The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
What Do Americans of Latin American Origin Prefer to Be Called? Not LatinX
For that matter, while people accept Hispanic and Latino as secondary identifies, most prefer to be labeled "just American" or by their country of origin.
Only 2 percent of those polled refer to themselves as Latinx, while 68 percent call themselves "Hispanic" and 21 percent favored "Latino" or "Latina" to describe their ethnic background, according to the survey from Bendixen & Amandi International, a top Democratic firm specializing in Latino outreach.
But here's something I learned while researching my forthcoming book on American racial classifications: Most Hispanics/Latinos/Latinxers (?) prefer none of those terms. Americans of Spanish-speaking ancestry overwhelmingly prefer to be labeled by their country of origin or "just American" rather than as Hispanic or Latino. Most accept Hispanic or Latino as a secondary identity, though Americans with only partial Hispanic ancestry often reject those labels. See G. Cristina Mora, Making Hispanics: How Activists, Bureaucrats & Media Constructed a New American Identity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), 6.
I often see conservatives complain that "Latinx" is a made-up term, not used by actual Hispanics/Latinos. To a large extent that's true, but it was also true fifty-sixty years ago of "Hispanic" and "Latino." Hispanic in particular was almost never used to describe ethnicity, and the terms were unknown in Spanish-speaking countries, and was essentially invented to give the government a way to jointly classify people formerly known as "Cubans," "Mexicans," and "Puerto Ricans," sometimes collectively called "Spanish-surnamed" or "Spanish" Americans.
I generally think we should, within reason, call people what they want to be called. So it bears keeping in mind that almost everyone in the relevant group totally rejects "Latinx," and most would prefer to be known as Americans or [hyphneated]-Americans by their country of origin, rather than as Hispanics or Latinos.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, I prefer American.
That pretty much sums it up. I require no adjectival modifications to American.
Amen, amen!
I'd settle for human and skip the compartmentalization. There are times when citizenship matters, but mostly it doesn't. There are even fewer times when race matters, like sickle cell anemia.
While it is somewhat undeserved today, I still have a faith in American exceptionalism....
That's nice, but "American" is not a race.
So simply stated; so on point. Thank you.
I personally was very offended when the Michigan school shooter was referred to with he/him/his pronouns when the media had not asked them for their preferred pronouns. Every time the media said “he” shot 4 students with “his” gun and “his” parents were complicit it was an assault on my soul. Do better!
Did you feel really clever when you pressed “submit” or just regular clever?
Its all pretty much made up nonsense by leftist colonialist academics who destroy authentic culture as readily as they accuse others of doing.
It's dumb as hell, but the term Latino isn't really a keystone to authentic Latin culture.
My parents were born in Panama, from Spanish Jewish ancestors (going back to the 14th century).
What, exactly does lineage like that have to do with say the Pijao indigenous people of Central Columbia? And why is that lineage different than say the Xucuru people of Brazil, who are not hispanic because they speak Portuguese (after a fashion) in Brazil? The US Government makes that distinction, however.
I mean, this is not the subject of the OP.
As to your post.
1) A lot of these policies are addressing social conditions in the US. Because lots of organizations and structures already lump Latinos into the same boat, it makes sense for these policies to do the same.
2) And the fact that the US government generalizes some in it's policies is not news, nor does it invalidate such a policy.
Our tax policy is based on heuristics about wealth and tax burden, for instance.
“ A lot of these policies are addressing social conditions in the US. Because lots of organizations and structures already lump Latinos into the same boat, it makes sense for these policies to do the same.”
Tell me how it makes sense to label someone from a mostly indigenous background from Guatemala who grew up as a subsistence farmer with the same label as an middle class urban Argentine of Italian ancestry, or a New Mexican whose family has been in New Mexico since the 1600’s.
Other than they all look alike to the person doing the labeling.
It makes sense because our society already, irrationally or no, treats them similarly in lots of ways. Property values, jobs, pay, loans...
