The Hispanic question

It’s really a perplexing thought. Just the concept of “Hispanic” or “Latino” is confusing. Most of us think we are talking about one type of person when we really have not the faintest idea of the whole picture behind the ill-conceived term.

Ever since the United States created a new ethnic group out of thin air, we’ve been attempting to come to grips with the Hispanic question. What do we do about “illegal” immigrants – or immigrants in general? What do we do about the established English language?

With all the talk in the papers about the increasing “Hispanic” population in the U.S. – and with it, the predictions of a dual-language nation by the year 2050 – one would think it’d be a good time to figure out what exactly we are talking about.

So, I’m here to help. First, we’ll figure out what we mean by “Hispanic” or “Latino” or what we want to mean, or what we think we mean.

The U.S. government created the term because they needed to compile socioeconomic and other demographic data on its citizens. It seemed there was a distinct group that had many similarities, and we’d do best to label them one way to make things simpler and more efficient. The U.S. was becoming home to many of today’s tired and poor from our neighbors down south, mostly Mexico and Central America (mostly El Salvador).

Many began to live in communities of their own, spoke the same language of course – and shared similar problems adapting to the U.S. Most were in a similar economic status on the money ladder as well. It is here where the U.S. decided it was necessary to begin to compile data including this new group.

But who are these people? The U.S. decided to bunch in all of South America – except the non-Spanish speaking parts – arbitrarily. Why? Brazilian immigrants are of a very similar demographic background and are of a Latin country, but they speak Portuguese. And what about Dutch Suriname? Central America, too, includes English-speaking Belize.

So let’s think about this for a minute because clearly a geographic area this large cannot be considered one group. But, for statistical purposes they were. And now, in the American psyche, they are as well. So what started out as really a distinct name for the vastly mestizo people of Mexico and Central America became something to call a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Chilean of German descent or another white person from Argentina of Italian descent or a black person from Ecuador, or a Zapotec Indian from Chiapas, Mexico. Or did it? It should if you are to take the U.S. government’s fabricated word “Hispanic” literally. Clearly, then, we are not talking of a racial identity. But then what are we talking about?

A rich Japanese entrepreneur from Peru would technically fit the requirements (I bet none of you knew about the huge Japanese population in Peru, either). Even the tall white folks like President Vicente Fox of Mexico, who is of Irish ancestry. But clearly this is not what the U.S. government wanted to collect data on.

Spain of course, despite being “Hispanic” (it is the descendant of the Roman province of Hispania, after all) is left out of this melee. Why, when those of pure Spanish descent in the Americas are counted in? Why, when a fourth-generation Chicano American who can’t speak a lick of Spanish is in as well? Again with the confusion. Well, Spain is in Europe; that’s why. And Europeans are supposed to go under “Caucasian,” folks, alongside the Arab and North African people. C’mon.

That shows the whole problem with categorizing human beings. But do we stop categorizing? Apparently that’s what the Frenchies did in the name of racial equality, and looked what happened to them. I guess this is one of those damned if you do, damned if you don’t deals.

Nevertheless, what we can do is call upon the idiot Republicans in Congress to support their fellow Republican Mr. Bush in his plan to bring these “Hispanics” into the American fabric, which for some reason the former deep down in their hearts don’t want, despite their hiding behind “economics” or other lame excuses.

President Bush is a Texan, and so he understands this issue. Mexico on down is a poorer land then these here Anglo-Saxon-founded United States. These United States seem to have a lot of work that the Mexicans and others would love to have because work is harder to find in their countries. Can we deny people this basic human desire, to earn one’s daily bread? Apparently we can. Just look at the 1924 Quota Act, which greatly limited the numbers of certain immigrants (mostly Italians) based on their “racial makeup” and the threat they posed in changing the face of Anglo-America. But should we? Not unless we haven’t learned anything in the last 80 years.

So while the Republicans in Congress are acting like the Democrats in the 1920s with their social Darwinism and idea of what America should be culturally, Bush offers a solution to a problem that won’t go away with 20-foot fortified walls that some Republican Congressmen want to have erected all along the southern border (I’m sure a northern equivalent with French-speaking Quebec is in the plans as well).

Bush merely wants to offer people a life and job here, and papers to go along with it. That’s all the Irish, Italians, Poles and Jews wanted in yesteryear, and yeah, they forever changed the face and culture of the original Anglo-Saxon America, but I think we can all agree it was for the better.

Alex Marra may be reached at chemarrini@yahoo.com