Criticism of the term Latino

Since the adoption of the term Latino by the US Census Bureau in 2000 and its subsequent widespread there have been several controversies, specially in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries. Regarding it as an artificial US-manufactured word, many Latin Americans have objected against the mass media use of the word "Latino".
Criticism from the media
The rapid widespread of the term has been possible due to the policies of certain newspapers such as Los Angeles Times and other California-based media during the 1990's. The overuse of the term as a label has been the target of journalists like Raoul Lowery Contreras who have heavily attacked it denouncing it as a misleading way of describing people:

"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. The LA Times set its feet in concrete and the use of the word "Latino" and nothing has cracked the concrete since. Worst of all, other newspapers have followed the Times' lead and news coverage, accuracy and the community have suffered."

Lowery argues that, according to the statistics of the Census Bureau, most middle-class people with Latin-American background living in the United States reject the term. He traces back the poularization of the word to the Los Angeles Times columnist Frank del Olmo who regarded the term Hispanic as "ugly and impresice". He writes:

"The third reason Del Olmo objected to the word "Hispanic" and championed the word "Latino" was that "Chicano" had been roundly rejected by all Mexican Americans but the most radical, blue collar, less educated, under-class people of Mexican-origin. Del Olmo pushed "Latino" as a substitute for the rejected "Chicano". Unfortunately, he was in a position to push this substitution into the language of the "Newspaper of Record" in the West. Other papers and broadcast stations took up the word because it was the "style" of the LA Times. Frank Del Olmo single handedly branded millions of people.

Latino, Hispanic or national identity
The Latino/Hispanic naming controversy is a phenomenon that has its roots mainly in California and other neighbouring states. Before the adoption of the ethnonym "Hispanic or Latino" by the United States Government the term Hispanic was commonly used for statistics ends. However, many people didn't feel satisfied with the term and started campaigns promoting the use of Latino as a new ethnonym. The Office of Management and Budget has stated that the new term should be, indeed, "Hispanic or Latino" because the usage of the terms differs - "Hispanics is commonly used in the eastern portion of the United States, whereas Latino is commonly used in the western portion".
In spite of this, the debates regarding the proper name of the alleged homogenous population of US citizens with Latin American or Spanish background still abound and are even more accute. According to a poll conducted in December 2000 by Hispanic Trends, 65 percent of the registered voters preferred the word "Hispanic" while 30 percent chose to identify themselves as "Latino"
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 confortable 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. Face-to-face interviews of 2,817 people were conducted in 1989 and 1990. Some 57 percent to 86 percent of Mexicans and Puerto Rican—whether born in Mexico or born in the United States, whether born in the island or in the mainland—preferred to call themselves Mexican or Puerto Ricans rather than panethnic names like Hispanic or Latino.

Similar conclusions are found in David Reimers' Other Immigrants: The Global Origins of the American People:

"The Pew Hispanic Center and the Henry J. Kaiser Family foundation found in a 2002 study that 53 percent of "Hispanics" or "Latinos" do not use either term and call themselves Mexicans, Mexican Americans, Mexicanos, Dominicans, Dominican Americans, or some other nationality or ethnic group. Those making a choice of the two terms had a slight preference for "Hispanic" over "Latino"."

Academic opinion and the social ciences
One of the major arguments for rejecting the term is not only the perceived stereotypical overtones it carries but the unjust and unfair labelling of people who don't even belong to the practices and idiologies of such identities. 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. Latino is a sign that needs to be contextualized. It may bring some groups together, but it also may contribute to depoliticize a movement and to stereotype a diversity of social groups and cultures.

Others such as Catherine Alexandra Carter or Rodolfo Acuña address the issue from a more global and political perspective:

"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".

"When and why the Latino identity came about is a more involved story. Essentially, politicians, the media, and marketers find it convenient to deal with the different U.S. Spanish-speaking people under one umbrella.
However, many people with Spanish surnames contest the term Latino. They claim it is misleading because no Latino or Hispanic nationality exists since no Latino state exists, so generalizing the term Latino slights the various national identities included under the umbrella. Some critics argue that Latino identity was artificially constructed by the U.S. goverment. According to the critics, the purpose was to erase the historical memory of the various Spanish-speaking groups. These critics accuse the promoters of the term Latino of being cheerleaders for the system that celebrate a false impression that Latinos are making in society, resulting in flag-waving ceremonies celebrating, "We are number one."

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu