> 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 Slav-Turk. 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" people. 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? J Roberson