|
|
Latinos and Hispanics: A Primer on
Terminology
José Cuello
Associate Professor of History Center for Chicano-Boricua Studies © José Cuello 1998 656 W. Kirby, Room 3324 Faculty Administration Building, Detroit, MI 48202 (313) 577-4378 FAX (313) 993-14073 Celebrating 30 years of Commitment to Excellence in Latino Education Last Revised 9/17/98
The Latinoization of the United States
Since the 1960's, persons of Latin American descent have become an increasingly important part of the country's population. In the early 21st century, Latinos will become the largest so-called "minority" group. Even now, the country's largest cities have substantial populations of Latin American descent. Miami is a Latin American city within the boundaries of the U.S. with its large Cuban and other Caribbean populations. It is a financial and tourist center for much of Latin America. Los Angeles has a Mexican population that is second in size only to Mexico City. "Nuyorico" ("Nuiyorico," New York) has not only a large Puerto Rican population, but also a rapidly-growing Dominican immigrant community and, surprisingly to some, a visible and growing Mexican community, also of recent vintage. One out of every five persons in Chicago is a Latino, mostly of Mexican, Puerto Rican and Central American origin. Over the past decade, Central Americans in the U.S. have increased at a faster rate than any other Latino group. There are sections of many cities where one does not have to speak any English at all, a phenomenon that has stimulated not only bilingual education, but also English-first and English-only movements. Beyond the cities, whole states - like Texas and California, and Florida - are already being reshaped by the growing power of Latinos in areas of public life. Whether you welcome, resist or are indifferent to the change, Latino individuals, groups and concerns will contribute to the formation of our common future within your lifetime and even more within that of your children.1
Creating New Identities and Sorting Them Out
The integration of Latinos into the national mainstream will require a number of major adjustments - some pleasant, some difficult. One of the most immediate is simply to determine what to call the large heterogeneous population and its various sub-groups.2 One or two nation-wide terms are essential for easy reference on political, economic and other key issues. The new terms are not simply shallow labels. They represent new identities in the public and personal realm for the individuals and groups who either adopt the terms or have them applied to them. The process of public labeling, imaging and representation of Latinos has become more complicated than in the past because the images are no longer determined by a small cultural elite in charge of the nation's values; they have to be negotiated with the Latino groups being re-imagined and re-imaged in a complex national dialogue that is also defining the meaning of what it means to be "American."3
Many Americans are understandably confused about what is politically or
culturally correct in the new terminology. Should they call someone a
"Hispanic" or a "Latino"? Are they dealing with a
"Chicano" or a "Mexican-American"? What about Puerto
Ricans, Haitians, Central Americans and people from South America or even
Spain? Most people have already faced the dilemma. "Should I risk
the embarrassment or even the ire of a friend or stranger by using a term
that he or she may judge as ignorant or racist on my part?" Where
to go for help? There are no easy guides in the library and no one has
thought of setting up a hot line. Even if you successfully adjusted to
- or participated in - the changes in identity of another major group
from "Negro" and "Colored" to "Black" and
"Afro-American" and finally to "African-American";
that still does not help you with your Latino identity problem. Why is
this writer using the term "Latino" rather than "Hispanic"?
What you need is a basic primer on terminology that will clear away the
confusion and give you confidence in dealing with persons of Latin American
descent in your professional and social life.4
The Continuing Importance of National Origins and Multiple Identities
Before the ethnic revolution of the 1960s, there was little concept of people of Latin American descent forming a single group within the country. Individuals were identified as "Mexican," "Puerto Rican," "Cuban," and so on - that is, by their national origins - whether they were born in the U.S. or outside of it. In fact, the Latino National Political Survey, conducted by a group of Latino scholars in 1989 and 1990, revealed that most individuals of Latin American descent living in the U.S. still prefer an identification associated with national origins over the "pan-ethnic" identities of "Latino," "Hispanic" or "Spanish-American," with some finer distinctions arising, between the preferences of the foreign-born and the U.S. native-born.5 This is not to say they do not use "Hispanic", "Latino" or "Chicano," but it is obvious that these terms refer to larger, political identities. An individual may, therefore, have several overlapping or shifting identities that are used consciously and selectively depending on the formal or informal situation in which they find themselves. Usage depends on individual choice. While an individual who considers himself to be a Mexican-American may reject all other labels, another may also call himself a "Chicano," "Latino" and a "Hispanic" at various times or even simultaneously without feeling any conflict, although each one of these terms has a political charge to it. Let us take a closer look at the broader terms of identification. Hispanics
"Hispanic" has traditionally been used in a neutral sense on the East Coast by Puerto Ricans and Cubans to refer to themselves. It is a translation of the term "Hispano" which has neutral, pan-ethnic connotations in the Spanish language. The term "Hispanic," however, also has political and class implications as it has come be used in the United States. Seeking an appropriate term for the diverse population of Latin American descent, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) adopted the term "Hispanic" in 1973 at the recommendation of the Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Categories. The Bureau of the Census and other government agencies, along with other large institutions and businesses, followed suit, giving the term mainstream acceptance.6 Politically, the term has become identified with the Establishment. It is widely used by what I would describe as HUPPIES, "Hispanic Upwardly-mobile Professionals," who want to integrate themselves into the mainstream and corporate cultures. "Hispanic" is a non-threatening term and it avoids any negative stereotyping that still might be attached to national-origin labels. Self-identified Hispanics, who consciously use that term in the context of the U.S. political and corporate worlds, tend to be politically conservative. If they become unhappy with the status quo, they prefer to work within the system rather than rock the boat.
