATIVE, ALIENATING DISTINCTION OF THE SPECIES OF «US VERSVS THEM», BETWEEN ANGLOAMERICA ON «THEIR SIDE», AND HISPANOAMERICA, AND LUSOAMERICA ON «THE OTHER SIDE»
>ok. Or could it be that its
>All those kinda minor stats down south there that speak romance stuff
>I hardly think a particular motive is needed for that idea to congel in the Anglophone american areas.

1. YOUR ORTHOGRAPHY IS PESSIMAL, AND YOUR PUNCTUATION DEFICIENT.

2. IT IS A GEOPOLITICAL PROBLEM: THE IDEA OF «LATINOAMERICA» WAS TAKEN FRENCHLY PREFABRICATED BY UNITEDSTATIANS, AND IMPLEMENTED; IT DID NOT ARISE FROM VULGAR INTUITIVE VOID.


>THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS: «CULTURE», REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER YOU MEAN BY: «THE GESTALT CULTURE».
>the general peoplegroup with some level of distinct shared history. Like you can give general groups like Anglosphere, Northern europe, western europe (which has some areas which may or may not be included given the broad nature of the term), Indian, etc.

YOU ARE DESCRIBING A VAGUE ABSTRACTION; THE IDEA OF «CULTURE» WAS INVENTED BY GERMANIC ILLUSTRISTS IN THE XVIII CENTURY, AND IS BEST DESCRIBABLE AS A: «TRANSCENDENTAL ETHNOLOGICAL HYPOSTASIS».

SIMILARLY TO HOW THE IDEA OF «LATINOAMERICA» WAS COOPTED BY UNITEDSTATIANS IN PRO OF THEIR ANGLOAMERICAN EXPANSIONISTIC PRETENSES, THE IDEA OF «CULTURE» WAS COOPTED, OR ASSIMILATED, INTO GLOBALISM AS THE PRIME INSTRUMENTAL MEDIVM TO SUBVERT & FRAGMENT POLITICAL STATES, TO DIVIDE NATIONS INTO REGIONAL IDENTITIES, AND, ULTIMATELY, TO MANIPULATE PEOPLES INTO «CULTURAL CLUSTERS» —WHY DO YOU THINK THAT GLOBALISTS NEVER STOP TALKING ABOUT «CULTURE»?


>AMERICA IS ONE CONTINENT.
>Depending on ones definition. From a geographical pov, north and south america are more continents then asia europe and Africa are since they all touch much more readily. And the geopolitical devide between central america and south America does even give some cultural split as well.

THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFINITION: THE CONTINENTAL ONE:


— AMERICA.

— EUROPA.

— ASIA.

— AFRICA.

— OCEANIA.

— ANTARCTICA.


THESE SIX ARE THE CONTINENTS IN ACTUALITY.

>>18778695


THE ONLY IBERIANS THAT COLONIZED AMERICA WERE THE PORTUGUESE; THE SPANISH CIVILIZED IT.

TO CONFLATE THE PORTUGUESE, AND SPANISH, AMERICAN ENTERPRISES UNDER THE MONISTIC NOTION OF «IBERIC COLONIZATION» IS INDICATIVE OF (I) CONCEPTUAL IGNORANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN IMPERIAL POLITY —ID EST: AN EMPIRE OR IMPERIVM—, AND A COLONIAL POLITY —ID EST: A COLONIVM—, AND OF (II) HISTORICAL IGNORANCE OF THE ACTUAL EVENTS IN THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE HISPANICAL, AND THE LUSITANICAL, AMERICAN ENTERPRISES —ID EST: IF YOU KNEW HOW DIFFERENTLY FROM EACH OTHER THE SPANISH, AND THE PORTUGUESE, ACTED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ENTERPRISES, YOU WOULD NOT CONFLATE THEM.

THE COLONIAL ENTERPRISE OF THE KINGDOM OF PORTUGAL, AND THE IMPERIAL ENTERPRISE OF THE HISPANICAL MONARCHY, WERE MUTUALLY ANTITHETICAL, THE FORMER BEING REDEEMED ONLY WHEN THE KINGDOM OF PORTUGAL WAS ANNEXED TO THE HISPANICAL IMPERIVM (1580 – 1640).

THE PHRASE: «COLONIZATION OF THE NEW WORLD BY THE IBERIANS», IS VIRTUALLY MEANINGLESS.

>>18132621


IMPERIO, Y POTENCIA COLONIAL, SON DOS TIPOS DE ORGANIZACIÓN POLÍTICA MUTUAMENTE DIFERENTES, Y DISTINTAS EN SÍ; UN IMPERIO ESTÁ CONSTITUIDO EN PROVINCIAS DE DIVERSA DENOMINACIÓN —VIRREINO, CAPITANÍA, DEPENDENCIA, ET CETERA—, COMPONIENDO UN TODO POLÍTICAMENTE HOLÍSTICO; UNA POTENCIA COLONIAL SE CONSTITUYE EN COLONIAS, QUE NO SON SINO FACTORÍAS DE EXPLOTACIÓN; LA CATÓLICA MONARQUÍA HISPÁNICA FUE IMPERIO, NO POTENCIA COLONIAL.

ABSTENTE YA DE SEGUIR COMENTANDO, QUE EVIDENTEMENTE ERES IGNORANTE SOBRE EL TEMA, ADEMÁS DE SER NECIO.

