In Nathan Bierma's recent column he questions whether "Hispanic" or "Latino/Latina" should be used for people with a Spanish speaking background. Interestingly, in different parts of the U.S. the terms are accepted differently. "Latino" is accepted in California, he says, and "Hispanic" is frowned upon. Southern Californians perfer "Chicano." Yet, in Florida "Cuban" or "Hispanic" is the preferred term, and "Latino" has not gained currency. In the midwest "Latino" and "Latina" are gaining acceptance, and I can vouch for that.

Apparently many feel as though people don't like "Hispanic" because many Spanish speakers have no direct ties to Spain, and they see it as what the government chooses to call them.

However, Bierma says that "Latino" doesn't have a spotless history either. He says 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.

What term should we use? Or, should it depend on where the person is from? For example, if someone is from Cuba, it is "Cubana." Ideas?

In graduate school at Colorado State University in 1968 I was a member of a Seminar on International Communication. The word "chicano" came up, and the professor turned to me. "I know you speak Spanish," he said. "Is it chee-kah-no, or is it chee-kay-no?"

"Chee-kah-no," I said. "It's a modification of "mexicano." It refers to a loosely defined group that used to be called "meskins" until that word took on nearly as much political incorrectness as 'nigger.'

"Spanish speaking" and "Spanish surnamed" are other labels that have been tried. Those labels are inaccurate because many -- particularly the younger generation -- don't speak Spanish.

I know of the Wilson family, where the father is black and does not speak Spanish; his wife is bilingual in Spanish and English and has deliberately not taught Spansh to her children, one of whom told me, "I want to learn Spanish so I can talk to my Grandma."

The professor, showing symptoms of irritation, said, "Well, what do YOU call them?"

"I call them men, women, and children," I said.

Then he really got irritated.


We might ask why do we need such racial and ethnic labels?

There is, surely, a difference between national labels (such as Cuban or American) and ethnic labels (such as Hispanic or Afro-American).

I suggest that the former serves the useful and important purpose of identification whereas the latter are more likely simply to stereotype.

I seem to recall that, about a hundred years ago, a US President actually barred all the labels that hitherto had been used (German-American; Italian-American) and insisted that all legal residents of the USA were henceforth to be known as Americans. In other words, origins don't matter whereas nationalities do.

I suppose, Jerry, you are right. We are all Americans, and I don't advocate the use of racial labels on people. I was merely citing an article written by Nathan Bierma on the subject, which I thought was very interesting. I was especially intrigued with the differences across the country in the acceptance of these terms. For example, while you seem to equate "Chicano" with "Nigger," Bierma cites that "Chicano" is preferred in Southern California, and my daughter who lives there confirms that for me.

I heard this week that it won't be long before there will be no majority racial group in the U.S. There will then be no minority groups because we will all be minorities. It will be interesting to see if (or how) life will change when that happens.

It depends how you define a racial group. At present the USA is white 77.1% and 12.9% black. Persons of Latin origin are no longer counted separately by the US census bureau and will take the racial grouping appropriate to their colour - usually white.

So the USA has a long way to go before its ethnic groups are all minorities, based on the black/white distinction. And there are no other groups that are even in double figures.

quote:

At present the USA is white 77.1% and 12.9% black. Persons of Latin origin are no longer counted separately by the US census bureau and will take the racial grouping appropriate to their colour - usually white.

The U.S. Census Bureau records the following 31 ethnic categories (Hispanic is an orthogonal attribute):

1. White alone
2. Black or African American alone
3. American Indian and Alaska Native alone
4. Asian alone
5. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone
6. White and Black or African American
7. White and American Indian and Alaska Native
8. White and Asian
9. White and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
10. Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native
11. Black or African American and Asian
12. Black or African American and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
13. American Indian and Alaska Native and Asian
14. American Indian and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
15. Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
16. White and Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native
17. White and Black or African American and Asian
18. White and Black or African American and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
19. White and American Indian and Alaska Native and Asian
20. White and American Indian and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
21. White and Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
22. Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native and Asian
23. Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
24. Black or African American and Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
25. American Indian and Alaska Native and Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
26. White and Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native and Asian
27. White and Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
28. White and Black or African American and Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
29. White and American Indian and Alaska Native and Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
30. Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native and Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
31. White and Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native and Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

I suppose the ultimate categorisation will be that of single people - since not one of us will have exactly the same racial mix as another - if you go back far enough.

So in that sense we will all be ethnic minorities.

Which brings us back to Jerry's question - why the distinctions? Do we need them?

For those who are interested, here is more reading material about "race" and the U.S. Census

I'm sure the only reason they stopped at 31 was because the code fits conveniently in 5 bits.

quote:

"Hispanic is an orthogonal attribute."

