----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >Evidently, my point was missed entirely. The racism I referred to was not >within the story. I'll buy the argument that the characters in the story >were, for the most part, not racist. It's Tarantino's reckless use of >racist language that *is*. I accept your differentiation, but by saying Tarantino is being reckless, do you mean deliberately so? Recklessness, like carelessness, implies a lack of deliberation IMHO, which in turn exonerates Mr T from the racist label - you can fault him for being reckless with racist results, but not for being racist. A fine and increasingly unimportant disticntion, that. >the-word theory that Tarantino (noted linguist that he is) puts forth, ask >a Jewish person how many times he or she needs to hear the name "Hitler" >before it becomes benign. Apples and Oranges. A better example would be the use of the word queer, which originally had derogotory connotations but is now a socio-political term embraced by many who are queer. >falls quite short of being the second coming of Welles that everyone seems >to think he is. I hardly call this the second coming as well. On the other hand, I wonder if we're becoming so jaded that *anyone* can be hailed as great - I think we're afraid of having heroes anymore, since so many of our heroes have fallen into disrepute. >Look again, folks. The emperor's not wearing any clothes. No, but that's only important if nudity bothers you ;) J Roberson