Good to have you back CJ. Point taken about how the dialogue has degenerated. Though it has improved in the last couple of posts.

"One thing with academics they never let common sense get in the way"

Seriously ... people in glass houses ...

"If civil war ever breaks out in America between the Africans and the Whites, the Whites can just shout out "don't kill me I'm Proto-Australoid/Causcasoid"
They'd say what the f---k are you talking about white boy."

No - they would say that, "We had a civil war from 1861-1865. The North fought the South to end slavery. Sure things haven't always been smooth sailing since then but as human beings we have a lot in common and the things we have in common are stronger than the things that could drive us apart." So nice try with the Turner Diaries rhetoric but it won't happen. The other point is that conflict tends to be the exception rather than the norm in human relations. You ignore the fact that all the conflicts you listed co-existed or were followed with long periods of peace elsewhere in the world.

"the key word is young. Australia is ok for 20 somethings but there is no opportunity when you are over 45, or very little."

I actually agree with this. Its very true. But I don't agree with the part about limiting migration. I don't think it will lead to the outcome you seek. If anything we will lose jobs.

Ngarmada, personally I'm sorry for whatever bad things that white people have done to you in the past. It does actually sound like you have had a troubled life. But we are all individual human beings. Can't you see past race and anger?

Less obvious, but no less insidious, is the latent bigotry retained by those alike Dennis and CJ, who promote themselves as enlightened, when readily observed is their contempt for the scientific pursuit of truth within the issue of racism. They feign the enlightenment of being above it all, when in fact their indifference is observed as derived from their detachment, that it doesn’t directly affect them. It is a classic academic failure relevant to the ignorance and naivety of a first year graduate.

Seriously, who is this Dennis character? Why do I never see any of his posts?

How can you be a "first year graduate."??

Thanks David. I don't know about you and Dennis, but I'd rather be a latent bigot than a blatant one ;)

DAVID JENNINGS-<they would say that,we had a civil war from 1861-1865.
The North fought the South to end slavery.>

The Columbia Encyclopedia fifth edition 1993, Columbia University Press states-The name Civil War is misleading because the war was not a class struggle but a sectional combat having it's roots in political, economic,social and psychological elements so complex that historians still do not agree on it's basic causes.

Personally I think that the American Civil War was more of a territorial war and that the Slaves were only freed because it benefitted the North and stopped the overwhelming wealth that was flowing into the coffers of the Southern States. (as it would flow into any company today that didn't have to pay wages) I read an account of this quite a while back. There was a lot written about the increasing political power of the South and how they were gradually increasing their influence and political hold on the North because of their wealth. However I cannot remember the source so I will just state this as my private view. However I have provided a source I looked up tonight. Being the Columbia Encyclopedia above.

It always puzzled me anyway, why northern whites would send so many of their sons to die in a war to free black slaves. It just doesn't seem to fit with the white attitudes in those days. I mean to lose sons that you love dearly like that with no payoff of some kind.

I know that Abraham Lincoln said in one of his speeches. "We will SMASH the SOUTH." A strange thing to say. Not,"WE Will FREE the SLAVES." Maybe again a Freudian slip in an unguarded moment, indicating it was really all about the power of the South and not the Slaves.

I have no idea what the Turner Diaries rhetoric is, but if it agrees with my ideas on conflict I will make a point of looking it up. Only not using Wikipedia as I have been told by Lucy Montgomery that it is unreliable. Hence Columbian Encyclopedia above.

DAVID JENNINGS <You ignore the fact that all the conflicts you listed co-existed or were followed with long periods of peace elsewhere in the world>

That's because the conflicts are territorial, and it takes growing territorial pressures to set wars off. If the pressures are not there then peace reigns.

Like populations that have grown so big that they now have the numbers to challenge the other governing group who may have treated them as second class citizens for many generations. This may really come to a head in countries that have gradually become poorer and poorer and there is less and less to share around and more and more crowding.

In countries that are wealthy with low populations and plenty of land and resources the different races will live quite tolerantly together for quite long periods of history. As long as there are no perceived territorial threats of any significance to set off hostilities.

Look at Rwanda and how that suddenly flared up after those people had been neighbours and lived together peacefully for a fairly long period of time. One of the reasons stated was that the tribe that did the killing had feared losing control of their territory because the other tribe was building up in numbers again.

It's getting late here and my eyes are nearly closing and I am finding it really hard to concentrate so I think I will go to bed.

Cheerio and goodnight everybody