rational bases have been confused, hence the confusion of terms. What is there about a Latino that makes him or her so? Is it a language, a surname, a mythical ...
Different Views Latino Terminology: Conceptual Bases for Standardized Terminology DAVID E. HAYES-BAUTISTA, PHD,
Abstract: Conceptually, the only element that all Latin American countries share is not language, race, or culture, but political: the presence of United States foreign policy as pronounced in the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. The political relation between the US and Latin America has colored US domestic policy toward its populations of Latin American origin. From the beginning of US-Latin American relations, there has been a constant confusion of race for national origin, compounded by the adoption of euphemistic terms such as "Spanish surname." The term "Latino", derived from "Latin American," is offered as the term that best reflects both the
diverse national origins and the nearly unitary treatment of Latinos in the US. The term Latino is operationalized to include all persons of Latin American origin or descent, irrespective of language, race, or culture. Specifically excluded are individuals of Spanish national origin outside the Western Hemisphere. When a synthetic sample has been derived, the term should be modified to reflect the basis upon which the sample was derived, e.g., "Latino (Spanish surname)." When working with Latinos from a specific national origin, that should be noted, e.g., "Mexican origin Latinos." (Am J Public Health 1987; 77:61-68.)
Introduction The search continues for an appropriate generic term for persons of different kinds of Latin American origin or descent, living in the United States. Numerous articles published by many journals have continued to use different terminologies and operationalization methodologies. As pointed out earlier,' there is no commonly accepted term nor method for defining and counting such a group. This article offers an epistemological and conceptual basis for terminology and methodology, which may serve as a basis for standardization. The term of reference that is offered is "Latino," to be applied to all persons of that soon-to-bedescribed background, irrespective of ethnicity (Hispanic or non-Hispanic), language (Spanish, Portuguese, or other) or race (mestizo, Indian, Asian, Black, White). The grounds for the choice of the term "Latino" will be given, as will some suggestions for operationalization.
were not given to European immigrants and their descendants. Historically, there have been three different epistemological bases used for the categorization of Latinos, hence three very different types of terminologies. Over time, these different bases have been confused with one another, until we arrive at the present day dilemma. The major conceptual basis, historically used for the identification of Latinos, has been political and geographic. This basis was pronounced in the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, and continues to the present. The use of this basis has resulted in the identification of the nationality of individuals from countries in Latin America. However, it was and continues to be confused with a racial categorization, purporting to identify a racially distinct group. Although in a formal sense the racial categorization has not been used since about 1940, it still forms a large part of every-day "man in the street"2 perceptions of Latinos. Since 1940, new synthetic measures, derived from what has been termed a "cultural" basis, have been used as a sort of euphemism. This last basis has been extremely arbitrary, misleading, and deceptive. Let us see how these different bases have had their influence over time, in order to understand better our opening assertion that the only "real" basis for terminology, hence the most accurate, is related to and derived from national origin. The Monroe Doctrine and National Identification The young republic of the United States, huddled on the eastern coast of the continent, followed with some interest the struggle for independence of the former colonies of European powers in the rest of the hemisphere. While the Europeans bickered among themselves about the proper disposition of formerly Spanish holdings (as shown so clearly in the Polignac Memorandum of 1823, in which France pledged not to attempt to incorporate such holdings into its own imperial ambitions), the United States announced the doctrine (later to be called the Monroe Doctrine) which fixed its relationship to the rest of the hemisphere in no uncertain terms. The Monroe Doctrine declared that the entire hemisphere was in the US sphere of influence, and that the principle of non-intervention by European powers applied to all former colonies of all European powers, not just those of Spain.
An Analysis of Terminology It should be a given that before an item is categorized and named, some rational basis for the categorization and subsequent terminology should exist. In the case of Latinos, the
rational bases have been confused, hence the confusion of terms. What is there about a Latino that makes him or her so? Is it a language, a surname, a mythical ancestor from Spain, or is it the fact of origin in a country of Latin America? In our present analysis, the only element out of the above shared by all Latinos is the last one: origin in a Latin American country. As we examine the different bases that have been used for classification of Latinos, we shall see that country of origin is the major, indisputable, clear-cut characteristic. Further, we shall appreciate why the Latin American countries are different from other countries of origin in Europe, hence why Latinos should be the object of policy considerations that Address reprint requests to David E. Hayes-Bautista, Health Policy and Administration, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720. Co-author Chapa is with the Department of Sociology at the University. This paper, submitted to the Journal October 9, 1985, was revised and accepted for publication April 14, 1986. Editor's Note: See also related editorial p 16 and Different View p 69 this issue. X 1986 American Journal of Public Health 0090-0036/87$1.50
AJPH January 1987, Vol. 77, No. 1
