Hi. I arrived here via the LinguaBlogs. Kudos on the blog! It's great.

Concerning this post, I have never heard such reason for the coining of "Latin America". All I have ever heard was that Latin America is called so because its language derives from Latin. This includes all the Spanish speakers, including those in the Caribbean, most of whom use interchangebly the terms Hispanic and Latino to identify themselves. However, the Brazilians consider themselves "Latinos", and have pride in using that term. Of course, their language is Portuguese, which also derives from Latin, but I don't see how this would connect to what that quote says, if it's correct. Unless, the Brazilians were called Latinos by analogy with the Spanish-speakers. Another thing, somewhat of a debate that I've heard, is the fact the Québécois, whose language, as we know, French, also derives from Latin, but are not included in the Latino group, amongst the Mexicans, Cubans, Central and South Americans, and Brazilians.

:D

Eddie: I'd never heard it either, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Of course the theoretical basis for the term is as you say; the question is when the term was first used and under what circumstances, and if it was created by the French in their attempt to establish an American empire, I think that's extremely interesting. It should be easy enough to establish; I just don't happen to have the appropriate references to hand. (Must... buy... more... books...)

I like the looks of your blog, by the way!

I cannot give you a definitive answer to this question, but here's some tentative evidence from the OED2 online. Certainly, this source has the disadvantage of being an English language source.

under "Latin, a. and n.":
4. a. Hist. Applied (in opposition to Greek) to what pertains to the peoples of Western Europe, viewed in their relations with the Eastern Empire and with the Saracens and Turks. b. Used as a designation for the European peoples which speak languages descended from Latin; often with implication of the erroneous notion that these peoples are of Roman descent. Latin-American a., of or belonging to those countries in Central and South America in which Spanish or Portuguese is the dominant language (and which are often referred to collectively as Latin America); also n., an inhabitant of one of these countries. Also (ellipt.) Latin.
Latin League: a proposed association of Latin nations, advocated by the Spanish minister Castelar in 1884, to restore the balance of power in Europe, and check the increasing influence of Germany.

**This clearly shows the use of "Latin" as early as the 1880s as a term used to hold speakers of Romance languages together as a discrete, unified group. This doesn't prove the claim that this term came from the French, but it does at least make this claim plausible.

under "Latin American":
[f. LATIN a. + AMERICAN a. and n.]
A. adj. a. Of or pertaining to Latin America or its peoples.
Until the early 20th cent. Spanish American was the preferred term.

**This shows the interesting fact that the term "Latin American" was little used before the 20th century, giving enough time for a term created in the 1860s to take hold in "Latin America" and transfer to English.

My last name means "hat," so my name off to languagehat!

Geof Huth

Never heard that explanation, but it seems quite plausible, given the French, ahem, slighly megalomaniac tendencies towards cultural self-aggrandizement (I'm Spanish, I know what I'm talking about).

I do know that Borges thought the term ridiculous, and argued that then absolutely all the Western world was Latin, inasmuch as the Roman influence extended over all European cultures.

I agree that Montreal is not part of Latin America. But what about Haiti? Martinique? St.Kitts/St.Christophe? Belize? IS the carribean coast of Nicaragua still part of Latin America?

I have seen that explanation before, in an authoritative source, which I can't now recall.

Here's a reference courtesy of Google.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Latin%20America

Those of us who greet each new morning bitter and twisted, improving only later in the day, will see Dr L as yet another outbreak of the American Disease - the ex-cathedra pronouncement (sorry!) for universal implementation by force from a guy who, mentally, has never been beyond the end of his own street.

In some dialects all the vowels are different from standard - whose standard? which standard? fixed at what point in time? - in others it is especially easy or difficult to pronounce particular combinations. Filum, for instance, is the spoken standard in many dialects and as long as I can also spell it get off my back!

If, as I believe, most Americans chomp their food why may they not also chomp at the bit?

Oh, and spitting image is standard - yuk - on this side of the pond: spit and image is archaic. Enough already! I have a quilt to finish.

More backing for the tale, from

http://wais.stanford.edu/LatinAmerica/latinamerica_latinamerica03102004.htm

"David Crow writes; "The meaning of "Latin American" is a subject of debate even among specialists in the region. It should be noted that, of course, the Spanish-speaking Caribbean countries, including Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and the protectorate of Puerto Rico are incontestably Latin American. On the other hand, the consensus excludes the English-speaking Caribbean countries. Most contested is the status of the French-speaking Caribbean nations. The argument for including them as part of Latin America is the origin of the term itself, an early 19th coinage of the Bonaparte regime, which dreamed of expanding into the Americas and saw all Latinate language countries as its rightful sphere of influence". RH: It is well-known that the French invented the term "Latin America", so the French-speaking Caribbean territories should be incuded. However, it is wrong to call them nations. They are French departments, and therefore France may regard them as part of France......"

I suppose Nap III (or more likely someone in his court) might have coined "Latin America," but how is he supposed to have made it stick? He wasn't a colossus; he was a man trying to wear bots too big for him, and people generally knew it -- the absurdity of trying to foist a French emperor on Mexico was clearly perceived at the time. Nor did he have a gift for memorable speech. If "Latin America," stuck, its because it filled a need (an easy way to refer to the parts of North, Central, and South America in which Spanish or Portuguese were the dominant tongues.)

Oops. Boots. Boots too big for him. Not bots.

Well, his bots were probably too big for him too. At any rate, the question was who coined it, and it's beginning to look like Max (or someone in his employ) was indeed the one.

this explanation is true, but a little bit deformed.

the purpose of napoleon III was not to colonized all the countries south of US border but to stop the united states expansion to the south. Just before his intervention the half of mexico was integrated to the united states, and some decades before france lost canada and louisiane.

The fear of the french was that all the american continent became slowly an anglo-saxon continent. So they wanted to take control of central america to avoid any USA annexion of mexico in the name of the latin culture that share the french, spanish, italians and portuguese. so the name "latin-america" was quikly imposed to name this part of america were spanish and portuguese cultures dominates.

In the same periode, in paris there were a lot of students and intelectuals from these countries. they prefered to take a distance to spanish culture (which one was at this time considered to be to much assiociated to the "conquistadores" and underdevelopement)
So, those hispanoamericans intelectuals came back to their contries with a name that was more positive because it refers not only to iberian countries but firstly to roman civilisation and its sons : Italy, France, which are countries that represented the cultural elite of western civilisation.