Maybe colonización and colonization are a little bit of false friends. Certainly, in Spanish, India hadn't been subjected to colonización británica in almost any way. The cultural element is certainly present -and I learnt a lot of English from Indian movies, for instance, a student being rusticated- but the genetic element is absent. In Spanish we can certainly say about India that there was a colonialismo británico,and control colonial and poder colonial.

Si consideramos la idea de pjt33, de que la "colonización" que ejerció Gran Bretaña sobre la India, supuso el mismo grado de implicación cultural y étnica de los británicos que el de los españoles en América, deberíamos concluir, que al igual que los américanos que hablan español son "latinos" los indios de la India son "anglosajones". Obviamente, me refería al caso americano, donde, hablar de angloamérica o de América anglosajona, resultaría más adecuado para tratar de Canadá y los Estados Unidos de lo que resulta hacerlo de latinoamérica o de América latina en el caso de los países de este continente donde se habla español.

Wouldn't it depend on the country? Since some countries in Latin America have had much more Spanish culture and influences, whereras others have had more indigenous influences on the overall culture of the country.

NO. Español latino es tan correcto como lo es Español latinoamericano.
Los estadounidenses se llaman a si mismos "Americans" pero en su ignorancia olvidan que América es el continente COMPLETO. Español latino es el español que se habla en latinoamerica, español de España es el que se habla en España. Sencillo

It's not out of ignorance. It has to do with how many continents there are. In the Hispanosphere, the system is, that there is the American continent, which is subdivided into two different subsections--North and South America. However in countries with an Anglo-Saxon culture such as the US there is no American continent. It doesn't exist. There are two separate continents--North and South America (And there's also Central America, which is sort of part of North America, and sort of a transitional zone between them. It's a bit of a grey area.) North and South America are as separate as Europe and Asian and Africa. There is no higher level of classification--just like we don't really have a name for (or if we do, we don't really use it) for Europe/Asia/Africa taken together. So there is no continent called America under the Anglosphere classification of continents. There is in the Hispanosphere system. Both systems are equally valid for their specific cultures and languages. So, in English, people from North America are North Americans; people from South America are South Americans. That does not imply that people from North and South Americans are all Americans; they are North Americans and South Americans. Incidentally a Canadian would protest violently at being called an American. People from the United States of America exclusively have the denonym American in the English language. Not so in Spanish, where they share it with anyone from the American continent. If you need to refer to North and South America collectively in English, then use the word "the Americas", but not America, as that is correct in Spanish, but not in English.

That does not mean that anyone from the Americas is an American in English. In English, a Canadian is not an American. A Canadian is a North American. In English, a Colombian is not an American. A Colombian is a South American.

Trying to impose a different system on English speakers, would be akin to insisting that people from Brittany, France are British, because they are from Little Britain (as opposed to Great Britain), or to say that people from the Republic of Ireland are British because they are from the British Isles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent
"The ideal criterion that each continent be a discrete landmass is commonly disregarded in favor of more arbitrary, historical conventions. Of the seven most commonly recognized continents, only Antarctica and Australia are distinctly separated from other continents."

"The seven-continent model is usually taught in China and most English-speaking countries. "

They are: North America, South America, Antarctica, Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia

"The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is sometimes preferred in the former states of the USSR and Japan."

"The six-continent combined-America model is sometimes taught in Latin America and in some parts of Europe including Greece (equivalent 5 inhabited continents model(i.e. excluding Antarctica) still also found in texts), Portugal and Spain. "
They are: America, Antarctica, Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia

Rubbish! Americans DO call themselves AMERICANS!

Where did I say they didn't? :thinking:
In English it's just used exclusively for people from the United States of America, since there is no such thing as the American continent in the 7 continent model. People from the United States are also North Americans in English. People from Mexico are as well. People from Colombia or Ecuador are South Americans.

True.
I believe Latino itself refereeing to the language IS wrong. However "Español Latino" isn't necessarily wrong. It refers to the way latin people speak spanish *shrugs* simple.
Note: People seem to like Latin Spanish better than Spanish from Spain.

People from the US and Canada tend to prefer learning a Latin American dialect than that from Spain because they are more likely to travel to a Latin American country. However, in the UK, I believe Peninsular Spanish is prefered because they are much closer to Spain.

"Español latino" and "Usian" are both terms with a similar origin and purpose. The only difference are the addressees, one group more inclined to tolerate their assigned term than the other group.