The formal definition of residents of Latin America was initially fixed by national citizenship, i.e., an inhabitant of Mexico was a Mexican, and of Venezuela, a Venezuelan. No other formal racial, ethnic, cultural or other meaning was implied. Manifest Destiny and the Emergence of Race However, the inhabitants of Latin America (particularly Mexico) stood astride the path of manifest destiny. The annexation of other peoples, and the incorporation of foreign territories were bound up in a process by which a national identification was supplanted by a racial one-one in which the conquered race was relegated to a lower social class level than that of the conquering race. We may examine the situation of California as a case in point. The popular image of Mexicans living in California was in many ways fixed by the accounts of "Yankee" travelers and adventurers written between 1820 to 1847. By the time of the "Mexican War" and the Gold Rush of 1849, North American arrivals to California had already formed an image of a "race" with peculiar attributes.3 Richard Henry Dana, a proper Bostonian visiting California in 1835, described the Mexicans of California as "an idle, thriftless people. "4 The inhabitants were described by other observers, at best as a "proud, indolent people doing nothing but riding after herds from place to place"5; and at worst as having a ". . . dull, suspicious countenance, the small twinkling, piercing eyes, the laxness and filth of a free brute, using freedom as a mere means of animal enjoyment, dancing and vomiting as occasion and inclination appears to require. "6 The racial attitude was forcefully stated in 1836 by William H. Wharton, who agitated for American possession of Texas by writing that "God will forbid . . . Texas ... should be permanently benighted by ... the rapine of Mexican misrule. The Anglo-American race are destined to be forever proprietors of this land. "7 By armed force, the United States defeated Mexico in a war that was divisive in the US itself. Abraham Lincoln openly debated the conduct of the war, and a major participant, Ulysses S. Grant, then lieutenant, wrote later when president, "To this day I regard the (Mexican) war as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation."8 Shortly thereafter, the northern half of Mexico was incorporated into the United States by the conclusion of the Mexican War. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the hostilities, pronounced the rights of a nationality group, the former citizens of Mexico who were now living in the US. No mention of race was made in the official documents. However, the large numbers of miners arriving from the US during the Gold Rush of 1849 clashed with the Mexicans who had been living for generations in California, and the dominant group (the Forty Niners), prepared by their readings of the early "Yankee" accounts of the native 'people," quickly saw these former citizens of Mexico in terms of race. One miner described the lynching of a Mexican woman in 1851, using a racial category: "in keeping with the characteristics of her race, Juanita had a quick passion."9 In 1854, a resident of Los Angeles described the execution of a Mexican "who . . . had killed one of his own race, about a woman." '0 From Nationality to Race: The "Greasers" In the 19th century, "greaser" was a term commonly used in a racial sense to describe the former Mexican citizens 62
living in recently acquired territories. Initially, in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and early California, "greaser" was used exclusively to describe Mexicans.' 2 However, after the arrival of other Latin Americans, especially in the gold fields of California, the term "greaser" was applied to all persons of Latin American origin. Indeed, the perceptions of nonLatinos about non-Mexican origin Latinos in early California provide some clues about the current search for terminology and method.
By 1850, there were four distinctly different Latino groups, by nationality, in California: the Californios (originally born in Mexican territory, but by then putatively citizens of the US), Mexicans (largely miners from the northern Mexican state of Sonora who had immigrated after 1848), Peruvians, and Chileans (both also from the mining centers there). These Latin Americans of different nationality groups saw themselves as quite distinct from each other. However, mining society tended to see them all as one race or people, generally lumping them all together under the term "greaser". For policy purposes they were treated as one group. One of the first pieces of legislation passed by the state was a Foreign Miners tax, aimed at excluding Latin American miners (the "foreigners") from claiming rights in the gold fields. The native born Californios were considered to be foreigners for this purpose, in spite of being legally citizens.'3 Irrespective of the intra-Latino differences seen by the Latinos themselves, in the eyes of the every-day "North American" inhabitant of California, and in the eyes of some early laws, all Latinos were seen to be identical, and were dealt with as one "race". This perception of all Latinos as a single group in California was repeated at a national level. The US Latin American Empire US designs on Latin American territory antedated the Monroe Doctrine. As early as 1811, John Quincy Adams expressed an opinion on Cuba that it would only be a matter of time until ". . . by the law of political gravitation" it would become a part of the US. 14 The digestion of Mexican territories was slowed a bit by the Civil War, but toward the end of the 19th century, political sentiment in this country called for a further expansion into Latin American territories. In order to justify doing so, Latin Americans as persons were continuously cast as belonging to a less advanced and different race; thus, the confusion of race for nationality continued on a larger scale. President Ulysses S. Grant proposed annexing the Dominican Republic during his term. The Republican Party platform for 1895, developed for William McKinley, contained provisions for the purchase and annexation of the Danish West Indies and for the construction of a canal across Nicaragua, in an American zone.'5 After the Spanish American war-the "splendid little war," as John Hay described it-the US flag flew over Cuba and Puerto Rico. Henry Cabot Lodge announced that the United States had acquired "rightful supremacy in the Western Hemisphere." In the space of a very few years, United States troops had carried out further operations in Mexico, Nicaragua, and Haiti, and US "diplomacy" had meddled with Colombia to suddenly produce the new republic of Panama, which promptly granted the US a concession to build a canal. Theodore Roosevelt developed the "Roosevelt corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, which not only warned Europe against intervention in Latin America, but also unabashedly AJPH January 1987, Vol. 77, No. 1
