The Los Angeles Times has updated their stylebook with regards to using the terms “Latino” and “Hispanic,” and it seems that the preference is leaning toward “Latino.”
The newspaper used its website to publish their new stylebook entry, which says that “Hispanic” is to be used only when quoting individuals who insist on saying the “H” word, or in referring to specific group names.
I GUESS IT’S like referring to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People by its proper name, even though the term “colored” is a bit dated when referring to African-American people.
Otherwise, “Latino” is considered by the newspaper to be the “umbrella term” for people living in this country whose ethnic origins lie in Latin American nations, although I like the part of their entry that says, “it is preferable to say that an individual is Mexican American, of Salvadoran descent and so forth, …”
Because that recognizes the true reality of the growing Latino population – it is a collection of many differing groups, and not a true mass that naturally blends together into one.
Yes, writing about this new policy is kind of self-serving, because it does follow very closely the policy I have tried to follow in the four years I have been publishing this weblog.
BUT IT ALSO makes me wonder about the continuing evolution of terminology. It makes me wonder some five decades or so from now how obsolete these commentaries are going to appear to some future reader (assuming there still are many serious readers).
I can’t even envision the terminology of the future. Let’s only hope it advances in ways that show a greater understanding of the population that by 2050 is expected to be a third of the nation as a whole.
Will this whole “Latino” versus “Hispanic” debate wind up sounding silly? Or will it take on the aura of the evolution from “Negro” to “colored” to “black” to “African-American” to who knows what term will come up in the future.
What other happenings were in the news as related to the nearly one-fifth of the U.S. population that currently is Latino?
CALL THEM STUBBORN: Arizona state officials were in court on Thursday to argue on behalf of their Legislature’s attempt to impose laws giving local authorities greater power to enforce federal immigration laws.
Those state laws took effect one year ago on Friday, but were largely put on hold by a federal judge until a lawsuit challenging their legitimacy is resolved (likely several years from now).
That is what had state officials, at the instruction of Gov. Jan Brewer, in court on Thursday. They’re trying to get the injunction that puts their offensive law on hold lifted – so that Arizona can take steps to being for Latinos what Alabama and Mississippi used to be for African-American people.
Their claim about the federal government not properly enforcing existing immigration laws comes across as a political smokescreen. Their real hang-up is that they want laws enforced in an improper way.
THE LATEST BEISBOL FLOP: It’s that time of year again. Baseball teams are making trades in anticipation of Sunday’s deadline in hopes of a late-season jolt – which is why the San Francisco Giants worked out a deal to take Carlos Beltran off the hands of the New York Mets.
The Giants are gambling that a change of scenery will make Beltran (a Puerto Rico native) the star that the Mets were expecting back in 2005 when they offered him a $119 million contract to play for seven seasons.
Instead, he has been competent at best, and weak at worst – which is why the Mets merely got a minor league pitcher in return, and the Mets had to kick in $4 million to the Giants to help cover his salary for the rest of the season.
And why the worst nightmare for baseball fans in the borough of Queens would be if Beltran winds up making a World Series appearance this autumn while their team struggles this season to play .500 ball.
-30-
0 comments:
Post a Comment