Some years ago in a letter to Críiticas, an English Speaker’s Guide to the Latest Spanish Language Titles, Irma Flores-Manges encouraged the magazine to “include reviews of books by Latinos written in English,” citing relevant reasons. While expressing sympathy with her reasons, the editors responded that their “current focus was on the Spanish-language publishing world.”
Críiticas fills an important space by focusing on the Spanish-language publishing world, but if that space is focused only on the Spanish-language publishing world then that space is not the space of U.S. Hispanics. For in focusing only on Spanish language publishing Críiticas contributes to the proposition that U.S. Hispanics are essentially a Spanish-language reading group or that non-Hispanic English-speaking Americans are interested in Spanish-language materials. Both are tenuous assumptions, particularly the first.
In the Census Bureau 2000 Supplementary Report on immigration in the 1990s, two-thirds of the children of Hispanic immigrants from this period “rated themselves as speaking English very well” which, by extension, makes them English-language readers as well. U.S. Hispanics are not a linguistically monolithic group, although the lead article in the premier summer 2001 issue of Críiticas read: “How book-sellers can reach out and bring in readers of Spanish: Selling to the 35+ million” by Judith Rosen suggests, mind you, I say suggests, they are. When I was Associate Publisher of La Luz magazine in Denver from 1972 to 1982, we published La Luz in English because our research and market data then showed that only 15% of U.S. Hispanics were monolingual Spanish-language speakers (ergo readers, if literate) while 85% of U.S. Hispanics were English-language speakers (ergo readers). Of that 85%, 15% were monolingual English speakers (ergo readers). That’s why we launched La Luz as the first national Hispanic public affairs magazine in English.
Mostly, second-generation U.S. Hispanics become primarily English speakers. All around them the English language captures them. First-generation U.S. Hispanics like me tend to hold on to the Spanish language, albeit ya mochado (mangled) oftentimes, but nevertheless a working Spanish, not necessarily a reading competency. Bilingual does not mean bi-literate. My work with U.S. Hispanic writers indicates that most of them produce their works in English. Writing in English has little to do with preservation of the Spanish language or the culture. English is the koine of the country.
It seems to me, therefore, that Críticas is not about U.S. Hispanics but about Spanish-language publishing as the editors told Irma Flores-Manges. That’s a legitimate market, but there’s the rub. It appears that the editors of Críticas do not see the forest for the trees or else wrong-headedly they are pushing an agenda that profits them but is inconsistent with the actualities they profess to serve. In other words, they’re about Spanish-language books. They don’t ask: Who will read them? They think U.S. Hispanics will read them.
It turns out, only a small percentage will since only a small percentage of U.S. Hispanics are Spanish-language readers. In this matter, Críticas’ posture seems to be “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind’s made up.” When my wife, Gilda, and I lived in Phoenix we noted that the Spanish-language collection in her library was used mainly by recent Hispanic arrivals. A Spanish-language collection is therefore important in serving the literary and information needs of this population. They need applications, directions, and ballots in Spanish. But the mass of U.S. Hispanics get their information from English language sources. I think of myself as a “coordinate” bilingual, that is, I function linguistically as well in Spanish as I do in English. I read Spanish as well as I do English. But I’m gravitationally an English-language reader. This is not to diminish the significance of the Spanish language in my life. This is just the reality of what takes place in the cauldron of languages in the United States.
How many second-generation German Americans in the Austin area Hill Country, for example, are still German speakers and German-language readers? Not many. Do American marketers try to reach this German American population in German?
As I said, Críiticas is serving an important space, but it’s not the space of all U.S. Hispanics. Sadly, while serving this important space, it aggressively underscores the assumption that all U.S. Hispanics are Spanish language speakers/readers and therefore linguistically monolithic. In the end, like English-language media, Spanish-language media is a business. Críiticas should be looking at the whole spectrum of U.S. Hispanic literary needs and production. But it’s not. U.S. Hispanics need a publication that does. This is not to dissuade Criticas from its role in promoting Spanish-language books and materials.
