Per the Washington Post article cited below, do the offended parties have a valid cultural and/or historical point or are they being overly sensitive to the point of absurdity?
Well, if you actually quoted the article, you’d notice that the indignant lady said that it was “like a slave name.”
In my view, she exaggerates, but there is a (somewhat weak) parallel. Slave names were those European names (or invented names based on European sensibilities) imposed on slaves as part of the breaking process to ensure that any cultural ties to Africa were not preserved so as to minimize the possibility of slave revolts. Hispanic is a word that has been imposed by the U.S. government–although for far less evil intentions and probably more out of ignorance than malice.
The problem is that the U.S. government in the late 1960s recognized that there were several groups of people that were increasing both by natural increase and by immigration that were liable to begin calling on the government resources. It is generally easier to address a single group than multiple groups and, among the various groups that the Census Bureau examined, several of them had the common trait of speaking Spanish. Thus, the Census Bureau put them all in one identified group on the Census reports and labeled them “Spanish Speaking,” or, to use a single word, “Hispanic.”
Unfortunately, they are not a single group. They include Cuban émigrés who tend to be very staunch supporters of the political Right, immigrants from Central America and Mexico who are liable to be on the poltical Left, long-time U.S. citizens whose parents and grandparents immigrated from Mexico, or whose great-great grandparents were already settled in the Southwest and who were relegated to second-class citizenship when their lands were swallowed by Manifest Destiny, Puerto Ricans who settled in Northern Urban settings, both bringing and creating whole separate cultural and political traditions, and (among a few views) Filipinos who immigrated after WWII.
Now that they have been artificially lumped together, they are wrestling with many issues. If they can actually work together, they have an enormous population block to use to make political demands. (“Hispanics” outnumber blacks as the largest single recognized minority.) However, since they are not all bound by common ties and their politics differs, sometimes extremely, based on their origins, many would prefer to be seen as separate groups, rather than being lumped together. From that perspective, accepting the Census Bureau name that considers a Watergate burglar and Cesar Chavez or a fiercely anti-communist opponent of Castro and left-wing proponent of la raza to be the “same” can be offensive.
Since I am not a member of any of these groups, I am quite willing to let them battle it out, uniting or separating, agreeing on a common name or insisting on separate identities just as they choose.
I think that people such as Sandra Cisneros do themselves and their cause no good by getting angry about it. (Especially if they get mad at some poor innocent who does not realize, in advance, that it can be a hot button issue for some people.) But, again, I am not the one who may find my views being marginalized when political leaders listen to one of the factions and declares that they are acting “for Hispanics” with no idea that “Hispanic” includes far too many groups to have a single voice (at least, until they actually band together with such a single voice.)
What is “their cause”? The only thing that links all “Hispanics” is that they or their ancestors at some time spoke Spanish.
Card carrying Hispanic here. Okay maybe not card carrying but definitely not Latino. Hispanic refers to the origin of a people. In this case it being Spain or Hispania as in Espana. So the term fits. Mexican, Cuban, whatever.
Latino is a term just this side of Chicano and some of us are quite content being Hispanic.
I think a factor involved is that those who consider themselves Latino or Chicano are maybe a bit too ensconced in the culture.
I can only speak for myself of course but I am American first. Okay and second and probably all the way down to 45th.
Sandra Cisneros is militantly Latino(and a bit of a screwball) and that’s her right.
But I shouldn’t have to defend my weak Spanish speaking abilities, or how sophisticated I am, or how much money I make.
My friend Kyle O’Dell doesn’t speak a lick of Gaelic and why should he?
Do I have an axe to grind or what?!?!
What was the OP?!?!
It would seem to be the retirement of the word “Hispanic.” As noted in the article, the word offends some (as yet not quantified) percentage of those people so identified (sometimes by the U.S. Census Bureaus and sometimes through self identification). I only noted that, since a large number of people (even within the multiple groups identified by the Census Bureaus as Hispanic) are not yet aware of the discussion or debate, expressing anger at someone who used the word innocently does little to champion the “cause” of those who wish to see use of that word discontinued.
Apparently opponents of the term Hispanic don’t even realize the origin of Latino, Latina, Latin. Those terms refer to the root language which is Latin.
Italians are the original Latins, Latinos, etc. Somehow I doubt Spaniards or Portuguese or Mexicans would want to be grouped with Italians.
So, they’re offended when the fact of origin in Spain is brought up. Why are they so ashamed of Spain? Why are they so self-loathing and ashamed of their heritage?
Why has this Hispanic vs other denominations cropped up so much in this board ? Is there some kind of discussion going on in the US about this ?
(That I know off... no hispanic/latinos were ever slaves. At best menial badly paid workers. Hispania = Spain for sure.)Oy, please…
Ms. Cisneros is wearing some garment a couple of sizes too tight, from this Latino/P-Rican/Hispanic’s POV. “Hispanic” in the USA is the arbitrary one-size-fits-all Census Bureau classification, for everyone who has a recent Spanish-speaking ancestor. OTOH, “Latino” as commonly used today refers to those of us who culturally are tied in to the Spanish- and Portugese- speaking Americas. So I can understand how someone toiling the cultural trenches would consider the former is dismissive.
But a source of much resentment among the likes of Ms. Cisneros, as I see it, is not so much about it being inaccurate (which I don’t think ANYONE questions, and in any case Latino is also inaccurate in a strict sense) but about it being “what THEY call us”. Hence “like a slave name”. (Thing is, it’s not like “Latinos” was handed down to us on stone tablets from atop Macchu Picchu. Some writer in the 19th century came up the term “Latin America” and it stuck) Well, honestly, I got bigger fish to fry in the whole equality/diversity/national unity business.