The functional use of the term "Hispanic" is reminiscent of
the use of the term "Hispano" by residents of New Mexico who
were incorporated as part of the United States after the War with Mexico
in 1846. In this particular context, the term retains a claim on the New
Mexicans' Iberian roots, but avoids the negative connotations of an inferior
alien culture that was strongly associated with the term "Mexican"
after Mexico's Far North was converted into the U. S. Southwest when the
United States realized its self-proclaimed Manifest Destiny. However,
it is obvious that the self-identification as "Hispanos" by
persons from New Mexico, has a totally different connotation from the
cognate "Hispanic" employed by the U.S. government beginning
in 1973. Intended or not, the latter has acquired the functional role
(as it has crystallized in U.S. society) of suggesting that all persons
with a Spanish language, cultural or biological background constitute
a homogeneous population. Outside of the Southwest, the terms "Spanish"
and "Spanish American" were frequently used as the functional
equivalent of "Hispano" in New Mexico. Mexicans and other Latin
Americans who did not want to be stereotyped as inferior peoples from
banana republics preferred to identify themselves as "Spanish"
and "Spanish Americans," and these terms were often offered
to them by Anglo-Americans who did not want to offend persons of Latin
American backgrounds.7
Latinos
"Latino" is a term adopted initially and primarily by groups in the West and Midwest who reject "Hispanic" as a colonial imposition by the government. They also argue that the term "Hispanic" is so broad that it includes everyone of "Hispanic" heritage, including those in Latin America and Spain, thus diluting and sabotaging the focus on the struggle for equality by Latinos in the U.S. Ironically, the Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Categories rejected labels based on the word "Latin" because of the broad applicability of that term. While "Latin" is, in fact, an even broader term than "Hispanic," the "o" at the end was applied to give it a narrower meaning that refers to people of Latin American descent living within the U.S., particularly those who are born here. It too has a political charge. Self-identified Latinos are more confrontational than Hispanics and feel that the struggle for equality and opportunity in America is far from over. Latinos know that rocking the boat is the other side of the American way. They focus not so much on the individual achievements in which Hispanics take pride, but on the long road the Latino populations of the country must still travel before achieving full social, economic and political equality. Academicians and social activists are the biggest promoters of the term "Latino." Since they are up against the communications power of the government and business establishments, it is not surprising that even persons of Latino background prefer the term "Hispanic" over the term "Latino" as indicated by a recent survey by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.8 The implications of this finding is that many members of the general Latino population are not in tune with the activist Latino political leadership and intelligentsia. Chicanos, Mexican-Americans, and Mexicans
It is no accident that the term "Latino" is most popular in the areas of the country with the greatest concentrations of Mexican-Americans and Mexicans. Its currency in the Southwest, West, and Midwest is related to the term "Chicano," which was adopted in California in the 1960s as a self-identification by young Mexican-Americans who were mad as hell and were not going to take it anymore. The term quickly became the label for a militant civil rights movement that was a rebellion not only against mainstream society, but also against an older generation of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who were considered too conservative by the young radicals and for whom the word "Chicano" meant something akin to "punk" and "delinquent." The term "Chicano" and the term "Latino" in broad political usage date from the same era, and the latter is an attempt to broaden the ethnic base of the radical political perspective carried by the term "Chicano." In the West and Southwest, most universities have "Chicano" Studies departments. "Latino" Studies departments are more common in the Midwest where Mexican-Americans have to share cultural space with other groups of Latin American descent. "Hispanic" Studies departments are rare and, I believe, may be concentrated mostly in the East and South.