It seems to me the assumption Criticas and other media (especially Spanish-language media) promote is that the best way to market to the Hispanic population of the United States is with Spanish when the preponderance of that population is English speaking. I do not criticize Criticas for its role in promoting Spanish language materials for that portion of the U.S. His-panic population whose functional language is Spanish and that portion of the U.S. population (including Hispanics) interested in Spanish language materials. That’s an important function, and Criticas is doing an admirable job in that arena. The point of this piece is to question the proposition that U.S. Hispanics are essentially a Spanish-speaking population. My experience and research as a lexicologist and semiotician point to a U.S. Hispanic population mostly assimilated and/or acculturated in the ways of the English language.
In the matter of the word “Hispanic” we should consider what that term covers. This is not a new term coined by the Census Bureau. The term has been around for centuries. The word “Hispanic” is one of those large rubrics, like the word Catholic or Protestant. By itself, the word refers to all Hispanics (persons whose cultural and/or linguistic heritage derive from historical origins in Hispania: the Roman name for Spain), attesting to a common denominator, conveying information that the individual is an offspring or descendent of a cultural, political or ethnic blending which included in the beginning at least one Spanish root either biological or linguistic or cultural. That means a Mexican Indian with no Spanish “blood” (as we understand that term) in him or her, but who speaks Spanish and has amalgamated or internalized Spanish culture is an Hispanic just as an Indian of the United State who speaks English and has amalgamated or internalized Anglo culture is an American though in the case of American Indians they are Americans both by priority (they were here first) and the United States made them Americans by colonization and later by fiat.
Talking about people in terms of labels can be misleading. For example, a person may be an Hispanic in terms of cultural, national, or ethnic roots. Nationally, Colon (Columbus) was a Spaniard, though born in Genoa. Werner Von Braun became an American national though born in Germany. In Argentina there are Hispanics who have no “Spanish blood” but who, nevertheless, consider themselves Hispanics, speak Argentine Spanish and are fluent in Italian or German, the languages of their immigrant forebears to the country.
Put another way, the term Hispanic is comparable to the term Jew, which describes the religious orientation of people who may be ethnically Russian, Polish, German, Italian, English, etc. There are also Chinese Jews, Ethiopian (Falashan) Jews, Indian Jews, et al. So too the term Hispanic describes people by linguistic orientation (Spanish speakers) who may be Mexicans, Nicaraguans, Cubans, Venezuelans, Chileans, Argentines, et al. Additionally, there are blended Hispanics often identified as Indo-Hispanics, Asian Hispanics (many Filipinos), Afro-Hispanics and a con-geries of other mixtures. There are also Hispanics who are identified as Black Hispanics and White Hispanics. There is an array of Chinese Hispanics, Lebanese Hispanics, Pakistan Hispanics, Hindu Hispanics, Jewish Hispanics (Sephards) et al. This all points to the fact that Hispanics are far from a homogeneous group.
In the main, though, their common characteristics are language (Spanish or a distinctively evolved version of Spanish as well as a distinctively evolved version of English oftentimes called Spanglish) and religion (most are Catholic, though there is a growing number of Hispanic Protestants). There are other lesser characteristics as well.
To avoid confusion between Hispanics who are citizens of countries other than the United States and Hispanics who are U.S. citizens, we refer to the former as Hispanic Americans and the latter as Ame-rican Hispanics, that is, U.S. Hispanics with roots in one or more of the Spanish-language countries of the American hemisphere. There are American Hispanics whose origins are in Guam, Hawaii, and other locations in the Pacific and the Pacific Rim, including the Philippines.