reserved the right of US intervention. Roosevelt wrote that when a nation "knows how to act with decency . .. it need fear no interference from the United States.... But brutal wrongdoing, or an impotence that results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may finally require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the United States cannot ignore this duty."'6 Although the formal relations expressed were political, in most common usage there was a careless and casual inference that the other nations in the Western Hemisphere were populated by a different race. This line between national identity and race was quite faint, and crossed many times, as evident in Roosevelt's claim that in dealing with Latin American republics he would ". . . show those Dagos they will have to behave decently."'7 In the working assumptions of the general North American public, the "race" of Latin Americans was a reality, and it was the antithesis of the civilized United States population. Formal Confusion of Race for Nationality We see this confusion of race for nationality reflected in the terminology and methodology used by various public health and other official agencies in the early 20th century. Reflecting in part a national debate over immigration and national origin quotas, the Los Angeles County Health Department began compiling statistics for Latinos of Mexican origin. As early as 1916, death and infant mortality statistics were reported for "White" and "Mexican". Epistemologically, we nmay appreciate now that a racial category (White) was compared to a national origin category (Mexican). By 1921, statistics for nursing services were presented for "White, Mexican and Other (Negro, Oriental)."'8 In this irrational process, something was considered inherent in persons of Mexican national origin that could be passed on to succeeding generations. A study of tuberculosis done in 1924 in Los Angeles County separated out the "Mexican" from the "total" population. Then, in a curious way, the Mexican population was further subdivided into "Mexican" and "non-citizen Mexican."'19 In terms of birth and citizenship, this was an impossibility. If interpreted literally, this would mean that citizenship was somehow passed from parent to child, hence one could speak of Mexicans being born in the US. The intent, however, was to trace a perceived racial group, using a term of national origin as identifier. In 1929, Governor Young of California appointed the "Mexican Fact Finding Committee" to gather data for policy purposes. In its final report, the Committee noted that Mexicans were racially distinct from "Whites" in that ". . . the bulk of immigration from Mexico into the United States is from the pure Indian or the Mestizo stocks of the Mexican population."20 A flurry of sociological studies done on the plight of Latinos in Southern California around that era adopted the confused race-nationality terminology, vide the titles of different works: * The Mexican housing problem in Los Angeles2' * The Mexicans in Los Angeles22 * The Mexican in Los Angeles from the standpoint of the religious forces of the city23 The leading document of the time was a study by Emory Bogardus, titled "The Mexican in the United States," which announced itself as a study in race relations, and constantly referred to Mexicans as a racial group.24 This confusion of race for nationality was given formal AJPH January 1987, Vol. 77, No. 1
approval by the US Bureau of the Census. The earliest standardized censuses, from 1820 to 1860, included three racial categories: White, Negro (Free or Slave), and Other. In 1860, Indian and Chinese were added, and Japanese in 1870. Reflecting the need to track the influence of immigration, separate items asked about country of birth from 1860 on.25 Those born in Mexico could be identified by this procedure. The growth of the Mexican population after 1910 led to the policy attention just mentioned, which required better statistics than had been captured in earlier censuses. For the 1930 Census, a new category was added to the race/color question, which gave formal acceptance of nationality for race. The coding instructions for the race/color entry stipulated that ". . . all persons born in Mexico, or having parents born in Mexico, who are definitely not white, Negro, Indian, Chinese or Japanese, should be returned as Mexican (Mex)."26 A nationality was formally recognized as a race. So entrenched had this confusion of race for nationality become that at least one major Latino organization, the League of United Latin American Citizens, saw itself as representing a racial group. The articles of incorporation of that group included such statements as, "We solemnly declare once for all to maintain sincere and respectful reverence for our racial origin, of which we are proud."27 This confusion seeped into health policy work. A study issued in 1938 by the California Bureau of Child Hygiene conveniently managed to stereotype Mexicans as a separate racial group by such statements as: "There seems to be no understanding in the Mexican mind of a binding contract between patient and doctor."28 This same report casually speaks of ". . . American born Mexicans," and at one point mentioned ". . . a total of 1,726 Mexican births occurred in San Bernardino county." Clearly, while a term of nationality was used (Mexican), the implication was that Mexicans were a race apart. This perception was not limited to Mexican-origin Latinos. A national poll conducted in 1940 by the Office of Public Opinion Research turned up racial categorization of Latin Americans by the general public. A national sample was asked to select words from a list that to them best described the "people of Central and South America." The word chosen as number one by 80 per cent of the respondents was "dark skinned." The next five words chosen as descriptors were, in descending order: quick tempered, emotional, religious, backward, lazy. Positive descriptors were rarely selected. Less than 15 per cent of the sample chose any of the following words: intelligent, honest, brave, generous, progressive, efficient.29 It is evident that a popular perception of the inhabitants of Latin American countries as a very distinct people, with all the characteristics of a race, had emerged as a result of over a century of US-Latin American interaction. Domestic policy regarding Latinos, especially Mexicans, was at worse viciously exclusionary, seen in the massive roundups and deportations of Mexican-looking persons (including many citizens) during the Depression, the segregation of Mexicans into separate schools, and the denial of service in private institutions. Signs reading "No Mexicans Allowed" were not uncommon up through the 1950s; for a poignant recounting, the film "Chulas Fronteras" provides excellent material. At best, policy adopted a "White man's burden" tone, reluctantly dealing with the problem of an ignorant, dirty, and uneducated population. Latinos were identified as a race apart; they had been treated as such ever since the pronouncement of the Monroe Doctrine. 63
