“On Language” 4/6: ‘Hispanic’ or ‘Latino’?
My Tribune column today explores the surprisingly complex issue of whether Americans of Spanish-speaking background should be called Hispanics, Latinos, or something else:
There’s no ideal solution for Americans, Benedet says. “There’s no one term that can adequately define all the peoples and the cultures. It’s really quite a problem,” she says.
“`Chicano’ is too exclusive to Mexicans. `Hispanic’ has too close a tie with colonial roots,” she says. Using “Mexican-American” or “Cuban-American,” Benedet adds, implies “you’re not a culture in your own right.”
Even “Latino”—which rose to prominence in part as an anti-imperialist alternative to “Hispanic”—does not have a spotless history, Benedet says. She notes that the French used it in their attempted conquest of Mexico in the 19th Century. And “Latino”—the Spanish equivalent of “Latin”—has strong associations with the Roman Empire and medieval Europe, where the Latin language thrived. “Latino” also is gender exclusive, although it is often used as shorthand for both males and females (who are “Latinas”).
Hispanic’ or `Latino’: What to call our largest minority?
Chicago Tribune, April 6, 2005 Wednesday, 799 words
By Nathan Bierma
temporary link/permanent preview
Next entry: to foot the bill
Previous entry: Are you doubly positive about that?