By now you may have heard that Disney is set to debut their first Latina princess on November 18 in a Disney Channel TV movie targeted for
children ages 2-7. You may also have heard the criticisms of Sofia, as the new princess is called, that immediately followed.
The first is her name, which is, as Roachele Negron, one of several Latina mom bloggers that NBC Latino interviewed recently, called it, a “Spanish imperial rule name.” Another connected criticism is her appearance – Sofia is light-skinned, with auburn hair and blue eyes. Without getting into the issue of whether she “looks” Latina, because as we know there is no one way to look Latina since we are not a race. We are an ethnicity that encompasses White, Black, Asian, Indigenous and mixed people.
The issue is that we already have plenty of White princesses – it would have been nice to have one that Latinos with Indigenous or mixed ancestry could physically identify with. We have to wait and see if the “Latin influences” of her mother’s country of origin will translate into a representation of Latino culture. Without it, there is little left to identify her as Latina, besides the assertion by one of the movie’s executive producers that she is.
These are all valid critiques, but I would like to raise one more. Unveiling a new princess that introduces a new ethnicity to the increasing diversity of the Disney franchise is a big deal – so why is Sofia the First not getting her own movie theatre premiere? There is nothing that prevented the company from revealing Sofia the First with all the pomp and circumstance received by The Princess and the Frog, which introduced Tiana, Disney’s first Black princess. And there is nothing that prevented them from casting a voice-actress for the tiny princess of Latino descent, in the same way they cast Anika Noni Rose as the voice actress for Tiana.
But now a new question has arisen after Disney’s reaction to the backlash. They have revealed the heritage of their new Princess, and it certainly isn’t what many would identify as Latina. If her mother is from “an enchanted kingdom inspired by Spain (Galdiz) and her birth father hailed from an enchanted kingdom inspired by Scandinavia,” what in her heritage or experience makes her akin to a Latina?
The term Latino is largely a United States concept, but without a United States context, since the two countries that served as inspiration are European, and with no promise of cultural signifiers to establish a Latino culture, since the “fantasy lands that may reflect elements of various cultures and ethnicities” in Disney movies are not “meant to specifically represent those real world cultures,” do we have to accept Sofia the First as our first Latina princess?
Or can we get back to demanding a non-toddler princess who represents a greater range of the Latino experience and who merits her own movie theatre debut?
So is Antonio Banderas Latino? Or is he Spanish? Or is he Hispanic? Or is he Hispano?
He is from Spain. If I am not mistaken, he does not have any indigenous ancestry.
Is he Latino because he more or less immigrated and lives in California full-time?
There is no such thing as a Latina Princess because their is no country in Latin America that has a King or Queen or Royal family. Their are only independent countries in Latin America that became independent after they kicked out the Spanish and its Monarchy. Latin America is made up of different countries and different ethnic cultures.
This fake outrage is further proof of what I have been saying since I moved to the US mainland. Far too many self-described “Latinos” here know absolutely nothing of the racial and ethnic of Latin America. The same people who say rubios (white Latinos) do not “look Latino” are the same ones who tell Latinos of African and Asian descent they don’t look Latino and refuse to acknowledge them.
There is no such thing as looking Latino. It is not a race and quite frankly not even a singular ethnicity. It is a geographic culture which started with Iberian colonizers(Spain/Portugal), Indigenous tribes/slaves, and African slaves but also received (and continue to receives) immigrants from around the world, similar to how the US. Real Latinos know this. Real Latinos do not make ridiculous comments like “she doesn’t look Latino” because they know saying as much is like saying “she doesn’t look American.” Why? Because anyone can be Latino the same way anyone can be a US Citizen! Race doesn’t matter, skin color doesn’t matter, and your last name doesn’t matter. If you think race/color/last name matter then you know nothing of being Latino.
More importantly, where is this outrage when Telemundo and Univision do their casting? The majority of their lead actors and anchors are rubios yet I have never heard any screams for them to cast darker actors. Where are the screams when they refuse to cast Indigenous, African, or Asian Latinos in lead roles or relegate them to playing disgusting stereotypes? So racism/ colorism is okay if the characters are speaking Spanish? What a joke.
Thank goodness! She looks NOTHING Latina!
She certainly doesnt look like any Latina I know.
