Throughout this report, there appear discussions of the limitations of the data and the need, not only for more, but for better information about the population called Latino. As anyone who has dealt with issues relating with this community quickly discovers, there is a confusing variety of terms used to refer to that population: Latino, Spanish speaking, White persons of Spanish surname, Latin American, Hispanic, Hispano, Mexican-American, Puerto Rican-American, Boricua, Cuban -American, etc. These terms do not mean the same thing, although they are often erroneously used interchangeably.
The problems arise both from the composition and the history of the population which emerged from the former Spanish and Portuguese empires in America. The Spanish empire, which once stretched from the tip of South America to areas now possessed by the United States and Canada, and the Portuguese empire, which consisted of Brazil, were multi-racial societies in which Indians, Europeans, Americans, and Asians intermingled, although the Indian population remained the largest. After independence in the 182Os, some of the new nations received new immigrants from Europe and from Asia. Although the majority of the population of the area was Roman Catholic, some of the new immigrants were Jewish, Moslem, etc. As a result, the people of the area now known as Latin America include the descendants of Europeans, Asians, American, and American Indians as well as mixtures of those groups. Equally, Latin Americans, while mostly Catholic, include Jews, Protestants, and Moslems as well as members of other religions. Thus, Latinos do not constitute either a race or an ethnic or religious group. They do not represent a social class; some are urban, highly educated, and wealthy while others may be rural, poorly educated, and poor. Nor do they all speak the same language. While most speak Spanish, important groups speak American Indian languages such as Nahuatl, Maya and Zapotec, some speak Portuguese, while still others speak a creole. Finally, there are vast differences in the immigrant experience of Latinos. Some have been citizens of the United States since 1848 when they were conquered; others have arrived only recently. Thus, some are English speaking, others are Spanish speaking and still others are bilingual. Because of these differences, the terms used to refer to these populations possess significant policy implications.
There is no term currently acceptable to all "Latinos," although that term is becoming more popular. This report uses the term Latino. Nevertheless, it is important to briefly consider the significance of existing terminology. The problem arises because there is no "natural" term to use to refer to the area which once constituted the Spanish and Portuguese empires in America. When the Spaniards arrived in 1492, nearly 500 years ago, they called the new continent las indias, the Indies, and its people indios, Indians, because they initially believed that they had landed in India. The term was accepted and persisted for several centuries, sometimes with modifications, such as the West Indies. In the late eighteenth century, the educated people of the New World from Chile to the colonies that subsequently became the United States began calling themselves Americans to distinguish themselves from their colonial mother lands. In this respect, they were using the name of their continent to refer to themselves, just as the people of Europe might call themselves Europeans. But if the people from Mexico could refer to themselves as Mexicans and those from Colombia as Colombians, the people from the United States found it awkward to call themselves United Statesians. Therefore, they insisted on calling themselves
Americans. The other Americans--those from Mexico to Chile--were unwilling to give up their continental name and continued to refer to themselves as Americans. Even today, many people in Latin America call their area America, or sometimes nuestra America, our America, to differentiate themselves from English speaking America.
In the nineteenth century, the question of the appropriate name for the countries of the New World was of considerable importance to the European nations who wanted to trade with them. England opted for calling the U.S. America and the region south of the Rio Grande South America, even though the equator, the division between the northern and southern hemispheres, passed through the northern part of the Republic of Ecuador, several thousand miles south of the Rio Grande. Spain wished to refer to the area as Hispano America, Hispanic America, since the term Hispanic could also encompass the heirs of Portugal. It advanced the notion of Hispanismo, Hispanism, a concept which held that there was something unique about the "Hispanic" peoples which transcended race and which made them different from the other cultural groups in the world. At other times, Spain preferred the term Spanish America to refer to its former colonies. These terms also gained some vogue in the region. France, however, which was most interested in asserting influence over the new nations, introduced the concept of Latinidad or the inheritance of the Latin peoples. The notion of Latin, 6r Latino, was broader than Hispanic since it embraced all the people who spoke a Romance language, a language derived from Latin: France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, and Romania as well as the people in the New World from the former Spanish and Portuguese empires and the French possessions in the Western Hemisphere. Thus, the term Latin America was introduced in the middle of the nineteenth century and slowly gained ascendancy over the other terms. Given the prestige of French culture, the term Latin America has become generally accepted throughout the world. Nevertheless, the people of the Latin American countries still refer to their region as America, Hispanic America or Spanish America.
A comparable evolution of complex terminology occurred in the U.S. The conquered people of the Southwest developed regional terms, such as texano in Texas, and hispano in New Mexico. Other terms emerged as the region grew. Mexican, Mexican American, and Chicano developed for the people of Mexican ancestry. Those from other countries used their national names or began calling themselves Latin American, Latin, or Hispanic. Indeed, some organizations invoked those names, as in LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens, or MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund.
Government agencies, including the Bureau of the Census, have also varied in their nomenclature. For a time the Bureau accepted the widely held Anglo American notion that Mexicans and other Latin American peoples constituted a non-white race. The 1930 Census, for example, included under race the category "Mexican" alongside "white" and "colored." In 1940, this distinction was changed and Latinos were collapsed into the "white" category. In spite of that change, many Mexican Americans insisted on differentiating themselves and declaring themselves as "other," often using such terms as mestizo, racially mixed.