The Era of Cultural Euphemisms The Disappearance of Identifiers
By 1930, records in California and the southwestern US often showed a category which utilized the terminology of nationality, but which carried with it the explicit implication of race. By the end of World War II, both categories had been formally done away with, and were replaced by a series of jumbled euphemisms. By a series of policy decisions at both judicial and executive levels which are not clear, Mexicans suddenly ceased to be a race apart, and were declared to be "White." Coding instructions for the 1940 census stipulated that "Mexicans were to be listed as White, unless they were definitely Indian or some race other than White."30 This had the result of Latino identifiers suddenly disappearing from sight. The census of 1950 reported that there were three major races: White, Negro and Other. "Persons of Mexican birth or ancestry who are not definitely Indian, or of other non-white race were classified as white.' 31 As recently as 1958, official California State publications had to explain that Mexicans were then considered White. The Statistical Abstract for that year, in reporting deaths by race (which included White, Negro, Indian, Chinese, Japanese and Other), explained starkly that "White includes Mexican."32 While the Mexican origin Latino population had disappeared from statistics, Latinos had not disappeared from everyday social reality. The need to gather data about this group led to the adoption of many different identifiers. Spanish Surname
For the 1950 census, a post-facto approximation of the Mexican origin Latino was developed by matching the returns from the five southwestern states to a master list of Spanish surnames. This group became known as the "White person of Spanish surname," which has served as denominator in many studies since then. Birthplace Meanwhile, the Puerto Rican Latino population living on the mainland increased greatly in the 1950s, and data were needed about them. The 1960 census instructed that upon observation by the enumerator, "Puerto Ricans, Mexicans or other persons of Latin [sic] descent would be classified as 'White' unless they were definitely Negro, Indian, or some other race." The Spanish surname criterion was used to approximate the Mexican origin population in the five southwestern states. In New York State only, a question was asked about birthplace with three possible answers: US, Puerto Rico, Elsewhere. By utilizing these two variables, surname and birthplace, the two Latino groups were supposed to have been approximated. Spanish Language
The political ferment among Latino groups in the 1960s demanded ever better data. In an attempt to capture an improved enumeration, the 1970 census adopted a hodgepodge composite approach.33 The "Spanish heritage population" was defined as: * Spanish surname or Spanish language in the five southwestern states; * Puerto Rican birth or parentage in the three middle Atlantic states; * Spanish language in the remaining 42 states.34 Epistemologically, three different variables were being 64
combined. Surname and/or language (cultural), and birthplace/parentage (nationality). These were applied differentially across the country. In terms of race, these persons were considered to be White. Indigenous attempts by respondents to be categorized as other-than-White were overridden by instructions to the enumerator.
"Chicano," "LaRaza," "Mexican-American,"
"Brown" were to be changed to White.3" Spanish Origin In an attempt to reconcile the differing variables, a 5 per cent sample of the 1970 census was asked to respond to questions on nationality, which was given a cultural label: Spanish Origin. "Respondents were asked if they were of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish origin or descent."36 The data from a national origin question appeared to be the best available, and it became the denominator to which the cultural denominaor
Hispanic A new category was created by executive fiat in the 1970s. The federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) developed a new term with a new methodology: Hispanic. This term had not been used in earlier counts. The term "Hispanic" was operationalized as: "A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South America or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race."37 Epistemologically, this definition is a mixture of a culturally derived term (Hispanic) partially operationalized by nationality, partially by culture, and partially not operationalized at all by the extremely open-ended phrase ". . . other Spanish ... origin." While this combination has been useful to examine the Latino population in the aggregate, it has been noted that it is less than useful in studying the social mobility of higher income, higher education Latinos, for the degree of error introduced can be quite large.' In the policy arena, particularly in the area of affirmative hiring and admission practices, this combination of bases presents an essentially unbounded universe, which has resulted in situations that can only be described as utter confusion: * An organization that promotes ties between Spain and the United States, the Spanish American Heritage Association, declared in 1980 that, "A Hispanic person is a Caucasian of Spanish ancestry. The Mexican American and Puerto Rican are not Caucasians of Spanish ancestry, and therefore are not Hispanic.' 38 * The US Department of Transportation published regulations in 1980 that attempted to interpret the OMB definition. These regulations define Hispanics as those from Mexico, the Caribbean, Central and South America. Explicitly excluded were people from Spain and Portugal.38 * "S.F. debates-are Spaniards Hispanic?" In 1985, a Spanish woman demanded that the San Francisco Human Rights Commission apply affirmative action benefits to Spanish. Her claim to benefits was that "When . . . they look at the name, they're going to think that I'm Latina. It's many of the Latin Americans who are privileged."39 Many similar confusing acts committed in the act of attempting to define who is "Hispanic" and why have been commented upon previously.' The 1980 census used a modified version of "Spanish/Hispanic" as the term of reference. It was operationalized by a combination of nationality and culture. AJPH January 1987, Vol. 77, No. 1
