SCREEN-L Archives

October 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 30 Oct 1994 17:18:29 -0600
text/plain (24 lines)
Gloria Monti comments:
"This is getting really interesting.  1) It is the non white element
that makes a couple interracial, thus establishing a paradigm against
which *the other* (than white) is measured.  2) Since when is there a doubt
that Hispanics are not a race?  3)Cage, not Gage--as in Nicholas. :-)"
Sorry, about 3.  My slip
Re: 2--I don't know.  Obviously, culturally and politically Hispanics are
defined in racial (or at least "ethnic" terms), but I have heard and read
many of people of Central/South American/Carribean/Chicano origin complain
about being lumped together in one category (like Italians and Swedes? :-).)
Anyway, my response was meant only in the context of the original project
being discussed.
As to 1--I'm not sure what other paradigm exists, since whites have defined
the terms for race and racialism for centuries.  Obviously, one can
imagine many multi-racial contexts for various combinations, but how many
of them are actually depicted in American films--and only as a relationship
and not an issue.  All too many people are ready to make an issue out of
it, as some of the recent commentary on PULP FICTION suggests.
--Don Larsson, Mankato State U., MN :-]