>>17532343


— «EUGENESIA DE LA HISPANIDAD, Y REGENERACIÓN DE LA RAZA», POR: ANTONIO VALLEJO NÁJERA.

— «EL HISPANISMO COMO CUARTA TEORÍA POLÍTICA», POR: JOSÉ ALSINA CALVÉS.

— «RULES FOR RADICALS», POR: SAUL ALINSKY.

— «EL HÉROE», «EL POLÍTICO», «EL DISCRETO», POR: BALTASAR GRACIÁN.

HELLO.

ARE MODERATORS, AND JANITORS, HISPANOPHOBES? IF THEY ARE NOT, HOW ELSE TO EXPLAIN THE CONSTANT DELETION OF THREADS, AND POSTS, MADE IN SPANISH LANGUAGE?

THE EXCUSATIVE, ROTE MESSAGE GIVEN TO USERS WHO HAVE HAD TO TOLERATE THIS IS: «4CHAN IS AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE WEBSITE. PLEASE POST IN ENGLISH.»

POSTING IN LANGUAGES OTHER THAN ENGLISH DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY RULE, THEREFORE, THE DELETION, OR THE REMOVAL, OF THREADS, OR POSTS, IN A LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH, IS UNJUSTIFIED.

IF THE ADMINISTRATION WANTED USERS TO POST ONLY ENGLISH THERE WOULD BE A RULE EXPLICITLY STATING THE COMPULSORY QUALITY OF THE USAGE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

THIS «ENGLISHIST» PHENOMENON IS DUE, EITHER: (I) TO IGNORANCE OF THE RULES, OR (II) TO PROACTIVE HISPANOPHOBIA ON THE PART OF MODERATORS, AND/OR JANITORS —IF THE FORMER, YOU, THE MODERATORS, AND THE JANITORS, SHOULD REVISE THE RULES, TO REACQUAINT YOURSELVES WITH THEM, AND STOP DELETING, OR REMOVING, THREADS, AND POSTS, MADE IN SPANISH LANGUAGE, OR IN ANY OTHER LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH; IF THE LATTER, YOU SHOULD DROP THE RULEABIDING FACADE, AND BE HONEST IN YOUR MALICE.

>>16719912


EL TÉRMINO: «LATINO», APLICADO A LA GENTE HISPÁNICA —Y A LA LUSITÁNICA— DE AMÉRICA, CONSTITUYE UN MISNOMIO SUTILMENTE ANTIHISPÁNICO —Y, EN MENOR MEDIDA, ANTILUSITÁNICO— DE FACTURA FRANCESA.

EL CONSTRUCTO SOCIOCULTURAL DE: «LATINOAMÉRICA», ES ESPURIO; ORIGINALMENTE NADA MÁS QUE UN INSTRUMENTO GEOPOLÍTICO PARA RACIONALIZAR LOS RECLAMOS COLONIALÍSTICOS FRANCESES SOBRE TERRITORIO HISPANOAMERICANO EN EL SIGLO DIECINUEVE, BAJO LA CONSIGNA DE: «LATINIDAD»; AHORA ES UN INSTRUMENTO PARA EL ANGLOPROTESTANTISMO, UTILIZADO PARA ELIDIR LA PERSONALIDAD HISPANOCATÓLICA DE LOS HISPANOAMERICANOS, Y PARA OBSCURECER, O ELIMINAR, EL CONCEPTO DE IBEROAMÉRICA, CONFUNDIENDO A LA GENTES LUSITÁNICA, E HISPÁNICA, DE AMÉRICA BAJO LA VACUA Y VACIANTE NOCIÓN DE: «LATINOAMÉRICA», DESVANECIÉNDOSE ASÍ LA PERSONALIDAD CRIOLLA ANTE LA IDENTIDAD «LATINA».

LOS ÚNICOS USOS CORRECTOS DE EL TÉRMINO: «LATINO», ES PARA LO REFERENTE A LA LENGUA LATINA, O A LOS ANTIGUOS LATINOS DE LA PENÍNSULA ITÁLICA; EL ÚNICO USO CORRECTO DE EL TÉRMINO: «LATINOAMÉRICA», ES PARA LO REFERENTE A LAS NACIONES AMERICANAS CUYA LENGUA NATIVA ES ROMANCE —ID EST: DERIVADA DESDE LA LATINA—; ESTE USO LINGÜÍSTICO EXCLUYE EL USO PARA LO REFERENTE A LA LITERATURA.

EL TÉRMINO CORRECTO PARA REFERIRSE A LA TOTALIDAD DE ESTADOSNACIÓN HISPÁNICOS DE AMÉRICA ES: «HISPANOAMÉRICA»; EL TÉRMINO CORRECTO PARA REFERIRSE A EL ÚNICO ESTADONACIÓN LUSITÁNICO DE AMÉRICA (BRASIL) EN UN SENTIDO UNIVERSALÍSTICO ES: «LUSOAMÉRICA»; EL TÉRMINO CORRECTO PARA REFERIRSE A LA TOTALIDAD DE ESTADOSNACIÓN HISPÁNICOS DE AMÉRICA, INCLUYENDO A BRASIL, ES: «IBEROAMÉRICA».

«LATINOAMÉRICA» ES EL CADÁVER DE HISPANOAMÉRICA.