Latino or Hispanic?

Today I received this interesting email:

From: [A reader in Los Angeles]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 9:19 AM
To: Juan Guillermo Tornoe
Subject: curious...

Hello,

I live in a very large Latin populated area. And through my interaction with my Latino(a) friends and neighbors, the consensus is they don't like the word "Hispanic." This being a made up Reagan era designation to lump all the cultures of Mexico, Central and South America into one pot. (It's like calling all white people "Anglo" from what I understand.)

My question to you is why you use this particular moniker and what's your take on it?

Thanks!

Here is my answer (edited and complemented for posting purposes):

Hi,

Thank you very much for taking the time to write; I truly appreciate it.

I am a Guatemalan, born and raised there, "transplanted" into the States a couple years ago; and personally I have no problem with people calling me a Central American, Latin American, Hispanic or Latino.

I am fully aware of the "battle" between the name we should give to those living in the U.S. that somewhere in their past have roots south of the Rio Grande or the Spanish-speaking Caribbean. Hey, it has almost Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life intensity. For me it is just a name and I use Latino and Hispanic interchangeably throughout the site. Now there are also "Chicanos"; those who specifically can trace their roots back to Mexico... that is a whole different story; but since the majority of Hispanics/Latinos in the United States come from Mexican descent, it is most certainly a third variable to consider, at least for that definite segment of the population.

We could go ahead and call each group by its name: Mexicans (Chilangos, if they are from Mexico City), Guatemalans (Chapines), Salvadoran (Guanacos), Hondurans (Catrachos), Nicaraguans (Nicas), Costa Ricans (Ticos), Puerto Ricans (Boricuas), Chilean, Argentinean, Colombian, Venezuelan, Ecuadorian,  etc... Or even be a bit more formal: Mexican-Americans, Guatemalan-Americans, Salvadoran-Americans, Honduran-Americans... you get the picture.

Then you will run into another "controversy", that you encounter both North and South of the border: We are ALL Americans; it is the name of the entire Continent (yes, there is North, South, and Central, though the latter is not fully recognized by some), so what give the citizens of the United States the right to be the only ones called "Americans"? Shouldn’t we call them instead American-Americans?

It's easy to go on and on and never land on something concrete... there are very logical and objective arguments that fully justify each way to name Hispanics/Latinos.

One of my strongest beliefs and pet peeves is that "whites" (or should I say Non-Hipanic/Latinos…) think of Hispanics/Latinos/etc. as an all encompassing group, while there is SO much diversity among them, not only from country to country, but between the different regions in each country… Then after they have moved to the U.S., the region in which they settle as well as their level of acculturation, bring out a whole new set of variables to consider.

For practical reasons I am comfortable going with the Hispanic/Latino name. Some must feel strongly against my decision, and I fully respect that, but it would be otherwise too complicated to refer to these persons by each of their own countries of origin… Then the name of this blog/weblog/website (I am guessing am also stepping into dangerous ground here) would be “Mexican-American, Guatemala-American, Salvadoran-American, Dominican-American, Puerto Rican-American… Trending.”

This is a Catch 22 situation: such a diverse group of people, all gathered under one word, for whatever reason it may be (practicality in my case), and still we insist on  why "Anglos" don’t  recognize the diversity among us.

Then there are Spaniards living in the U.S. ... are they Hispanic, Latin, Latino, European, Ibero-Americans? The name Hispanic could be traced to "descendants" of the Iberian or Hispanic Peninsula (comprised by Spain and Portugal) or to the use of the most common language (Spanish) spoken in this Penninsula (let's not go there right now). Then the word Latino, is a variation of “Latin” which refers to individuals coming from a country where Latin (the language) was once spoken... So the Italians, French, Hungarians, Albanians, Portuguese, and all other persons that descent from Latin countries, who do not have Spanish as their primary language, and are living in the United States could argue that they should be called Latinos or Latin-Americans... Wait, aren’t Latin Americans the ones that come from Central & South American as well as the Caribbean?

