by David Schmidt

“Oh, Lupita? She’s, you know… She’s one of those Mexicans from Guatemala.”

-overheard at an office in San Diego

Okay, we know the above statement is incorrect—Guatemala is not located in Mexico. Still, many people in the U.S. are confused about which terms should be used to refer to someone of Latin American ancestry. Hispanic, Latino, Chicano, Latinx… Is there any difference between these words? Is one better, more modern, more respectful than the others? To quote the film The Big Lebowski… What is “the preferred nomenclature”?

For some people, the choice of terms is extremely important. One opinion piece was published in Vibe under the pithy title, “Why You Should Give the Term ‘Hispanic’ the Middle Finger.” The author describes the word “Hispanic” as “a product of oppression and colonialism,” definitively declaring that “no Latino should ever choose to identify with the term ‘Spanish’.”

Meanwhile, many other people in the community prefer the term “Hispanic” over “Latino.” Some are diehard fans of the newly-created word “Latinx,” while others prefer “Chicano.” Some folks use all these words interchangeably. What is the difference between them, anyway? What do they all mean?

Join me on a journey deep into the world of language, identity, and culture. As we will see, the history of all these terms is as rich and complex as the history of the Americas itself.

What does “Hispanic” mean? Where did the word come from? Who is included in this demographic?

The above quote—overheard by my friend in San Diego—illustrates an obvious point: not all people of Latin American heritage are from Mexico. Spanish is the official language of 19 countries in the Americas and is widely spoken in several others. To state the obvious: not all of these people are Mexican. At its most literal level, the word “Hispanic” refers to all of them: anyone from a place where Spanish is spoken is Hispanic.

For years, there was no blanket term to refer to people from Spanish-speaking countries and their descendants in the United States. People of Latin American descent identified according to their country of origin, or based on the region where they lived in the U.S. They were Mexicans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans. They were Texans, Californians, and New Yorkers.

When the government and the media did refer to these people collectively, they used terms like “Spanish-Americans,” “Spanish-speaking Americans,” and “Spanish-surnamed Americans.” None of these titles were entirely accurate. The only people who are truly “Spanish” are from Spain, after all. Many Latino people in the U.S. don’t speak Spanish, and many have last names that don’t come from Spain. (One notable example: the surname of Mexican actress Salma Hayek is Lebanese.)

Up to the mid 20th century, the U.S. Census Bureau categorized people from Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Cuba as “white.” In contrast with this classification, however, these communities often faced widespread discrimination from the government and their Anglo neighbors.

When the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848, the U.S. took ownership of the northern half of Mexico’s territory: Alta California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and Texas. Almost immediately after the treaty, Mexican residents were systematically mistreated. Their historic land grants were not recognized, their children were forced to adopt the English language, and Mexican culture was disparaged in the English-language media.

Well into the twentieth century, many schools in the Southwest were segregated. Students of Mexican descent were sent to schools of subpar quality, similar to what African-American communities faced in the Southeast. Businesses and employers frequently discriminated against them. In parts of Texas, Arizona, California and elsewhere, it was common for bars and shops to post signs that announced: NO DOGS OR MEXICANS ALLOWED. People from other Latin American countries faced similar conditions in many other parts of the United States as well.

By the 1960s, activists from these communities started to speak up. They came from a diverse group of countries and origins: New York had a sizeable Puerto Rican population; a large Cuban community lived in Florida; Mexican heritage was common in the Southwest. Despite their diverse origins, however, these communities faced many of the same challenges.

As they protested against discrimination, poverty, and unequal treatment, they pushed for unity. As African Americans were uniting all over the country and Native Americans crossed cultural and tribal lines to organize, people of Latin American descent also came together around a common cause. Regardless of whether their families came from Mexico, Puerto Rico, or Colombia, their struggle was the same.

A broader identity was being forged under the name “Hispanic.”

Activists began to lobby the Census Bureau to recognize this identity. One reason was very concrete and practical: before the classification existed, it was impossible for the Census to accurately reflect poverty rates for Mexican-American communities, in comparison with the white population. Finally, in 1980, the U.S. Census introduced the term “Hispanic” for the first time.

Years before this official government recognition, though, the idea of a pan-Hispanic identity had been gaining popularity—and not just among activists and advocates. In addition to community organizers, advertisers were some of the first big proponents of the idea. Companies saw the chance to sell their products to a broader market. Rather than marketing specifically to the Mexican-American community or the Cuban-American community, they could appeal to a broader demographic by focusing their commercials on “the Hispanic market.”