Disney needs to step their game up! We need a Latina princess that our little girls can relate to. She needs to have plenty of attitude with mixed features and a curvy body
Lame attempt by Disney to reel in an Hispanic audience.
No, because she lives in fairytale world, where no race or ethnicity exists! They are only based on ethnicities and races!
That is so wrong!
True that Latino is not a race – I have blue-eyed, red-haired Puerto Rican relatives – but there is a concept. And if the Latina Princess is representing an ethnic group, there is nothing wrong with a look at least somewhat representative of the Latina ethnic concept.
The beautiful thing about being Latin is we come in all colors, shapes and sizes!!!
I beg all my Latin people to not let your children be raised with the morals of ficticious characters. We are way better then Cartoon characters. WE ARE LIMITLESS
You people are delusional and ignorant. Just what the heck does a Latina look like? She is a Latina because Latinas can look like everyone else! She could be a Cubanita, Columbianita, or a Gallegita. Would you all be happy if Disney put black face on her?
Or do you want her to be a chola gang banger?
How hard is it to create a Latina princess? All you need for a ploy line is a quinceria
Have any of you maybe considered the fact that she may be a
Have any of you maybe considered the fact that she may be a a Spanish gal? sorry im typing this on my phone and i suck at thia..
I say… I’m glad Disney clarified that Sofia the first isn’t a latina princess… I was starting to think they were racist and ignorant.
You guys just took too many angry Latino studies classes as I can see with the insanity of even being critical of the name “Sophia” as a Spanish imperialist thing! If you don’t like your Spanish imperialist names then I suggest you change them to something made up like Yellissa or Jourmani and stop speaking the Spanish language and take up Quechua and change your Spanish imperialist last names to Mayan.
Newsflash: We’re all of mixed heritage and come in different colors.
Some of come in different colors but that doesn’t mean we are all mixed racially.
Really thats why for a WHITE person when they see A BLUE EYE RED HAIR WOMAN THEY DON’T ASSUME SHE IS WHITE??? BECAUSE CLEARLY WE COME IN DIFFERENT COLORS!!! PLEASE… How stupid would have been to have a white skinned girl with blue eyes and make her their new african american princess? not very accurate I’m afraid!!!
BL says poor Sophia is confused, no, I say BL is the confused one here! Ay Dios!
i was raised a white girl in L.A. American like the rest of my friends. no race.. we just grew up.. wasnt until i was 22 that i was told i wasnt “white” i was different..
“i am?”
I found my Latina.. maybe 3.5 yrs ago.. In Panama.. am not even Panamanian yo.. weird.
Really? Who cares? Some of us have light skin, some of us have dark skin. Not all of us are olive tone, all the time.Does every Latin character have to look like Dora the Explorer? Even in my own family there are all different shades of skin tone. It is petty to grow into an outrage over the skin tone of a character. Maybe it breaks a stereotype that all Latin people are dark skinned. Besides, realistically a princess doesn’t spend much time in the sun. When I don’t spend time in the sun I become pale as a ghost. I will never get liberals. They always have to force the world to cater to their complexes. If you don’t like the character, write book and make the main character whatever skin tone you want.
We can’t say she looks Latina or not because we’re a diverse communtiy but Disney is definitely trying to make her into an “approachable Latina.” They want everyone to like and relate to her. The sad part is that they “softened” her cultural roots to sell more theater seats and plush toys
Just make her look like Rigoberta Menchu and let’s call it a day. I hear those bowler hats and braids are da bomb in certain parts of Latino-landia.
@Mario Rigoberta Menchu is a beautiful woman… What’s wrong with her look?
Sure she is beautiful, to some one. I think the point is that not all Latina’s look like Dora the Explorer. Caribbean islanders usually don’t, and there are plenty of light skinned, and even many with green or blue eyes and light brown hair. Why should every Latin character be forced to be tanned all the time? Since when do princesses spend time in the sun
We should demand, abstaining from accepting Sofia, that we get a real Latin princess from some exotic island in in central Atlantic Ocean.
It appears that Princess Sofia, Dora the Explorer, Minnie Mouse and Winnie the Pooh, etc. could have been live characters, in Indian Territory that were part of the Louisiana Purchase, that eventually fell under the “one drop statue” to keep them from falling into the race category as African Native Americans.