What "Latino" is to "Hispanic," "Chicano"
is to "Mexican-American." A self-identified Mexican-American
is less likely to have an argument to pick with the rest of U.S. society.
Like the term "Hispanic," the terms "Mexican-American"
and "Mexican" tend to be used by persons who still have a strong
identification with their nation of origin, Mexico, and who may be immigrants.
For Mexicans who are proud of being Mexican, a Chicano is someone distant
from his roots whose culture is American and who might as well be another
type of gringo - an unsavory one at that. That is why Chicanos rebelled
against their two cultures of origin and - against the grain - have managed
to gain a level of respect from both that would have been unpredictable
in the 1960s. Chicanos re-charged the term "Chicano" with a
new meaning of political confrontation and social reform that is accepted
by some and rejected by others.9
Puerto Ricans, Nuyoricans, and Boricuas
To a lesser degree, this sort of tension also exists between Puerto Ricans on the island and Nuyoricans on the mainland. Among both, those who reject the image and heritage of being colonized by Europeans often use the term "Boricua," derived from "Borinquen," the indigenous name of the island, instead of "Puerto Rico." This is why Wayne State University has a Center for Chicano-Boricua Studies. While Mexican-Americans debate the ideological, political and cultural consequences of the U.S. conquest of what is now the Southwest from Mexico, Puerto Ricans debate the consequences of having their island homeland colonized by the United States. Politically and ideologically, Puerto Ricans are divided among at least three groups who favor different political formulas: continuation of commonwealth status, independence or U.S. statehood. The impact of the interference by the United States with the formation of their national and ethnic identities is something that Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans share with many other Latin Americans.10 The Gender Factor
The Women's Movement among Latinos has also created additional permutations. Women activists have insisted on reading the term "Latino" in a very narrow sense as referring only to the male members of the species. They have thus forced a change in general usage and in the names of many programs to "Latina/o," "Latina/Latino" and to "Chicana/o" or "Chicana/Chicano." Males who resist the change on the basis that the original term is comprehensive and inclusive (the way that "Mexicano" refers to all Mexicans, including the females) are considered retrograde male chauvinists by both women and men who believe it is necessary to correct the inherent sexism of the language. I myself dislike the grammatically cumbersome use of the hyphenated-gender terminology and believe we need to create new words like Chicanao(s) or Latinao(s) to overcome the gender bias in the language and still maintain a clean grammatical flow without placing the two genders on different sides of the wall every time we refer to Latinos. The Race Factor
It is important to remember that "Latino" and "Hispanic" are NOT racial designations. They are cultural and political labels. Individuals who apply the terms to themselves or to others may be of any color or racial mixture. This is now acknowledged by the U.S. government and institutions of higher learning which distinguish between Hispanics, on the one hand, and whites and African-Americans not-of-Hispanic-descent on the other. Hispanics are considered one group no matter what the skin color. The racial mixture and diversity of most Latin American nationalities and descent groups in the U.S. is something which the non-Latino public is only now beginning to comprehend. Applying the Terminology
So what does a culturally and politically sensitive American who is not of Latin American descent - or even one who is - do with all of this information? Apply it carefully. Analyze the environment. If you are talking to someone who is wearing corporate stripes, he or she is probably a "Hispanic." More often than not, they will be light-skinned and may be of Argentine, Spanish, or Chilean origin. They could also be of Mexican or Puerto Rican descent, but of the middle class or upwardly mobile. If you are at a union rally and most of the brothers and sisters are dark-complected, they probably identify as Latinos, Chicanos and Boricuas. If you have any doubts, wait to see what they call themselves. They may prefer an identity based on the nation of origin like "Mexicano." The term "Creole" is used by Haitians. If you still cannot tell what someone wants to be called, then do not be afraid to ask. They will prefer this to being mislabeled. Just remember this: we are not all the same - identity is a matter of personal choice - and we usually don't bite.