“This label can capture so many people who are so radically different from one another,” writes UC Berkeley sociologist G. Cristina Mora. Her book, “Making Hispanics: How Activists, Bureaucrats, and Media Constructed a New America” (University of Chicago Press), is a detailed history of the pan-Hispanic identity, and the groups that helped solidify it. In a 2014 interview, Mora described “an almost perfect storm in the 1970s when activists, the media and government bureaucrats learned how to work together to put out this pan-ethnic message.”

However, that was not the end of the story. Other names for the community would soon pop up, challenging the legitimacy of the title “Hispanic.”

So, what’s the problem with the word “Hispanic”? Why do some people find “Hispanic” offensive or inaccurate?

Two main complaints have been brought against the term “Hispanic”: 1. It focuses on European heritage, defining people exclusively by their cultural connection with Spain, and 2. It excludes many Latin American people who don’t speak Spanish.

As communities organized across the U.S. in the decades following the 1960s, some began objecting to the word “Hispanic.” “Why should we identify ourselves with Spain?” they asked. “Latin America has a rich, diverse heritage, one that draws from indigenous cultures, African roots, and many other traditions. Why ignore those roots?”

In his 2004 book, “The Transcendent Journey,” author Matthew R. Fraijo describes the term Hispanic as “very Eurocentric,” a word that “denies our indigenous heritage.” And, he emphasizes, “The Aztecs had a society far more advanced than anything in Europe at the time.”

Many activists said that the concept of a Hispanic identity covered up that indigenous heritage, focusing only on the language and culture of the conqueror. And, they emphasized, the Spanish conquest was an act of brutal violence.

Another problem with the term “Hispanic” is one of accuracy: one of the largest countries in South America doesn’t even speak Spanish. The official language of Brazil is Portuguese, and there are many more Brazilian-born people than Spanish-born people in the U.S.—325,547 Brazilians vs. 88,665 Spanish, as of 2012.

As a language-based term, “Hispanic” excludes these Brazilians and their descendants, despite commonalities with other Latinos. Words like “Latino” and “Latin America” include them, but do not include Europeans from Spain and Portugal. The idea behind such terms is to focus on the shared identity and history of Latin American nations.

There is another issue of accuracy with the word “Hispanic”: many countries outside of the Americas have a history of Spanish colonization. The Philippines, the Mariana islands, Palau, Guam and Micronesia have historic ties to Spain, and Spanish is still widely spoken in the Western Sahara and the African country of Equatorial Guinea. And yet, few would refer to these people as “Hispanics.”

Chicano: a new word born of activism, resistance, and community identity

During the community organizing, marches, and protests of the 1960s, another term was emerging: “Chicano.” It was proposed as a way for a community to name itself, based on its own experience and history. Rather than a word selected by the U.S. government or derived from the English language, “Chicano” emerged in the unique jargon of the Mexican-American communities of the Southwest.

According to one anecdotal tradition, the word comes from the early 20th century, when millions of refugees fled southern Mexico during the Mexican Revolution. Many of them did not speak Spanish as their first language—they spoke Náhuatl, the historic language of the Aztec (Mexica) civilization. When people in the U.S. asked where they were from, these Náhuatl-speakers replied “mexicano,” the Spanish word for Mexican. (Ethnic and national terms are not capitalized in Spanish.) Because of their native language, these migrants pronounced the “X” of mexicano in the traditional Náhuatl form: as a soft “sh” sound. It came out “me-shicano.” Their neighbors mocked them, imitating their “mispronunciation.” Eventually, though, the descendants of the migrants appropriated the term as their own, proudly claiming it. “Mexicano” became “meshicano,” which was then shortened to “chicano.”

While this origin story may be apocryphal, the term “Chicano” was widespread by the early 20th century. Documented use of it goes back as far as 1911, to an essay by anthropologist José Limón from the University of Texas. Activists loved that the word had evolved in the community naturally and praised its association with indigenous culture. The term has made its mark on the history of many communities. A park in San Diego, built by the Mexican-American community in the 1960s in defense of their neighborhood, bears the name “Chicano Park” to this day.

However, it is mostly limited to the Mexican-American experience. Although some use “Chicano” to refer to all Latinos, it refers more commonly to people of Mexican heritage. In addition, many understand it to refer specifically to descendants of Mexicans. People born in Mexico would not be included under this definition, let alone people from the rest of Latin America.

