Hispanic or Asian? Either one could be right

To the editor:

When Sharron Angle recently told a Hispanic audience that some of them looked Asian, it wasn't an insult. There's truth in the statement.

Whatever those who now define themselves as Hispanic may believe, DNA studies indicate the indigenous, aboriginal peoples of Middle, North and South America came from the Asian land mass. So it's reasonable to say the majority are more Oriental than Occidental.

Those of indigenous descent became categorized as Hispanic because of the language that overwhelmed their native tongues, not because they were descended from Spain and its environs. Some mixed with their conquerors, the Conquistadores, so some have a measure of Spanish blood, but there's far more who have the characteristics of the pre-Columbians, those here before the arrival of the Europeans.

The ancient aboriginals had advanced cultures and societies in which the present people should take pride.

Those who now take pride in being Hispanic aren't exactly wrong. After five centuries of acculturation -- mostly from Spain, some from Portugal, plus Catholicism -- they've come to consider themselves Hispanic. It really isn't much different than the diverse European and African nationalities, e.g., Italian, German, French, Arab, even the Spanish, that have melded into being American.

Nevertheless, the indigenous, aboriginal people are more Asian than European. Another example: The Chilean miners had Hispanic names and speak Spanish, but it's unlikely any descended from Spain.

The students offended by Sharron Angle's comment should study the history of the pre-Columbian lands. Their antecedents were spread far and wide over Middle, North and South America, and that was with languages of their own, some descended from ancient Asian tongues.

Vernon Clayson

Las Vegas