And, you know what? Both Hispanic and Latino are tags that someone else puts on me for their convenience. That one was coined by an anglophone and the other by a hispanoparlante does not make me embrace one and take offense at the other. Me, I’m a human. An American. A Puerto Rican. Which I call myself, that depends on what is the relevant context and I’ll be the judge of that.
Rashak, in recent years people of Hispanic background have become the largest minority group in the US. There is some flexing of political muscle going on and whenever that happens the crackpots like Ms Cisneros have a forum and are paid much more attention than they may deserve while the media work out what the changes to the system really mean. Eventually everybody will realize that there are very few cultural similarities between people whose families moved to the mainland US from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, or wherever and the movement will fragment even more than it already is but by then most everybody will have been assimilated into the main American culture and ethnic differences will be based almost entirely on surnames and food like it is for those of us whose families have been here longer. I’m sure you’ve seen this in Brazil as the European refugees from WWII were assimilated into Brazilian culture. The immigrants may have retained their identities as Germans or Italians but their grandchildren know only enough of the old language to wish grandma a happy birthday.
Which gets me thinking: Is this Latina Identity thing like Ms Cisneros is apparently involved in a rearguard action to try to stop that loss of cultural identity? 'Cuz if it is it’s a fool’s errand that has never worked before.
Rashak welcome to the wonderful world of the American “diversity wars” where we waste valuable brainpower figuring out the right words to use, because getting down to actually building a better society where we can have both diversity and unity of purpose would require real work 
>> Ms. Cisneros is wearing some garment a couple of sizes too tight,
That’s because she’s full of shit.
In fact our "migrants" were not WWII refugees... most were from the 1800's looking for a chance at a better life. Mostly peasants and some middle class businessmen/artisans. We have japanese, germans and italians mostly.
Like you said the difference has more to do with food and surnames than anything else. Thou in Brazil assimilation is way faster than what I have seen in the US. Even the japanese that look different from most brazilians rarely keep themselves apart. Germans and Italians in the south even feeling pretty smug about their origin rarely make a fuss about it.
It certainly seems a political issue in the US thou... whever election time comes the media talk a lot about the black vote, the hispanic vote... the Cuban vote... etc... I suppose each group wants to stand out from the "general" hispanic definition.'Twas ever thus. A hundred years ago politicians pandered to the Irish vote. To be fair, here in Illinois they STILL pander to the Irish vote but it doesn’t get a separate breakdown in the post-election analyses.
Re “assimilation” and/or the lack thereof in in Brazil I thought wide spread racism against people of African origin(s) was acknowleged as a huge social problem in Brazil. Is this not the case? Does this speedy assimilation you speak of include people of African origin? I’m not trying to be confrontational with this question, I’m just asking for clarification as you are a native and many people claim that black(er) people in Brazilian society are not truely assimilated and are in fact socially and economically ostracized.
JRDelirious, thanks for the comprehensive answer. This gringa, if she has to use the term at all which is seldom, uses Latino/a a bit more often because, well, it’s prettier. Shallow, I know.
Minor hijack for a sec: After watching the Puerto Rican day parade this year, I’m still confused about the terms Boricua, Borinquen, Taino, and Nuyorican. I know Taino is the original extinct Indian tribe, and Nuyorican is somebody of Puerto Rican ancestry born in NYC but it seems to have political overtones. I saw a lot of these words on scarves, T-shirts, shorts, flags, and some tube tops. Thanks!
BTW, I suppose if your Spanish-speaking ancestry happens to be Indian, some of your ancestors might indeed have been slaves. I wonder how the descendents of the Mayans, et al. feel about coming to this country and being labelled with the same group name our culture gives to their conquerers.
dropzone, yes, it’s a losing battle, however, you have to realize that among the Latino/Hispanic/OhWhatTheHell cultural mavens, “assimilation” is often portrayed as an unspeakable obscenity, an atrocity, almost a Crime-Against-Humanity. Though oddly enough they seem quite tolerant of you diverging radically from the “homeland” culture, just as long as you do NOT become identified with the Anglos.
On the side-note of Brazil: If the “general” or 'historic" social structure of a country includes longstanding racial divides – e.g. Brazil or the USA – then you can have simultaneously a culture of “assimilation” AND a culture of segregation. Just that the immigrants get assimilated into the dominant group. (e.g. all the various European immigrants in the USA who were assimilated into the “white” Anglo-American culture)
hhmm… its actually a good question…
Africans were excluded from my original comment… not any specific reason thou. I was thinking of migrants… not abducted slaves.
Maybe because they didnt have a single coherent and unique culture when they got here. (Slaves were taken from different places and spread out so they didnt even speak the same language when they arrived at farms). Eventually they did develop a rich new culture of mixed origins.
Well anyway blacks were here way before european and japanese migrants came. Many in fact to substitute slave labor that was in decline. Most blacks wouldnt identify themselves as a community either... while italians surely do.
Yes… Blacks in Brazil due to several reasons… mostly economic and educational are “seen as inferior”. Those that do manage to get ahead arent as much. (Racism is different from US… its not as much about race… but about poverty.)
Mehitabel: “Boricua” comes from the Taino word for someone who lived in the island, which they called Boriken, which in turn was hispanicised into Borinquen. Borinquen/Boricua (and their derivatives) are thus our common informal alternates for Puerto Rico/Puerto Rican. In the latter case, Boricua is less of a mouthful than “puertorriqueño”.
You got the Nuyorican part right – there are serious political overtones because, in a classic example of the dynamics of human groups, an argument arose back in the 60s (and has gone on since) over whether they are still “real” Puerto Ricans. Later generations have put forward the position that what exists are two Puerto Rican communities, each as “real” as the other, with some common and some distinct social/political interests. The debate is not quite settled.