While many use the terms interchangeably, for example, the United States Census Bureau,[2] others maintain a distinction: Hispanic refers to people from Spanish-speaking countries (including Spain but excluding Brazil), while Latino refers people from Latin American countries (including Brazil but excluding Spain and Portugal).
Others argued that Hispanic failed to acknowledge mestizo culture and political struggle as well as erased the existence of Indigenous, Afro-Latin American, and Asian Latinos peoples throughout the Americas.
The ancient Roman Hispania, which roughly comprised what is currently called the Iberian Peninsula, included the contemporary states of Spain, Portugal, and Andorra, and the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar but excluding the Spanish and Portuguese overseas territories of Canary Islands, Ceuta, Melilla, Açores and Madeira.
[16] As the 1970 census did not include a question on Hispanic origin on all census forms—instead relying on a sample of the population via an extended form ("Is this person's origin or descent: Mexican; Puerto Rican; Cuban; Central or South American; Other Spanish; or None of these"),[17] the members of the committee wanted a common designation to better track the social and economic progress of the group vis-à-vis the general population.
[16] Legal scholar Laura E. Gómez notes that key members of the Mexican-American political elite with assimilationist ideologies, all of whom were middle-aged men, helped popularize the term Hispanic among the Mexican-American community, which in turn fueled both electronic and print media to use the term when referring to Mexican Americans in the 1980s.
Some of these elites sought to encourage cultural assimilation through Hispanic within their community and not be seen as "militant" in order to appeal to white American sensibilities, particularly in regard to separating themselves from black political consciousness.
[24] Other federal and local government agencies and non-profit organizations include Brazilians and Portuguese in their definition of Hispanic.
The US Department of Transportation defines Hispanic as "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or others [of] Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race.
"[29] The adoption of the term Latino by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2000[30] and its subsequent media attention brought about several controversies and disagreements, specifically in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries.
Regarding it as an arbitrary, generic term, many Latin American scholars, journalists and organizations have objected to the mass media use of the word Latino, pointing out that such ethnonyms are optional and should be used only to describe people involved in the practices, ideologies and identity politics of their supporters.
In practice, however, this distinction is of little significance when referring to Spanish-speaking residents of the United States, most of whom are of Latin American origin and can thus theoretically be called by either word.
For some, Latino is a term of ethnic pride, evoking the broad mix of Latin American peoples, while Hispanic, tied etymologically to Spain rather than the Americas, has distasteful associations with conquest and colonization.
Both Latino/a and Latin@ aim to challenge the gender binary that is inherent in Portuguese and Spanish,[38] which combines the Portuguese/Spanish masculine ending ⟨o⟩ and the feminine ⟨a⟩.
The Latin population in the United States has grown significantly, becoming one of the most influential demographic groups with notable economic and cultural impact.
Latin audiences account for a substantial portion of consumer spending and have a strong presence in urban areas across the country, from Los Angeles to New York.
As a result, brands increasingly recognize the importance of engaging with Latin communities in authentic and culturally resonant ways.
The rapid spread of Latino in the U.S. has been possible due to the policies of certain newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and other California-based media during the 1990s.
Raoul Lowery Contreras writes: For years I have campaigned against the Los Angeles Times-imposed word, 'Latino', in describing the country's fastest growing ethnic 'Group,' those with Spanish-surnames, those who speak Spanish, et al.
[57]: 76 Lowery Contreras argues that, according to the statistics of the Census Bureau, most middle class people with Latin American background living in the U.S. reject the term.
[57]: 3 He traces the polarization of the word to Los Angeles Times columnist Frank del Olmo, who regarded the term Hispanic as "ugly and imprecise".
[58] Despite this, debates regarding the proper name of the perceived homogeneous population of U.S. citizens with Latin American or Spanish background still abound, and are even more acute.
Daniel David Arreola, in his book Hispanic spaces, Latino places: community and cultural diversity in contemporary America, points out that many Latin Americans feel more comfortable identifying themselves with their country of origin: What most of us know and what the results from the 1992 Latino National Political survey demonstrate is a preference for place of origin or national identity in what we call ourselves.
Journalist Juan Villegas writes: The word 'Latino' may be loaded with negative connotations when used by non-Latinos in American culture because of its association with the sign 'Latin' which may imply a stereotyped character partially imposed by Hollywood.
Common signifiers of Latinidad are language, linguistic accents, religious symbols, tropical and spicy foods, and brown skin as a phenotypic identity."
[65] Others, such as Catherine Alexandra Carter and Rodolfo Acuña, address the issue from a more global and political perspective, stressing the importance of terms like Latino or Hispanic for the marketing industry and for statistical ends: The terms 'Hispanic' and 'Latino', although first created for the purpose of lumping together a diverse group of people and making them more economically marketable, have grown into something far more significant.
Over time the legitimacy and accuracy of these terms have come to influence not only the functioning of the marketing industry, but the organization and structure of many other aspects of life.
[67]Davila expands on the ramifications of the mass media's dominant use of Latino or Hispanic to categorize this demographic, "... the extent to which assertions of cultural differences intersect with dominant norms of American citizenship that give preeminence to white, monolingual, middle-class producers of and contributors to a political body defined in national terms.
The lack of specific data tied to Hispanics failed to show their social circumstance and therefore could not create necessary changes.
Due to the activism on behalf of Chicano and Puerto Rican individuals, there is data that supports and unites a group towards social equality.
All in all, I hope my daughter will embrace her Latinidad by being conscious of its roots in social justice and by continuing the cause of civil rights and political participation in America.