 A number of recent contributors to the debate about the nature of Latin American philosophy have contended that philosophical inquiry in the discipline should focus on some historical, social, and/or economic issues relevant to Latin Americans and their descendants in the USA. For instance, according to José Antonio Orosco (2016) Mexican American philosophy and Latin American philosophy as practice in the United States should focus on developing the perspective of the Mexican people and the Latin American people respectively. On his view, the success of these disciplines hinges on their ability to deal with “questions about [Mexican or Latino] identity, power, and citizenship in the United States,” which may have an impact on “U.S. American political and social life” (Orosco 2016: 27). Since such issues belong to applied ethics and political philosophy, his recommendation has direct reductionist connotations assuming that he thinks that they are the only issues that matter, or should matter, to practitioners of Mexican/Latin American philosophy in the USA. But perhaps that connotation is not what Orosco has in mind since that would defeat his own inquiry into the nature of Mexican American and Latin American philosophy, both issues of metaphilosophy. Silva Grant’s 2015 proposal is analogously reductionist. Elizabeth Millán Brusslan (2015) has objected to it on the grounds that it is too exclusionary. After all, many philosophical works that are content-related to Latin American philosophy but do not engage in such social, historical, and/or economic issues would be left out of Latin American philosophy. For Grant, the sole task of this field is conducting inquiry into the struggle of Latin Americans against colonialism. Nuccetelli (2018) rejects any such proposal as a kind of thorough-going relativism because different theorists would disagree about the issues that need be the focus of Latin American philosophy. In addition, she argues that such metaphilosophical reductionism has bad practical consequences because it may contribute to an existing bias against Latin American philosophers in the USA according to which they commonly make either false or unsupported empirical claims about issues that belong to other humanities or the social sciences. Susanna Siegel (2014) recommends against contributing to this bias while suggesting that philosophical questions are distinct from questions of other humanities or the social sciences. On different grounds, many practitioners of Latin American philosophers have noted the existence of such a widespread bias (e.g., Covarrubias 2015, Gracia 2000, Mendieta 1999, Sánchez 2011, and Vargas 2007, 2010).