Editor:

Your July 25 article, "Income gap of Hispanics, Indians rises" prompted two observations.

The first involves your use of the word "Anglo" to describe white people. This appears to be a matter of policy at The Republic. I take no offense whatsoever at this term, as I have been called far worse. Common sense, however, ought to dictate against using it.

What puzzles me is the way "Anglo" is used to describe many people who are not English. Not all blacks are Nigerian, or all Orientals Japanese, all Indians Navajo or all Hispanics Mexican. We recognize this and refer to these people in more general terms. Why then are all whites call "Anglos"?

To be sure, some of my ancestors are from England. But my family tree also includes Austrians and Hungarian Jews, people who can scarcely be considered "Anglo." Are Finns, Poles, Italians, and Greeks also "Anglos"?

Many people classified as "Anglo" want absolutely nothing to do with anything English. How many wars has England fought against other European nations? French-speaking Quebec is a good bet to secede from English-speaking Canada. There is a growing secessionist movement in Scotland. Just try calling a member of the Provisional Wing of the Irish Republican Army "Anglo".

Secondly, you report that blacks in Arizona have a median household income that exceeds the average for blacks nationwide. This cannot be! Such reporting is just not fashionable. Don't you know that Arizona is a pariah among states because of our failure to enact a paid Martin Luther King Holiday?

Oh well. If this statistic on black income is true, people will just have to look for another state to pick on.

Freely Speaking: Essays by Doug Newman

***