When I was in one of my Portuguese classes at my first year at UMass, there were a lot of native and heritage speakers. Many of these students identified as American, Brazilian, or both. One day the debate came up on whether or not Brazilians are considered Latinx, Hispanic, both or neither.
The origins of the words “Latinx” and “Hispanic” are debatable. It’s generally accepted that Latino/a comes from Latin, which is the language from which Spanish is derived. Therefore, logic would go that all Spanish speakers are Latino and English speakers are not. This coincides with the definition of Hispanic, since the derivation of Hispanic is from the word Hispania, the Old World name for Spain.
In the U.S., though, Hispanic and Latino are usually overlapped and used as synonyms. Outside of the U.S. these terms are rarely used, and within the U.S. they are used to categorize large groups of people usually rather randomly. A great resource for learning more about this label is (Re)constructing Latinidad: The Challenge of Latina/o Studies by Frances R. Aparicio. Within communities of Spanish speakers there is so much difference, so what happens when you change not only the country and the culture but the language as well? Are Brazilians, who usually speak Portuguese, considered Latinx or Hispanic?
One side of the argument says yes. Although Brazilians are generally speakers of Portuguese and not Spanish, this language is still derived from Latin. In addition, Brazil was colonized by Portgual, which was also part of Hispania. Brazilians are also from Latin America, which is a common argument.
Another side of the argument says no. It’s important to note that it’s not only countries from Hispania, like Spain and Portugal, who contributed to the colonization of South America. Also, there are lots of languages derived from Latin. Why does the U.S. relegate “Latinos” to only speakers of Spanish? The labels themselves don’t seem to make a lot of sense, so why should they be applied to anyone at all?
This is a huge argument with a lot of different aspects and I definitely didn’t cover them all. What do you think? Should we even have these labels? Do they hurt or help people in the U.S. more?
I don’t understand why the focus of the comment is on language when many of the Latinos in the US are monolingual English speakers – they don’t know either Spanish or Portuguese.
Shouldn’t we focus more on culture or geography?
The official definition used by the US government in the US Census is:
“Hispanic or Latino refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.”
As you mentioned, the term Latino is not used outside of the US. People in Latin America never identify as Latinos in their everyday lives. Mexicans are Mexicans and Cubans are Cubans.
There is, however, in the arts around Latin America a recognition of a shared culture, and that includes Brazil. When Caetano Veloso, Chico Buarque and Gilberto Gil sang with Mercedes Sosa, they were celebrating “nuestra latinidad”. Just listen to songs in Brazilian Portuguese like: “Soy Loco Por Ti America” (which refers to Latin America, not the US) or “Sangue Latino”. This is particularly strong among artists in South America. It obviously does not reflect into general national/cultural identities. Never tell an Argentinian on the street they are Latinos like a Chilean , or a Colombian they are Bolivian. The same applies to Brazilians, they are not Argentinean.
Back to the US, where labeling is the name of the game, I honestly don’t understand why Latinos love to discriminate against other Latinos. I don’t know what people gain with it. It seems to go back to human nature: “we need to create our little group and exclude as many people as possible”, i.e., focus on the differences instead of trying to recognize our similarities,
At a personal level, we are individuals and we share languages, cultures, histories and aspirations. I recognize in myself Latin America, Brazil and the US. I speak English, Portuguese and Spanish. One of my favorite countries in the world is Mexico, where I truly feel at home. Anyone who has been to Caracas in Venezuela knows that culturally it is as Brazilian as Rio or São Paulo. Anyone who has been to a Peruvian restaurant recognizes the spices used across South America. Anyone who heard Brazilian music can recognize the African roots that flourished in the Spanish speaking Caribbean. Anyone who studies the history of Latin America will find the shared experiences that generated the different peoples in the continent.
There are obviously differences, even regionally inside big countries like Brazil or Mexico.
So, do you want to focus on those?
Thank you for your insight, I really appreciate your comments.
The labelling of people in the U.S. as Latinx or Hispanic is a false construct. Culturally, whether or not individuals celebrate or uphold traditional customs from one of the countries in South America, Central America, or Mexico, is of little consequence in the U.S. It will neither shield them from, nor necessarily identify them as, a part of this diverse group. Similarly, the language spoken by those in the U.S., whether monolingual English, or including Spanish and/or Portuguese, will not insulate an individual from this label.
I chose to focus on the language aspect to demonstrate the nonsensical and illogical underpinning of this terminology as applied in the U.S. As you state, the people in Latin America themselves recognize a shared culture and identity, while maintaining a pride in their differences. It seems that in the U.S. the term has less to do with cultural or language identification rather than a heritage of an ancestor in either the recent or distant past having emigrated from Cuba, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Central America, or South America.