That's good to know.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English: not one of us will have exactly the same racial mix as another - if you go back far enough.

I was under the impression that if you went back far enough we would all have the same racial mix and I'm not referring to Adam and Eve. I seem to recall that we all originated from one small area of Africa if you went back far enough but I may be mistaken. (Wouldn't be the first time I know!)

On a clear day you can see ... clearly ...

I wrote:

""Chee-kah-no," I said. "It's a modification of "mexicano." It refers to a loosely defined group that used to be called "meskins" until that word took on nearly as much political incorrectness as 'nigger.'"

And Kalleh wrote:

" ... while you seem to equate "Chicano" with "Nigger, ... "

I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I equate "chicano" with "nigger," Kalleh. It's a false impression. When I wrote " ... used to be called "meskins" until that word ... "

"That word" is "meskins," not "chicanos."

"Chicano" is accepted and popular not only in southern Californa, but in Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, as well.

quote:

Which brings us back to Jerry's question - why the distinctions? Do we need them?

It's like with anything else, some people very much would like to keep the ethnic labels, while others wouldn't care or wouldn't want them. I am such a mutt, for example, that I surely don't care. Yet I have seen some Latinos or African Americans or Irish people who absolutely love their labels.

Richard, I am curious. You seemed so certain that the U.S. census had only 2 racial groups...until neveu's post (thanks, neveu!). Where did you get that idea?

quote:

You seemed so certain that the U.S. census had only 2 racial groups

Actually,I said that the proportions were white 77.1% and 12.9% black and that persons of Latin origin are no longer counted separately by the US census bureau. I did not mean to suggest that there are only two racial groupings. Depending on how far one wants to subdivide the human race, it could be as many as thousands.

Frankly I find most such divisions unnecessary and,by definition, divisive.

I divide the human race into just two two categories: those I like and those I don't. And I try always to make sure that there are more of the former than there are of the latter.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I divide the human race into just two two categories: those I like and those I don't. And I try always to make sure that there are more of the former than there are of the latter.

Actually I find a better approach is to divide the human race into those who like me and those who don't. I agree that there should be more of the former than latter though.

I divide the human race into two categories, as well. Those that like me, and those that don't know me yet.

One "ethnic label" not yet mentioned here is
dago, of which the Online Etymology Dictionary says "1823, from Sp. Diego "James," orig. used of Sp. or Port. sailors on Eng. or Amer. ships, by 1900 it had broadened to include non-sailors and shifted to mean chiefly "Italian."

In my old home town, Galena, Kansas, about one percent of the population was comprised of immigrants from Syria (or Lebanon?). A much larger group had descended from immigrants from the Ozarks. The latter referred to the former as "dagoes."

In the Pool Hall I overheard one of the Good Ole Boy Hillbillies discussing a recent wedding .... "Ah jess cain't see a White gal marryin' one of them dagoes."

Motto: Never let a dago buy.

quote:

Persons of Latin origin are no longer counted separately by the US census bureau and will take the racial grouping appropriate to their colour - usually white.

Richard, I read your post again and then looked at neveu's list. You are correct that Hispanic or Latino or Chicano or Cuban, etc., don't appear at all. While there are surely more than 2 racial designations with the U.S. census, your point about Latin origin not being counted separately is correct. Sorry if I indicated otherwise.

I was just saying that sometimes the racial groups like the racial designations. I have a colleague at work who would revolt if she had to say she is "white;" she wants to be known as "Cuban." That's all.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

I have a colleague at work who would revolt if she had to say she is "white;" she wants to be known as "Cuban."

But of course,she's actually both - and there's nothing wrong with that. I am both white and English but which desgnation is used will depend on the situation.

Incidentally,Cuba is probably the most racially diverse, and at the same time most integrated, society I have ever seen. Cubans can be any colour from coal black to snow white - but all of those I met and spoke to were fiercely proud to call themselves Cubans.

Everyone should visit this wonderful country. (Americans can do it easily enough by travelling via London!)

I was accessing some census data for another reason and came across this U.S. census site. It seems to indicate that they do have a Hispanic designation.

The second paragraph of the site says:

Race and Hispanic origin are two separate concepts in the federal statistical system.

* People who are Hispanic may be of any race.
* People in each race group may be either Hispanic or Not Hispanic.
* Each person has two attributes, their race (or races) and whether or not they are Hispanic.

Therefore Hispanics are not classified as a racial group by the US census bureau. That they may be classified other than by race is a different issue.

Which is more or less what I was trying to say:-(

Yes, I did see that, Richard, and I thought it quite astute...for a governmental agency, and all!

I suspect they were reacting to previous criticism they had received!