Readers React: If ‘Asian’ is too broad, then what about ‘Latino’ or ‘African’?

To the editor: The article seems to confuse two very different things: ethnicity and nationality. (“The term ‘Asian’ may be overly broad but California is stuck with it,” Oct. 21)

In an effort to broaden the “Asian/Pacific Islander” classification to reflect more diverse economic considerations, activists have to deal with a perplexing problem: Is it better to combine the scores of diverse ethnic groups in the Indonesian archipelago into one group by nationality, or to lump all of the ethnic Han Chinese into a single category regardless of country of origin? How would you classify a “Singaporean” whose ancestors came from all parts of the globe?

The same issue can apply to other ethnic groups. Does it really make sense to group all of the peoples from Mexico, Central America and South America into the single category of “Latino”? Does combining Arabs from Egypt with Hutus from Rwanda provide us with meaningful information to help either group?

Perhaps Gov. Jerry Brown is right. Maybe we can find a better way to classify who we are that could benefit those whose needs are greatest.

Alan Coles, Long Beach

..

To the editor: Oh my. Asian American advocates are stung by the governor’s veto of a bill that would more clearly define the groups lumped into “Asian American.”

Well, welcome to my world: “Caucasian.”

Dave Connors, Costa Mesa

..

To the editor: I’m a little confused by this.

It seems there are those in the “Asian” community who feel they need to be more specifically categorized. This would be to more easily “help” those in universities, colleges and healthcare.

But don’t all broad groupings — white, black, Latino and others — have just as much disparity within those groupings? Are they to get just as much attention?

We are, especially in California, more and more diverse. That’s just the reality.

Marty Wilson, Whittier

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook