The Washington Post has a fascinating article today on how the term “Hispanic” came to be adopted by the federal government over its competitor, “Latino.”
The article highlights the role of Grace Flores-Hughes, in 1975 a 26-year old high school graduate described as a “baby-faced bureaucrat working for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.”
“I was like a little kid involved in every aspect of the office,” she said. Flores-Hughes went on to earn a bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of the District of Columbia and a master’s in public administration from Harvard University. She now lectures on managing a culturally diverse workforce in the public/private sector and serves as an appointee to the Federal Service Impasses Panel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Flores-Hughes grew up in Taft, Tex., not far from Corpus Christi. Her grandfather regaled her with stories about serving in the army of Pancho Villa. He was originally from Spain, she said, and his family moved to Mexico.
“I was called a ‘wetback,’ a ‘Mexkin’ and a ‘dirty Mexkin,’ ” she said. “In public school, I had to be careful what I said. If I spoke Spanish, they would send me home for three days.” Her driver’s license identified her as Latin American.
That was going through her mind when arguments were raging on the committee. ” ‘Hispanic’ was better than anything I had been called as a kid,” she said.
“Latino,” she said, would have included Italians, so she would not endorse it. And “Spanish surname” would have given protection to people who had never been discriminated against, she said. Besides, she said, not everyone in the Spanish diaspora has a Spanish-sounding name.
The article concentrates on the still ongoing debate between those like Flores-Highes who favored “Hispanic” and others who favored “Latino.” Thus to me the most interesting sentence in the article is the following, by author/reporter Daryl Fears. Speaking of an important meeting of the committed that had been names to consider the issue, Fears writes:
The committee included African Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Caucasians and Native Americans, in addition to Latinos.
According to WaPo, then, the crucial committee that selected “Hispanic” as the proper term rather than “Latino” actually had no “Hispanics” on it, only Latinos.
That must be a Texan thing–here in LA, no one says Hispanic. Latino and Latina are the right terms. and if you can break out into Honduran, Oaxacan, Guatamalan, –so much the better. But never “Mexican” as a generic.
Well Kate, I live in California as well, and I grew up among many ethnicity’s in San Jose. I am a 2nd generation Californian from Italian decent (100% actually). When the Media, and yourself use the words “Latino or Latina”, and truely are talking about someone who is Hispanic, i.e. Mexican, San Salvadorian, Gualamalan, etc., it makes me laugh … for how ignorant that statement is.
One should not use the term Latin American either, for that would include Brazil.
Keep in mind that Latins originally came from Latium, from present day Rome. Modern day Latins (of Latin decent) are of course Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, Hispanics and Brazilians.
When describing someone from Mexico, San Salvador, Columbia, etc., they should be called HISPANIC … of Spanish decent – Not LATINO, for it does not describe the person correctly.