IOW it's not the government doing the labeling, it's the government acknowledging that the labeling has occurred.
It also makes sense because fine graining is impracticable when making policies - you will always be a bit over and underinclusive with anything not tailored to a single individual. This applies to tax policy and to sentencing guidelines and all sorts of other stuff.
" Its all pretty much made up nonsense "
Like the Bible?
Like your Posts.
When in Chile we were thought to be Mexican, because that's the accent we have when speaking Spanish. Turns out, Chilenos pretty much despise Mexicans. We corrected them, apologies all around.
There is no Latino solidarity except in the minds of Democrat strategists.
Centuries of European wars show not much white solidarity either.
Also, Black Americans and Africans famously get along like oil and water, and all the different African tribes and regions hate each other.
It's almost like our enemies are enemies of convenience. You hate that guy next to you because you want his stuff and everything else is excuse.
There are lots of factions in the Latin American community the different national groups are often at odds with each other.
There is no Panamanian solidarity from Colon to Panama City....a drive of some 75km
It's a recent innovation. I doubt "Black," and then "African-American," supplanted "Negro" overnight either. Take the survey in 20, or better yet 50 years, and then talk to me. I'm not saying "Latinx" will ever catch on. I have no idea. I'm just saying surveying preferences for a term I'll bet most respondents have never even heard of isn't all that meaningful.
That just raises the question of why we're using a term most people have never even heard of in the first place.
Why did anyone start using "African-American?" Because some people thought it was preferable to what preceded it, and they advocated for it.
In 1969 the identifier favored by most African-Americans was "negro" or "colored." A substantially smaller number preferred "black" or "Afro-American," the latter promoted by Malcolm X, and eventually supplanted by "African-American" at the urging of Jesse Jackson.
In other words, things change. At some point in history every identifier we use to today was unheard of.
Usually more organically instead of through whiny activists promoting ugly word salads.
What's the organic method?
not academic and paragovernmental selfappointed authorities imposing on a population, often including the referred to group from on high by fiat
paragovernmental?
Like the church, or aristocratic elites? Because I have some bad news about how a lot of Latin vocab got into English...
Although I'm sure it happened a few times I doubt the majority of reason why Latin crept into English was because users were terrified they'd be deplatformed or through church edict strongarming the whole of the population to use a specific word.
It was the Norman Conquest, Amos. I take your deplatforming whining and raise you the actual the point of a sword.
"It was the Norman Conquest, Amos."
The Normans spoke Norman French. Latin crept into English, like every other Western European language, through the church.
"The Normans spoke Norman French. Latin crept into English, like every other Western European language, through the church."
Sure, just ignore the fact that the Roman Empire once controlled parts what is now the UK.
I rather suspect that there are Latin bits and bobs in English that predate the Catholic Church.
"I rather suspect that there are Latin bits and bobs in English that the Catholic Church."
Most folks in the UK during the Roman period spoke Celtic languages. But there's always the alphabet.
But most of the Classical Latin vocabulary in English comes from later, when most scholarship moved from Latin to the vernacular. This is true for French as well.
Yeah, some, but precious few. The -cester ending of some place names (from the Latin "castra", or encampment), for example.
But since the invading Anglo-Saxons managed to pretty much replace the native Celtic language (except in places on the fringe, like Wales and Cornwall), it stands to reason that the handful of Latin words that had made it into everyday language fared even worse.
So you're claiming William the conqueror systematically sent his soldiers out to whip or humiliate any peasant caught not speaking French? Even if your theory is true 'But the Normans did it too!' is hardly an argument against my original point or the morality of an alien force socially engineering language of people they claim to protect for nonsensical reasons like switching latino to latinx.
No, but if you wanted influence at court, you needed to learn French. All those who refused were deplatformed. And sometimes killed/exiled.
Cancel culture and social engineering at it's worst!