As far as the term "Anglo" is concerned, it is funny but I have noticed that Hispanics/Latinos do not have a problem calling any white Anglo-Saxon American citizen an "Anglo". Shouldn't they call them English-Americans, German-Americans, Danish-Americans, Austrian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Scottish-Americans, Polish-Americans, etc...?

What about African-Americans? We should call them by their country of origin as well: Algerian-Americans, Egyptian-Americans, Tanzanian-Americans… Same situation applies for Asian-Americans, wouldn’t you agree? And how about those originally from the land down under… Australian-Americans?

I think this is certainly a hot topic right now, but it will eventually get resolved and we’ll have a term to use when referring to Latinos/Hispanics.

All my best,

Juan Guillermo Tornoe
División Hispana
-- El Mago de la Publicidad
________________________________

Estrategias de Mercadeo - Desarrollo de Mensajes - Planificación de Medios

Teléfono 512-295-5700
Fax 512-295-5701
Home Page - www.HispanicTrending.com
Seminario - "Publicidad: Qué Funciona, Qué No Funciona y Porqué"

Comments

[Edgar Veytía]

Thou doth protest demasiado.

I think the future will see the emergence of the term Latino. (Date & Time stamp this bold remark, por favor!)

Stepping back, what I see is that early emergentes jumped on the Hispanic moniker (especially the guys with Hispanic in their websites and brands) and now have to come up with a lot of "we are the world" habladera to make a case.

Perdoname, but Hispanic is no one. It's not real. Latino is. We are. Had you named your operation Latino Trending, you would be cantando a different tune, in my humble opinion.

Está bien claro! We were Latinos before Nixon and we serve ourselves best by sticking to what's real. In our genetic bent toward accomodation, Hispanic is yet another example of "Vaya pues!", be nice, don't stand out, go with the program. Cayese muchacho!

Ponte claro. We're Latinos! Cross the border and ask the half billion people who were never consulted by Nixon on the renaming of our culture, our heritage, our seres primordiales.

...from one Latino to another.

EV

[Juan G. Tornoe]

Dear Edgar,

Thank you very much for visiting Hispanic Trending and for your thoughful feedback. It most certainly enriches the blog's content. As you can read at the beginning of the article, I really have no strong feelings attached to the terms "Latino" or "Hispanic"; that is why I named this blog, "Hispanic Trending, a Latino Marketing and Advertising Blog". As mentioned above, I fully respect both sides of the spectrum and am thrilled that you have chosen this site to express your opinion.

Gracias hermano!

[Anne Howard]

North of the border, here in Canada, my friends South of the Southern border like to refer to themselves per their country, i.e. Peruvian, Nicaraguan and Mexican for example. I agree with you that all of us here are technically Americans, if you were to call a Canadian an American, ouch spark would fly. Let's remember that by whatever name we call each other, as long as it is done with the INTENT of respect, it should go well. Cheers,
Anne
RushPRnews, press release services at www.rushprnews.com

[Angelita Barba]

Latino/Hispanic as a label for ethnic identity is dangerously erroneous and perpuates ignorance, colorism, racism, and self-hate.

Extra! Extra! Hispanics increased their hold as the country's largest minority group, at 14.5 percent of the population, compared with 12.8 percent for Blacks. Hispanic is a term for people with ethnic backgrounds in Spanish-speaking countries. Hispanics can be of any race, and most in the U.S. are White. When demographers talk about the shrinking percentage of White people in America, generally they are talking about Whites who are not Hispanic. - CNN

You may as well continue singing this same tune with that label.

1.) Christopher Columbus discovered America you know
2.) and all light brown skin toned girls like me are Mediterranean
3.) (who have been around a lot longer - thousands of years)
4.) because the dirty Indians
5.) (who have no self analysis, trouble understanding basic concepts, and don't place a premium on education)
6.) are homogeneous, agrarian, nomadic,
7.) and have only the word "tomato" to contribute to world history and culture
8.) - they didn't even cultivate it until Cortez & Pizzaro came -
9.) who likes them anyway
10.) and population control is a sin.

Do you know who Our Lady of Guadalupe is?

...also known as the Empress of the Americas symbol of national and ethnic identity?

