Separated by a common language: The case of the white Hispanic
By Alfredo Tryferis
RAW STORY COLUMNIST
According to the 2000 census, there are now 35 million Hispanics in the U.S., overtaking African-Americans as the largest and fastest growing minority, with that number expected to increase dramatically over the next decade.
Hispanics are now a powerful force in American culture, with politicians courting their votes and corporations clamoring for their dollars. Se habla Español is the new American mantra.
As an Argentine immigrant, I am technically a member of this minority. I am also white. So, do I check both the “white” and “Hispanic” boxes on job applications? Will it give me an edge I know deep down I don’t deserve, or will it open me up to discrimination?
Recently I’ve noticed a puzzling trend: “White” has been amended to “white, non-Hispanic,” making it an either/or proposition; either I’m white or Hispanic, I can no longer be both, thus widening the loophole and eliminating all trace of the white Hispanic, the HR department’s dirty little secret.
Which begs some serious questions: If Hispanic isn’t a race, like African-American or Asian, what is it? An ethnicity? A culture? A niche market? Should I, as a white Hispanic, be entitled to the benefits of affirmative action? Could a company hire me and claim diversity? Am I really a member of a minority? The term Hispanic, and its cousin Latino, are used blithely all the time, often in the same breath with the other strictly racial categories, but what do they really mean? And, more importantly, what do we mean when we use them?
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the go-to lexicon of American letters, defines Hispanic as “relating to or derived from the people, speech or culture of…Spain and Portugal.” This would include Spanish heartthrob Antonio Banderas, Brazilian soccer legend Pele (who is also, by the way, black) and even the actress Janeane Garofalo, who is Portuguese-American, but not ousted Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who is a Francophone. And, absurdly, under this definition ex-Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori, who is of Japanese ancestry, is also Hispanic.
The definition of Latino, on the other hand, seems to chase its own tail. A Latino is defined simply as “a Latin American,” who is, of course, a “native or inhabitant of Latin America,” which is “the countries of North, Central and South America, excluding French Canada, whose chief or official languages are Romance languages.” (Considering the French-Canadian penchant for secession, Webster’s no doubt found it impolitic to call them Latino.) Under this definition, Señor Banderas, who nevertheless speaks a Romance language and is, by all accounts, romantic, is not Latino, but President Aristide is. Are we clear now?
And that’s just one dictionary. Check others and the definitions start to fold into each other like an Escher painting, resulting in a composite so broad as to render the terms virtually meaningless, especially as racial, ethnic or even cultural distinctions. What, exactly, does Antonio Banderasa rich, white Spanish movie starhave in common with the poor, dark-skinned Mexican immigrant cutting the grass at his Hollywood home, except that they both speak Spanish?
The only concrete meaning Hispanic has is geographical. It essentially means anyone who hails from south of the U.S. border. In that sense it’s more akin to “North American,” and what race are North Americans? The ultimate irony is that Hispanic includes both the descendants of the Spanish Conquistadors and the indigenous peoples they virtually exterminated.
But surely the Census Bureau, the ultimate authority on U.S. demographics, must have a more specific definition? Nope. Theirs is so vague it actually includes the abbreviation “etc.” Their everybody-and-their-grandmother label, “Spanish/Hispanic/Latino,” is what the bureau calls a “self-designated classification,” meaning they put the checkbox on their forms and let respondents decide, although its demographic reports are careful to point out Hispanics come in all colors. And I suspect this is true of most organizations.
In other words, a Hispanic is someone who chooses to identify as Hispanic. And who are these self-classified Hispanic-Americans? According to the 2000 census, two-thirds are of Mexican heritage, 90 percent of which are mestizo, the descendants of Spanish and Indian miscegenation. So, for practical purposes, when we speak of Hispanics and Latinos in the U.S., we’re really taking about mixed-race Native Americans from Mexico. But Native-American already exists as a racial category. Referring to these people as Hispanic because they speak Spanish would be like calling Native Americans Anglo because they speak English.
