The Label of “Latino”

            Labels and categories are commonplace within studies of the members of a cultural diaspora.   However, the use of the term “Latino” can often be misinterpreted because a “Latino” may be classified as a person who speaks Spanish or from a Spanish- speaking country. The primary disadvantage of the widespread usage of a label such as “Latino” or “Hispanic” is the danger of viewing a multi-dimensional society through a unilateral lens. Simultaneously, scholars have also scrutinized the merits of labels such as “Latino” as a method for unification. The Latin Diaspora is not a concrete entity but rather an intersection of conflicting and co-existing facets of identity. Therefore, a reference to a cultural label must signify the multiplicity of the factors that comprise the respective labels.

             One major mistake is associating the world “Latino” or “Hispanic” in only geographical or linguistic contexts. Author Frances R. Aparicio discusses how the concept of “Latinidad” is redefined in the US when many different nationalities are brought together in a certain space and create new definitions of association. Aparicio invokes the term “domestic transnationalism” to describe this meeting. For example, Latinos comprise 26 percent of Chicago’s total population, consisting of a variety of groups such as Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans, etc. This creates a new “social mosaic.” Aparicio references the term “colando” to describe the different negotiations that occur in interlatino relations. She references a friend named David, who is half Puerto-Rican and half-Mexican who identifies more with his Mexican side. Nevertheless, he mainly speaks English because he feels uncomfortable speaking Spanish, yet he is still Latino (pp. 2-6). Defining a Latino as someone who speaks Spanish is not entirely accurate because a Latino could speak a language indigenous to their country. The debates surrounding languages and nationalities of the Latin Diaspora are examples of how one particular cultural factor cannot be the only method of classification for a group identity.

            There are advantages and disadvantages of the usages of the term Latino and Hispanic. Susanne Oboler’s article “The Politics of Labeling” discusses the variety of accounts regarding the usage of Latino and Hispanic. Her argument was that many felt that Hispanic was too broad, bringing up dialogues surrounding the gendered, class-specific, and national implications the labels. For example, she described how people of the working-class background did not favor the usage of the term Hispanic because they felt that society felt it had negative connotations (22). Oboler favored the term Latino because it symbolized political history and struggle. However, Laurie Sommers article “Inventing Latinismo: The Creation of ‘Hispanic’ Panethnicity” describes the tributes to panethnicity in the Latin American community and the quest for a “supraethnic group interest” (28). The concept of Latinismo is a unification factor. She describes attempts in San Fransisco in 1983 to “Latinize” Cinco De Mayo by making a Mexican tradition a “Hispanic” event, yet the Mexican overtones dominated (41). Yet another event in San Fransisco called the 24th Street Fair was successful because it was an amalgamation of the cultural offerings of different Latino groups, from Afro-Caribbean Music to dances (46). Regardless of labels or names, there appears to be a need for cohesion among Latino groups, particularly in American society.