The point, of course, being that the line you're drawing is arbitrary and not really a useful one.
Yeah, the Norman Conquest had little to do with the adoption of Latin vocab in English, which happened after that in both English and French. It's not like Old French used a lot of Latin words.
If you can't tell the difference between an ambitious guy learning the native language of some mucky mucks and some fanatic making up a term that sounds like a laxative out of thin air and imposing it on everyone I don't know what to tell you.
The point is that neither is somehow more 'organic'. That's a useless label you apply to the thing you like and not the thing you don't.
Uh, no. It was "Negro," and had been since W.E.B. duBois made a big deal (30 years or more before 1969) about capitalization of the term. "Black" had already begun to replace "Negro" by that time. (I remember writing a high-school term paper about Langston Hughes during the 1969-70 school year, and not being sure whether I should refer to him as "Negro" or "black," since the former term was already becoming obsolete, but was one that Hughes himself (and criticsw ho had written about him previously) used. "Colored" wasn't even an option, as it was already obsolete, except as part of the NAACP's name.)
Wow, wait until you find out the WEB duBois was controversial amongst the black community!
You mean a substantial number in the black community were insisting on lower-casing "Negro"?
My point is that WEB duBois is not representative of all Black people so for you to refer to his stance on something as if he's representative of all Black people is stupid and wrong.
I’m not sure why black doesn’t need to be capitalized when it’s in English but the Spanish word for black does need to be capitalized. Especially since Spanish capitalizes fewer words than English for example Mexican is capitalized but the Spanish word mexicano is not.
"Colored" was still the second most preferred identifier.
Screwed up the link. <a href="https://news.gallup.com/vault/315566/gallup-vault-black-americans-preferred-racial-label.aspx"<Here it is.
Lol. You can figure it out from that, but here's one more try to get it right.
I recall that Jesse Jackson was pretty insistent that it was "African American," without a hyphen. I don't remember why he made such a big deal about it, especially since he was trying to popularize a term that would be parallel to "Italian-American", "Irish-American", etc.
you left out the "Reverends" "Hymie-Town"
I have a feeling you've never used the term so who are you trying to kid?
Right, so let's keep using a term nobody wants, and in 50 years they'll be accustomed to it and be thankful for it and despise their ancestors for not being woke sooner. That'll show the world how to fight racism!
Do what you want. I'm describing it, not defending it. There are angry people with tribal agendas on both sides of these fights. Personally I try to call people what they want to be called, and as far as practical I do it one person at a time. When it's not practical I just do my best, and I don't lose sleep over it whether I'm the labeler or the labeled.
The only people I ever see asking for the use of the word are the people that want it. How exactly are you confused by that? You seem to want to think there is no want that wants to use the term, but you are simultaneously being forced to use the term by... no one? I'm sure I've called you a moron here before, but come on. This is really stupid.
"I'm just saying surveying preferences for a term I'll bet most respondents have never even heard of isn't all that meaningful."
You don't think it would be more meaningful if more Latinos preferred the term? Just because a word may or may not become more prevalent in the future doesn't mean that its prevalence today isn't meaningful.
I'm saying it's unrealistic to expect any term to be prevalent among people who have never heard of it, and it's unrealistic for them to have heard of it right after it's been coined.
"I'm saying it's unrealistic to expect any term to be prevalent among people who have never heard of it, and it's unrealistic for them to have heard of it right after it's been coined."
And this is evidence that it's primarily non-Latinos who are doing the "coining".
How does a group's general unfamiliarity with a term make it less likely the term was coined by a member of the group than by someone outside it?
People are more familiar with the terms that they coin than the terms that other people coin.
I'm sure the person who coined the term is quite familiar with it. As for the people who coined it? I wasn't aware that happened. Unless of course I missed all the reports of the Hispanic/Latina/Latino people getting together to coin the term Latinx, with which they then became inexplicably unfamiliar.
