By Juan Tornoe
I was born and raised in Guatemala, "transplanted" into the United States some years ago; and personally I have no problem with people calling me 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. The debate has almost reached Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life intensity. For me it is just a name and I use Latino and Hispanic interchangeably. 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 specific 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.
Now we run into another "controversy", found 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, although the latter is not fully recognized by some), so what gives the citizens of the United States of America the right to be the only ones called "Americans"? Instead shouldn’t they be called something along the lines of U.S.-Americans or American-Americans?
It's easy to go on and on over this and never land on something concrete... there are very logical and objective arguments that fully justify the use of either term. There are also equally strong, although emotional reasons why someone would chose the term Hispanic or Latino.
One of my strongest beliefs and pet peeves is that "whites" (or should I say Non-Hispanic/Latino Whites…) 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 actually feel strongly against my decision, and I fully respect that, but it would be otherwise too complicated to refer to these persons by each according to their own country of origin…
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.
We also need to consider Spaniards living in the U.S. ... are they Hispanic, Latin, Latino, European, Ibero-Americans? The name Hispanic could be traced to those "descendants" from people from the Iberian or Hispanic Peninsula (comprised by Spain and Portugal) or to the use of the most common language (Spanish) spoken in this Peninsula (let's not even 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, but 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 believe this certainly has been and will continue to be a hot topic, but eventually will get resolved and we’ll have a term to use when referring to Latinos/Hispanics.
For now I will continue using both terms, Hispanic and Latino, indistinctively and for practical reasons to describe persons living in the United States who came from or can trace their heritage to:
1) Any Latin American country that at some point in time was conquered by Spain;
2) Spain;
3) And even Brazil, because even if we don’t share the same mother tongue, culturally we share as much with them as with the rest of us.
Bottom line, being Latino or Hispanic, is much more than a name; it is even much more than the language we speak, it is about the culture that we have in common… Or paraphrasing, James Carville, “It’s the Culture, Stupid!”
Revised and updated version from my June 2004 post on HispanicTrending.net
Comments