I have heard some go so far as to describe it as “cultural genocide,” which would actually make it a crime against humanity. Again, it’s nothing new and most other ethnicities went through that, too. The kids pat grandma on the head patronizingly and go off to McDonald’s. This assimilation is especially fast if there are minimal physical differences between the members of the group and the cultural majority (at least in our culture that has been steeped in noticing “racial” differences), as there are with descendents of Amerinds and Spaniards (all basically “white looking,” despite Amerinds being “racially”* Mongoloid, especially after a few generations of reproductive openmindedness). The only way it can be maintained is by the ghettofication of the group. In the past the cultural majority helped keep Hispanics separate but, to be honest, white folk–sorry, Caucasoids–seem to care a whole lot less than they used to when there were many fewer Hispanics outside of the Southwest than there are today.
One use of the term “Hispanic” that annoys the hell out of me is when police or TV announcers describe a hunted suspect as “Hispanic.” As that there are so very many Hispanic ethnicities and colors, from Celtic white to African black, and as people whose background is from anywhere around the Mediteranean or western Asia might share physical features with somebody with the presumed “classic” Hispanic features (light bronze skin, black hair, aquiline nose) that description is less than helpful and can be more than vaguely racist.
Do you get the impression that I find “race” to be a pretty arbitrary concept? I just found the lovely :rolleyes: designation on a Navajo website, “Homo Sapiens asiaticus,” meaning that members of the Mongoloid “race” are a separate subspecies. Like Chihuahuas and Great Danes are separate subspecies. Triple :rolleyes:
There is a funny expression I once heard, a “Sandra Cisneros Mexican”. (Someone who is so completely hung up on being ethnically authentic that he or she could only be an American"). I think there are similar cases with some Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans as well - people that pile ethnicity on to the point of near-parody.
To be sure, many Hispanics were slaves (in Cuba it persisted until 1886), and many Hispanics were slave owners and traders as well (recall the Amistad case). Therin lies the contradictions and complexities of such a label. The historically opressed are in the same boat as their oppresors. It always fascinated me. growing up in El Paso, TX, that people in Mexico have so many ethnic, racial, and cultural identities, but over here they are all Hispanics, along with Puerto Ricans, Chileans, and Spaniards.
Also, I can not figure out why Hispanic is bad but Latino/a isn’t. they are equally Eurocentric and artificial labels largely imposed by outsiders, if that is the complaint.
Oh yeah, we used to get old folks in my neighborhood who voted for all the Irish or Italian names on the ballot in a row, so identity politics is still around for white folks too. In fact, the three I’s to which all NYC politicians, whatever their own ethnicity, must pander to are still “Ireland, Italy Israel”. There’s probably Hispanic equivalents by now–Dominicans and Puerto Ricans and Salvadorans, maybe.
I seem to remember Sherlock Holmes using the word “Latin” to refer to the Mediterranean countries in the late 19th century–it’s not a very flattering reference (“The sunlit countries of assassination” or something) but he means Italy too. I’d always thought it stemmed from countries whose languages were closer to Latin than the Teutonic-inspired English and other indigenous Northern European languages, in which case “Latino” would STILL be a reference to Spain, so I don’t see what Cisneros is so het up about–flies, honey, vinegar, amiga.
Like who cares?..I prefer the term White Non Anglo Saxon….just kidding…people are idiots…Latino, Hispanic, whatever… I hate this a Politically Correct nation…pretty soon
you can’t call anyone anything…
So, what’s wrong with a simple, “sorry to offend you, didn’t know,” and “ok, you’re a latina?”
ya step on someone’s toes, they happen to have a hangnail, you didn’t know, you apologize when they tell you. Very simple.
We can certainly rag on someone for insisting on being called something they feel is respectful, but can we show them the respect they demand? Is changing a word we use that difficult?
“Slave name” seems a bit extreme, but I have more important things to stress over. It obviously means something to her and means alot less to me. “fine, you’re a latina, have a nice latina day, hope you feel free in your latinisma.”
“Slave name” seems a bit extreme, but I have more important things to stress over. It obviously means something to her and means alot less to me. “fine, you’re a latina, have a nice latina day, hope you feel free in your latinisma.”
This was soooo funny Greck!