Therefore, if we need to distinguish Spanish-speaking Native-Americans from our own, why not replace Hispanic with the term “Amerindian,” which anthropologists use when referring to the indigenous population of the Caribbean and Central and South America? Granted, it’s esoteric, and I doubt many Mexican-Americans would self-classify as Amerindian, but it would solve the pesky white-Hispanic conundrum and more accurately reflect the important racial dimension that terms like Hispanic and Latino mask.
Because if being Hispanic carries any societal consequences that justify inclusion in the pantheon of great American racial minorities, they’re the result of having Native American blood. And it’s this kinship that would explain why so many Mexican-Americans self-classify as Hispanic, and why many Argentines and other white Hispanics don’t. (The leading Spanish-language newspaper isn’t called La Raza for nothing. And as a white liberal, a publication whose title translates to “The Race” makes me queasy.) Not to mention the impact this would have on the illegal-immigration debate. It’s one thing to blame the fall of western civilization on illegal Mexican immigration, but quite thornier to blame it on illegal Amerindian immigration from Mexico.
Or, we could simply stop lumping people together by their mother tongue and recognize the unique people and cultures of all the nations of the Americas. Mexicans are Mexican, Puerto Ricans are Puerto Rican, and Argentines are Argentine, Webster’s be damned. As the gringos like to say, “Dream on!”
Because if being Hispanic carries any societal consequences that justify inclusion in the pantheon of great American racial minorities, they’re the result of having Native American blood. And it’s this kinship that would explain why so many Mexican-Americans self-classify as Hispanic, and why many Argentines and other white Hispanics don’t.
Not too long ago I found out that a friend of mine whom I assumed was a 'regular' jewish american, was of argentine ancestry; both of his parents were argentine jews.
I asked him if he considered himself "latino/hispanic", and he looked at me funny and said to me , "No...i never really thought about it like that", and that he considers himself to just be "jewish" and/or white.
Theres alot of black Panamanians that have a similar attitude, dont see the logic in calling themselves "latino/hispanic", and never have.
I think the case with many black Panamanians is their ancestry can be traced back to the West Indies. Many, at least in my experience, basically see themselves as Panamanians who are black, but not really Latino in any way.
A friend of mine from the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua who looks Mexican feels the same way. He has a German and Irish last name and sees himself as "Creole". He feels he has more in common with Jamaicans and other English-speaking Caribbeans and calls Spanish-speaking Nicaraguans "Spaniards".
Alot of Argentines see themselves as Europeans and not (non-white)Latins. But rest assured, when there are benefits coming their way, they will be "people of color", just like many white Cubans and even Spaniards who live here.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 04 Oct 2006 14:31 Post subject: West Indians, Jews and Hispanics
Hi,
West Indians, Ashkenazi Jews and Gypsies (Roma) are not usually assimilated to the mainstrean of Latin America. They usually live their lives appart of the mainstream and don't identify with Latin Americans or its people at all. They represent a very small minority in Latin America, though.
The case is very different for Europeans of Iberian, Italian, French or German origin, for Syrians, Palestineas and Arabs, and even for Japaneses and Chineses. All these people did assimilated to the mainstream and intermarried with the rest. Black Hispanics also assimilated to the mainstream long time ago, and also Native Americans are so assimilated that it is difficult to find "pure" Native Americas in genetics or culture.
Now, for the case of "White" Hispanics. It is amazing people don't realize the largest genetic contribution to Latin America by far was European. And that there are whole countries, and largest regions in places like Brazil where people is whiter than in the United States. That El Salvador and Costa Rica are whiter than Los Angeles, and that Cubans still have a sizable white population as well.
Yes, when I say Argentina is a white country many people laugh. But it is. And when I say most of Brazilians are white, a lot of people laugh as well, because they believe Brazil is Bahia, but that is also true.
Even with all its mixture with Amerindia, even Chilean population is a lot whiter than people that could believe, and we don't lack "gringo" looking people in here as well.
That's the truth.
And when I say than in Souther South America most people hates Salsa and Rancheras, and preffer Argentinean rock, I believe many will be quite surprised too
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