The choices for respondents to select from were: Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, other Spanish/Hispanic.40 This last choice-other Spanish/Hispanic-introduces a tautology which has led to problems in response. Is a Spaniard Hispanic? By this definition, yes. Let us follow out some further problems. Is a Cape Verdean Hispanic? Is a Filipino Hispanic? Is a Brazilian Hispanic? Is a Brazilian identical to a Cape Verdean? Are both identical to a Portuguese? These, and other questions emerge when an unclear conceptual basis is used to classify and name groups. How, indeed, are Latinos to be described? Latino: The Preferred Term of Reference The conceptual and epistemological grounds for selecting a term and operationalizing it should be clear by now. The major social fact linking the US to Latin America is political and geographic, reflected in the historical links, defined by the Monroe Doctrine, to the various countries in the Western Hemisphere. No other country, or set of countries, has had this same sustained type of linkage. Analytically, there is no such thing as a Latin American race. Yet, many individuals and officials, for 162 years and more, have behaved as if such a "race" existed. The euphemisms (surname, language, "Hispanic") are too diffuse and imprecise, and do not address the major dynamic that has created the perceptions and policies applied to Latin Americans in the United States. The term of reference has to respect the diverse national origins and the waves of population movement from Latin America for over four centuries. The generic term that best fits these criteria is "Latino." This term is derived from "Latin America" and, as such, preserves the flavor of national origin and political relationship between the US and Latin America (other terms used to refer to this region tend to be divisive, such as Indo-America, Spanish America, or Ibero-America). It is culturally neutral, with respect to Latin American cultures. A Brazilian is as much a Latin American as a Mexican. It is also racially neutral, an important strength when one considers that 51.9 per cent of the Mexican-origin population in California in 1980 described itself racially as "other"; a smaller percent, only 47.7 per cent, described itself as "White' ' It is quite evident from such responses that such terms as "White, Hispanic" or "White person of Spanish surname" would not be acceptable descriptors to the majority of the Latino population that considers itself non-White. Despite its masculine "o" ending, the term Latino is sex neutral. By rules of Spanish orthography, all collective terms (nouns, pronouns, and adjectives) when used on a grouping containing both sexes, utilize the masculine ending. The term "Hispanic", when used in Spanish, is similarly declined, so that the term would be "Hispano." Thus, the term Latino refers to both sexes, irrespective of endings. Perhaps most important, the term "Latino" has been, in the authors' experience, a term that most Latinos find least objectionable. An example of this may be seen within the American Public Health Association itself. When, in the early 1970s, a group of Mexican-origin and Puerto Rican-origin Latinos met to form a caucus, the proposal to call the group the Chicano Caucus was vetoed by the Puerto Ricans, and the proposal to call it the Boricua Caucus was vetoed by the Mexicans. Both groups rejected outright the title Hispanic Caucus, with many imprecations, commenting further that no one present was a Spaniard. After years of debate, the name of Latino Caucus was chosen, in large part because it was AJPH January 1987, Vol. 77, No. 1
considered the least objectionable of all the alternatives. In the authors' experience while researching various Latino groups, the most common term of reference used, with only very minor exceptions, is nationality. Latinos, particularly of the immigrant generation, define themselves in relation to country of origin ("I am a Mexican"; "I am a Brazilian"; "I am a Chilean") before making any other identification as to race, language, culture, or personal lineage. This desire to maintain a national origin identity is very strong. The Los Angeles Times undertook investigative reporting among the growing Mexican and non-Mexican Latino population in Southern California, precisely to determine what term would best fit these different groups. The first major finding was that most Latinos in that region vigorously rejected the term "Hispanic." This is seen in numerous editorials in newspapers both large and small, in English and Spanish, with titles such as: * Don't call us Hispanics42 * Latino, si-Hispanic, no43 * Hispanic-una subdivision de "Latinos"?4 The second finding by the Times was that most respondents viewed "Latino" to be an adequate, appropriate, and acceptable self-description that expressed to their own satisfaction their desire to maintain a sense of national origin, while yet expressing links between them. As a result of this effort, the Los Angeles Times Style Guide states that: * Latino is the preferred umbrella term for all Spanishsurnamed groups in the United States. * Use Chicano as an abbreviated synonym for MexicanAmerican unless it is established that the individual prefers the latter. A reporter should establish the preference rather than make an assumption.45 Respecting the desire of Latinos not to be categorized as Hispanic, an unwritten editorial policy holds that the term "Hispanic" will be used only when directly quoting someone who uses the term.* Identity and Terminology
The question of Latin American identity is one that has long been debated in Latin America itself. For 300 years, from 1521 until independence in 1821, Latin American identity was defined in terms of the major colonial powers. For example, Mexico, prior to independence, was called New Spain, and there was no problem. New Spain was Spanish, and the identity of Indians, Mestizos, and Blacks was a non-issue. However, upon achieving independence, largely in the early nineteenth century, two schools of thought arose. One held that the only commonality in Latin American identity was the legacy of Spanish language and institutions. The other held that Latin American identity was to be found in its Indian past. The "Hispanistas" and the "Indigenistas" were also representative of political groupsthe Hispanistas being identified with largely conservative, wealthy land owning groups, while the Indigenistas claimed to be the voice of the poor, landless peasant. Civil wars, revolutions, and insurrections have been fought under the banner of Hispanism or Indigenism, with perhaps the bloodiest being the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1917 (which the Indigenistas won) and the subsequent bloody Cristero Revolt. In academia, literature, music, and the plastic arts, the philosophical struggle continues over whether Latin America is basically Spanish (or, more grandly, Iberian) or is Indian. Even the terminology used to refer to the region reflects this *del Olmo F: Personal communication with the authors, 1986.