The United States has the fifth largest Hispanic population in the world exceeded only by Mexico, Spain, Columbia, and Argentina. In 10 years only Mexico will have a larger Hispanic population. In 2000, close to 7 million American Hispanics lived in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, another 3 million in New York City. Since 1980, the American Hispanic population of both cities almost doubled. And over the 1990s the Hispanic population of the United States grew 58 percent. Since 1980 Mexican Americans almost doubled their population size. The 2000 Census count enumerated almost 36 million U.S. Hispanics, not counting the 4 million or so undocumented Hispanics in the United States and the 3.5 million Hispanics in Puerto Rico who are not included in the Census count. That means that at the start of the new millennium there were 43.5 million. Today that figure is closer to 50 million Hispanics in the United States (counting the Puerto Ricans of Puerto Rico). That is, 16 percent of the U.S. population is Hispanic. Or, one in six Americans is Hispanic. Projections suggest that by the year 2050 one in four will be Hispanic. Peter Francese of American Demographics notes that “America really had no clue that the Hispanic population was that big.”
Per the U.S. 2000 Census count, Hispanics are in every state of the country. Five states are 15 percent or more Hispanic (New Mexico, 40%; California, 31%; Texas, 30%; Arizona, 22%, Nevada, 15%) and five states are 10% or more Hispanic (Colorado, 14%; Florida, 14%; New York, 14%; New Jersey, 12%; Illinois, 10%). Nine states and the District of Columbia are 5% or more Hispanic (Connecticut, 8%; Idaho, 7%; Utah, 7%; DC, 7%; Wyoming, 6%; Washington, 6%; Oregon, 6%; Massachusetts, 6%; Rhode Island, 6%; Kansas, 5%). Five states account for almost 75% of the U.S. Hispanic population (California, 34%; Texas, 20%; Massachusetts, 9%; Florida, 7%; Illinois, 4%).
These figures don’t take into Census errors like the one in 1970 that failed to count some 3 million Mexican Americans. One of the reasons for so much difficulty in counting American Hispanics is that a significant proportion report themselves as White or Black, not Hispanic.
In the twentieth century, the U.S. Hispanic population grew five times faster than the overall population. Since 1980, the nation’s Hispanic population has grown by more than 40 percent compared to 7 percent for the overall population. At present growth rates, the American population is expected to reach 325 million by the year 2020. Projecting the U.S. Hispanic figures per their growth rates, they could number well over 60 million by the year 2020. That means that about one in five Americans could be Hispanic, roughly 20 percent of the U.S. population. By the year 2050 some demographic forecasters expect the U.S. Hispanic population to triple.
Twenty years ago, the Arizona Republic indicated that in the year 2013, “Hispanics will make up nearly half of Arizona’s population compared with 16 percent today, raising the prospect of their taking a strong leadership role in the state.” What makes this population growth of American Hispanics so significant is that little planning has been undertaken for such an eventuality, including the question of how to reach them — with Spanish or English?
Who are these people whose presence in the American population will have such a major force in the American future? Surprisingly, most Americans tend to think of U.S. Hispanics as a loose aggregation of “immigrants” who speak only Spanish, somewhat aware that the largest number of them live in the Southwest, a fair number in the Upper Middle Atlantic states and New England with a growing group in Florida.
Essentially, American Hispanics may be sorted into five groups: (1) Mexican Americans, many of whom identify as Chicanos, an ideological designa-tion that identifies their generation, (2) Puerto Ricans, some of whom identify as Boricuas, (3) Hispanos—U.S. Hispanics who identify themselves as Spanish, (4) Cuban Americans, and (5) Latinos— Hispanics from countries other than Mexico, Cuba, Spain, and Puerto Rico. Not counting the residents of Puerto Rico, Mexican Americans today account for 66 percent of the U.S. Hispanic population, about 32 million.
Two out of three U.S. Hispanics are Mexican Americans. Puerto Ricans make up almost 10 percent of U.S. Hispanics (18% counting Puerto Ricans on the island). One out of ten U.S. Hispanics is Puerto Rican. Together these two groups make up about 80 percent of the U.S. Hispanic population, In other words, four out of five U.S. Hispanics are Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans. Latinos make up about 14 percent of the U.S. Hispanic population; and Hispanos (mostly in New Mexico) comprise about 1 percent of that population. Cuban Americans make up the remaining 4 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, March 2000).