Many felt the need for a broader term—one that included all the countries people had migrated from, one that wasn’t focused on Spain as a point of identification. And so, the word “Latino” was born.

Latin America and the Latino identity: bigger than just one country, bigger than just one language

By the 19th century, some people began using a new term to refer to a large part of the Americas. It referred to a broader region than just Spanish-speaking countries, one that included all Romance languages: Spanish, French, and Portuguese. The term was “Latin America.”

The first record of it being used comes from a conference held in 1856: The Initiative of the Americas, Idea for a Federal Congress of the Republics. A politician from Chile, Francisco Bilbao, referred to the broader region as “Latin America,” and the concept of a “Latin American region” became broadly accepted.

During the Civil Rights era in the United States, the concept seemed like a handy way to include all people whose heritage came from this region. Many people began referring to this group by the Spanish-language term “latinos.” Women were referred to as “latinas”—but more on that later.

The word had many benefits over “Hispanic”: it affirmed the Spanish language, while including non-Spanish speakers. It focused on the geography of the Americas, not on the European heritage of Spain. In addition to including Brazilians and their descendants, the “Latino” identity also included the French-speaking territories of the Americas: Haiti, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, and Martinique, among others.

The word gained popularity as an inclusive term for a broader demographic.

Why do some people dislike the term “Latino”?

As is the case with “Hispanic,” the word “Latino” has its detractors. Some people say that it is still a Eurocentric term: it defines a region’s inhabitants according to the European countries that colonized them. Rather than emphasizing indigenous or African ancestry, they say, “Latino” puts the focus on the cultural heritage of Spain, Portugal, and France.

Another issue people bring up is the complicated history behind the term “Latin America” itself. At the time when Napoleon III was in power in France, the French actively promoted the term Amerique Latine. Their interests were not neutral: they wanted to strengthen France’s colonial influence over the Americas.

By drawing focus to the Latin heritage of certain countries—their ties to the French, Spanish, and Portuguese cultures—France hoped to exert influence over the newly independent countries of Latin America. Ultimately, they wanted to justify French intervention in the region. The history behind the term “Latin America” is intricately tied to French colonialism.

Another issue with the concept of a Latin American identity is where to draw the line. Technically, the term “Latin America” could include any part of the Americas with a history of a Latin-based language: French-speaking parts of the U.S. and Canada (Louisiana and Quebec), as well as many parts of the U.S. with a history of Spanish: Florida, Texas, California, Arizona, and so on. However, the conventional idea of Latin America usually does not include these regions.

On the other hand, many countries in the region have similar histories, cultures, and experiences, although they do not speak a Latin language. The regional bloc known as the “Community of Latin American and Caribbean States” (CELAC) includes many countries that speak English and Dutch: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Santa Lucia, Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago.

True, these “Latin American countries” don’t speak Spanish, French, or Portuguese. However, they have many things in common with countries that do: issues of economy and development; a history of colonization and a colonial relationship to the rest of the world; a similar mix of cultural roots from Europe, Africa and indigenous traditions.

Are these countries to be included in Latin America based on geography and similar economic conditions? Or is Latin American identity more based on linguistic and cultural factors? It’s a question without an easy answer.

When it comes to the term “Latino,” though, others object to it because they say that it is too inclusive—to the point of including people from Europe. Grace Flores-Hughes is a former U.S. government bureaucrat who promoted the term “Hispanic” back in the 1970s. In an interview with the Washington Post, she said:

“I believe that [the word “Hispanic”] represents the Hispanic Americans of this country. It best describes who we are based on our Hispanic surnames. . . . The reason I am not in favor of "Latino" or "Latina" is that those terms can represent the people of the Mediterranean. Then you'd be including Portuguese and Italians, if you take it literally. And then it takes away from the Hispanic people of America that need to be counted: Who are we; how are we being served by the government; who do we vote for? How are you going to come to a conclusion if you're mixing apples and oranges?”

Where did the word “Latinx” come from? Is it a real word? What does it mean? How do you pronounce it?

“Latinx” is a neologism: a newly-created word. It first appeared online in the early 2000s, and has really caught on during the past decade. People pronounce it in a variety of ways, including “Latin-EKS,” “la-TEEN-eks,” and “la-TEENKS.” Why was this new word invented, though?