What fantastical news reporting we have here. This just in... all Latinos/Latinas are actually just one person and they all agree.
Because Latinx smacks of colonialism: we don’t like the fact that your ancestral language is gendered, so we who know better are going to ungender it for you using our colonial language structures.
This feels right, but when I think about it, it is not exactly colonialism to say another society does some bad stuff and should stop it.
" another society does some bad stuff and should stop it."
Having a gendered language is "bad stuff"?
Latinix is a typical Anglo insult to Hispanic peoples.
First it is NOT a "gender neutral" term. The suffix -ix is feminine in English as derived from Latin. It is not suitable to call a Hispanic make a Latinix. The word for men from some regions in the Spanish speaking word is Latino. An Hispanic woman from those countries is a Latina, not dome Anglo excuse for s descriptor.
Finally not all Hispanics like the latin- designation. But what cant one expect from those who are colonialists at heart
Haha, that derivation is pretty funny.
Hey Don...given Latins were tribes in central Italy and essentially the Roman Empire are not Americans of Italian ancestry the only real Latinos?
Latin America was largely colonized by Spaniards.
In which case Hispanic is a more general, even if despired by some term.
Moreover, It was not long ago that Latino was mostly used for Puerto Ricans while Mexican were Chicano. But no one but the Angelo woke uses Latinix
So why is it called Latin America rather then Spanish America? Are there any South/Central American Countries that speak Latin?
Well that kind of ignores the fact that Spain was a long time Roman colony and Spanish is a Latin language with an > 80% lexical symmetry to Italian.
Their given name? As though they're individuals, with individual dignity and self respect?
I've long thought that black activists, gay activists, feminist activists, etc. all have more in common with each other than black activists have with regular blacks, feminist activists with regular women, and so on. This story seems to bear me out with regard to Hispanic activists and regular Hispanics.
Latinx is about degendering the language, not about what Latin Americans want to think.
And it is very silly. I use Latino myself.
The problem is that it is not even degendering.
"-ix" is a feminine suffix as an educated person ought to know.
Eh, not once it's laundered through the years to get to modern English usage.
But it remains very silly.
""-ix" is a feminine suffix as an educated person ought to know."
Dominatrix, prosecutrix...
Don, it's not Latinix. It's Latin-x. As in Brand-x, not Brandinix. You went to Yale. I'm sure you can figure this out.
New jewish label applied to strip a people of ethnic heritage. Wipe out their history, subdue their culture, lump them into something they are not.....very jewish.
Antisemetic much?
Bernstein thinks posts like these are okay but any criticism of Israel in an academic setting warrants a blog post and a sounding of the shofar.
What do Americans of Irish, German, Italian, Polish and so on prefer to be called? it isnt' "white" but American.
I find it interesting that the media has "Asian Americans (an almost ridiculous term given the many ethnicities/countries in EurAsia), African American, Hispanic and "white" with the lower case. They do this on purpose..can't have a European American tribe...cause it's the oppressor tribe. Given those in the media who push this I do wonder their motive. Old world grudges maybe?
TP,
You're behind the times. The NYT now uses "White."
I will point out that Dutch and German are not the native terms for those nationalities and no one really cares that we call them that. So, if there is a well established (non-derogatory) term, I don't think there is any need to change it to the one the group prefers.
"Latinx" is about removing the gender from the language. The stupid thing about that is, the only reason that the other forms IN ENGLISH are gendered is that someone decided that it was appropriate to use Spanish forms (or Spanish-like?) forms in deference to that culture. Fifty years ago mainstream Americans didn't say "Latinos" and "Latinas" - they said Latins. Latin is a perfectly suitable English word that is descriptive and not gendered. Switch back to that term and the whole issue is avoided (well, not whether we should be making these classifications in the first place, but the Latinx thing).
