Help me get this right: What is the distinction between the terms "Latino" and "Hispanic"?

http://home.att.net/~Alsosa/page2.htm

In terms of *identity* Latino is the preferred term, because it is a shortened form of Latinoamericano which connotes Jose Marti's ideals about the common interests of New World colonized populations.

And then there is "Chicano" which historically has referred to people of Mexcian ancestry in the Southwest whose great great etc grandparents become American after the Treaty of Hidalgo in 1898 when the border was moved and the US absorbed the loosely controlled upper half of Mexico. Chicano is a shortened term for "Mexicano"--the old (indio/Aztec) pronunciation of the x is a sh/ch sound.

Then there are Mexican-Americans, and other hyphenated peoples who are citizens of the US by immigration or by virtue of parents who immigrated within a generation or so.

Brazil is more racially complicated, as it includes indigenous, African, French, Spanish, German, mulatto and mestizo groups. This is also true of Cuba and probably a lot of places.

Ok i'm blithering. sorry.

At least this is how it was presented to me.

Summary of Issues
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/compraceho.html
--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.
--Overlap of race and Hispanic origin is the main comparability issue.
For example, Black Hispanics (Hispanic Blacks) are included in both the number of Blacks and in the number of Hispanics.
--"More than one race" option increases possible numbers and overlapping groups.
For example, the three categories of Blacks, Hispanics, and people reporting two or more races produce multiple overlapping groups.
--The complete cross tabulation of race and Hispanic origin data is problematic.
--This option allows experienced users to tailor data for their specific use, but can confuse general users.
--Comparability of data on race and Hispanic origin is affected by several other factors.
--The universe differs across sources (censuses, national surveys, postcensal population estimates).
--The allocation of "Some other race" responses from the Census 2000 category to standard OMB race categories increases the totals for each race, but does not affect the number of Hispanics.
--The "Two or more races" category is present in Census 2000 and in the postcensal population estimates, but not in the 2002 Current Population Survey (CPS). It will be in the CPS every year, beginning with 2003.

Racial stats are a huge problem. I've heard demographers talk about it and they pretty much say "Well, it's not perfect but it's the best we can do" and I've even heard some suggest not collecting data on race at all.

If they use Latino as a category, they must similarly define it. If they aren't using it, then there won't be a definition.

Hello Ward Connelly.

•A more important distinction concerns the sociopolitical rift that has opened between Latino and Hispanic in American usage. For a certain segment of the Spanish-speaking population, Latino is a term of ethnic pride and Hispanic a label that borders on the offensive. According to this view, Hispanic lacks the authenticity and cultural resonance of Latino, with its Spanish sound and its ability to show the feminine form Latina when used of women. Furthermore, Hispanic—the term used by the U.S. Census Bureau and other government agencies—is said to bear the stamp of an Anglo establishment far removed from the concerns of the Spanish-speaking community. While these views are strongly held by some, they are by no means universal, and the division in usage seems as related to geography as it is to politics, with Latino widely preferred in California and Hispanic the more usual term in Florida and Texas. Even in these regions, however, usage is often mixed, and it is not uncommon to find both terms used by the same writer or speaker.

is it because the spanish-speaking demographic in california (mainly of mexican and central-american origin) had a much more bitter history with spain as a colonial power than the demographic in new york (puerto-rican, cuban, dominican, etc...)? just wondering......

I wouldn't say in my parts. In fact I don't ever here it used self-referntially.

also, I was taught that Chicano simply mean 'mexican-american'.

Skottie, just to let you know, I will and do refer to myself as "Hispanic" and think those people who would get offended if you called them anything but the newfangled "Latino" or "Latina" term are really seriously in need of getting a life (or maybe some thicker skin), but that's just me. Well, not really; I know that there are quite a few other individuals with similar ethnic heritages to mine are quite content to be referred to as "Hispanic", or even "an American of __________ heritage," as I actually prefer stating.

I really can't see much of a difference between the terms, though I find the "Hispanic" term more accurate because of its connotations to our Spanish ancestors, which we all at least partly derive from.

