article about latino vs hispanic terminology. How diiferent people view themselves. www.boston.com in the city weekly section.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/01/25/latino_hispanic_which_is_it/

Even though my ancestry is Spanish & Basque by way of Mexico and Puerto Rico, I prefer to call myself Hispanic. The usage of the word "Latino" seems too superficial and fake in my view.

A rose by any other name is still a rose!

I prefer the better rose. :p

I usually use hispanic, but in So. Cal that sometimes comes off as arrogant or something to that effect, depending on who I talk too.
I thought it really interesting that the article mentioned that the topic of lineage usually comes up when someone of hispanic descent describes himself. I often do this because not only do I not look the "typical" hispanic part, but being from New Mexico lineage has its own unique history.
So I use hispanic to describe that I was born in the U.S. to hispanic lineage and culture.

This has always been a tough one for me. My father is of mexican decent, but born here in the US. In his era, it was frowned upon to speak spanish, unfortunately he's forgotten most of his spanish. So he grew up speaking english. My Mother is Caucasian of English decent. So I grew up with hardly any mexican culture, and it was not until I lived in Spain for a couple of years, where I had learned to appreciate my ancestry. I've done some geneology on my father's side, and it turns out that I have ancestors who came from Galicia and emigrated to mexico (Jalisco) almost 200 years ago. I used to classify myself on surveys as caucasian even though I have brown skin, because I was raised in a caucasian culture, but I now proudly claim that I am Hispanic.

My family memebers come from Mexico we prefer to say Mexican American whenever asked or hispanic.

I prefer to call myself a chicana. While it can still carry some negative connotations for some because of its political charge during the 60’s and 70’s, it carries for me a more neutral tone in terms of its inclusiveness of my indigenous relatives. For me to claim “hispanic” and “latino” excludes my Apache ancestors and other ancestors who were mestizos.

I have a question that someone asked the other day and for which I had no answer that was satisfactory . Perhaps some of you out there have some ideas: What makes an Hispanic? Can you be an Hispanic without speaking Spanish? I think this is critical because without speaking the language you are deprived of some pretty important cultural aspects such as literature, newspapers, music, movies, television, communication , etc. Or is it enough to eat tacos, dance the merengue, live in an hacienda-style house, be Roman Catholic, etc. etc. ? Or is it a simple matter of the blood running in one’s veins? What is it that makes one part of the Hispanic culture?

To be Hispanic or "Spanish" in my view is to be full or of mostly Spanish descent. I don't believe speaking Spanish makes one Hispanic without being part Spanish. A non-Spanish-speaking non-Hispanic person who learns and then speaks Spanish does not become or be Hispanic in terms of blood, however he or she can be Hispanized culturally as was done to the Aztecs, the Incas and various other Amerindian tribes who lived under the Spanish Imperium. I find it culturally damaging to call full-blooded Amerindians in Latin America Hispanic. It's not who they are. It's like confusing a cat for a dog and still the animal will always be a cat. Their original identity should be preserved. 1/32 of my ancestry is indigenous to North America while 31/32 of my ancestry is Spanish and Basque. If this makes me Hispanic, so be it.

mistaking a cat for a dog? Well, it's always interesting to see other people's opinions, but it's terms, or tones, like "a cat for a dog" that only show ignorance. We are not talking about cats or dogs and the animal species we are talking about people. People, one species, the human species. And I think people should feel they can refer to themselves as they please.