The driving force behind “Latinx” was to create a word that was entirely gender-neutral. People sought a word that included males, females, and nonbinary people, without specifying any particular gender identity. It has been especially popular in the LGBT+ community. To understand why the neologism was created to replace “Latino,” though, we need to understand a thing or two about the Spanish language.

As with other Romance languages, all nouns in Spanish have a gender: they are either male or female. Most male words end in -o, while most female words end in -a. What about a person who is nonbinary or gender fluid, though—someone who doesn’t identify as strictly male or female? What sort of noun could they use to refer to themselves, in a language where all nouns are gendered? Some have proposed the -x ending as a way of eliminating gender from a noun altogether.

Another reason the word “Latinx” was invented has to do with how the plural is formed in Spanish. Whenever a group of people includes men and women, the masculine plural form -os is used. Some argue that this is inherently biased against women, especially in how it plays out in the real world.

For instance: if ten male cooks are in the kitchen, they are referred to collectively as los cocineros. If ten female cooks are in the kitchen, the feminine plural form is used: las cocineras. However, if there are nine female cooks and just one male cook, the whole group is then referred to with the masculine plural: los cocineros.

Those who support the term “Latinx” say it resolves this issue by referring to everyone in a gender-neutral way.

Why do some people dislike the word “Latinx”?

By this point, it should be clear that none of these terms are free of detractors. That is certainly the case with “Latinx.” Many people agree with the goals of inclusion, but don’t believe this neologism is the right way to address them.

Some in the Latino community are upset that the word does not come from the Spanish language at all. Indeed, the word “Latinx” is largely a creation of the English-speaking word, and is not entirely functional in Spanish. While it can be pronounced “Latin-eks” or “La-TEEN-eks” in English, it becomes much more difficult to pronounce in Spanish.

For starters, the letter “X” is named equis in Spanish. This would make the singular form of “Latinx” cumbersome: “latinequis.” The plural would be even more clunky: “latinéquises.” If you add the article “los” and adjust it, using an “X” for gender neutrality, it is essentially impossible to pronounce: “lxs latinxs.”

This brings up another issue with “Latinx”: digital screen readers used by the visually impaired. Some disability rights advocates have complained about the neologism, saying that it cannot be pronounced by these screen readers.

One key argument against “Latinx” is rooted in the dynamics of the Spanish language. Language purists stress that there is a key difference between the concepts of “natural gender” and “grammatical gender.”

Natural gender is self-explanatory: a male person or animal uses male terms; a female uses female terms. If a person identifies as female, that person will use the pronoun “she.” Simple enough, right? However, grammatical gender has nothing to do with anatomy, with male or female identity. A table in Spanish is feminine: la mesa, while a plate is masculine: el plato. There is nothing inherently ladylike about the table, and nothing manly about the plate: both nouns use arbitrary grammatical genders.

In fact, some languages have grammatical genders for people that flat-out contradict their natural gender. In German, the word for a little girl does not carry the masculine or feminine gender, but rather the neuter gender: das Mädchen. Likewise, many words for people in the Spanish language have a feminine gender, even when they refer to men: la persona, la víctima, and so on. Many other words can be masculine, although they always end in -a: altruista, humanista, capitalista, comunista, etc.

Based on all these linguistic factors, some say that a new word like “Latinx” was never needed in the first place. The plural form los latinos is not the imposition of male identity on anyone, they argue, but is rather a case of non-natural grammatical gender.

Of course, not all Spanish-speakers agree. The same debate about gender-neutral language exists in the Spanish-speaking world, and many activists believe the language should be modified to eliminate gendered pronouns. However, rather than the awkward “-x” ending, they propose alternate forms of language modifications which are more functional in Spanish.

One of the most popular alternatives builds on an existing feature of the Spanish language: using the letter “E” to replace the gendered “A” and “O.” Rather than referring to a group of friends with the male plural, “los amigos,” or the female plural, “las amigas,” they would simply be “les amigues.” Similarly, the plural of “Latinos” would simply be “les latines.”

Despite its detractors, however, the neologism “Latinx” doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon. In many academic circles and media of the United States and Canada, it has become the norm.

While some will complain about any neologism, we cannot forget that language is constantly changing, adjusting to a changing context. After all, there was once a time—just a few decades ago—when some scoffed at the idea of referring to women as “Ms.” They insisted that “Miss” and “Mrs.” worked just fine. Now, however, “Ms.” is just another accepted part of our language.