I think that just might be your family Dee. the term became popular in the 60s and was meant as a very prideful term. It's the term I prefer to call myself and what my family (except for my first generation grandparents) call themselves.

In college I was on the Chicano/a Culture Committee.

I'm a very Viva La Raza kind of chick though. Brown power, yo.

Ha. "Brown power"? *stares at skin* "Brown power"? Novel.

It's interesting to hear how varied the personal identifiers are, though. I hear "Latino" here in Cali much more often, I suppose. When I lived in NYC, granted it's been a long time, people seemed to identify more specifically. "I'm Puerto Rican" etc. That may have changed, dunno.

In addition, "Hispanic" emphasizes a shared language, whereas "Latino" at least theoretically transcends a single language (since Portuguese and French are both 'Latin' languages, it is not unheard of for a fraction of Brazilian expats (and a smaller proportion of Haitian expats) to consider themselves Latino.

Ironically, Spain itself is multilingual (in some South American countries, they call the language "castellano" rather than "espan~ol" in recognition of this); and I suspect that few Spaniards in the US would consider themselves Hispanic.

In the end, and speaking as a Chilean exile in the US, I think preference for one term or the other is a matter of emphasis and habit. I understand and appreciate the politics of it, but find myself annoyed by those who get offended if somebody doesn't use the term they prefer.

Collardio, thank you for your informative post. FYI, my mother only has Spanish blood coursing through her veins as her great-great-grandparents and their families emigrated from Spain to Mexico a rather long while ago, when said great-great-grandparents were infants, and my mom's lineage never went past the boundaries of these ancestors.

But in my experience (which admittedly is colored by my swimming in lefty-ish circles), there's certainly also people who, regardless of the fact that they are, say, of pure Bavarian extraction, in terms of genetic material, are eager once in the US to join "La Raza Latina".

It's all a big mess!

Or maybe it's my patriotism speaking. I could fall back on the whole explanation of "Well, the U.S. is the only country in the Americas that actually has the name 'America' in its official name, so it's the only country in the Americas whose citizens could be called 'Americans'," but I'm not sure that would sit well with most of the people who frequent this forum. :) BTW, what would you suggest citizens of the U.S. call themselves/ourselves, anyway?

I'm big on being a citizen of the United States, though. (Ack, that was way too clunky a phrase to have to use.) I'm eternally grateful my grandparents decided to emigrate to the States. I love living here and having the freedoms that affords me. I've visited Mexico several times and think I would've hated being there, would've strived to make my escape from that country the first chance I got. Or maybe I would've ended up a completely different person, more parochial minded or something. *shudders* And having to deal with a Mexican guy... ugh.

Nothing complementary.

(FYI, my spelling gets more atrocious the more bleary-eyed I get.)

I wasn't suggesting that U.S. citizens shouldn't call themselves Americans, and honestly, I can't think of a better term for it that wouldn't be totally awkward in everyday conversation. Personally, I always say "I'm an American citizen" as opposed to "American," which I somehow associate with being born here. Logically, that distinction doesn't make much sense to me but that's how it always comes out, regardless.

it seems to still be that way. There's definitely a sort of hierarchy, too.

EXAMPLE: I'M FROM COLOMBIA, SOUTH AMERICA, I MEAN I'M A LATIN PERSON, BUT I'M A HISPANIC TOO, BECAUSE I SPEAK SPANISH...........

re: brown power.

I'm pale as pale can be. My mexican grandparents are pale to begin with and my mom's white so yeah. . .i'm white. I still say 'brown power' though. :) After all skin color's only skin deep.

And having to deal with a Mexican guy... ugh.

Having dated several of them, grown up with a few and teaching dozens of them now I have to say, they really aren't that bad.

also this gringa for whatever reason pretty much only dated mexican boys, and I gotta stick up for them too. ;)

dude, the monroe doctrine dates to 1823/1824.

I found this interesting.

If I heard someone call someone else "Latin" I'd have to laugh because I wouldn't be able not to think of togas and my HS latin class.