Three decades ago, when the ethnic/race labels "African American" and "Latino" were gaining traction versus "Black" and "Hispanic," I had a conversation with a fellow historian on the subject. When a corporation is playing too much with its logo, he told me, it is a sign that it is in trouble. Whether that is the case for corporations I do not know, but over the last few decades, ethnic minority labels have mutated with much regularity.

There is much confusion, and some controversy, as to which term one should use. "Hispanic" or "Latino"? Perhaps "person of color" or the more recently coined "Latinx"?

When I speak on the subject of Latino history and culture, I am often asked: Which of those terms is most appropriate. Which ones are offensive? Which ones are safe?

A bit of history first. During the Spanish colonial era, inhabitants of Central and South America did not see themselves as either Hispanics or Latinos. They were subjects of the Spanish crown and identified more with the specific places in which they lived, a city (say, Limeños), a region (say, Yucatecos) or the ethnic group to which they belonged (say, Quechua).

Most Latin Americans identify as Colombian or Puerto Rican or whatever their demonym may be, and not a few further clarify — with some chauvinism — that they are, for example, Camagüeyanos (from Camagüey) or Arequipeños (from Arequipa). That is another legacy of Spanish colonialism: a strong identification with the "patria chicas" (localities — literally, small nations).

When individuals from Latin America resettle in the United States, they are labeled as Hispanic, Latino or with some other broad pan-ethnic classification. Most continue, however, to self-identify as Chileans or Argentinians.

Those who come from the most culturally nationalistic countries — I was born in one of them — tend to have a stronger aversion to generic, multination labels. The embittered host of an old Miami Cuban call-in TV show used to bite back at any caller who dared utter the word "Latino." In the same vein, I was told by a credible source that some cars in Miami had front license plates that read, "Latino? La tuya" — "Latino? Not me — your mother."

Pan-ethnic classifications are particular to the United States, where many embrace and others seek to impose the melting-pot ideology.

Canadians think more along the lines of a national mosaic in which each ethnic group is represented by a particular piece of the mosaic. That is why Canadian census categories include so many ethnic (ancestral roots) options. Its 2016 census listed 28 examples (not all the possible options) in the following order: Canadian, English, Chinese, French, East Indian, Italian, German, Scottish, Cree, Mi'kmaq, Salish, Métis, Inuit, Filipino, Irish, Dutch, Ukrainian, Polish, Portuguese, Vietnamese, Korean, Jamaican, Greek, Iranian, Lebanese, Mexican, Somali and Colombian.

Some comparisons are in order. First, Canadian census categories are not racial as in the United States. Second, groups are not consolidated into broad pan-ethnic classifications — Hispanics or Asians, for example. Third, the census does not "other" some groups and select another as the default. While, in the United States, we recognize certain groups of people as ethnic, in Canada, people of all cultural ancestries, be they English, Scottish or Jamaican — even Canadian, whatever that means — constitute an ethnic group.

Speaking of ethnics, I recall a historian conference in Oxford, England, many years ago where one of the hosts gave participants advice on nearby restaurant options. There are numerous ethnic alternatives, he said: a Chinese restaurant, a Thai restaurant farther down and an English ethnic food establishment with a sign on the door that boasts "fresh-cut sandwiches."

While they are not completely synonymous, I use "Latino" and "Hispanic" interchangeably and do not find either to be derogatory or offensive.

I first confronted the "Latino" v. "Hispanic" dilemma in 1992, when I was invited to speak at the residence for Latino students at Colgate University, whose faculty I had just joined. I thought that I had made a good presentation and had connected with the students. But to my surprise, I was sternly scolded for using the term "Hispanic" and lectured by one student on why I should say "Latino" instead.

The litany that I was subjected to that night included the following arguments: "Hispanic" is reminiscent of Spanish imperialism and its legacy; "Latino" is more inclusive because it comprises Brazilians and Haitians; and as opposed to "Hispanic," "imposed" on us by the U.S. federal government, "Latino" emerged from the community itself.

To be continued.

Readers can reach Luis Martinez-Fernandez at LMF_Column@yahoo.com. To find out more about Luis Martinez-Fernandez and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.