It should probably be a distinction between so-called "scientific findings" on race distinctions and socio-political merits these “findings” have been estimated for.

Australia was established and is continuing to be a land of racists where nothing might change dramatically if even all Nobel Prizes go to scientists convincing a world that races are really different but not worse or better for these distinctions.

Thanks for the advice All -... is english your second language? anyway, maybe you could take some of my advice: name calling and labelling is easy. Any 2-yr old can do it. An adult that continually spews it out in such a rambling way shows poor ability of self-expression and/or poor breeding (no matter what "race" you may be).

On the topic of white supremacy - I wonder about the objectivity of this argument, eg: "Unless you can think up a reasonable explanation involving "white racism" as to why Asian people prospered, while black and Muslim people went backwards...."

Asians have prospered by whose criteria? economy? population growth? what about China's human rights record?

Race: “A group of animals or plants having common distinguishing characteristics that distinguish them from other members of the same species.”

This probably refers to appearance, but even if someone did "prove" that intelligence was a distinguishing characteristic between races, it's still not a reasonable basis for limitations on Australian immigration. Every culture/race/whatever has differences in intelligence.

If we had opposed multiculturalism 50 years ago, we wouldn't have the current Italian and Greek community (for example), which have successfully integrated into the Australian culture. Same goes for the asian community. Accepting different cultures is a generational thing.

I think that the real point here is the Italians, Greeks and Asians have not so much integrated into our culture, they have changed and enriched our culture. Strong coffee, Chinese take away and pizza are as much Aussie as meat pies and Holden cars. The great strength of modern cultures is their ability to change.

All-, I am becoming convinced that you are in reality the figment of someone's imagination.

No-one - but no-one - could be quite as perfectly-formed as the character you have created as your literary alter ego. He spouts arrant garbage that - let's be honest here - is too over the top for any self-respecting Australian. Austrian, perhaps, circa 1938, but not Australian.

We all know that "on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog", but actually, it is not quite true. You can tell the dog from the way they take great care to be un-doglike in everything they say. They will profess an undying love for cats, for example, or chide their fellow bloggers for their inclination to chase cars.

In the same way, you are just too perfect an example of a bigoted, one-eyed racist to actually be true. I suspect you are in fact a latte-sipping left-wing social studies wonk in an inner-city university, trying in different ways to further your research into the Australian mind. Well hah, I just caught you out!

You are a caricature, aren't you. Go on, admit it.

But in the extremely unlikely event that you actually believe what you "write", I'd like to make the following reply to your last post to me:

>> your favoured Version of Ethnicity is enacting the racial removal of White&#8217;s in South Africa,Same as in Zimbabwie<<

Wrong, on both counts.

>> the real people of Australia suffer the indignity of your Ilk's folly. As is true of Western Societies in general.<<

And the "real people" of Australia in your opinion would be...?

>>nothing what so ever to do with Racism, just Fed up with the lie and the preponderance of supposed Academics and Politicians along with Apparatchiks,supposid Professional's self perpetuated employed and other interest groups hell bent on destroying Australia<<

Oh puhleeeze! Nothing to do with racism? Mate, it oozes from every sentence you write.

But there I go again. Imagining that you are real. Silly me.

I thank Mr Redneck for his reply, but it should be noted that I'm trying to engage in a conversation here, rather than a fight. Talk of challenges, gauntlets etc is not compatible (IMHO) with a civilised debate, even if it does come from an eminent member of a superior 'race'.

Now let's look at that definition: “A group of animals or plants having common distinguishing characteristics that distinguish them from other members of the same species.”

Fair enough, I suppose, but how useful is such a broad definition for any practical purpose? Under such a definition the following human groups would constitute 'races':

Women - they are distinguished from men by their genitalia
Blue-eyed people - distinguished from other humans by eye colour
Short people - distinguished by their small stature
Rednecks - distinguished by the colour of their necks
Christians - distinguished by their religious beliefs
Footballers - distinguished by their peculiar forms of bonding sessions
Racists - distinguished by their obsession with categorising people into hierarchical and mutually exclusive groups.
Etc etc.

Hey - I just realised that under Mr Redneck's definition, Australia is and always has been a 'multi-racial' society!

Thanks again for clarifying that, Mr Redneck :)

To Mr Mahatma Sitting Duck.

I love it when my opponents do exactly what I anticipate that they will do. Trendy lefties always try to take the moral high ground first and you conformed exactly to stereotype. My challenge to you to engage me in direct debate was portrayed by you as uncivilized behaviour. Which, of course, infers that you are the holier than thou civilized one.

Look sunshine, I am sick and tired of chardonnay sucking intellectuals who think that they are God’s gift to the human race, talking down to me and pretending that they are the font of all knowledge. I am here to hold you and your mates up to the light and see what makes you tick. So far, I have been unimpressed with your ilk’s capacity for reasoned thought and critical analysis.

You asked me “how useful is such a broad definition for all practical purposes?”

Exactly.

You tried to set a semantic trap for me that was so laughably obvious that your intellect must have really come from the shallow end of the gene pool if you thought that I would fall for it. I simply returned the compliment and responded by playing semantic games as well. Two can play sillybuggers. You will have to try harder than that if you want to out think rednecks.

Checkmate.