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.

Cid, I understand you to say that it's all about biology and genetics. I don't disagree with you but I still have to wonder if that doesn't make culture irrelevant vis a vis the labels we attach to ourselves. I guess it's just difficult to let go of the notion that culture is important in identity and self-labelling.

Ok, here is my side on this issue.
First of all "LATINO" derives from LATIN a group of peoples from Italy around the time of the Roman Empire. Latin is also the official language of the Romans. From the Latin language the following languages are created; Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and French. Technically to be called "Latino" is really including not only the original peoples of Italy who spoke this language but also the French, Italians and Portuguese besides the Spanish speaking world. However, Latino has been translated to refer to people mainly of Central & S. America who live in those countries and here in the US. The state of California has really made the term "Latino" a political term. Hollywood has also refered to people of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban descent as well as other groups by "LATINO." So Latino to me sounds very inappropriate.
On the other hand "HISPANIC" does specifically refer to Spain. It begins by Hispaniola refering to present day Haiti & Dominican Republic. Later la "Nueva ESPANA" or Hispaniola which was Mexico and the Southwest US. However, being "HISPANIC" does not necessarily mean having ties to Spain. It really refers to having the common denominator of speaking Spanish or that one of your ancestors spoke or came/lived from a country from which Spain had colonized. This includes the Southwest US, Florida to Mexico through the Caribbean to Argentina & the Philippines. Whether you are pure Spanish, Indian of the Americas, African, Philippine or Northern European or a combination of one to another and/or any of the above even if it is 1/32 you are technically or you have the right to be called "HISPANIC." For example a couple who moved to Argentina from Italy back in the 40's who's children were born in Argentina later moved to the US, they can be refered by Hispnanic. In the case of Brazil, I believe "Latino" would probably be more appropriate. However, since they are surrounded by countries of the spanish speaking world they can also be called "HISPANIC."

I was making an anology you mindless dolt.

EDIT: And another thing 'Miche', if you're going to cry R-A-C-I-S-M every single annoying time someone doesn't share your opinion, don't make it such a crying game. It kills the seriousness of the subject.

Well, that was a 'mindless' analogy since dogs and cats cannot mate with each other.

Search for another analogy because your "analogy", is suggesting an Amerindian is of another species apart from human species. That is what your analogy says.

Genetically,yesss, we are all different, of course, and thank goodness. .

I'll agree that you are annoying.
~~~~~~~~
For the record, I don't personally feel I can call myself Hispanic, (half South American), because the other half is Asian, plus I am a Brit, my husband is Italian and God help our kids when someone asks, 'and what are your origins'?

Yes, I can be annoying sometimes. :p

As for the thing about cats and dogs, it was the first thing that came to my mind. Would you have rather I said: "It's like confusing black for white"? No, I used Cats and Dogs. Most people relate to cats and dogs at any rate.

To dig in further, dogs and cats if you go back to evolution came from a common meat-eating ancestor. So in theory they are the same to some extent. And plus it was you who made the comment about species in the first place. :o

As for Amerindians, they are an offshoot of the Mongoloid branch of humans who crossed over the Bering Strait (when it wasn't covered by water)...give or take 40,000 years of genetic isolation from the rest of the world.

"Ixo ye un can, no un mixín."

Ok, i can't stand it any longer. What does it mean? What language is it?

I know the references made to the mongolians, but "Mongoloid" I had to look up, first in my dictionary and it didn't look good besides being ambiguous, so here is the BArtleby.com reference which clarify it's usage and, in my opinion, needs a little care.

"Mongoloid is now considered outdated and potentially offensive."

Bartleby.com -Mongoloids
§ 46. Mongoloid
In its anthropological sense, Mongoloid refers to the group of peoples indigenous to central and eastern Asia, some of whom in all probability crossed to the Western Hemisphere and populated North and South America. Like the other terms proposed by anthropologists in the 18th and 19th centuries as human racial classifications, Mongoloid is now considered outdated and potentially offensive. In particular, you should take care not to confuse Mongoloid with Mongolian, which is occasionally used in the anthropological sense but which primarily refers to the central Asian region of Mongolia or to its peoples. 1
The use of Mongoloid or Mongolism—capitalized or not—in a medical sense is now clearly offensive. The preferred term for the congenital disorder is now Down syndrome or, somewhat less acceptably, Down’s syndrome.



Reference > Usage > American Heritage® Book of English Usage > 6. Names and Labels > § 57. race



The American Heritage® Book of English Usage.
A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.


"There are no pure races in any meaningful sense, only large geographical groupings whose genetic histories can never be fully known."


§ 57. race
In its anthropological sense, a race is a group of humans distinguished from other similar groups by genetically inherited characteristics. Though the perception of distinctive physical differences between peoples is undoubtedly as old as the history of human migration, the search for a scientific basis for race is a more recent undertaking. The earliest efforts of physical anthropologists involved elaborate descriptions of such characteristics as skin color, hair color and texture, body proportions, and skull measurements. Modern studies tend to ignore these superficial features in favor of more precisely measurable criteria, especially the analysis of blood types and of metabolic processes. 1
The attempt to classify humans into discrete racial groups is greatly complicated by the fact that human populations have been migrating and intermingling for hundreds of centuries. There are no pure races in any meaningful sense, only large geographical groupings whose genetic histories can never be fully known. The traditional names for these groupings—Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid (or Caucasian), and in some systems Australoid—are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical contexts and are likely to give offense no matter how they are used. Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively—and erroneously—to mean “white” or “European” rather than “belonging to the Caucasoid racial group,” a group that includes a variety of peoples generally considered to be nonwhite. This ambiguity, along with the growing aversion among many people to the racial terminology of earlier anthropologists, suggests that Caucasian may soon go the way of the -oid words and disappear even from local police blotters. 2
Of course, the existence of racial differences between peoples remains an obvious, if scientifically indefinite, fact with important social implications. But the terminology of race has shifted in recent years from anthropological classifications toward a more flexible language of geography, culture, and color. 3
More at Australoid, Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid. 4

It's Aragonese for: "It's a dog, not a cat." :p

That's very true. Even amongst Europeans, there are many differences ranging from Nordic, Alpine, Dinaric, Mediterranean, and East Baltic, and even mixtures of those sub-types, anthropologically-speaking that is.

This is always an interesting topic, and one that from a cultural standpoint I have no reason commenting. That's never stopped me before, and it won't now, either.

I grew up in Minnesota, where the concept of "ethnic diversity" meant "what part of Scandinavia or Teutonia are you from?" Since moving to California I have seen the "latino or hispanic or mestizo or chicano" debate, sometimes heated, up close.

The root "latino" can encompass Romanians, Italians, French, etc. It seems to be the most inclusive of the words, followed closely by "hispanic." The latter can encompass anyone who has even one ancestor coming from the former Roman district of "Hispania." Of course, anyone with a non-quechua surname would most likely fit into this bin.

Mestizo is probably most appropriate since it pays homage to both sides of the Atlantic. It includes the Mesoamerican [frosted] and European [whole wheat] sides. And virmonsal, you're right, chicana does sound the most ionic of the words. There are those who see in "chicano" the equivalent of "MEChA" and militant "brown pride" organizations.

As for me, I suppose if my genealogy to this point is correct, I actually do have "hispanic" roots. Back in the 15th century, a pair of my ancestors consisted of a French priest and a Spanish nun. This of course was prior to the now widely held Catholic belief that celibacy is next to godliness. Of course, that, as they say, is another topic for another forum...

CaliBasco
Who thinks he's working too hard on his MBA, and is grateful to be back amongst the "posters" to MM