> This is getting really interesting. 1) It is the non white element
>that makes a couple interracial, thus establishing a paradigm against
Maybe it's just a "different" element: One could argue that a hispanic-black
relationship is an interracial relationship. Or Indian-Chinese. Or
I think that most Americans are conditioned into thinking of race primarily
in terms of Black & White, when across the world you don't always *have*
B&W. Also, even white people get subdivided by race - Jews, for instance,
have long been considered a "race" when they are *many* Jews who are fair
of skin and, except for their culture, are indistinguishable from "white"
Maybe that means it makes more sense to classify people by something *other*
than skin color - like, say, their actions.
>which *the other* (than white) is measured. 2) Since when is there a doubt
>that Hispanics are not a race?
Well, in recent times some historians and sociologists have started referring
to "white explorers" as Europeans, or Anglo-Euros. Spain is *usually* considered
part of Europe, and many "hispanics" could trace their blood there. Of course,
hispanic in modern America is usually a poor substitute for "Mexican", so. . .
who's the man?
I mean, even white people are different from each other. Germans, French,
English, Swedes and others all have different cultures. Sure, they have
plenty in common, but so do all people. Isn't it possible that there's just as
much diversity in "hispanics", "African Americans" and "Asians", making
such massive lumpings ludicrous?