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