Daniel Ruiz – This whole “Latino is not a race and… not even a singular ethnicity” is nothing but an obfuscation of US Latino history. It totally ignores how the concept of “being Latino” came about in the country and in fact the world. I do not really care to get into a discussion about whether we can “truly” define “Latino” as a race or ethnicity, be it social, biological, political, or cultural. It does not matter to me.
What matters to me is how certain populations of Latin American descent have been racialized as “something other than white” throughout the history of the US and, consequently, been oppressed and discriminated against – populations such as Mexican Americans/Chicanos and Puerto Ricans. Furthermore, Latinos/Hispanics in general have been racialized as “something other than white” since at least the 1970s. There are academic texts that account for this.
Your little comment about Latinos not being a race or ethnicity does not add anything productive to the issue at hand. In some unfortunate ways, it obscures the history of racialization and oppression that many Latinos have experienced and continue to experience.
And yes, it is true that Latinos come in all phenotypical forms. However, US Latinos are by and large mixed. There are NUMEROUS academic studies that indicate this. I just want to make that clear.
If, for you, Latino is nothing but a “geographic culture” (which is an utterly ridiculous belief), why not just refer to people of Latin American descent by their specific countries of origin? Why even bother with a term like Latino in the first place?
@ gg:
“why not just refer to people of Latin American descent by their specific countries of origin?”
Guess what? That is how it is done in Latin America! People from Panama call themselves Panamanians, people from Colombia Colombians, etc. There was a recent study confirming this common knowledge, which if I’m not mistaken was linked here on Being Latino. As for why I use the term Latino, it is because to me it is no different then saying American in that it encompasses a large chunk of the world with different races/cultures in various regions. That’s not to say they are all the same but share some connection.
I see your dilemma. You were raised like a typical US Latino. You were told all Latinos are either Mestizo or Mulatto and/or have a Spanish last name and believed it since that is what you saw in your community and in the media/movies/tv. I get it. But you need to acknowledge that the “Latino” population in the US is due to immigration patterns from specific countries and certain regions within those countries. Yes they were systematically discriminated against when they arrived in the US but that does not give them or their descendents the right to then discriminate against other Latinos who represent other racial and ethnic groups from Latin America.
Being Latino is not an exclusive club. Are most of us mixed? Of course. But not all of us are. To say those who are not mixed or do not have a “Spanish” last name are not true Latinos is no different than a KKK member saying being American means being a WASP. Think about it. You are preaching exclusion and division.
@ GG
“What matters to me is how certain populations of Latin American descent have been racialized as “something other than white” .”
This part i need some clarification on (sorry for delay but my internet is the worst). I agree with this statement but am confused as to what it means for you. Is it that since Latinos in the US have been deemed non-white by racists in the US then fictional Latino characters in the US cannot be portrayed by rubios? Or is it that you view the use of rubios in the same manner that African Americans view the use of light skinned members of their community?
PS. If you wondering why I brought up race/ethnicity of Latinos in my last post when you stated you didn’t care about it, it is because we have had this debate before. It was back in an article where I stated brown pride was over, I recall your belief that while Latino is all encompassing it should focused on mixed Mexicans and Puerto Ricans which I disagreed with despite being the proudest (perhaps annoyingly so) Boricua I know. I look forward to your reply.
Daniel Ruiz – “That is how it is done in Latin America!” I understand that, and that’s fine. However, what I take issue with is your idea that “Race doesn’t matter, skin color doesn’t matter, and your last name doesn’t matter. If you think race/color/last name matter then you know nothing of being Latino,” which is part of your original post along with: “Latino is not a race and… not even a singular ethnicity.” The concept of “being Latino” developed in the US and its use is essentially unique to the country, as the report from Pew “When Labels Don’t Fit” indicates. I just want to make sure we are on the same page in regard to how “Latino” as an identity came about.
“As for why I use the term Latino, it is because to me it is no different then saying American in that it encompasses a large chunk of the world with different races/cultures in various regions.” I still do not see the point. If you are really concerned about Latinos respecting other Latinos, why not just refer to them by their specific countries of origin, since that is apparently what most Latinos prefer anyways, again, as the report “When Labels Don’t Fit” proposes? Why use a term like “Latino” in the first place if all it essentially does for you is signify geography?