In profile, U.S. Hispanics are a “young” population with a median age in 1999 of 26.6 years compared to 32.4 years for Anglos. Hispanics are predominantly an urban population: 82.5 percent live in cities, compared to 65 percent of Anglos. In terms of median income, in 1999, U.S. Hispanics earned $23,300, some $2,450 more than Blacks but some $26,000 less than Anglos. Nearly one out of every four American Hispanics fell below the poverty level in 1999, more than thrice the ratio for Anglos. In 1999, American Hispanic unemployment rose to 13.8 percent compared to 7.2 percent for the total population. While there were gains for some American Hispanics, all of these figures remained relatively unchanged in the year 2008 for the mass of American Hispanics who are still searching for America.
Importantly, American Hispanics are not recently arrived immigrants to the United States. Given the finite immigration quotas for “Latin America” since 1924, the present population of U.S. Hispanics would not be as large if its source of growth were solely from immigration. Their sheer size in the American population points to the fact that American Hispanics are of longer duration in the United States and that their growth stems principally from fertility. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2006 there was a marked increase of birth rates for every 1,000 Hispanic women compared to 1000 Anglo women.
The initial core of Hispanics in the U.S. population came from the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam, later renamed New York after the British acquired it in the 17th Century. Later, the Hispanic Jews (Sephardim) who came with the Dutch colony contributed significantly to the colonial revolutionary efforts of 1776 and to the later prosperity of the country. In the 19th Century, in two swift “blows” within 50 years of each other, the United States “acquired” a sizable chunk of its Hispanic population, not counting the acquisition of Louisiana in 1803 with its Hispanic residents and Florida in 1819 with its Hispanic population.
The first “blow” was the U.S. War against Mexico (1846-1848) out of which came the Mexican Americans of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. No one is sure of the numbers of “Mexicans” who came with the wrested territory (almost half of Mexico’s domain) but figures range from 150,000 on the low side to as many as 3.5 million (including Hispanicized Indians).
The second “blow” was the U.S. War with Spain (1898) out of which came the Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, Guamanians, Virgin Islanders, and the first wave of Cubans (though Cubans had been emigrating to the American colonies first, then the United States, since the 17th Century). In 1917 Cuba was cut loose by the United States. The figures for these groups range variously as well. But the point is that American Hispanics have been part of the United States historically for some time.
Unfortunately, Americans have tended to think of them as newly arrived and to confuse them with Hispanic Americans, the 400 million who populate the Spanish-language countries of the American hemisphere, failing to note that in the Americas there are more speakers of Spanish than speakers of English.
Not all American Hispanics agree on the term Hispanic to identify themselves. Many American Hispanics from the Southwest, for example, prefer to be called Mexican Americans or Chicanos and think the term Hispanic is an arbitrary label imposed on them by a bureaucracy with a colonial mentality. Many Puerto Ricans agree with that sentiment and prefer to be called Boricuas. Other American Hispanics contend the term Hispanic dilutes their individual identities as, say, Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, etc. At best the term Hispanic is a convenient way to talk about a diverse group of people, much the way we use the term American to talk about an equally diverse group of people. Actually, the term Hispanic is used (and has been used) extensively in Latin America by Hispanics there to identify their common roots and heritage. In vogue now with many Hispanics in the Southwest and elsewhere is the term Latino, which could very well include Italians and other groups with links to Roman Latinization.
This “looking for a name” has created particular problems for American Hispanics, especially in libraries (including the Library of Congress) and with bookstores and booksellers. Irma Flores-Manges, an Austin librarian, thinks “we are leaving a whole group of people in limbo without any positive literature about Chicano or other Latino experiences in which the only books available are written by authors in English. The books are not available in some libraries because if you are not familiar with the authors you will not buy the books as librarians. The book stores usually have a small section on Latino studies, and sometimes our books are lumped in with immigration studies. I don’t know why it’s so hard for these stores to carry books by Chicano or Latino authors in English; there is usually a huge section for African Americans or Native American materials.”
