Feature: Latino Or Hispanic? Let’s Settle This Once And For All
20 December 2007, 3:45 PM. By Daniel Mauser
The Latino Vs. Hispanic debate has raged on in America for a few decades now. It seems Latinos (or Hispanics!) have never quite been able to agree on what they should be called. Which makes it tough for a publication that seeks to talk to you people. It’s for this reason that Guanabee Editor Cindy Casares set out to decide the argument once and for all.
Hey there, Hispanics! Sorry, just wanted to get your attention. In the seven months (wow!) that I’ve been editing Guanabee, I’ve discovered the word is about as offensive to some as “wetback.” Though why, I’ve never understood. Meanwhile, there are those people, (okay, me), who think the word Latino is fraught with angry, brown connotations. Turns out this is exactly where I should be. According to an NBC article I came across, American Heritage states that the preference for the two words actually breaks down to Texas and Florida for the former vs. California (and I’d venture to add New York) for the latter. And I thought I was such a free thinker. But what’s the difference between the two, really? And does either word even manage to capture the essence of this disparate group of people we call our own? I scoured the internet to find out.
First of all some definitions: Miriam Webster online tells us the etymology of the word Hispanic comes from the
Latin word hispanicus, from the Hispania Iberian Peninsula, Spain and dates back to 1584.
But if you take a look at the etymology of the word Hispania, indeed even look up the word in the same dictionary, you’ll see that Hispania was the name given by the Romans to the whole of the Iberian Peninsula (modern Portugal, Spain, Andorra, Gibraltar and a very small southern part of France).
Indeed, Webster goes on to define the word Hispanic as:
1. of or relating to the people, speech, or culture of Spain or of Spain and Portugal
2. of, relating to, or being a person of Latin American descent living in the United States; especially : one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin.
Yet, based on our own reader feedback, the issue some Americans seem to have with this word is its political history in this country. It seems that the Nixon administration decided to officially adopt the word for the 1972 United States census when too many people of Hispanic/Latino heritage were going uncounted. Though, according to that same NBC article, the word was in use in this country as early as 1889 to describe people from Spanish speaking countries, the idea to officially adopt the word in the early 1970’s came from the then prevalent use of the word Hispano by New Mexicans who considered themselves purely of Spanish, as opposed to Mexican, descent. Hence, some feel the word is dismissive of the indigenous part of most Latinos’ heritage. Not to mention, the widely held misconception that the term Hispano refers only to the Spanish portion of the Iberian peninsula, further narrowing the term’s scope in many people’s view.
Another interesting point to consider, of course, is the existence of multitudes of Latin Americans or Americans of Latin American heritage who are neither of Spanish or Portuguese descent. Our own publisher Daniel Mauser (Pictured at left. Isn’t he cute?) being one example of a Mexican of German Jewish heritage. Hispano doesn’t really cover him, does it? But then, neither does Latino.
Miriam Webster online tells us the etymology of the word Latino is
American Spanish, probably short for latinoamericano which means Latin American.
Interestingly, most official etymological reports on this word end with the Americas and make no reference to European Latin history, seemingly considering them to be completely unrelated. This is where I get hung up. Especially when I read in the same dictionary that one of the definitions for the word Latin is:
4. of or relating to the peoples or countries using Romance languages; specifically, of or relating to the peoples or countries of Latin America
Last time I checked, the countries that birthed the Romance languages are in Europe. Clearly there is some relationship between the two and Latino-Americans didn’t end up with that name by coincidence. But, we are dealing with language. Something that is never fixed, always evolving. Most modern-day Americans are choosing to interpret the word Latino in the same fashion that Webster does. There’s an entire argument about it amongst those who write Wikipedia. It seems there really does exist a lack of proper scholarly documentation connecting the old world Latin with the new. Personally, this smacks of separatism on the part of Latinos. Not to mention, a desire by those in power in this country to cut Latino Americans off from their European roots in order to more comfortably marginalize them as “other.” Like all bastard children, no one–including ourselves– really knows how to explain us at the dinner table. Better to say we belong to the maid.