I can understand a lot of the resistance. I am American (hah!), Not Canadian or English or Irish or Scottish or Welsh. Sure, English Speaking or Anglo or whatever.But, really,’Hi, I’m Anglo, if you couldn’t guess by the accent!’ Is weird. ‘Oh, your not from here, are you Anglo?’ Yeah, dumb CRT trying to create a group identity for different groups to oppose the colonial masters (nm the Spanish and Portuguese colonial experience…)
How is it that everyone in this comment thread has missed the KEY reason that people have for rejecting "LatinX": no matter what you want to call it, it isn't actually a group. They don't like the term for the category because they don't think of themselves as being in that category.
In my opinion it's none of the government's business where I come from or what my ethnicity or heritage might be. The only way we re going to make progress on the issue of race and ethnicity is to remove it from government purview.
These buckets, characterizations for purposes of affirmative action, tracking, targeting, as so forth are inventions of government factions and have a generally divisive effect. And, in fact, the characterizations usually have no relation to the reality of various ethnicities or heritages, they are only useful to government actors.
Americans. Yes, let's get back to the only categories that should be meaning full in a legal sense: American or Alien.
“LatinX” is just a general term for the wide-range of Spanish-speaking/descended communities in the US. It was created because regardless of whether Guatemalans, Cubans, and Peruvians consider themselves “LatinX,” they also don’t consider themselves “Hispanics” or “Mexicans.”
Tommy Chong preferred "Beaners" Cheech, "Mexican Americans" immortalized in the song of the same name...
Mexican Americans don't like to just get into gang fights
They like flowers and music and white girls named Debbie too
Mexican Americans are named Chata and Chella and Chemma
And have a son-in-law named Jeff
Mexican Americans don't like to get up early in the morning
But they have to so they do it real slow
Mexican Americans love education so they go to night school
And they take Spanish and get a B
Mexican Americans love their Nana's and their Nono's and their
Nina's and their Nino's nano nano nina nono!
Mexican Americans don't like to go to the movies where the
Dude has to wear contact lenses to make his blue eyes brown
So apparently it's news to Bernstein that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares?
It's like when people used to claim Ted Kennedy left Mary Jo Kopeckney "to Drown", when she in fact, asphyxiated. And while Drowning is a form of Asphyxiation, not all Asphyxiations are drownings, such as Mary Jo's.
John "The Duke" Wayne said it best 50 years ago,
grade school teacher even played it in class
The Hyphen, Webster's Dictionary defines,
Is a symbol used to divide a compound word or a single
word.
So it seems to me that when a man calls himself
An "Afro-American," a "Mexican-American," "Italian-
American,"
An "Irish-American," "Jewish-American,"
What he's sayin' is, "I'm a divided American."
Well, we all came from other places,
Different creeds and different races,
To form a nation...to become as one.
Yet look at the harm a line has done--
A simple little line, and yet
As divisive as a line can get.
A crooked cross the Nazis flew,
And the Russian hammer and sickle too--
Time bombs in the lives of Man;
But none of these could ever fan
The flames of hatred faster than
The Hyphen.
The Russian hammer built a wall
That locks men's hearts from freedom's call.
A crooked cross flew overhead
Above twenty million tragic dead--
Among them men from this great nation,
Who died for freedom's preservation.
A hyphen is a line that's small;
It can be a bridge or be a wall.
A bridge can save you lots of time;
A wall you always have to climb.
The road to liberty lies true.
The Hyphen's use is up to you.
Used as a bridge, it can span
All the differences of Man.
Being free in mind and soul
Should be our most important goal.
If you use The Hyphen as a wall,
You'll make your life mean...and small.
An American is a special breed,
Whose people came to her in need.
They came to her that they might find
A world where they'd have peace of mind,
Where men are equal...and something more--
Stand taller than they stood before.
So you be wise in your decision,
And that little line won't cause division.
Let's join hands with one another...
For in this land, each man's your brother.
United we stand...divided we fall.
We're Americans...and that says it all.
Source: click here