“This part i need some clarification on.” In case you are unclear about what “racialization” means, Martha Menchaca along with Michael Omi and Howard Winant define it as reproduction of racial inequality instituted through exclusionary legal processes. Key to these processes is the interpellation of specific populations of people as “something other than white.” Consider the case of Mexican Americans/Chicanos. As the historian and anthropologist Martha Menchaca has illustrated in her book Recovering History, Constructing Race, many Mexicans were racialized as “other” from as early as the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) when the US occupied and eventually conquered Mexico. Mexicans were racialized and consequently faced massive amounts of discrimination and violence – ranging from them losing land they inhabited and possessed titles for pre-conquest to being denied legal rights promised by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; from being lynched to structural poverty; from being defined as public health threats to de jure and de facto segregation; from being subjected to ongoing police brutality to being scapegoated for the Great Depression (and the Great Recession); and so on. Furthermore, as the scholar Bonnie Urciuoli makes clear, people of Latin American descent in the US have been grouped together and more or less racialized at the level of legislative and statistical discourse (e.g., the census) from the mid-20th century onward. Hopefully I do not need to explain to you the types of discrimination that Latinos in general (Salvadorans, Puerto Ricans, Guatemalans, Mexicans, Dominicans, etc.) face.
So when you say silly things like: “Race doesn’t matter, skin color doesn’t matter, and your last name doesn’t matter. If you think race/color/last name matter then you know nothing of being Latino,” I find it offensive and an utter obfuscation of US Latino history. The idea of “being Latino” originated in the US and race – more specifically, racialization – was critical to this origination.
“I recall your belief that while Latino is all encompassing it should focused on mixed Mexicans and Puerto Ricans which I disagreed with…” I never said this. What I said was the development of Latino identity included 1970-1980s grassroots political alliances between Puerto Ricans and Mexican Americans, alliances that I think can be models for hopefully even more alliances between different Latino groups in struggles against racism and discrimination. Urciuoli and Felix Padilla (in Latino Ethnic Consciousness: The Case of Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans in Chicago) have both researched how the emergence of a sense of Latino identity was framed by broad legislative and statistical discourse and grassroots political activism. In the conversation you and I had that you are referring to, you made no mention of how the notion of “being Latino” actually originated in history (perhaps because you are unaware of such) and instead favored some idea that “Latino” signifies “geographic culture” and nothing more.
Of course rubios can be represented in media. In fact, they should be. However, what I have a problem with is that that is who (i.e., white Latinos) we largely see in terms of whom among Latinos get represented in TV, film, stage, etc. Once again, I know that Latinos come in all phenotypical varieties. But the reality is that the large majority of Latinos in the US are mixed. It would be nice to see a diversity of Latinos in media representation. There is nothing inherently exclusionary about being honest about how most US Latinos are mixed and asking for more diverse images of Latinos in popular culture.
I am a little upset at this but it is because I’m morena. I do understand the fact that we Hispanics come in many shades, but besides Pochantas and Princess Jasmine there are no other Princesses that look anything like MY Family. The rest of the princesses are fair skinned, have light hair and/or coloured eyes. For the light skinned Latinos understand it doesn’t feel good when your child wishes to look like someone else because she thinks our color of skin, hair or eyes aren’t pretty. Also why does she have to be a little kid? They could of at least had her be 14 about to celebrate her Quince, right?
I, too, believe that Latin@s come in all colors and that there is not one, singular “Latin@ look,” but I am offended by Disney’s decision to perpetuate the “fair-skinned, blue-eyed, twiggy” standard of beauty! That’s a problem in itself! What I’d like to see them do is introduce a brown-skinned, brown-eyed Latina princess so that the dark girls who might have insecurities about their beauty due to their skin color (because most of the “beauties” they see in the media are pale) will feel empowered in seeing someone that even vaguely resembles them—at least has features similar to their own—and realize that it is possible for a brown Latina to be the protagonist, the glamorized beauty front and center!
this is the issue when we depend on a WHITE CORPORATION to give us our “Princess” We are Melaninated and they are not but because we go by “latino” as if we were from rome everyone is confused like their god Confucius and we dont know what a latino is??!!? DOES THIS MAKES SENSE? This stupid as f———-. What do you see when you loook in the mirror?!? If its NOT Color than you are WHITE forget all the racial labels these are made by RACIST people like the german DNA founder.