Okay, but why is there an “X” in “Latinx”? What is the meaning of the letter “X”?

One proponent of “Latinx,” “Latines” and other gender-neutral terms is Chicano author and professor David Bowles. In his essay “What the Hex a Latinx?” he cites anecdotal stories from South American protests in the 1990s. According to Bowles, activists would paint an “X” over the -os endings of their signs, symbolically eliminating the gendered pronouns.

In algebra, the letter “X” symbolizes an unknown element. In this context, its use can be compared to the ambiguity of the term “Ms.” The new title was created under the argument of, “Why should a woman have to always specify whether she is married or single?” In essence, the non-gendered “X” can symbolize that an individual’s gender identity, like their marital status, is nobody’s business but their own.

The letter “X” has other cultural associations that may add to its appeal as well—especially in progressive circles in the English-speaking world.

In 1950, African-American civil rights activist Malcolm Little began signing his name “Malcolm X.” The single letter symbolized the African cultural heritage that had been stolen. “For me,” Malcolm X later said, “my 'X' replaced the white slavemaster name of 'Little' which some blue-eyed devil named Little had imposed upon my paternal forebears.” (Malcolm X autobiography.)

Likewise, some feminist activists prefer to spell the word “woman” as “womxn,” in order to avoid a word derived from “man.” In both contexts, the letter “X” is associated with rebellion against the dominant culture and assertion of identity.

While “Latinx” is largely a creation of the English-speaking world, the letter “X” has indirect cultural associations with Mexico—beginning with the name of the country itself.

In the medieval Spanish language, “X” was pronounced the same as the Spanish “J.” It was a throaty “H” sound, referred to in linguistics as a voiceless uvular fricative (“χ” in the International Phonetic Alphabet). The first Spanish conquistadores who reached the Americas came in contact with the Mexica civilization (pronounced “meh-SHEE-cah”), a native term the Aztecs used for themselves. The Spanish Hispanicized this word as “México.”

Centuries later, when Mexico won its independence in 1810, the nation retained the old spelling. Despite the fact that the voiceless uvular fricative sound is universally spelled with “J” in modern Mexican Spanish, the archaic use of the “X” persists in the country’s name, as well as a few other geographical terms like the State of Oaxaca. It has become a matter of national pride and identity. (Meanwhile, the spelling has been standardized in contemporary Spain, with people from Mexico referred to as mejicanos.)

There is one more reason why some associate this letter with Mexican cultural heritage: it is frequently used in the Náhuatl language. The native tongue of the ancient Aztec empire is much more than a historic relic, spoken by close to 2 million indigenous people in Mexico today. As was discussed above, the letter “X” represents the “sh” sound (“ʃ” in the International Phonetic Alphabet) in Náhuatl. Some Náhuatl-based personal names are common across Mexico, including Xóchitl, the word for flower (pronounced “SHO-chitl”).

For some in the Latino community, the letter “X” itself has taken on heavy symbolism, representing pride, resistance, and assertion of indigenous identity.

Do people in Latin American countries refer to themselves with words like “Latinx,” “Latino,” and “Hispanic”?

In Latin American countries, the Spanish-language equivalents of “Latino” and “Hispanic” (latino and hispano, respectively) are primarily used to refer to people in the United States.

The reason for this is that the pan-Latino identity is primarily a U.S. construction. Latin America is referred to as a geographical region, of course: América Latina y el Caribe, Latinoamérica, or often simply as América. (In contrast with the English-speaking world, “América” refers to the entire continent of North and South America, not just to the United States.) However, people rarely speak of a unified “Latino ethnicity.”

Authors Marcelo Suarez-Orozco and Mariela Páez mention this issue in their book, Latinos: Remaking America (University of California Press):

“The very term Latino has meaning only in reference to the U.S. experience. Outside the United States, we don't speak of Latinos; we speak of Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and so forth. Latinos are made in the USA.”

Of course, the idea of a pan-Latin American identity is common in these countries. The 19th century liberator Simón Bolívar hoped to create one unified nation out of the South American states, and many modern politicians have invoked his memory. In 1925, Mexican author and philosopher José Vasconcelos coined the term “La Raza Cósmica” (The Cosmic Race) to describe the idealized dream of a new civilization and identity emerging in the Americas, made up of the mixing of all other ethnicities.