160-year debate: the Hispanistas use terms such as "Hispano America" or "Ibero America," while Indigenistas will claim terms such as "Indo America." And yet, given the US presence since 1823, both groups unhesitatingly use the term "America Latina" or "Latinoamerica" to refer to the region. To refer to people, ideas, or products from that area, "Latino Americano" is shortened to "Latino", and there is no confusion as to what is meant. While the term "Latin" may be used by a few analysts to refer to Mediterranean Europe, the term "Latino" does not: in everyday usage, it refers to things Latin American. In the best epistemological, perhaps hermeneutic sense, the term means what its users intend it to mean. While a very narrowing reading of dictionaries (whether Webster's or the Real Academia) may try to include Italians, French, and Rumanians as "Latins", no stretching of commonplace usage could include such as "Latinos", a notion which would be rejected by Latinos and Rumanians alike. Such similar narrow readings of dictionaries such as the Real Academia define Chicano as having its roots in chicaneria (literally, chicanery), an etymology which has been rejected by numerous Chicano scholars. The current debate over terminology of Latinos in the US continues this 160-year-old conflict, sometimes verbal, sometimes armed, over Latin American identity. Only now, it is further recognized in Latin America, that a major element in current Latin American identity is the relation to the US, and that whatever directions the identity debate takes, it has to include the powerful presence and influence of that northern colossus.46 In sum, we propose using a nationality-derived term, "Latino", to describe a geographically derived national origin group, that has been constantly and consistently viewed and treated as a racial group, in both individual and institutional interaction while in the United States. Operationalization The term "Latino" should be used uniformly to refer to persons residing in the US whose nationality group, or the country in which the person or the person's parents or ancestors were born, is a Latin American country in the Western Hemisphere. Excluded from the term Latino would be persons of Spanish, Portuguese, Cape Verdean, or Filipino origin. Included would be non-Hispanic Latin Americans, such as Brazilians, Guyanese, etc., all of whom fell under the sweep of the Monroe Doctrine. The term "Latino" is a generic one. It should be recognized that there are vast differences between different national origin Latino groups. Given the importance of immigration to the current explosive growth of the Latino population, it is imperative that the specific national origin of any Latino group studied be specified. The few recent studies that have investigated the social and economic characteristics of "Hispanic" subgroups have found that the differences are often greater than the similarities.47"' There are also differences between US-born and foreign-born Latinos. We strongly suspect that the same is true among direct health variables as well. For research, policy, and programmatic purposes, it is important to know if one is working with Mexican or Cuban origin Latinos. Thus, we propose that the term "Latino" always carry a national origin modifier, e.g., "Mexican-origin Latino." Only when speaking of a mixed Latino population (such as the entire Latino population of the US) should the term be used without a modifier. Some special attention should be given to Latinos of 66
New Mexico. Northern New Mexico has been populated for nearly 400 years by pockets of Mexican origin persons. For centuries this group has referred to itself by terms such as "Hispano" and "Manito." These terms identify the "patria chica," or regional identity, of such individuals and are similar to other "patria chica" terms used in the rest of Mexico: those from Guadalajara call themselves Tapatios, those from Vera Cruz are Jarochos, and those from Mexico City are proud to be Chilangos. The Manitos or Hispanos share a fairly homogeneous and distinctive history. New Mexico is also currently experiencing a rapid influx of immigrants from Mexico, with a different history and experience. Some have felt that the Manitos are indeed pure Spanish, hence can only be referred to as Hispanic. It should be pointed out that the confusion of nationality for race is continued by this line of reasoning. The first church built in Santa Fe was constructed by Indians from Tlaxcala, Mexico, most of whom stayed there and became part of the Latino population. Attempts to idealize or identify strictly Spanish ancestry founder upon the rocks of reality. Furthermore, in the authors' experience with northern New Mexicans, they use a variety of reference terms, including Raza, Chicano, Mexican-American, Hispano, Manito, and Latino. The major Spanish language radio station in that region, broadcasting from Espaniola, New Mexico, proudly calls itself "Radio Mexicana." The Manitos or Hispanos are Latinos, although their unique depth of history should be preserved in identifiers. We suggest that the term "Mexican-origin Latino" apply when speaking of both the recent and ancient Mexicanorigin groups, and the term "New Mexican Hispano Latino" be used when referring exclusively to the northern New Mexican group, with the understanding that "Hispano" is a term of patria chica identity and does not refer to either racial or cultural origin. The national origin is fairly easily and reliably captured. The "Hispanic" category of the 1980 census consists of four major national origin subgroups and one residual category: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, and Other Spanish. The first four of these reflect populations that can be defined unambiguously by the researcher. For example, it is possible for a researcher to specify that he or she will only include respondents who have either one parent or two grandparents of one particular subgroup as part of the target population. This is roughly the procedure that was followed in the screening interview for the National Chicano Survey.49 Members of the first three groups rank very highly in terms of consistency of self-identification. The Other Spanish category ranks among the lowest.50'5' This consistency of response suggests that it is possible to meaningfully identify members of this group by nationality. To summarize, there are three items of information that need to be utilized when referring to Latino populations. * The generic term "Latino" * Nationality subgrouping: Mexican-origin, Cuban-ori-
