Raoul Lowery Contreras
December 1, 1999

For years I have campaigned against the Los Angeles Times-imposed word, “Latino,” in describing the country’s fastest growing ethnic “Group,” those with Spanish-surnames, those who speak Spanish, et al.  The LA Times set it’s feet in concrete on the use of the word “Latino” and nothing has cracked that concrete since.  Worst of all, other newspapers have followed the Times’ lead and news coverage, accuracy and the community have suffered.

Now, I am not alone.  In Agustin Gurza’s November 30th LA Times column, he describes an in-house Times controversy about the use of theTimes imposed word “Latino.”  He quotes pioneering Times columnist Frank Del Olmo from a 1981 column in which Del Olmo wrote that he had convinced the Times to not use the word “Hispanic” because it is “that ugly and imprecise word.”  He added that “Latino” was less bureaucratic and that “nobody” actually called themselves “Hispanic.”

Gurza’s Del Olmo reference is fairly accurate, but lacks details. Frank Del Olmo had several reasons to object to the word “Hispanic.”  And, as he was the management favored Mexican-origin reporter at the Times, if not the only one at the time, he had great influence with Times management.  The public had no input, only Del Olmo did.

Del Olmo had three specific reasons to oppose the word “Hispanic.” One was that the Coors Brewery company of Colorado was using the word “Hispanic” to sell beer in the “Decade of the Hispanic.” Coors was then being boycotted by radical Mexican-origin people – Chicanos –  and unions for perceived slights against them by the ultra-conservative Coors family.  Del Olmo bought into the boycott because he was more than left-of-center, if not a “Chicano,” himself According to him, he grew up in a blue-collar union family that was the antithesis of a “free market” Republican household.

The second reason was that the word “Hispanic” was coined by the Administration of Richard Nixon in the early Seventies and became the “official” word used to describe people like Del Olmo and me.  Contrary to conventional wisdom, the word “Hispanic” was not invented for use by the Census in 1980, but rather, was developed at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  Del Olmo’s passions were such in 1981, that any Richard Nixon legacy was to be rejected.

And, lastly, as Gurza writes, “By their choice of language, journalists not only describe people, they define them for others.”  The third reason Del Olmo objected to the word “Hispanic” and championed the word “Latino” was that “Chicano” had been roundly rejected by all Mexican Americans but the most radical, blue collar, less educated, under-class people of Mexican-origin.  Del Olmo pushed “Latino” as a substitute for the rejected “Chicano.” Unfortunately, he was in a position to push this substitution into the language of the “Newspaper of Record” in the West.  Other papers and broadcast stations took up the word because it was the “style” of the LA Times. Frank Del Olmo single handedly branded millions of people.

Del Olmo was wrong in 1981.  The Los Angeles Times has confused the entire reportage of the fastest growing group on the country by insisting on following Del Olmo’s blue-collar bromide.  Other than the Times, very few people in the real world use the word “Latino.” I recall a very confused New York Newsday reporter asking me the difference between Hispanic and Latino.  Her confusion is interesting because Newsday and the LA Times are owned by the same company.

I tried to make the words clear to her by stating that Hispanic usually meant educated middle-class people who work hard, yearn to live in good neighborhoods, want their children well-educated and depend less on government than the working or non-working poor. Latino, being a substitute for Chicano in California, means less than well-educated, less than well employed, if employed at all, more dependent on government and a tendency to blame others for their lot.

Hispanic is used everywhere (except the LA Times) and is now ingrained in the language by usage and by dictionary definition.  The people have voted with their usage and Latino is not the word of choice.  It doesn’t sound right when used with American – Latino American has no ring to it.  As far as formal recognition, “Anglo,” for example, is defined in dictionaries as “non-Hispanic white,” not non-Latino white.  Besides, Latino can mean Italian, or Romanian, or any group with Latin as the basis of their language.

As for “Americans” who object to the use of either term, when Irish Americans quit using Irish Americans to identify themselves, we will quit also.

In twenty years, when the population of California has mostly Spanish-surnames, few people will remember the wrestling match between Hispanics (Contreras) and Latinos (Del Olmo) and that most Hispanics wore coats and ties and most Latinos didn’t.  They will also know that Hispanics won the match.

Send your comments to Raoul Lowery Contreras

Raoul Lowery Contreras'columns are syndicated by the New York Times Syndicate, New American News service.

 
 

Back to Today's News

Calnews.com News/Politics/and More