Before he joined the Cuban Revolution, Ernesto “Che” Guevara echoed this sentiment in the journal of his travels through Latin America:

“We believe—and, after this journey, believe more firmly than ever before—that the division of the Americas into uncertain, illusory nationalities is entirely fictitious. We make up one people of mixed heritage which, from Mexico all the way to the Strait of Magellan, shares notable ethnographic similarities. For this reason, as I try to free myself from the burden of any provincial mentality, I would like to raise my glass in a toast to Peru, and to a united Latin America.”

Diarios De Motocicleta: Notas de Viaje por América Latina, Ocean Press. Translation mine.)

While many people in Latin America speak of unity among the nations and peoples of the region, “Latin American” is a regional and cultural term, not a racial or ethnic one. One reason for this is the great ethnic diversity of the region itself. The ethnic roots of Latin America’s people stretch across the globe, from Europe to Africa, from indigenous peoples to the Middle East, and even further.

Some countries, like Argentina, have a population of largely European descent. Others, like Bolivia, have an indigenous majority. Still others, like the Dominican Republic, show a predominance of African heritage. Many have a rich, even mix of diverse ethnic roots.

For that matter, many people consider each indigenous group as its own ethnicity. These cultures are rich, varied, and far from homogenous. In Mexico alone, at least 68 different native languages are still spoken today. Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Guatemala, and other nations are similarly rich in indigenous traditions. For this reason, the government of deposed Bolivian President Evo Morales declared the nation to be a “plurinational state.”

The concept of a single “Latino ethnicity” is much more closely tied to U.S. culture than to the cultures of Latin America. And when it comes to cultural and ethnic identity in the U.S., a broad range of terms are used by the community itself.

Conclusions: Which one is “the right word”? Hispanic, Latino, Chicano, Latinx… Which term do people prefer?

The Pew Research Center published an extensive survey of Latinos in the U.S. in 2013. Interestingly, when asked which term they preferred to identify themselves, most people did not select “Latino” or “Hispanic” as their first choice at all. The majority identified according to their family’s country of origin: Mexican, Dominican, Chilean, Peruvian, and so forth. Many other respondents, meanwhile, preferred to simply identify as “Americans.”

When it came to pan-ethnic terms, half of those surveyed said they had no preference for “Hispanic” or “Latino”: both were fine. Of those who did have a preference, “Hispanic” was preferred over “Latino” by a two-to-one ratio.

Other surveys and studies have shown that preferences can depend on geographical region. People in the eastern parts of the U.S. prefer to identify as “Hispanic,” while those in the southwest prefer “Latino.”

In short: it’s complicated.

Every term has its pros and cons. Whatever the word may be, some people are strongly in favor of it, others hate it, and many others don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other. Well-developed arguments have been presented by all sides for supporting or rejecting one word over another.

The debate goes beyond the idea of “the right term,” tapping into the deeper issue of identity itself. It’s a discussion that touches on the validity of certain labels and categorizations, interrogating the very concepts of Latin America and pan-Latino identity. Like any human construct—nationality, race, culture—it’s a complex issue. To quote The Big Lebowski again: there are “a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what-have-yous.”

Amidst all this complexity, however, one truth remains solid and objective: people deserve to be called whatever they want to be called. In this sea of different words—Latino, Hispanic, Chicano, Latinx—which one is “the right term” to use? Whichever one a person prefers for themselves.

While culture and identity may be complex issues, one thing isn’t: the question of basic human respect. And that’s something we can all get behind.

David J. Schmidt is an author, podcaster, multilingual translator, and who splits his time between Mexico City and San Diego, California. He is a proponent of fair and alternative forms of trade.

Schmidt has published a variety of books, essays, short stories, and articles in English and Spanish, and is the co-host of the podcast To Russia with Love. He speaks twelve languages and has been to 33 countries. He received his B.A. in psychology from Point Loma Nazarene University.

Website: www.holyghoststories.com

Twitter: @SchmidtTales

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/David-J.-Schmidt/e/B00BXTBY7K

Facebook: @HolyGhostStories

YouTube: Holy Ghosts

Email: HolyGhostStories@gmail.com

Further reading

General information

https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2012/04/04/when-labels-dont-fit-hispanics-and-their-views-of-identity/

https://www.latinousa.org/2014/05/02/invention-hispanics/

https://www.hnmagazine.com/2017/09/difference-hispanic-latino/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_(ethnic_categories)