There was a story in the Post a few days ago about a Latino Museum on the National Mall.

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) introduced the bill to set up a commission to study the idea's feasibility. The museum would be based in Washington, around the National Mall and "might be under the umbrella of the Smithsonian Institution."

According to the story by Jacqueline Trescott, "This is one issue that unites our community," said Raul Yzaguirre, the president of the National Council of La Raza.

Let me be the first one to disagree and state for the record that this is one of the worst, most divisive ideas to have come out of anyone's minds in years.

Why have a separate, segregated museum for Latinos? Why not get more Latinos in the national museums, period.

I note also, the use of the word "Latino" as opposed to the now almost not PC term - "Hispanic." Otherwise we'd have to take all the Picassos, and Dalis, and Miros, and Goyas and Velazquezs out of the mainstream museums and put them in a "Hispanic" museum.... thank God for that.

As it is now, we'll have to take all the Wifredo Lams, Roberto Mattas, Frida Kahlos, etc. out of the other museums and put them in the "Latino Museum."

But ooops! the Frida Kahlo in the DC area is already in a segregated museum - in this case segregated by sex.

The semantic/ethnic/racial debate about Latino or Hispanic is a good, if somewhat silly one.

Anyway... Latino is (I think) now associated with people of Latin American ancestry... it apparently includes the millions of Central and South Americans of pure Native American blood (many of who do not even speak Spanish), and the millions of South Americans of Italian, German, Jewish, Middle Eastern and Japanese ancestry. It also includes the millions of Latin Americans of African ancestry.

It doesn't include Spaniards and Portuguese people.... you Europeans are out!

According to the Post, "Felix Sanchez, the chairman of the National Hispanic Foundation for the Arts, said, "The museum is really a long-overdue concept. There is a void of presenting in one location a more in-depth representation of the culture and its presence in the mainstream of American consciousness."

Mr. Sanchez: There is no such thing as a single "Latino culture." In fact, I submit that there are twenty-something different "Latino" cultures in Latin America - none of which is the same as the various Latino mini-cultures in the US.

As an example, anyone who thinks that Mexico's rich and sometimes proud Indian heritage is similar to Argentina's cultural heritage is simply ignorant at best. In fact Argentina purposefully nearly wiped out its own indigenous population in an effort (according to the war rallies of the times) "not to become another Mexico."

And the cultural heritage of the Dominican Republic is as different from that of Bolivia and Peru as two/three countries that technically share a same language can be.

And for example, Mexican-Americans' tastes in food, music, and politics, etc. are wildly different from Cuban-Americans and Dominican-Americans, etc.

Would anyone ever group Swedes, Danes, Germans and Norwegians and create a "Nordic-American Museum"? Or how about French, Spaniards, Rumanians and Italians for a "Latin-European-American Museum" - hang on - that doesn't fit or does it? Makes my head hurt.

For the record, I don't believe in segregating artists according to ethnicity, race or religion. How about letting the art itself decide inclusion in a museum. And if not enough African American, or Native American, or Latino/Hispanic or "fill-in-the-blank"-American artists are in the mainstream museums, then let's fight that fight and not just take the easy/hard route of having "our own" museum.

---