enumerators, and to “implement an affirmativernaction program . . . for the employmentrnof personnel of Spanish originrnor descent.” The implementation of affirmativernaction at the Census Bureaurninitiated a process that quickly madern”Americans of Spanish origin or descent”rnlegally eligible for other types ofrnaffirmative action programs.rnThe terminology adopted in PublicrnLaw 94-311 was revised and finalized inrn1977. On May 12, the Office of Managementrnand Budget issued DirectivernNo. 15, entitled “Race and Ethnic Standardsrnfor Federal Statistics and AdministrativernReporting.” This directive replacedrnthe phrase “Americans of Spanishrnorigin or descent” with the term “Hispanic,”rnand expanded the definition tornread “A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican,rnCuban, Central or South American,rnor other Spanish culture or origin, regardlessrnof race.” The original 1976 definitionrnwas potentially limited by thernwords “origin or descent from . . . Spanish-rnspeaking countries.” By employingrnthe phrase, “or other Spanish culture orrnorigin, regardless of race,” the revisedrn1977 definition became more encompassingrnand further inflated the numberrnof “Hispanics.” Without exception, anyonernliving in or having emigrated fromrnSpain, Puerto Rico, the 18 Spanishspeakingrncountries in the WesternrnHemisphere, or Equatorial Guinea inrnWest Africa, for that matter, was now officiallyrnclassified a “Hispanic.” However,rnsince the revised definition emphasizedrn”Spanish culture or origin, regardless ofrnrace,” it was also possible to include underrn”Hispanic” individuals from thernPhilippines, Guam, the Northern Marianas,rnthe Marshall Islands, and the FederatedrnStates of Micronesia, as well asrnfrom Jamaica, Trinidad, and the DutchrnWest Indies.rnWith Directive No. 15, the process begunrnthe previous year was complete andrnthe domestic purpose for the “Hispanic”rnidentity was realized. The federal governmentrnhad officially recognized arn”Hispanic nation” within the borders ofrnthe United States, had adopted a legalrndefinition which inflates the numericalrnsize of this “nation” to the maximum degreernpossible, and had declared membersrnof this “nation” to be eligible for affirmativernaction programs.rnThe opportunism involved in advancingrnthe “Hispanic” identity is staggering.rnWhen being “white” conferred legalrnbenefits, Hispanics, to use the currentrnterminology, successfully lobbied to bernclassified as “white” and allied themselvesrnpolitically with European-Americansrnagainst African-Americans. Whenrnbeing “nonwhite” conferred legal benefits,rnHispanics successfully lobbied tornbe classified as a nonwhite “ethnic”rngroup for purposes of affirmative actionrnand politically allied themselves withrnAfrican-Americans against European-rnAmericans. In both instances, the losersrnin this political game of shifting legal statusrnhave been African-Americans.rnBigotry, however, is inseparable fromrnthe concept of “Hispanic.” Advanced byrnits supporters as recognition of “ethnic”rndiversity, the term “Hispanic” is, in fact,rna complete denial and suppression of diversityrn—ethnic, racial, cultural, and linguisticrn—as the official definition adoptedrnby the federal government shows.rnFirst, non-Spanish surnames are classifiedrnas “Hispanic.” The Basques arernthe most adversely affected by this discrimination.rnWhile most Basques inhabitrnnorthern Spain, their culture, language,rnand origin are distinct from thernrest of the country, which largely explainsrnwhy Spanish authorities have persecutedrnthem throughout much of the 20th century.rnAlthough a small European nation,rnthe Basques played a large role in Spain’srncolonization of the Western Hemisphere.rnTheir surnames are common inrnMexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Centralrnand South America. Typical Basque surnamesrnwhich Washington now classifiesrnas “Hispanic” include: Aguirre, Arteaga,rnEcheverria, Garate, Iturbide, Uribe, Vizcaino,rnand Zavala. This is the equivalentrnof the federal government classifyingrnIrish surnames as English, Dutch surnamesrnas German, Polish surnames asrnRussian, Korean surnames as Japanese,rnor Tibetan surnames as Chinese.rnSecond, non-Spanish ethnic groupsrnare classified as “Hispanic.” Victims ofrnthis discrimination include Arabs,rnBasques, Catalans, Chinese, English,rnGermans, Irish, Italians, Japanese, andrnWelsh, among others, who are classifiedrnas “Hispanic” if they live in or have immigratedrnto the United States from anyrnSpanish-speaking country. In populationrnsize, Argentina is the fourth largestrnSpanish-speaking country in the world.rnMany Argentineans, however, are notrnSpanish. Italians constitute a plurality ofrnthe population. Yet the United States officiallyrnclassifies Argentina and its entirernmultiethnic population as “Hispanic.”rnThird, indigenous Indian nations arernclassified as “Hispanic.” This policy realizes,rnhowever unintentionally, a statedrngoal of former Guatemalan dictator andrnmass murderer General Oscar MejiarnVictores: “We must get rid of the wordsrn’indigenous’ and ‘Indian.'” Among thernindigenous peoples living in Spanishspeakingrncountries who, under the “Hispanic”rndefinition, officially became “unpeople”rn—reminiscent of the treatmentrnaccorded small nations that fell out of favorrnwith the Communist Party in the oldrnSoviet Union—are the Mixtec of Mexico;rnthe Maya of Mexico and Guatemala;rnthe Pipil of El Salvador; the Miskito,rnSumo, and Rama of Honduras and Nicaragua;rnthe Guaymi and Kuna of Panama;rnthe Quechua and Aymara of Ecuador,rnPeru, and Bolivia; the Guarani ofrnParaguay; and the Mapuche of Chile.rnFourth, English-speaking African-rnCaribbeans, primarily of Jamaican origin,rnare classified as “Hispanic.” Mostrnare descended from British West Indiansrnwho immigrated to Central America tornwork on the Panama Canal and the bananarnplantations. A small percentagerncan trace their origin to African slavesrnbrought in by the British to work in therntimber industry. There are settlementsrnof English-speaking African-Caribbeansrnall along the Caribbean coast of CentralrnAmerica, including Bluefields in Nicaragua,rnPuerto Limon in Costa Rica, andrnColon in Panama.rnSince the United States refuses to applyrnthe methodology it employed in creatingrnthe “Hispanic” identity to any otherrncountries, the denial of the existencernof these non-Hispanic populations ofrnLatin America is deliberate policy. Byrnconsigning non-Hispanics to the statusrnof an “unpeople,” Washington legitimizedrn”Hispanic” power in the 18 Spanish-rnspeaking countries in the WesternrnHemisphere. This effectively allowsrn”Hispanic” regimes to continue persecutingrnnon-Hispanics without fear ofrncondemnation from the United States.rnTwo decades have elapsed since thern”Hispanic” identity gained official recognitionrnin Washington. But as the AZTLANrnmovement (with its own version ofrnthe Plan de San Diego), M.E.Ch.A., thern”Brown Berets,” the demagoguery ofrnparticipants at both the January 1995rnCalifornia “Latino Leadership SummitrnConference Response to Prop 187” andrnthe October 1996 “Latino March onrnWashington, D.C.,” and the organizedrnvoter fraud involving illegal aliens in thernNovember 1996 election demonstrate.rnNOVEMBER 1997/39rnrnrn