 From the standpoint of US-based academics, this risk may not be obvious. After all, the subject just is US populations, their experiences, and the philosophical issues they raise. However, Latinxs are not just US populations. Latinxs are also, for example, members of the Salvadoran diaspora, indigenous Oaxacan laborers, Argentinian ex-patriate academics, and so on. Once we recognize these facts, it is less obvious that US identity categories and frameworks should be taken as presumptive, fundamental, or guiding when it comes to understanding the philosophical—phenomenological, conceptual, social, moral, political, etc.—significance of these populations. Moreover, taking US identity categories as presumptive also threatens to re-enact a tradition of domination-and-description-from-without that has plagued Latin America since its inception. So, given the fact of a field constructed on US identity categories, and given the fact of US influence on the global academy, the construction of the field’s categories and practices (and who may speak authoritatively about them) may itself become an important subject matter, especially in Latinx-Latin American academic discussions.