So which word is better? Frankly, neither one is technically, historically complete because neither one takes into account the other ethnic backgrounds that belong to so many of us like Native American, African, Asian, German, Dutch or, well, you name it. Which brings up a good point: Should we be trying to lump 100 million (or so) people of varying ancestry into one word? And that’s a question I put more to ourselves than the dreaded Americanos. Because as disparate as our cultures are one country to the next, one family to the next, I would argue that it’s Latinos/Hispanics themselves who want to hold on to one another. Keeping everyone just close enough to smack around when someone calls us by the wrong name.
It seems we are stuck with one of these two words until someone comes up with something better. One thing is clear: Neither is really more offensive than the other. So please stop with the dramatics.
(30) 
Post Your Comment
Did you know you can now share a link, image or video?
Click to submit your own notas.
I dont really care.. you can call me a latina, hispanic or a chicana …it doesn’t bother me. I am used to it i guess.
But actually my dad doesn’t like to be called a hispanic… because it’s connection to Spain…he says he is Mexican not Spanish.
thats what makes the world go around. Each to their own. I prefer Brasilian.
as usual, well done!! i’ve always used hispanic, primarily because i just think latin seems so kitschy.
_So please stop with the dramatics._ isn’t that what makes us so hispalatin?
Doesn’t matter. We have bigger fish to fry as a culture.
I don’t find either one offensive. But I use “Hispanic” b/c that is what I am most used to. Honestly though, I usually just say Cuban.
Also, “Latino” sounds dorky and made up, like when a gringo pretends to speak Spanish by adding an O to the end of everything “Openo the dooro, por favor.”
Thank you! My bf and I have been back and forth on this topic for a while now.
I prefer Latin/Latina but Hispanic doesn’t bother me at all. As long as they don’t use a derogatory
term, it’s ok.
@ el smrtmnky: Can I steal your word? Hispalatin is fantastic!
I agree w/fulanita neither names bother me. I think i’ve used “hispana” o “hispano” cause my parents used it.
I call myself a Chicano. But if I have to lump all into a category, it’s Latino for me.
I tend to prefer “Latino” if we’re discussing some pan-Latin American identity, since “Latin America” and “Hispano-American” referring to two different things, usually.
I agree with fulanita though, country of national/ancestral origin, I think, says a lot more about you than “Latino.” Being Mexican/Argentine/Cuban-American is all quite different.
either is fine. if i want to get technical, I am a Mexican American. A term I prefer over “Chicano”. That seems to be a TX/CA thing.
Please Please dont call me Baby… I mean Indio…
I hate hate hate Hispanic, why, because the term is way to narrow and used to classify anyone who looks brown. Latino, incoporates more, but as it was pointed also cuts off other ethnic backgrounds. In the end, everyone will always indentify with what they feel the most comfortable with, which is usually a specific complex history of where their parents’ parents were born and why they are not mexican err latino, wait I mean hispanic…. damn you, you other ethnic background people, why do you have to be so different.
Personally, my last name traces all the way to the eastern european country of Latvia or Letonia. So bow down to your future King!
You’re wrong to blame Hispanic on Nixon, Cindy. Consult my take from last year.
sonia nieto has a great chapter about terminology in her book “affirming diversity.” she bases her choices on “what the people themselves want to be called” and the “most accurate term[s].” she goes on to say that hispanic “does not refer to a particular continent or country (i.e., there is no continent named Hispania).” the definition cindy looked up does include the “Hispania Iberian Peninsula” but whatever. nieto says the term latino “has the disadvantage of having a sexist connotation when used to refer to groups that include different genders”. thats true, when writing i prefer to use latinas/os, because it includes latinas but doesn’t relegate them “behind” latinos. nieto goes on to say that neither term encompasses all of us due to our distinct degrees of historical oppression within the united states. when talking about specific people she prefers to use specific ethnic names if they are available, but this again brings us full circle… what do we call all of us?
