Hey Frank
I think I need to address you directly on this one..
You mention that 'racism' in the past does not justify racism in the present.. agreed, but lets look more closely at this.

Do you agree that Chinese people are different to European ? They are the same in pretty much every aspect except culture and language.

That is really the issue. Have you read the history of Lambing flat ?
It's worth a read. The issue there was a cultural clash, and the 'race' thing was incidental. You seem to want to deny racial differences, ok.. no real problem with that, but do you also deny 'cultural' differences ? and the impact that one group holding a culture diametrically opposed to another will without question seek to influence that which is different from itself ? Specially in the area of language.

If, for example the miners had not done some 'ethnic cleansing' Australia would probably have similar problems today as are in East Timor and Palestine/Isreal. We would have 2 competing races but the trend which caused the Lambing flat rebellion was the fear of such an influx of Chinese as to swamp the emerging European Australian identity.

From what I can gather, Australian identity at that time, was something far from the minds of the British crown, who had treaties with China and did not wish to dishonor them. Can't think why, the treaty of Nanjing was forced on the Chinese anyway.

So by your view, the Chinese should have been free to come here in as many numbers as they desired, and in the end to make this a Chinese cultured country, where the European inhabitants would be the 2nd class or fringe class at best ?

If you don't think this would have happened, read up on the Boxer Rebellion in China.

Looking foward to hear/read your thoughts

I wouldn't argue with Redneck that particular populations may exhibit particular characteristics, including higher or lower IQ. Redneck raises the issue of breeds of dog. I acknowledge that different breeds of dogs have different characteristics. I should also acknowledge that they are often characteristics that they mirror from their owners. However, in general, particular breeds do have particular tendencies.

The issue I have with Redneck's generalisations is that by talking about the "black race" he is using a term as vague and as incapable of providing behavioural guidance as "black dog". We don't define dogs just by their fur colour, because this is pretty useless in terms of predicting their character. A black dog could be a Great Dane, a Labrador or an Affenpinscher.

Redneck bases his assessments on degree of tan. I think that's an absurd basis. At this stage I should probably also declare that three of my children have aboriginal heritage. They're all extremely intelligent. The oldest is looking at an OP1, if he pulls his finger out, and wants to do medicine. The middle one was a member of her maths team, which came third in a maths competition. The youngest is a contributor to these threads, and no-one's picked her for ten yet!

And what exactly is their "blackness"? From what I can work out "Aborigines" is a term which includes people from a number of waves of invasion of this continent who have characteristics in common with people who live in what we now call Asia, as well as Micronesia. Are they "black" to Redneck, and if not, what?

Thats the problem with people like "Redneck" they see anything thats dark ethnic as black & inferior to whites.

Genetically black Africans are the only true distinct human race.
All other dark skinned races are either mongolid or caucasoid, and all part of those sub-groups which include Aborigines,Indian,Arabs,Polynesians ect.

Aethiopids, and the Masais who are nilote ,then theres the khoisan of Southern Africa ,are true disticnt genetic black people.

People in Senegal have higher IQ test than people in Ireland,and that has nothing to do with them being genetically superior to whites.Their pure blooded black Africans.

Well he calls himself a 'Redneck' what more can you expect.

To-GrahamY

I compliment you on your ability to acknowledge the validity of the fundamentals of what I have written. You appear to have accepted that different breeds of men can have different temperaments and intelligence levels, just as different breeds of horses, cats and dogs. I assume then that your thinking is advanced enough to acknowledge that genetics is a factor in human and animal behaviour?

The issue that you raised as to what constitutes “the black race: is a valid one. But even Jared Diamond, who’s acclaimed book “Guns, Germs and Steel” was a book entirely devoted to the concept that human beings are one race, admits on page 378 that the terms “black, white and asian” are such useful shorthand terms for an anthropologist recounting the history of human settlement, that he admits that he uses the terms himself in his book.

Jared Diamond goes to great lengths in his book to point out that even within the “black race” there is very significant genetic differences in physical appearance. I accept that all races, including the black race, can have very significant genetic differences within their own component ethnicities. But I use the term “black race” in a general way, as Jared Diamond does himself.

The logic you have used in your reasoned argument is not up to scratch. Black Labrador dogs may have exactly the same faithful and patient characteristics as cream coloured Labrador dogs. But what defines different breeds of dogs is not the colour of their fur, but their physical appearance. A black Labrador is still recognisable as a Labrador. With humans we use a different categorisation because human breeds are much more related to skin colour. The differences in physical appearances between races and ethnicities are so marked, that the place of ethnic origin in almost all racially akin humans can be generally ascertained with accuracy. Arabs look different from Norwegians.

There may be smart aboriginal people (like deceased Senator Neville Bonner) but in general, I conclude that aboriginal people are not very bright. I do not consider mixed race people in that conclusion.

A yellow man and a black man sit at bar, while a white man looks on. The yellow man is served a glass, and says
"Its half empty"
The black man then quips
"Looks half full"
and the white man mumbles
"Nar.. Youre both wrong"

Redneck, you're trying to duck the issue of what exactly constitutes a "race". A more recent read than Diamond's, and from a much better thinker, is Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale". Dawkins is a Darwinian evolutionist, and I don't think would have any problem with the idea that certain populations might have different IQs, or anything else for that matter. He has a discussion on race in the book which starts from the premise that humans are almost more uniform than any other species because he hypothesises that we came through a near-extinction window sometime in the not-to-distant past.

That leads him to prima facie reject the racial distinction you are making, however he does, almost grudgingly accept that race does have some validity as a concept, not because it marks a significant genetic difference, but because, for various reasons, humans use it as a marker. This is presumably where Diamond is coming from.

It reminds me of the left/right political distinction that we habitually make, even though we know that it breaks down when you look at it closely in particular instances.

So, we might call someone black, but at the level of the human organism it is a very minor difference, but because it is so wide spread, it has some utility.

BTW, if your theory was correct, then "black" genes ought to make the offspring of "mixed" marriages less intelligent than they would otherwise be, so you don't seem to really believe in your theory yourself.