Mexican & Central Americans make up 82% of the "Latinos/Hispanics" in the U.S.; 92% of the "Latinos/Hispanics" on the West Coast - erroneous labels. I prefer Raztecaya/Inca (Rastafarian/Azteca/Maya/Inca) because we believe in peace and we let anyone in. We're not an occidental culture.

Our culture, heritage, seres primordiales

God-centered
Home
Family
Garden
Intimacy
Domestication
Cultivation
Culture
Art
Zero budget
Self-cultivation
Learning
Education

NOT our culture, heritage, seres primordiales

Job centered
Automobile
Corporation
Workplace
Role-playing
Career
Professionalism
Electronic Media
War
Credit Card
Consumerism
Income-seeking
Real Estate

"Our trunk will always be Indigenous." - Jose Marti

[Gerardo Ruelas]

Querido Mago de la Publicidad,

Thanks for having this post as an opportunity to express our opinions.

Yo estoy deacuerdo contigo. I was born in Mexico and also "transplanted" to the United States a few years ago. I do not get offended if I get called Hispanic, Latino, or Mexican. A simple label that is trying to place me in a category will not change who and what I am. It does not change my culture, my values, nor my background.

I believe that people that feel offended are waiting for the right term to define them. Wake up Compadres, define yourself! If you know what and who you are it does not matter what you mark on a paper. Can you imagine if any official form had to mention all countries of origin? The form would be a few pages longer.

I believe that we have more important issues to take care of within our communities than a label in a goverment form. We are who and what we are and a label does not change that.

Con mucho respeto,

Gerardo B. Ruelas

[Christian]

Wow! Como un Chileno-Americano (for all intents and purposes, "white"), I find this always a confusing idiosyncracy of being American. Personally, I define both terms strictly. I am historically Latino. I am linguistically Hispanic. My Brazilian friends are either Latino or Brasileiro, never Hispanic.

Maybe it's a Miami-LA thing, but I don't take an activist approach to it. I just educate when I am asked to, and understand that people from everywhere rely on categories for efficiency's sake. And uh, well, marketing as an industry has a way of targeting pretty effectively, regardless of the moniker employed.

Saludos, y ciao!

Christian Rubio
mocospace.com

[angelita]

TOPICAL BLOG!

I've had this pop up sooo many times. The last couple of years have been a filled with growing pains bith for myself and for my business. I've run into people on such extreme ends of this issue as to eith want to completely deny any affiliation with origin ("I'm an AMERICAN, end of story") or become so militant in description is almost intimidating ("I'm Afrocubocolumbian, fusion chicanguatotejanonorteño, with a twist")

For me, what's been key is to be sensitive to what others need me to acknowledge about their ID. To some, it's not just a label but a statement of history for a family or separation from that history. I've also learned to be happy with who I am and to understand that I may want to change what I call myself in 20 years or even six months.

I love this topic because it forces us to open our minds to complicated ideas. We want to be a part of something BIG but we want our individuality too. How do we achieve that without stopping SOMEONE in the process?

[Deldelp]

I believe that the Latino/Hispanic/Chicano/Nuyorican & so forth...are related to one thing-we use one language (Spanish) in many different ways.

The Irish, Scottish, and Jamaican's all speak English due to their colonial pasts-yet you do not see one moniker to encompass them.

As a result it should not be surprising that we have not only the cultural, regional, and country divides but also a deeply entrenched moniker divide.

[Maria Matilde Passini]

Querido Mago!
I am personally Argentine-American and Caucasian (White) at that.
To me, it does not make much difference whether I am called Hispanic, Latina or by a more specific label such as the Argentine-American one.

I enjoyed your post as I found it both informative and educational.

Thank you!
-Matilde

[Maria Matilde Passini]

PS: I believe, also, that the intent used behind many words have a lot to do with how they are perceived.
Hispanic and Latino are not quite so very different, in my mind.
Hispania was the term given by the Romans in Latin to the Hispanic or Iberian Peninsula is where the term 'Hispanic' would have its roots. So, the term Latino with its own roots is very close to it in some ways.
I also believe that we need to form our own identities and not depend as much on our country of origin or culture. Sure, it is a determinant but it shouldn't be our whole identity.
-Matilde