i thought i’d weigh in on the issue, but first a lil something about myself, to sort of frame my opinion. i was born (1985) in michoacan, mexico, moved to san jose, ca when i was 5 (1.5 generation, what!), and have attended a private liberal arts college in southern califas for the past 4 years.
i call myself a latino, a chicano, and a mexican. i use the terms situationally because i feel that personal identity is fluid and always evolving.
when i talk or write about us, i prefer to use latinas/os (which sounds like la-ti-nas-os, or lati-NAZOS if you choose to say it that way). my reason for using a pan-ethnic identifier has always been as a way to bridge our similarities. while this label also tends to obscure our differences (which blows) i still like to play up the shared histories. in terms our spanish histories, you can’t have latin america without spain, right?
but you can have hispanic without latin america. in my mind a hispanic is someone from spain (i’ve heard a second generation spaniard living in southern cal protest that he’s called a latino when he’s clearly a hispanic, theres a difference he said).
for me hispanic is like nails on the chalkboard (although slightly better than new yorkers referring to everything latina/o as spanish by default). it negates any sort of indigenous ties (which many mexicans living in mexico/insert your own latin american country, do on the daily) but it is (arguably) more widely recognized and self-identified hispanics have their reasons too, although most i’ve heard are “it’s what i grew up hearing”… that can be remedied
shit thats long… sorry gente
nice javier. you hit all the major points. i’ll have to check out sonia nieto’s book.
besides the situational differences between labels pointing to countries of diasporic origin, local and/or national communities, as far as i understand the major distinction between latina/o and hispanic (hispana/o) for me is political. latina/o for me speaks to an anti-racist political movement consciously attempting to build alliances between latinas/os of many different ethnic, geographical heritages. like javier, hispano evokes to me people trying to pass off as purely white, european spaniards who just happened to come to the americas 200 years ago but who never, ever had sex (or, god forbid, children!) with either indigenous or african peoples. i know this is a bit of a harsh exaggeration…
i choose latino, then cubano-dominicano, then tejano, etc… because i’m a different thing in different contexts. it’s ironic that i can’t technically identify myself as chicano, although i grew up with more contact with chicanos than with caribeños. my partner is also a spaniard who has taken the decision to identify as latina in the U.S. in spain she’s still sevillana.
the university program i work for calls itself latina/o studies exactly because it wants to represent a more radical, leftist political stance…
obviously from all the comments above, whether or not people understand these terms in the same way is a whole other matter. it’s personal, confusing and idiosyncratic.
finally, from a practical perspective, latina/o studies as a department at my university has had to collaborate with spanish, native american, latin american, asian, african and african american studies to try to touch on all the diverse groups that could potentially identify as latina/o or have common interests. it becomes messy, but preferable to having closed off groups that don’t talk to one another, don’t see common causes and problems they can work together on, and, most of all, it allows people who have multiple ethnic identifications to embrace their complicated, rich heritages.
so i like latina/o, but don’t cringe at hispanic. i just don’t ever use it myself. my parents and sisters identify as hispanic, my brother-in-law as mexican-american… somehow we all get along. until we start talking politics! haha.
Here’s my understanding.
All Latin American people are latinos and most are Hispanic (meaning of Spanish descent). Many Hispanics are Latino but not all Hispanics are Latino, (ex: a Spaniard is not Latino).
I’m Guatemalan and I can go by either because my family comes from Guatemalan natives and Spanish settlers. I guess whatever your stance is on Spanish colonization of Latin America will drive your preference on what you want to be called though. I can see how some don’t want any association with Spain… or heck maybe they prefer to be called whatever the hell they call people from their countries .
I use either one and I don’t have a problem with either term, but I use Hispanic more because I’m used to it.