gin, Brazilian-origin * Nativity: US-born or foreign-born The first two items should always be specified when indicating a particular Latino group. The third item need not always be specified, but it must be discovered during the initial stages of any research regarding a Latino population. A great deal of health research has been done on the basis of administrative and other records that did not ascertain Latino national origin. The surname of the individual named on these records has often been used as the basis for attributing membership in one Latino group or the other. AJPH January 1987, Vol. 77, No. 1
When a Latino population has been approximated on the basis of a cultural euphemism (surname or language), the method should be alluded to after the term Latino, so as to caution the reader that a mixture of bases is taking place. Thus, "Latino (Spanish surname)" or "Latino (Spanish language) allows the reader to know the synthetic bases for approximating the Latino population under study. Research based on identifying individuals with Spanish surnames can, strictly speaking, be generalized only to the Spanish surname population. As already indicated, the members of this group can vary greatly by region, sex, marital status, and the exact composition of the surname list.** The Latino population living in the US is in a phase of defining itself, both vis-a-vis the US and vis-a-vis the different national origin subgroups. An emergent identity seems to be in the making52 which transcends the Spanish language to embrace all Latin American origin elements. The term "Latino" reflects this process. The Reverse Angle: Anglo or White Concern has been raised about the identification of non-Latino, non-Black, non-Asian populations in the US. This population at times has been called the "White" population. In the southwestern US, Latinos have commonly used a cultural term "Anglo" to refer to non-Latinos. Further into Latin America, cultural/racial terms such as "Caucasian," "Saxon," and "Yankee" may be used. More often, a nationality term "North American" is used, but this term may be applied to Blacks and Asians of North American citizenship as well as to Whites. The Los Angeles Times Style Guide45 provides the following instruction to its reporters on this topic: "In general, use the word white to refer to the majority group in our society. Anglo may be used as a synonym for white in stories that deal exclusively with whites and Chicanos, especially, for example, if the Chicanos involved use the term Anglos themselves. In Los Angeles school desegregation stories, use white, black and Chicano."
Probably the most neutral term would be a redundancy: White, non-Latino. The redundancy will be necessary for a number of years to clear up the confusion sown by the inaccurate but widely used terms "White, Hispanic" and "White person of Spanish surname." Some Latinos see themselves as non-White, some as White, but nearly all see themselves as somehow connected to Latin America. Most Whites do not see themselves as related to Latin America. The term "White, non-Latino" allows a clear definition of what is intended, without offending too many sensibilities. Conclusion We have provided here a conceptual basis for developing and operationalizing a standard terminology to refer to persons of Latin American origin or descent. In our analysis, the major trait shared by all Latin American countries is not language, race, or culture, but is political-the unilaterally imposed Monroe Doctrine. This political linkage has colored North American views of persons from that region, and has formed the basis for domestic policy adopted regarding them. Given this we conclude that: **Passel JS, Word DL: Constructing the list of Spanish surnames for the 1980 census: An application of Baye's Theorem, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Denver, Colorado, April 1980.
AJPH January 1987, Vol. 77, No. 1
* "Latino" is the most appropriate term of reference to use to refer to persons residing in the United States of Latin American origin or descent. * It should be recognized that the term reflects nationality and not language, race, or culture. * The term should be applied only to persons with descent or origin in Western Hemisphere countries. Persons of individual Spanish national ancestry outside the Western Hemisphere should not be considered Latino. Certainly this presentation will not be the last word on this topic: it is our intention to provide a framework for further discussion, debate, and thought. REFERENCES I. Hayes-Bautista DE: Identifying 'Hispanic' populations: The influence of research methodology on public policy, Am J Public Health 1980; 70:353-356. 2. Schutz A: Collected Papers, I: The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973; 7. 3. Pitt L: The Decline of the Californios. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968; 14. 4. Dana RH Jr: Two Years Before the Mast: A Personal Narrative of Life at Sea, 1st Ed. Boston: Bates and Lauriat, 1840; 59. 5. Camp C (ed): James Clyman: American Frontiersman 1792-1881. His Own Reminiscences and Diaries. San Francisco: California Historical Society, 1928: 187. 6. Farnham TJ: Travels in the Californias and Scenes in the Pacific Ocean. New York: Saxton and Miles, 1844; 356-357. 7. de Leon A: They Called Them Greasers: Anglo Attitudes toward Mexicans in Texas, 1821-1900. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1983; 2. 