The difficulty lies in the fact that indeed Americans (including librarians) do not really have a handle on the Hispanic taxonomy. For them all Hispanics are alike. Unlike African Americans who are not lumped in with Africans, American Hispanics are lumped in with Hispanics of Latin America. The Library of Congress is a good example of this lumping. When one wants to find material on African Americans in the Library of Congress one does not go to the African Section. They are found in the American Section. But to find materials on American Hispanics in the Library of Congress one has to go to the Hispanic Section where all other Hispanics are included also. Mostly, American bookstores have separate sections for African materials and for African American materials. Not so for American Hispanic materials. All Hispanic materials are lumped into the Hispanic section. Peddling the Colombian writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s books in Spanish or English translation for Chicanos instead of Rudolfo Anaya’s works only strengthens the proposition that Americans do not differentiate between Hispanics because they don’t know who Hispanics are.
Admittedly, there is much to a name. I’m an American Hispanic of Mexican stock who subscribes to a Chicano perspective of life in the United States. I’m not an Hispano because I’m not Spanish. And I’m not a Latino because I’m not from one of those “other” Spanish-language countries of the Americas. A Puerto Rican friend of mine explains that he’s an Hispanic of mainland Puerto Rican stock and subscribes to a Boricua perspective of life in the United States. Another friend of mine tells me he’s an American Scandinavian of Norwegian stock who is a registered Republican. I don’t find that confusing at all. We’re all Americans, rich in cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity.
What’s in a name? Everything. That’s why my name is Felipe and my friend’s name is Sean. Names help to tell us apart. They also reflect our heritage and background. Unfortunately, many Americans tend to think the word Hispanic refers to a homogeneous group of people—which it does not, anymore than the word German, say, (as in German American) refers to a homogeneous group of people. American Hispanics come in all sizes, shapes, and colors.
Ideologically, Mexican American Chicanos say the term Hispanic diminishes their demographic priority when “lumped” with other American Hispanic groups (all of which are considerably smaller than the Mexican American group). Those Mexican American Chicanos contend that this lumping suggests all U.S. Hispanic groups are equal in size and have passed through the same historical process in the United States, a suggestion not supported by the facts. Not all U.S. Hispanic groups have passed through the same historical process as Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans. The historical process of these two groups has been distinctive, not shared by “other” American Hispanic groups in the United States. A sizable number of Mexican Americans and all Puerto Ricans are American territorial minorities by virtue of conquest. For this reason, shrill groups of Mexican American Chicanos and Puerto Rican Boricuas have resented across-the-board applications of legal remedies (affirmative action, for one) for all U.S. Hispanics for historical discrimination they have not endured nor suffered. Militant members of these groups say that hiring a U.S. Hispanic of Peruvian descent, say, to head a major federal program does not remedy discrimination suffered by Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans at the hands of Anglo-Americans since it is their conquest for which these legal remedies were enacted. Moreover, Peruvian culture — while Hispanic — is neither Mexican American culture nor Puerto Rican culture. There are notable linguistic differences as well.
Additionally, Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans point out the difference between an “oppressed territorial minority” (the U.S. came to them) and “political refugees” (they came to the U.S.). Many Chicano scholars explain that Hispanics from Mexico who gravitate to San Diego, Tucson, El Paso, Del Rio, San Antonio, and Brownsville are migrating to a part of what was their ancestral homeland of greater Mexico (previously New Spain) until 1848 (1853 in Southern Arizona with purchase of the Gadsden Strip) the way Jews have gravitated toward Palestine, their ancestral homeland. Moreover, those same Chicanos point out, most Mexicans migrating to the United States are racially more Indian than Spanish. On their Indian side they are, thus, autochthonous people, here long before the Niña, the Pinta, the Santa Maria, and the Mayflower. They are not immigrants. They are of the Americas, sharing a common bond with the indigenous peoples of the United States and Canada.
In view of the foregoing, plans for meeting the needs of American Hispanics must take into account their overwhelming reliance on the English language, particularly that 15 percent of the U.S. Hispanic population which is monolingual English operant. The same is true for that 15 percent of the U.S. Hispanic population which is monolingual Spanish operant. For them Spanish-language publishing makes sense. Reaching the 40 million-plus American Hispanic population requires balance.