Both terms are flawed. Both hearken back to European roots, and both seek to lump a group of people together when, in reality, each country has a distinct identity. I refer to myself as Puerto Rican, but I take no offense whatsoever at being called Hispanic or Latina. Life’s too short to get bogged down in fighting about terms, when neither one is without its pros and cons.
When people ask me what term they would like to define me as I simply reply: “Which ever makes you more uncomfortable”
I personally think it is an East coast vs. West coast difference in terminology. Here, in NYC growing up and attending public school with a large population of Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, I noticed that everyone used the term Hispanic. Of course, I was aware of the term Latino, however always assumed it was a west coast thing. Once I got to college though, I noticed that in academia the term Latino is used-it is Latin American Studies not Hispanic-American studies.
Also, as someone mentioned above older New Yorkers definitely used the term Spanish to identify Hispanic/Latin people. My parents (immigrants), who settled in the Bronx as kids and grew up with Puerto Ricans, to this day still refere to them as Spanish.
Here, in NYC is seems as if Spanish then Hispanic and now Latino was the progression of the descriptive term used. I believe language evolves as education and knowlege becomes available and widespread. Who knows what the next generation may use.
On another note most of my friends here definitely still go by hispanic whereas friends in Chicago and LA use Latino.
who cares? they all want to deport us anyway. but if i had to choose…tejano power.
I prefer latino because it incorporates so much more culturally. But really, even that term is a dead end in my family. I identify as Afro-indio y latino because of my Portuguese, East-Indian and African blood. I speak Portuguese, I speak Spanish, poorly; and I dream in Spanish and Portuguese. Tho my Spirit cannot be chained, it is South American. We need to stop defining ourselves based on white folks and their paperwork.
Chicano
Um, who is this Miriam Webster who knows so much about etymology and is she related to the small black boy in that TV series?
The dictionary I have is Merriam Webster.
Sorry, it’s the lit major and writing instructor in me.
And for the record, anything other than “Spic” is fine by me.
Who is this Miriam and how does she know so much about etymology? Is she related to the little black kid in that TV series?
The dictionary I have is Merriam Webster. Sorry, it’s the lit major and writing teacher in me.
And for the record, anything other than “Spic” or “Illegal” is fine by me.
People is usually OK with boths but being that romance languages based on latin include some old continent countries (french italian,etc), the slightly more correct term would be hispanic since most of us speak Spanish and that is a more concrete group than latin-o.
It’s certainly the way it’s explained in some south american grammar schools
Interesting article. The original question “Do Hispanic, Latino and Chicano Mean The Same Thing? [NBC]” can clearly be understood when you consider the majority of Mexicans in the States.
As Chileans, we do not identify with the term Hispanic at all, as we think it refers mainly to people of Mexican descent.
A very informal survey amongst some Argentinian and Chilean friends tells me that “Latin American” is the prefered word for some of us.
and let me add…
South American, or :”Sudamericano” will be the word of choice in most of the southen latin american countries.
I really dont mind being called both because i think all or some latins are actually hispanics becasue the Spanish dominated Latin america, my last name traces back to Spain so I can be called both!
as an azorean portuguesa, i secretly consider myself hispanic, but i know the perceived association with spain pisses of portuguese people, so i keep it to myself! but i mean really, what am i- Iberian?! nah… i’m most likely just considered a regular old white chick.
I believe people should love who they are. There are people in Latin America who are Indegenous example I’ve met people with last names such as Morocho and Choes from Ecuador and Peru who are brown and speak spanish with an indegenous accent say “the native people in my country” as if they weren’t and they get angry if you refer to them as Indigenous when that is who they are. Africans in Latin America and The Caribbean Islands don’t like it if you call them African. If I move to China and have children there that does not make them of Chinese descent. They can call themselves Chinese by birth if that’s what they want but they are not Chinese. I think Indigenous and Africans should love who they are because they have wonderful treasures in their culture. Why do we have to call them Hispanic or Latinos when they are African and Indegenous.