Endnotes
1A very useful study which is still unsurpassed in its comprehensiveness
is Frank D. Bean and Marta Tienda, The Hispanic Population of the United
States (New York, 1987) which analyzes the data from the 1980 Census
for Latinos with chapters on numbers and definitions, demographic and
socioeconomic profiles, immigration, geographical distribution, internal
migration, residential segregation, marriage, family, household, fertility
patterns, education, labor-force participation, earnings and economic
well being. Also see U.S. Dept. of the Commerce, Economics and Statistics
Administration, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population. Persons
of Hispanic Origin in the United States (Washington, 1993). For a
readable portrayal of the diverse, complex and changing nature of the
Latino population of the United States, see Geoffrey Fox, Hispanic
Nation: Cultural Politics and the Construction of Identity (Secaucus,
1996). Roberto Suro, Strangers Among Us: How Latino Immigration is
Transforming America (New York, 1998) is also a highly-readable interpretation
that addresses the conflict between Latino and African American groups.
2The proliferation of Latino and Latin American groups in the
U.S. is being increasingly noticed by the popular media. Linda Robinson,
"Hispanics Don't Exist," U.S. News, Wednesday, July 22,
1998, identifies seventeen Latino sub-groups in the country. (Taken from
US News Online at usnews.com/usnews/issue/ 98051/1hisp.htm)
3The need for creating new identities is fueled by a number
of powerful forces. One is the rapid growth of the Latino population in
the U.S. as a result of both natural growth and immigration. A second
force is the accelerated democratization of the U.S. after W.W. II resulting
from the impact of the G.I. Bill, the Women's Rights Movement, and the
Civil Rights Movement whose liberating and equalizing impact spread to
all kinds of identifiable "minorities." A third force has been
the nationalization and globalization of U.S. culture and economy as a
result of the most recent stage of the technological revolution, particularly
in computers and transportation. The growing importance of Latinos within
U.S. society is already having a major impact in economics, politics and
culture. In fact, the importance of the group has forced the adoption
of a culturally-based terminology by the departments and agencies of the
United States government to make it possible to keep accurate track of
the Latino population. Americans are not only classified by race, but
also by whether they are "Hispanic" or "non-Hispanic."
The functionings of Latino groups within the American political system,
particularly in their struggles against discrimination, are captured in
the journalistic accounts of Patrisia Gonzáles and Roberto Rodríguez,
Gonzáles/Rodríguez: Uncut and Uncensored (Berkeley,
1997). Other aspects of the process of identity formation are discussed
below.
4Part of the problem, even for Latinos, in determining what
to call someone else is that the Latino populations are very diverse in
origin, culture, class, language variations, and self-identifications.
Within the United States, the more traditional national-origins categories,
already doubled as immigrants give rise to hyphenated American communities,
are being joined by "pan-ethnic" identities, like "Hispanic"
and "Latino," and by single ethnicity identities, like "Chicano"
and "Boricua," with controversial ideological, cultural and
political meanings. Both Latinos and non-Latinos are involved in the formation
of the new labels and identities, but non-Latinos are often left out of
the "internal" debates among Latinos over terminology, just
as they were in the process of relabeling and reinventing the most recent
identities of the population of African descent. Rodolfo O. de la Garza,
Louis DeSipio, F. Chris García, John García, and Angelo
Falcon, Latino Voices: Mexican Puerto Rican and Cuban Perspectives
on American Politics (Boulder, 1992) is the first volume of a series
based on the Latino National Political Survey that collected information
on the views of the major Latino groups on a variety of issues that are
important to the national body politic, including their preferences in
self identification. Suzanne Oboler, Ethic Labels, Latino Lives: Identity
and the Politics of (Re)Presentation in the United States (Minneapolis,
1995), analyzes the construction of the public representations of Latinos
in the United States by both non-Latinos and Latinos in a historical perspective.
Her analysis includes the inter-relationship of public and personal identities
and the roles of language, race and class. Fox, Hispanic Nation,
chapters 2 and 7, also discusses the concrete experiences of imaging the
Latino communities in the U.S.
5de la Garza, et al., Latino Voices, 7-8, 39-40. The
most popular choice among foreign-born Mexicans, for example, was "Mexicano/a,"
while U.S. born persons of Mexican descent chose "Mexican-American"
the most frequently. While the survey by de la Garza and his colleagues
focused on the three largest Latino populations, the complex identity
dimensions of the Latino mosaic are more fully captured by Robinson, "Hispanics
Don't Exist."
