Revise Your Styleguide: On Usage of ‘La Raza’
by Guest Contributor Daniel Hernandez, originally published at Intersections
A little Mexico detour, because I’m wondering: Do news media outlets refer to the NAACP as “The Colored People” or the AJC as “The Jewish Committee”? No, they don’t. Yet while covering this month’s NCLR conference in San Diego many outlets including the L.A. Times, Washington Post, and other generally reputable sources like RealClearPolitics felt it okay to refer to NCLR as “La Raza.” This means that the mainstream press has adopted the semantics tricks of the right-wing propaganda machine to conflate together two very different things: NCLR — the largest and most middle-of-the-road, big-money-backed, non-partisan Hispanic (their word) advocacy organization in the United States, and the codeword for reconquista hallucinations advocated only by an extremely small, extremely fringe, and extremely irrelevant batch of Chicano nationalists.
Doing this plays directly into the ignorant fears of paranoid immigrant-bashers. The double-standard is unacceptable. Because there are real dangers of coding and bigotry at play here: look at what just happened in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania. Another hate-fueled illegal immigrant lynching. Listen to the story at Free Speech Radio News. A week later, still no arrests.
We have opportunists like Lou Dobbs and the soft racism of politicians like Arnold Schwarzenegger to thank for laying the rhetorical groundwork for such a climate. It needs to stop. “La Raza,” once for all, is an historical term. Its use in the NCLR name merely reflects the period of the organization’s founding: the 1960s. (Does anyone in the NAACP even utter the words “colored people” anymore?) It’s a question ultimately of accuracy, as Carla Marrinuci blogs at SFGate.
On its end, NCLR generously takes the pains to answer its uninformed critics, but one needs only to look at the Mexican American Princes to understand just how “dangerous” are the ambitions of modern Latinos like the kind who gathered in San Diego last week to hear speeches by Barack Obama and John McCain.
* Above, Obama at the 2007 NCLR conference in Miami Beach.
Edited to Add:
Dear Racialicious,
I appreciate the posting and the discussion of my Intersections post on the media usage of “La Raza.” I think a couple things need to be clarified, though. I meant to point out that to the careless (or prejudicial) reader the words “La Raza” connote Chicano nationalism, not the group, National Council of La Raza. I know and understand that La Raza is a term to be proud of, a term that NCLR members and associates themselves use, a term that Mexican Americans of all backgrounds often use to mean “community,” “family,” “friends,” etc. What I am merely pointing out is that as the media uses it to refer to NCLR it conflates in the public eye a mainstream lobbying entity with an amorphous concept that causes all kinds of drama in the public landscape: see the raids, confrontations, demonstrations, killings of immigrants. I don’t have a solution, but I think we should all be thinking of one. Language is lived, after all.
Sincerely,
Daniel H.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Saladin wrote:
This post would only be true if all Latinos were God-Bless-America assimilationist sellouts who reject the hard work and sacrifices of their elders as “reconquista hallucinations advocated only by an extremely small, extremely fringe, and extremely irrelevant batch of Chicano nationalists”.
But to anyone — Latino or not –with any respect for the hard work and sacrifice of previous generations, NCLR’s reaction smacks of an Obama-ish flight from and selling-out of the activist core that made their middle-class pseudo-integrated life possible.
Selfish and mean-spirited white people won’t suddenly like Latinos if the term changes. They won’t stop beating up and killing immigrants, either. But it is almost funny to see how quick and willing some folks are to ungratefully throw anyone and anything they can under the bus in the deluded belief that it will magically make white people accept them. Good luck with that!
Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 7:41 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
Thank you!
I can’t stand how some “commentators” throw that phrase around sans any context. And they usually cut to the “we shall overwhelm” guy when they use it. (Lou!)
Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 7:57 am ¶
rumble wrote:
I’m a bit confused. I work in DC and my organization meets with NCLR from time to time. I’ve always heard the group referred to as “La Raza.” Granted, I haven’t personally interacted with any staff, but it was my impression they referred to themselves this way as well.
Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 8:30 am ¶
RJG wrote:
I’m going to put on my ignorant white dude hat for a moment and ask what negative connotations “La Raza” has associated with it. I looked at the linked Wikipedia entry in this article and didn’t see the part that made this a bad term.
I know “Colored People” has a big giant bucket of negative connotations and historical weight behind it, which is why it’s a Very Bad Term, but what makes “La Raza” bad? Is it that it’s not in English and giving off some covert xenophobia when used, or is it less that the term itself is bad, and more that NCLR just shouldn’t have the term used in place of NCLR?
Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 9:47 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@All - I dropped an email to Daniel asking him to address the comments, but we are in different time zones. Check back a little later for his take.
Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 9:50 am ¶
yorbella wrote:
wow, I didn’t know this. I have referred to them as simple La Raza, I didn’t know it had any negative connotations, but I guess it makes just as much sense as calling the NAACP “the Colored People.”
For once I’ll give the media the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to ignorance.
Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 10:09 am ¶
Philly Phil wrote:
it is not me belief that removing “LA RAZA” from NCLR is made solely to appease white folks with the hopes of having them magically accept us.
i can see their concerns on how LA RAZA as a term can distract from the organization’s main goals. However, to change it because our ignorant detractors use it as a point of contention is foolish. To quote Jose De La Isla:
“In fact, [La Raza] might be a concept to get closer as a way to encourage nearness to increasingly socially diverse, interchanging, inter-communicating, class flexibility and globalizing communities.”
Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 10:29 am ¶
Anna wrote:
“La Raza …unida … jamás será vencida …”
I appreciate Daniel’s point, and I absolutely think there needs to be more intentionality with the term “la raza,” but I don’t see how it can be packed up as a historical term on the level of “colored people” when “la raza” is embraced by hundred of thousands self-identifiers as a term of unification in public spaces.
I hear it chanted at immigration rallys. I hear it at the SOA demonstrations and tech-in at Ft. Benning GA.
It’s used today, and its use is hardly limited to “an extremely small, extremely fringe, and extremely irrelevant batch of Chicano nationalists.” I understand how it can be exploited, or used carelessly, but it’s hardly due to be retired.
Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 11:58 am ¶
Elizabeth Ann wrote:
I highly recommend this interesting article on the origins of the phrase La Raza and the issues around it that have come up around it in recent US politics/media mis-use:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2008-07-30/diversions/ask-a-mexican/
(credit to the racism section of reddit.com for bringing it to my attention)
Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 2:10 pm ¶
unfrozenlawyer wrote:
I think Mr. Hernandez is being just a bit disingenuous with his claim that the word La Raza is simply a benign shorting of the concept “la raza cosmica.” I was a member of the Chicano Caucus while in college back in 1998 and so I did my research on groups like the Caucus, Mecha, LULAC, and the NCLR. I also continue to follow these groups as they claim to advocate for me, as I am Mexican-American.
The fact is that these groups are offshoots of the brown nationalist and rights movement of the Civil Rights Era. Given this, these groups have been known to advocate some rather radical ideas that would give anyone, white or brown pause, and, definitely, give fuel to right wing immigration foes. One of these is the Azteca movement whereby they claim that much of the Southwest and Western U.S. still belongs to Mexico. To deny history is to cast the NCLR as a victim of vicious right wingers and to play upon the ignorance of the people they claim to advocate for, hispanics. This is certainly despicable.
NCLR, as re-branded, may advocate quite different things today than they did forty or even ten years ago. To be sure, they have certainly lifted themselves out of obscurity as a group since I first heard of them. However, for Mr. Hernandez to take offense at the fact that others, political enemies if you will, refer to the NCLR as La Raza, and then to equate that to someone calling the NAACP, the “Colored People” is the height of political spin-doctoring.
I admit that I dislike La Raza (and this is how I have always referred this group, because that is how I was introduced to them 10 years ago). I understand that it is probably Mr. Hernandez’ job to advocate and spin for that organization. I’m simply pointing out that his version is not entirely accurate.
Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 2:12 pm ¶
Mikey wrote:
I’d used “la raza” as a synonym from Hispanic in the sense that I use “the chosen people” as a synonym for Jews if I don’t want to repeat the word in a sentence. I’ll be sure to stop that.
Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 2:13 pm ¶
LaRazaHerself wrote:
Can’t see what all the fuss is about. I was very active in the NCLR for years and we ourselves referred to it as “La Raza.” As in, “Are you going to La Raza meeting?” or “I volunteer for La Raza,” or “I’m hosting a Raza event.” I don’t ever remember any of us ACTUALLY referring to the organization as “NCLR” anywhere except on paper or in some kind of official capacity. It was always a lot simpler to say La Raza and leave it at that.
Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 2:26 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
When I linked to the story about Luis Ramirez getting murdered by 6 white boys, I couldn’t help but wonder if their sentences will even compare to the ones handed out to the Jena 6…
Posted 31 Jul 2008 at 3:08 pm ¶
Elizabeth Ann wrote:
@ unfrozenlawyer: Thanks for the insights!
Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 12:01 pm ¶
Lakergrrl wrote:
My mom, a proud Chicana (but hardly “fringe”) always spoke of “La Raza” with pride and taught me to also.
Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 2:41 pm ¶
Lakergrrl wrote:
Upon further thought though it doesn’t seem to really fit the NCLR since it now is a “Hispanic” or “Latino” organization instead of a Chicano one. Got to keep snuggling up to the middle!
p.s.
I wish Lou Dobbs would just go away. He makes start yelling whenever I see him. Ooh, and Glenn Beck too.
Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 2:52 pm ¶
Lakergrrl wrote:
Um, I meant he makes me start yelling. Whenever I see him. See, even thinking about it causes a rage induced synaptic misfire.
Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 2:53 pm ¶
Daniel Hernandez wrote:
Dear Racialicious,
I appreciate the posting and the discussion of my Intersections post on the media usage of “La Raza.” I think a couple things need to be clarified, though. I meant to point out that to the careless (or prejudicial) reader the words “La Raza” connote Chicano nationalism, not the group, National Council of La Raza. I know and understand that La Raza is a term to be proud of, a term that NCLR members and associates themselves use, a term that Mexican Americans of all backgrounds often use to mean “community,” “family,” “friends,” etc. What I am merely pointing out is that as the media uses it to refer to NCLR it conflates in the public eye a mainstream lobbying entity with an amorphous concept that causes all kinds of drama in the public landscape: see the raids, confrontations, demonstrations, killings of immigrants. I don’t have a solution, but I think we should all be thinking of one. Language is lived, after all.
Sincerely,
Daniel H.
Posted 01 Aug 2008 at 4:47 pm ¶