Ohio Hispano-Foro
A Message Board, Guestbook, or Poll hosted for your website.
OHIO HISPANO-FORO

Register Login Calendar Chat
 
Guía de Recursos Hispanos/Hispanic Resource Guide > Message Board > Hispanic vs. Latin
 
Username:  
Password:  
 
   
 


Thread Tools Search This Thread 
Reply
 
Author Comment
 
urizar
Moderator
Registered: 11/18/05
Posts: 54

    01/23/06 at 11:06 PM
  #1

Regístrate a/Register to:OHIO HISPANO-FORO

Regístrate/Register

 

Hispanic vs. Latin
by  Al Sosa

(Who is Al Sosa?)

A Discussion On The Meaning Of The Words Hispanic and Latin

     Many people are confused as to the proper use of the terms Hispanic and Latin.  Spanish speakers are themselves in disagreement as to how these two terms should be applied.  Both sides of this contentious issue feel very strongly about their positions and pose valid arguments.  The following is an attempt to settle the issue in a scholarly rather than emotional fashion.  The author believes that if we know what these words originally meant, it might be easier to draw the appropriate conclusions and use the words as they were intended to be used.

The Origins

     The first time that we hear the word Latin was in the time just prior to the Roman Empire in what is now called Italy.  A tribe of people who called themselves Latins appeared in Italy and began to subjugate their neighbors.  Their country was called Latium, their capital city was Rome and the language they spoke was, of course, Latin.  Later, when the Romans invaded Iberia (Spain), they found many different tribes there.

      Eventually they conquered most of the peninsula, and in the southwest of Iberia they found a city called Hispalis (Seville).  It is not clear if  Hispalis was originally Greek or Phoenician.  From the name it appears that the city was originally a Greek colony (Hispalus was a mythical Greek hero who was related to Hercules).  At the time of the Roman conquest the city was occupied by a tribe of Celtiberians, a mixture of Celts and Iberians.

     The Romans eventually annexed the Iberian peninsula and made it a province which they called Hispania, most probably named after the city of Hispalis.  Later, the Romans divided their new province into two parts, Hispania Citerior (closer Spain) and Hispania Ulterior (farther Spain). Although there were other divisions later, these were the official names of  Iberia throughout the Roman Empire, and would remain so until the fall of the Empire.

     It should be understood then, that the word España comes from the Latin word Hispania and not the other way around.  The word Hispania then, in ancient times referred to the people and eventually to the culture of the Iberian peninsula.   It was probably the Anglo-Saxons who, having difficulty pronouncing the Latin word Hispania,  that coined the English term, Hispanic.

     As Rome added more territory to her empire, she began to impose her language and ways on the conquered people. This eventually led to the creation of several new languages which are now called Latin or Romance languages (Romance as used here has nothing to do with amorous relations, it is a reference to the city of Rome).  Several Latin countries were also created, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Albania and Romania.  In summation the term Latin originally referred to the following:

     1)  The name of the tribes of people which eventually started the Roman
          Empire and the name of the language that they spoke.

     2)  The official language of the Roman Catholic church.

     3)  An individual from a country that speaks a Latin language.

The Modern Meanings

     The modern use of the term Hispanic is given to us by the need of the US government to count its ever increasing number of Spanish speaking people. The US government realized early on that these Spanish speaking people did not have any unifying physical characteristics such as color of skin, texture of hair, shape of eyes, etc.  As such, these Spanish speakers could not be categorized as members of a single race.  In addition to that these Spanish speakers did not even share a common religion.  In order to count its Spanish speaking citizens, the US government needed a category other than "White," "Black", "Native American" or "Asian".  Thus the term "Hispanic" was included on all government forms and applications requiring such information.  Eventually, the term made its way into the private sector as well.

     This practice, however, has lead to some additional confusion, since the other categories  "White" "Black", etc. refer to race while "Hispanic" was intended to refer to a cultural or ethnic group.  In Europe Latins are generally accepted to be individuals coming from a country where a Latin language is spoken.  Individuals coming from France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Albania and Romania are called Latins.  The European view of Latin America is simply as a geographical location. Someone from Venezuela, for instance will be seen as Latin American but not necessarily as Latin.  A subtle, but nonetheless accurate distinction. The European view of the term Hispanic is fairly precise. It refers to Spain, its culture, the Spanish speaking people of  Latin America and/or their culture.

      It is in the US that the terms Latin and Hispanic are often misapplied and confused. The terms mean different things to different people.  In some areas of the US, for instance, Puerto Ricans and Cubans are considered Latinos but Mexicans and Colombians are not.  In other areas Latin and Latino mean different things.  I have even heard some individuals say that the term Hispanic was created by the "Anglos" in order to lump us all together and in the same breath say that the term Hispano is good because it tends to bring the Spanish speaking people together. Go figure.


So, What Are We,  Latin or Hispanic ?

     Some of us are Latin, some of us are not, but all of us are Hispanic.  As genealogical and historical researchers, and especially for the sake of  future researchers, I think it's our responsibility to assure that our culture and people are portrayed as accurately as possible.  If we must be categorized, then let us be categorized with an inclusive rather than an exclusive term. A term that unites us, rather than divides us.  Let us use the term Hispanic.  It includes all of us accurately without regard to race, creed, color or national origin.
 

