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 :-]
>
 
  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 :-]
>
> 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.
 
 
        Italians & Swedes living in Europe?  They are not a race.  Italians&
Swedes living in this country?  Not a race either: they are foreign
nationals.  Italian-Americans & Swedish-Americans?  They are
European-Americans.  Some people call them White.  But then the question
of ethnicity surfaces.  Ethnicity: foreign born Whites--immigrants
(Richard Polenberg, *One Nation Divisible*).  Or ethnicity: US born people
with symbolic ties to another country.
 
1--I'm not sure what other paradigm exists, since whites have defined
> the terms for race and racialism for centuries.
 
        I couldn't agree with you more.  So, isn't that time that these
paradigms are challenged?
 
  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.
 
        So, it is time that we change the cinematic paradigms as well.
To begin with: avoiding compiling lists of films where interracial
relationships do *not* constitute an issue, for example.
        Let's look at films such as *Mississippi Masala* rather than
*Bodyguard.*
 
        Gloria Monti