The Importance of Distinguishing Between the Words <i> Hispanic</i> and <i> Latino</i>

Calendar’s recent articles on La Raza prompt me to try to clarify why the distinction between the word Hispani c and the word Latino is important.

The people who are currently in power in this country are mostly of northwestern European ancestry. After the Renaissance, the English were locked in a struggle with Spain and Portugal over the dominion of the Western Hemisphere.

Spaniards were the frame of reference for the English who came to the New World, and, deluded by the language there, Anglos called the natives Hispanics , even if they were Spanish-speaking Indians, with whom the criollos intermarried soon enough.

This had the convenient effect of negating the existence of the indigenous people, who numbered and continued to number in the millions (there are today 1 million Nahuatl speakers in Mexico alone, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica).

This ties in neatly with the (false) rationale that there were almost no Indians in the New World, that the land was empty and for the taking. It ignores the obvious achievements of the Indians, making them invisible--unpersons.

Yet the fact remains that the genetic pool of the non-Anglos on the North American continent is overwhelmingly Indian. The famous dark skin, which Anglos are almost at pains to point out, did not come from the Moor.

Spaniards were feared and hated by native peoples, and revolutions were fought to throw off the yoke of exploitation over most of the continent. To call someone (who is not a Spaniard) Hispanic is simply an insult.

Why is Latino correct? First of all, because that is what we call ourselves. It is not a word given to us by people who are historically hostile to us.

It acknowledges the use of French, Portuguese and Spanish, all widely spoken in the hemisphere, and it affirms our American-ness--that is, our Indian-ness.

Latinoamericano is a word to be used with pride. Latinos have fought injustice, repelled foreign invasions, and have, for the most part, replaced feudalism with liberal republics. We have won Nobel prizes and made outstanding contributions in art, science and medicine, as well as contributed to the wealth of the world with our labors.

If we are called Hispanics, however, all this is negated. We are no more Spaniards than Bush is British.

How would U.S. Americans feel if all their achievements were considered to be European, and not native?

I salute The Times for using the word Latino .

ANTONIO BERNAL

Montebello