Regístrate a/Register to:OHIO HISPANO-FORO

Regístrate/Register


__________________
Promueve la diversidad dentro de nuestra propia comunidad hispana en cualquier lugar de EE.UU. / Promote diversity even among our own Hispanic Community anywhere in the USA.
LourdeSan
Registered: 01/25/06
Posts: 1

    01/25/06 at 12:49 AM
  #2

Dear Urizar,
 
    I read your proposition and it amuses me that you go to latin ethimology to explain the origins of the word hispanic. Also the concept of Europeans seems interesting the reality is that we do not live in Europe.
 
    Unfortunately you left out some US social events out. First of all, as much as you are right about the begginning of the use of the word hispanic you ignore to discuss the reason for which people opted for the term latin or chicano. Hispanics were simply and derogatoraly called "spics", relating to our accents and supported by the word Hispanic which sound like "spic", so they looked for a label they found identified them culturally (chicano) or that they felt was more dignified (latino)
 
    Also if you meet a person from Germany or Sweden you acknoeldege their nationality, on the other hand those people from Latina-America and who decide to keep their nationality are not treated with the same respect. This is not separatism just a simple observation we do not call gringos all whites, do we?
 
Finally maybe you would like next time to discuss more about the social consequences of a label. Maybe it is a convenient statiscal measure but what are the social consequences of living with a label? regardless of the one you chose or promote.
urizar
Moderator
Registered: 11/18/05
Posts: 54

    01/25/06 at 01:21 AM
  #3

Dear Ms. Sanchez: I appreciate your comments and I understand your point. Nevertheless, I cannot take credit for the well-researched and written piece. Mr. Al Sosa wrote Hispanic vs. Latin. If you would like to know more about the author, please click on the link below.

 

(Who is Al Sosa?)


__________________
Promueve la diversidad dentro de nuestra propia comunidad hispana en cualquier lugar de EE.UU. / Promote diversity even among our own Hispanic Community anywhere in the USA.
MariaElenaUrizar
Registered: 01/29/06
Posts: 3

    01/29/06 at 07:06 PM
  #4

Etymology

from Latin the language of the ancient Romans.

Latino

  1. A person of Spanish (or Portuguese) descent.
  2. A person from Latin America, (or sometimes even Spain).
  3. A person residing in the United States, who is of Spanish or Latin American descent.
     

 Hispanic

  1. Of or pertaining to the Iberian peninsula, its people, its culture or its languages.
  2. Spanish or of Spanish descent. (lineage, descent in a line from a common progenitor; progeny; race; descending line of offspring or ascending line of parentage).
  3. Latin American or of Latin American descent, generally but not always exclusive of Brazilian.
NOTA: Wiktionary.
urizar
Moderator
Registered: 11/18/05
Posts: 54

    01/29/06 at 11:02 PM
  #5

(e-mail from Al Sosa) - (Who is Al Sosa?)

 

Hi Hugo:

Thanks for the invitation and for posting my article on your forum.  As you can see this topic often leads to some strong opinions.  The problem here is that if we Hispanics (Hispanos) can't agree among ourselves how we should be described, then there is little chance of agreement on anything else.

 

Regards to All,
Al Sosa


__________________
Promueve la diversidad dentro de nuestra propia comunidad hispana en cualquier lugar de EE.UU. / Promote diversity even among our own Hispanic Community anywhere in the USA.
Roberto
Registered: 01/20/06
Posts: 7

    02/01/06 at 05:50 PM
  #6

Hola Hugo,

Finally figured out how to login........tonto.

Very good article,well researched.  Answering this question will always be a difficult proposition.  I personally use Hispanic, this way I think I cover all the bases.

Interestingly, there is also a question among the "Asians" and/or "Orientals".

Lucky me, I'm just Irish, French and German.......and Lord knows what else.

Roberto

LLamalily
Registered: 08/04/06
Posts: 1

    08/04/06 at 08:46 AM
  #7

Just a brief correction.  Brazilians  and Portuguese are not Hispanics.  We are all Latins but only some are of Hispanic origen.

biggoo
Registered: 05/30/07
Posts: 1

    05/30/07 at 05:01 PM
  #8

I believe that the answer is simply in the definitions. Hispanic is anything originating from Spain. Most Latin Americans have only the Spanish language that was forced on them to connect them to Spain so the language is the only thing Hispanic. People in Latin America that descend from Spanish blood can consider themselves Hispanic but they are also Latin American if they are from that part of the world. All the rest that are not Spanish descendants are more accurately described as Latin American.

Is a Native American that speaks English considered English? That is the same as saying that a Latin American with Aztec roots is considered Hispanic.

I don't have a problem speaking Spanish but I feel offended when referred to as Hispanic. Being from Mexico I consider myself specifically Mexican but generally Latin American or Latino. Hispanic is a term that is insulting and inaccurate in many ways. I think it was created by the government to discriminate and it gave a tool for prejudice racists to create a term that is derogatory to all Latin Americans much like African Americas and the ”N” word. I reject the term Hispanic based on this alone but also for all my other points. 


Previous Thread | Next Thread
Reply

  Bookmarks  
Digg Diggdel.icio.us del.icio.usStumbleUpon StumbleUponGoogle Google