Fraser seems to have no trouble quoting statistics about race but he neglects to define what race actually is. People invariably use facial characteristics and skin colour to define race but forget about dominant and recessive genes. What you see is not what you get. People may look African or European but their genetic background may tell a different story.
The variation between an individual’s apparent race and genetic background is discussed in Bryan Sykes book, “Adam’s Curse”. He notes a number of South American groups thought to be racially pure but have a European type Y chromosome present in the men. With DNA profiling, it is only possible to trace the history of your mother’s mitochondrial DNA or your father’s Y chromosome for men. It is not possible yet to examine a person’s DNA and put them definitively in one racial group or another.
Fraser talks about people being “White” and “Black” but what exactly is he talking about? If the genetic scientists are unable to define race, how can Fraser have a serious discussion about it. I find it appalling that an Associate Professor could write an article so lacking in intellectual vigour. He is simply parroting the fears of the ignorant and displaying his own educational deficiency.

"White" and "Black" are not racial catergories. They are phenotypical characteristics. There is more genetic variation in Black Africa than there is anywhere else in the world. To argue that "Africans" represent some kind of genetically homogenous group because they share a similar shade of skin colour is rediculous. On what basis is Andrew Fraser lumping people together as "African"?

for a bloke that wasnt even born here that fraser fella seems to be taking undue liberties to be putting forth that sort of pro white priviledge argument.

i laughed when i saw him on aca talking to those educated african immigrants who so eloquently disprove his obviously weak theories.

i dunno somehow comparing lions and sheep with black or white people seems a bit stupid to me. i mean the only obvious common demoninator between lion and sheep is their species - mamals. humans, mamals as well, but with lots more in common than not,- the main one being appearance.

Andrew! Andrew! Andrew! Your imperium statement which seeks to subject multiculturalism to a thoroughgoing lustration is causing great consternation in the academic world. You as a professor are supposed to be in lockstep with the faux-sophisticates and elites who are selling us this tosh.

I think it's time that Australia invested in a few re-education camps like they had in Cambodia with Andrew as the first inmate. Just kidding Andrew.

But if you keep questioning the wisdom of our immigration policy you'll be branded a racist. Ooops! I'm a bit late with that one.

Whether you agree or disagree with the grounds upon which Fraser mounts his case, it is irrational to smokescreen any valid grievances he makes against “multiculturalism.”

Although I am confident that the antinomies within multicultural policy will inevitably undo it, Fraser’s “biocultural” view will certainly not, to say the least, hurry the needed debate along.

Nonetheless, it is important that Fraser is drawing our attention to the RACISM OF ETHNIC MINORITIES in Australia, a fact all too irresponsibly played down and reflected in support for groups like One Nation.

A friend of mine, in an email to Eva Sallis (19/3/2005), President of Australians Against Racism Inc. (www.australiansagainstracism.org), made an analogy with the KKK and the racist gang-violence he’d experienced coming from certain elements of certain ethnic groups, noting that he in no way would generalise such racist bigotry to that ethnic group as a whole, no more than he would take one who attacked the KKK to be in any way vilifying all Christians or Anglo-Celts. Her reply: “Of course you should be worried about Anglophobia – so why increase it by encouraging an environment of mutual fear, ignorance and hostility?”

Sallis acknowledges the existence in this country of those “who are intensely racist towards anglo-Australians” (14/4/2005), yet it is nonetheless hostile to talk about it! Imagine her implication here, that Anglo’s are in part responsible for it, being implied of a non-Anglo! There is a pathological inconsistency going on, and those who we are afraid to criticise – those who translate all criticism into being a generalisation-to-the-whole – reveal only their own predispositions to prejudge.

But even if Sallis wanted to stop treating some as PERMANENT GUESTS and subject ALL members of the community to the SAME critical gaze, she legally can’t. In being so sensitive to difference, multicultural policy reflects nothing more than the ethnic insecurities around which it only fittingly erects barriers to criticism. My friend’s grievance doesn’t count, because although alienated as a “white-trash skip” in western Sydney, such policy discrimination only reflects, as Fraser notes, his predisposition to “a relative lack of ethnocentrism.”

Man it's hard to kill cockroaches.
here is a link to a review of the book the author mentions allot. http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu:7066/articles.php?issue=8&article=bookreview

The nazi's made a big deal about cranial dimension of humans can you can tell how pure/superior, and it seems it's come back in vogue in the racist circles. The main point to make here is the author doesn’t mention what the hard sciences have to say on the matter. Which is race don't exist there are no genetic basis for race based behavior. So while this piece is always going to get some fan mail from those who’s world view it agrees with the reality is it’s not a serious attempt to address any of the issues we face.

I must also make the point that I’m not the first to notice that most people who tell us their race is the best are usually not particularly superior examples of that race!