Other official attempts to identify the Latino population also proved inadequate.
The category "Spanish speaking" fails to identify the Latino community because not everyone speaks Spanish. Since language ability changes with time, many second or third generation Latinos are more proficient in English than in Spanish. It is estimated that only half of the present California Latino population is more proficient in Spanish than in English. In addition, not all Latinos speak Spanish. The people of Brazil, the largest Latin American nation, speak Portuguese. And many recent immigrants have as their primary language an Indian language such as Mixtec or Zapotec.
The categories "Spanish surname" and "white persons of Spanish surname" also fail to identify Latinos because not all of them possess a Spanish patronymic. Some, of course, have Indian names, but others are descendants of immigrants from areas outside of Spain. A few examples from Latin America will make this clear. The liberator of Chile was Bernardo O'Higgins; Pedro Vuskovic was one of the leading members of the late Salvador Allende's government; Juscelino Kubitschek was president of Brazil in 1955; the dictator of Paraguay, Alfredo Stroessner was recently deposed; and one of Mexico's foremost living historians, Edmundo O'Gorman, is the descendant of the first English consul to Mexico who arrived and settled there in 1822.
The existence and reliance on such varied terminology is an impediment both to research and to the development of appropriate policy. The confusion is readily apparent and not without serious policy consequences. The various terms often refer to different, but overlapping groups, and imply diverse policy approaches. The Latino population is extremely diverse, too heterogeneous to be considered a single monolithic racial, cultural or linguistic entity. Nevertheless, there is a tendency among policy makers to assume that there is a single entity called Latin America and a single population called here Latinos. On the basis of that perception, relatively uniform policy has been historically adopted and implemented without regard for the great differences in that group. Therefore, it is imperative that consistent and appropriate terminology be adopted and implemented so that internally consistent data can be gathered and analyzed. There are a number of factors which should be taken into account in developing categories of analysis:
Nativity. Not all Latinos are immigrants, although a considerable proportion are. In contrast to the "general" immigrant experience in the U.S. where at the height of the European immigration approximately 14% of the population was foreign born, among Latinos 37% were foreign born according to the 1980 census. The differences between native born and foreign born are marked. The native born Latinos earn about 25% more than the foreign born and possess approximately 25% more education than the immigrants. Moreover the native born are usually proficient in English whereas the foreign born are primarily Spanish speakers. Thus, two very different Latino populations exist, often living side by side and sometimes even sharing the same residence. Their needs, however, are quite different.
National origin often divides the Latino population. Latinos often settle in different regions of the U.S. as a result of national immigration patterns. California, for example, has attracted large numbers of Mexicans, but few Cubans or Puerto Ricans. Immigrants from some countries tend to be more European while others are primarily mestizo and Indian. Those from countries like Argentina, Chile or Cuba tend to be upper and middle classes, often educated and members of the professions, and often arrive with wealth or resources, while those from Mexico, Puerto Rico and Central America tend to be from rural areas, possess little education and few resources or are impoverished.
Class differences are significant for policy considerations. Mexican, Cuban, and Argentine millionaires living in the U.S., for example, have more in common with one another than with their fellow countrymen. Middle class Latinos, who are more numerous than millionaires, of course, represent a small but important force in the Latino community. The majority of the Latino population consists of the working class who, in many instances, have different needs than the other groups.
Residence patterns also affect the needs and therefore the policy considerations regarding Latinos. Most are urban dwellers, but a significant group are rural.
Permanence also varies. Not all immigrants stay in the U.S. Given the proximity of countries of origin, many will spend part of their time in their native land. For policy purposes, there are at least three different categories of permanence.
1. Permanent. Those who reside and work permanently in the United States. Often, this is accompanied by purchase of real estate, automobiles, and other sorts of accoutrements of permanent residence. While permanent residents may travel to Mexico for extended periods, it is for vacation purposes, not for work purposes. Permanent immigrants are, for policy intents and purposes, full members of California society.
2. Seasonal. Some immigrants move between Mexico and California on an annual basis. Such a person will spend about half the year in each country. When the entire family is involved in seasonal immigration, the children are educated in two different educational environments, and the family receives health care in two different health environments.
3. Commuter. A localized, border phenomenon, commuters cross over daily or weekly between the U.S. and Mexico for shopping, employment, or pleasure.
Legal status also varies and affects the Latino population differently.
1. Citizens. Citizens possess all the benefits and responsibilities of U.S. society.
2. Documented. Such persons have recourse to certain public policy efforts, such as health services.
3. Undocumented. In spite of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, the undocumented are
still present and active in the economy. Their call on public policy is unresolved, be it for education of their children or the need for policy protection.
4. Amnestied. A new category has emerged as a result of IRCA -- those who have sought amnesty. This group is not well defined in terms of legal and policy status.
The Latino population can be divided into many different groups for policy purposes. There is no single policy that is appropriate for the entire Latino population. Any given policy will have differential effect on the various Latino sub-populations. These differences must be acknowledged and carefully examined. Only by keeping these differences in mind can an effective overall set of policies be developed to address the needs and aspirations of the complex and varied Latino population.