I made a comment to a lady friend that included the statement that she was “Latina”. She informed me that she wasn’t Latino, she was a Chicano and now I’m confused. She tried to to explain that it had something to do with the spanish blood but I was sleepy and didn’t get it all.
Anyway - she say’s she’s 3/4ths “Mexican” and 1/4 Aztec.
Anybody want to educate my european self?
Also, grammatically, is she then a “Chicana”?
Chicano is specifically Mexican. Latino is broader, covering all of the North / South / Central American Spanish speakers.
Chicano is a term of Mexican pride for many people, and its use is somewhat complicated among Mexicans themselves. Someone more familiar with its use and nuances may be along later, because I’m not overly so.
And grammatically she would be chicana.
I have always taken chicano to mean someone who is Mexican but not from Mexico. So someone who was born in the US, but with Mexican-born parents, would be a chicano.
Kind of, from what I was taught. I was always led to believe it is for Mexican-Americans in general. So if you are Mexican, but live in Mexico, you are a Mexican. If you are Mexican and are a citizen/resident of the United States, you are a chicano. If you have Mexican heritage, but are a citizen of the US, you are still a chicano.
What a mass of confusion. My in-Mexico-Mexican in-laws refer to themselves as latinos in the broad sense when they’re not referring to themselves as Mexicanos.
I’d always thought “chicano” was something that was used in the Chicago area to refer to latinos. Of course that was before I was educated and I’ve never given it a second thought since then. In fact, in real life, I’ve never, ever heard of anyone use the word “chicano” other than TV (which contradicts “real life”).
I’m sure my wife won’t change her label to chicana.
Boy, aren’t ethnic names fun.
The general solution is to ask the person what he or she wants to be referred to as, aside from their* name. If they* get too stroppy, a titanium rod upside their* head should settle them* down.
*(Prescriptive grammarians can bite my flabby, fleshy ass. This usage is accepted by English speakers everywhere in the world, regardless of what illiterate, out-of-date, finger-wagging tome you quote me from.)
Really? If you’re not joking, it’s pretty funny, but I guess reasonable.
“Chicano” also has important connotations with the Chicano Rights movement, and it refers only to people who were born in the U.S., as far as I know. I think some non-Mexican latinos born in the U.S. would find it strange to be called “chcano.”
I doubt OP’s friend, however, couild really say she was 25% Azetec and 75% Mexican. The Azetecs comprised several distinct tribes, and didn’t really refer to a race, but a civilization (that fell after the Spanish conquest). It’s something like saying you’re 25% Holy Roman. “Mexican” is a nationality, so someone could conceivably have nearly 100% European blood and still call themselves “Mexican” (though before independence, they never did–I think they used “cirollo,” or “ladino”). Maybe she wanted to say she was “mestiza,” which means mixed (any combination of European and Native American). Maybe she meant to say “mexica,” but the mexica were part of the Aztecs. In any case, she’d have to have pretty good geneological records to be so sure, and I doubt such things existed until very recently. The Spanish destroyed most of the Aztecs’ records, and when they took over, I don’t think they made distinctions amongst tribes.
Chicano always had political overtones to me, rather than just being an ethnic designation. According to wikipedia:
As for being 1/4 Aztec and 3/4 “Mexican”, I can’t imagine what that means. “Mexican” usually means mestizo, with the “mix” being European/Indian and since Aztecs are Indians… well, it just doesn’t make any sense.
It must be a regional thing.
I lived in the in the Taos/Santa Fe area for several years and never heard the term “chicano” used by long time residents of Spanish ancestry or by Mexican immigrants.
Locals invariably referred to themselves as being Hispanic. Mexicans often said they were Mexicans but some said they were Hispanic.
In California, the term chicano was common.
I think Derleth has it right. Ask the individual what they preferred to be called. Otherwise you spend too much time trying to be “correct”.
On a related note, I asked one of the local pueblo indians what he preferred to be called. He said, “indian” was fine with him.
Mexican immigrants don’t call themselves Chianos. Chicanos as a label is only used by Mexican-Americans. As far as New Mexico, the Chicano label has a historical politicized component that was never accepted broadly by the Mexican community in that state as compared to California or Texas.
Real simple. Latino/a refers in general terms to people who come from Latin American background. Chicano/a refers to a very specific group in the Latino community, specifically of Mexican ethnicity born and raised in the US.
As a mestizo, I don’t know what she is trying to tell you. A good 90% of Mexicans are mestizo by ethnicity and/or culturally. A mix of Spanish and Indio. Unless, of course, she knows if one of her inmediate parents or grandparents were of “pure” Indigenous background.
Yes.
I lived in El Paso for 20 years, and never once heard anyone referring to themselves as Chicano. The terms Latino and Hispanic were used interchangably, but the only place where the word Chicano made an appearance was on the university campus, which had a Chicano Studies Department.
This made me smile, thinking of how confused we’d be if the formula was applied to all other cities.
For anyone familiar with Nuyorican, that assumption is not too far fetched.
When I first moved to Austin, I used Hispanic (a common term in Florida where I’m from) until I was made fun of for sounding “all fancy”. Latino seems to be the term of choice here.
OP returning…
Well, I will probably not ask her details unless the conversation comes up in some other way. I don’t want to seem focused on her skin color - it’s so much not what she’s about (other than I think it’s much sexier than my glow-in-the-dark self).
She says her grandfather was a full-blooded aztec - meaning what I do not know. I assume she means that he was whatever the current mexican mixed euro-native race calls the local indigineous “indians”. The rest of her parentage is the “ordinary” citizens - whatever that means.
Yes - she is US born as are her parents. Her grandparents were the US immigrants. This makes here about as “Mexican” as I am English-Belgian-Irish-bunch-of-white-guys European. I really have no relatives in this country before 1910. My cultural heritage has degraded to a few traditional holiday dishes. Plum pudding on my side.
She has Christmas Enchilidas.
There are lots of “bull blooded” Indians living in Mexico, especially in the rural areas, and I suspect some take that as a point of pride. I’m guessing that’s what is going on with your friend.
Full of sangre de toro, in other words? :dubious:
I assume that’s a typo for “full blooded.”
Yes, that was supposed to be “full blooded”! 
And I put that in quotes because it’s not a scientific term. I also should have said that it was probably a point of pride for the person’s grandparent, rather then her, since she isn’t full blooded Indian by her own admission.
Many people of Latino heritage arrived in New Mexico before Mexico was an independent country. And before the USA was, either.