6Grace Flores-Hughes, "Why the Term 'Hispanic'?",
Hispanic (September, 1996), 64, explains how the task force came
to the choice it made. Flores-Hughes was the only Hispanic on the task
force. Dowell Myers, Analysis with Local Census Data: Portraits of
Change (Boston, 1992), "Chapter 10: Racial Composition and Change,"
207-233, explains the changing use of racial categories in the Census,
including the "Problems in Defining Race and Hispanic Origin."
7A major thread in Oboler, Ethnic Labels, Latino Lives,
is the theme that, in the process of invention and re-invention, Latinos
create positive images of themselves in contrast to the negative and racist
images that have been created for them by others. Fox, Hispanic Nation,
189-192, also discusses the importance for an ethnic group of having control
of its own history and gives the populations of Mexican origin whose territories
were conquered by the United States in 1846-1848 as an example of groups
who lost control of their narrative. For a brief summary of the use of
the terms "Hispano" and "Spanish American," see Oboler,
Ethnic Labels, Latino Lives, 24-27. One of the objectionable characteristics
of "pan-ethnic" terminology which Latinos are reforming is the
tendency to use these terms to homogenize the images of Latinos and Latin
Americans. As Fox, Hispanic Nation, 42-49, observes, even the term
"Hispano" can be defined to included multiple and diverse identities,
as has been done by the international Latino American television networks
that have build audiences across the hemisphere.
8A survey taken in May, 1995 shows that of the pan-ethnic terminology
available to them, persons of Latin American descent preferred "Hispanic"
57.9%, "Latino" 11.8%, "Of Spanish Origin" 12.3%,
and other terminology 7.9%, with 10.2% having no preference. Reported
in Census and You: Monthly News From the U.S. Bureau of the Census,
vol. 31, no. 4 (April, 1996), 8.
9For a finely-nuanced book-length interpretation of the Chicanao
Movement and its complex intertwining with the Chicanao Studies Movement
from a student perspective, see Carlos Muñoz, Jr., Youth, Identity,
Power: The Chicano Movement (New York, 1989). The naming of Chicano-Boricua
Studies at Wayne State University in 1972 resulted from the predominance
of Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans in the local population, but the
use of Latino Studies was also suggested. Initially conceived as a Chicano
Studies Center by the Mexican-American activists, Cliff Maier of the Natural
Sciences Department pointed out the limits of making it only a "Chicano"
Studies program, favoring the use of the term "Latino." Memo
from Maier to Otto Feinstein, October 28, 1971. CBS Archives. "Chicano-Boricua"
became the compromise.
10Juan Flores, Divided Borders: Essays on Puerto Rican Identity
(Houston, 1993) deals with the issue within the larger Latin American
context.
Bibliography
Bean, Frank D. and Marta Tienda, The Hispanic Population of the United
States (New York, 1987).
Census and You: Monthly News From the U.S. Bureau of the Census,
vol. 31, no. 4 (April, 1996).
de la Garza, Rodolfo O., Louis DeSipio, F. Chris García, John
García, and Angelo Falcon, Latino Voices: Mexican Puerto Rican
and Cuban Perspectives on American Politics (Boulder, 1992).
Flores, Juan, Divided Borders: Essays on Puerto Rican Identity
(Houston, 1993).
Flores-Hughes, Grace, "Why the Term 'Hispanic'?", Hispanic
(September, 1996), 64.
Fox, Geoffrey, Hispanic Nation: Cultural Politics and the Construction
of Identity (Secaucus, 1996)
Gonzáles, Patrisia and Roberto Rodríguez, Gonzáles/Rodríguez:
Uncut and Uncensored (Berkeley, 1997).
Muñoz, Carlos, Jr., Youth, Identity, Power: The Chicano Movement
(New York, 1989).
Myers, Dowell, Analysis with Local Census Data: Portraits of Change
(Boston, 1992).
Oboler, Suzanne, Ethic Labels, Latino Lives: Identity and the Politics
of (Re)Presentation in the United States (Minneapolis, 1995).
Robinson, Linda, "Hispanics Don't Exist," U.S. News,
Wednesday, July 22, 1998 (Taken from US New Online at usnews.com/usnews/issue/
98051/1hisp.htm).
Suro, Roberto, Strangers Among Us: How Latino Immigration is Transforming
America (New York, 1998).
U.S. Dept. of the Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration,
Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population. Persons of Hispanic
Origin in the United States (Washington, 1993).
|
American Family
 The
SeriesHealth
Resources Community
Partners Latinos
and HispanicsEthnic
Prejudice and Anti-Immigrant PoliciesEn EspañolThe New Americans
|
|||