8. Herring H: A History of Latin America. New York: Knopf, 1968; 313. 9. Coy OC: Gold Days. Sacramento: Powell, 1929; 204. 10. Bell H: Reminiscences of a Ranger, or Early Times in Southern California, 1st Ed. Santa Barbara: Los Angeles, Yarnell, Caystile and Mathes, 1881; 104. 11. McWilliams C: North from Mexico. New York: Greenwood, 1968; 36. 12. Ibid, pp 115-133. 13. Peterson RH: Manifest Destiny in the Mines: A Cultural Interpretation of Anti-Mexican Nativism in California, 1848-1853. San Francisco: R&E Associates, 1975. 14. Herring, 1968, op. cit., p 903. 15. Ibid, p 904. 16. Ibid. p 912. 17. Ibid. p 911. 18. Young CC: Mexicans in California. Report of the Mexican Fact Finding Committee. Sacramento: State Printing Office, 1930; 46. 19. California State Bureau of Tuberculosis: A Statistical Study of Sickness among the Mexicans. Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1925: 4. 20. Young, 1930, op. cit., p 24. 21. Fuller E: The Mexican housing problem in Los Angeles. Studies in Sociology 1. Los Angeles: Southern California Sociological Society, 1920. 22. Anonymous (unsigned editorial): The Mexicans in Los Angeles. Survey Sept. 15, 1920; 715. 23. Oxnam GB: The Mexicans in Los Angeles from the standpoint of the religious forces of the city. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 1921; 130-133. 24. Bogardus ES: The Mexican in the United States. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1934. 25. US Bureau of the Census: Historical Statistics of the US: Colonial Times to 1970, 2 vols. Washington, DC: Govt Printing Office, 1975. 26. US Bureau of the Census: Consistency of reporting of ethnic origin in the current population survey. Technical Paper No. 31. Washington, DC: The Bureau, 1979; 52. 27. Moquin W: A Documentary History of the Mexican Americans. New York: Bantam, 1971; 365. 28. California Bureau of Child Hygiene: Maternal and Child Health among the Mexican Groups in San Bernardino and Imperial Counties. Sacramento: California State Department of Public Health, 1938; 38. 29. Cantril H (ed): Public Opinion, 1935-1946. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951; 502. 30. US Bureau of the Census, 1979, op. cit., p 61. 31. Bureau of the Census: 1950 Census of the Population: Tracted Cities. California. Washington, DC: Govt Printing Office, Bulletin P-D28, 1952; 2. 32. Senate Fact Finding Committee on Commerce and Economic Development: California Statistical Abstract. Sacramento: State Printing Division, 1958. 33. US Bureau of the Census, 1979, op. cit., p 70. 34. Siegel JS, Passel JS: Coverage of the Hispanic population of the United
35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.
States in the 1970 census: A new sociological analysis. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Special Studies, No. 82, pp 2-3, 1979. US Bureau of the Census, 1979, op. cit., p 75. Siegel JS, Passel JS, op. cit. p 8. Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 87, Thursday, May 4, 1978, p 19269. Langley R: Hispanics: It's all a matter of classification. Arizona Republic, 1980. Smith R: S.F. Debate-Are Spaniards Hispanics?" San Francisco Chronicle, 1985. US Bureau of the Census: Persons of Spanish Origin by State: 1980. Washington, DC: Govt Printing Office, Supplementary Report PC80-S 1-7, 1982. Ibid., p 18. del Olmo F: Los Angeles Times, May 1, 1981. del Olmo F: Los Angeles Times, October 25, 1981. Casparius R: La Opinion. Los Angeles, January 14, 1986.
45. Los Angeles Times Style Guide (n.d.) 46. Monsivais C: Amor Perdido. Mexico City, Era, 1982. 47. Jaffe AJ, Cullen RM: The Changing Demography of Spanish America. New York: Academic Press, 1980; 3. 48. Boijas G, Tienda M: Hispanics in the US Economy. New York: Academic Press, 1985; 1-5. 49. Arce C: Screening questionnaire for the National Chicano Survey. Ann Arbor: Institute for Survey Research, University of Michigan (mimeograph), 1979. 50. US Bureau of the Census: Comparison of persons of Spanish surname and persons of Spanish origin in the United States. Technical Paper No. 38, Washington, DC: The Bureau 1975; 1. 51. Howard CA, Sumil JM, Buechley RW, Schrag SD, Key CR: Survey research in New Mexico Hispanics: Some methodological issues. Am J Epidemiol 1982; 117:27-34. 52. Padilla FM: On the nature of Latin ethnicity. Soc Sci Q Summer 1984; 65:(2).
'Coping with AIDS'
A free publication, Coping with AIDS, is now available for health professionals. The pamphlet, designed to assist health care workers as they face the difficult task of providing health services for AIDS patients, is published by the National Institute of Mental Health. Subtitled "Psychological and Social Considerations in Helping People with HTLV-III Infection," the guide was developed to increase understanding of AIDS patients' anxiety, depression, anger and guilt so that care providers can better help them, their families and friends come to terms with the illness. The booklet also explains how AIDS affects the central nervous system, how persons with AIDS-related complex (ARC) may require mental health care similar to that given to persons with AIDS, and how support groups can be helpful. Coping with AIDS points out that "health care professionals, while trained to respond to the ... needs of their patients, face added challenges in helping people with AIDS." The booklet points to two major challenges: * Health professionals must learn to serve patients with a new and unfamiliar disease-to treat and comfort people with AIDS who face great suffering and death, and to provide information that will help lead to prevention of AIDS. * Health care workers must provide this help while at the same time coping with their own fears and their own pain in caring for patients who do not get well or whose outcome is uncertain. Free single copies of Coping with AIDS are available from Public Inquiries, National Institute of Mental Health, Room 15C-05, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.
AJPH January 1987, Vol. 77, No. 1