The more I think about it…No…names always offend…we should just use letters…Assign each race a letter…eventually though the C’s will feel discriminated by the A’s and both will be
Offended by the insensitivity of the B’s…such is life.
Thanks for the answers about Puerto Rico, JRDelirious! Now can you explain about the big happy rooster that was on the rest of the T-shirts?
Often in the news around here you hear that the perp was a “light skinned Hispanic” or “dark skinned Latino” to differentiate them. The L-word and H-word are used pretty interchangeably, as my completely unscientific perusal of CA newspapers show–Cisneros had better get on the case of the San Francisco ones, that favor the H-word.
If Ms. Cisneros wishes to be identified as Latina, I am perfectly willing to address her in that way. The OP, however, was asking whether her complaint that Hispanic was “[like] a slave name” was valid.
I see no reason to deliberately insult someone. If a descendant of the people imported from Africa asks to be identified as AfricanAmerican, I will comply, although I generally use the word black (that seems to be the preferred term by the majority of people with similar ancestry). If that person hears/reads me using black to a different audience and chooses to be offended, I am not going to lose sleep over it. At different times, we have had separate posters on the SDMB who self-identified as descendants of the population who lived in North America prior to 1492. One expressed the notion that “indian” was a loathesome insult and insisted that the term “Native American” was the only acceptable identification. Another expressed the thought that “Native American” is a loathesome insult and that “indian” was the only acceptable identification. There is simply no way to avoid insulting at least one of those posters, so when addressing the poster who preferred “Native American,” I would use that term, while in all other correspondence I use “indian,” simply because all the other people I have known in that group preferred that term.
As long as I do not select a term with the intention of inflicting insult and as long as I am receptive to modifying my language when an insulting term is called to my attention, I figure I should be safe from having to worry about watching everything I say.
Latino is short for Latin-American. It ultimately included only Spanish and Portuguese descendants because Italy didn’ t have any colonies in America. I would include Haitians as Latin-Americans, but that is just for the sake of accuracy as in practice it is not so. Hispanics includes anyone whose ancestors spoke Spanish. There’s nothing wrong about that word.
Why anyone would waste anytime arguing against been called this way or the other baffles me. Who cares! Some people just need to find any battle to fight and have the bad taste of chosing the stupid ones.
Like JRD said, Latino isn’t seen as a slave name because it was a name another Latino coined (who knows if Bolívar, Martí, Hostos, or others… although I know the later two used the term in essays). So… in a sense it was a termed coined by their own people to address their own, not a name used by another nation (in this case US) to dump them all in a census category.
Mehitabel, I’ve seen the rooster used as a symbol for Puertorricans in general, for cockfighting, for jíbaros ( that’s country people)… Oh, and if the people wearing them also had the letters UPR in some part of their attire, that means they were wearing the mascot of Universidad de Puerto Rico, a rooster.
Actually, dropzone, if I remember my high school history right, the Irish weren’t pandered to a hundred years ago; they were seen as lazy drunkards, and a threat to all Christian (read “Protestant”) America stood for. I remember reading about signs which read “No dogs. No Irish.” on businesses. This is one reason I roll my eyes when reading about the latest politician who wants to limit immigration.
Just because they couldn’t get jobs it didn’t mean they couldn’t vote. In fact, being an unemployed drunkard opened worlds of opportunity on election day–ask Edgar Allen Poe.
The worst discrimination against the Irish was more of a 19th century phenomena. By the turn of the 20th century, while there was still prejudice, the Irish-American population had grown into a political powerhouse, at least on the local level. It paid for politicians to march in the St Patrick’s Day Parade even if the closest they got to being Irish was when they ate a potato.
Illinois’s politics has swung so far from the old “no Irish need apply” rules that I was surprised when we elected Rod Blagojevich governor. Blagojevich? That’s not an Irish name! To show how silly it has become, my brother in law is an apolitical fellow named Ryan. A good, Irish name and one with a long history of politicians in our county and state. Such a strong tradition that he was recently contacted by one of the parties and asked if he wanted to run for something. Anything. Solely on the basis of his surname. Nationally, of course, the old attitudes stayed in force long enough to call into doubt JFK’s base loyalty to the US rather than the Vatican, but that was more anti-Catholic prejudice than anti-Irish.
