BOAZ_David, do I agree that Chinese people are different to Europeans? Not to be flippant, but my answer depends on what's meant by 'Chinese' and 'Europeans'. And how deep you want to drill within those categories. Chinese diasporas have formed from at least the 14th century through trading and seafaring. There are now about 30,000,000 ‘Chinese’ who don’t live in China. Indonesia and Thailand have about 9,000,000 each while Singapore has the highest concentration - 3,000,000 or 75% of its population. When do they become Indonesians, Thais or Singaporeans?

The Lambing Flat riots are hardly an example of ‘ethnic cleansing’. The violence was a mixture of racial, cultural and economic factors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambing_Flat_riots . Large numbers of Chinese continued to live in Australia in the mid 19th century and, White Australia Policy notwithstanding, their numbers have grown steadily since.

How helpful are racial or ethnic labels? In 2001, 6.7 million Australians said their ancestries were Australian and 6.4 million said English. The third most common was Irish (1.9 million), followed by Italian (800,000), German (742,000), Chinese (557,000) and Scottish (540,000). In total, more than 160 ancestries were separately identified. (ABS 4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, 2003). Who are ‘Australians’? Incidentally I know many ethnically Chinese-Australians who speak only English. One barracks fanatically for Collingwood. Culturally he is, to use your term, diametrically opposed’ to another Chinese-Australian who barracks madly for Carlton.

Now what do we mean by the English (as an example of ‘Europeans’)? Britain has continually absorbed invaders and been home to multiple peoples. When the Romans swept into Britain they found regional physical differences - red-headed people in Scotland, small, dark-haired types in Wales, lanky blondes in southern England. When imperial power collapsed (c.410 AD) most of Britannia was taken over by successive 'Germanic' kingdoms – Angles, Saxons and Jutes who mixed with indigenous populations. Eventually mixed natives and immigrants became the English. Now we have people from the old Empire. (www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/prehistory/peoples).

You can see I have problems with your simple idea of ‘two competing races’. And ‘culture is a very tricky word.

Redneck, I’ll have one more go and then I’ll give up on you. First, I can agree that people have different coloured skins or different cultures or different levels of intelligence, but it’s absurd for you then to assert that:
(a) Skin colour, culture or intelligence are causally connected or
(b) Knowing a person’s skin colour enables you to conclude something about their intelligence or vice versa
(c) Any of the three variables has a bearing on a person’s moral status or right to respect or social opportunities.

It is simply ridiculous and offensive to go from the proposition that you can accurately identify a person’s race (or a dog’s breeding) to the outrageous conclusion that “in general…aboriginal people are not very bright”.

It would be equally absurd and offemsive for me to conclude that because you write in a manner that is not very intelligent – sight unseen - you must be white and pure bred at that.

To-GrahamY

I don’t have to “duck” anything. I am comfortable with this subject and if you don’t understand my explanations then please ask me explain those points again. Due to the 350 word limit, it would be helpful if you did not bring up too many points for discussion in one post.

You have read a book by a person who holds my views on the inequality of races. Yet you say that the author of that book rejects the concept of races? As First Officer Spock would say to Captain Kirk, “but that is illogical, Captain.”

Now to your next point.

Human beings are one species and this is often termed a “race”. (ie, The human race) But the word race has two meanings in my Macquarie dictionary. The word “race” can, and does, refer to different groups of humans who’s genetic adaptations to environment has affected their physical appearance so much that they can be identified as being from particular regions of this planet. The concept of race may be an inexact concept, because some ethnicities do not fit conveniently into the three major racial groups But the word “race” is still a useful generalization.

Your implication that the word “race” is so general in meaning that it should not be used, is like saying that the words “a flock of birds” or “a pack of dogs” have no meaning unless they declare exact numbers. When I say “dog”, what springs to mind? An Alsatian, Poodle or Jack Russel? The word “dog” is used in exactly the same way as ‘race” is used in plain language. As a general as opposed to specific description of genotype.

You have already conceded that different breeds of dogs exist with different levels of intelligence and different temperaments. But you now appear to be submitting a premise which if you applied it to dogs as you applied it to humans, it would go like this.

Pit Bulls could not possibly have a reputation for being dangerous and attacking children, because Pit Bulls are just dogs, and all dogs are almost genetically identical.

Frank, great to see we are making actual progress here :)

I have any major problem with your explanation regarding the blood lines of 'English' people etc history is history.

But the important point I feel should be made here, is that those blood/genetic mixing each came at a horrific cost in human life, and the displacement of 100s of 1000s of families. It also involved the loss of land, and quite probably caused further examples of the same thing as the newly displaced Celts, pushed by the Angles and Saxons, and Jutes etc, had to find a means of survival on new land occupied by their fellow Celts of different tribes.

Taking this into our era. The more extreme the cultural difference, the more likelihood of conflict (ultimately) and, unquestionably an attempt to obtain social dominance.

The greatest danger for Australia, is this.

1/ Because most Aussies are of Anglo/Irish/Scottish/Celt background, no one 'culture' of any of them is acutely manifest, though English is the more likely. Still, there would not be major differences except perhaps for food (Hagis ? eeeuuugghhh).Hence, when removed from any local conflict issues, they were able to blend into the new "Australian" identity.

Such is not the case with Greek,Italian,Lebanese,Turkish,Polish,Croatian, Russian etc who would have a much stronger sense of cultural identity from the old country.

When a 3rd generation Aussie of Greek background says "I'm so proud to be (wait for it)..."GREEK" (report in Herald recently)-something is seriously wrong with that persons attitude in regard to Australia.

So, we need:
-Recognition of the Anglo etc cultural history as the framework.
-Australian Cultural identity re-inforcement
-Limitations and controls on numbers from non Anglo etc backgrounds.

To-FrankGol

I don’t blame you for “giving up” on me Frank, your posts are obviously getting more emotional, disjointed and desperate. I see you have just resorted to chucking more questions at me again, so that you don’t have to explain or do anything yourself. At least you have to admit that we rednecks are not as dumb as your stereotype of us presumes.

Look mate, there are two sides to this argument. If you believe that every human being on this planet is genetically identical in every conceivable way, except skin colour and physical appearance, then the onus is on you to present a reasoned argument to support your claim. But so far, all you have done is make noble statements and ask me lots of questions, without bothering to present an argument yourself. You have demanded that I provide scientific proof to support my premise, but it has not even occurred to you that the onus is also upon you to do exactly the same thing. Your position is “my position is obviously right, so unless you can prove my position is wrong, then it proves I must be right.” Such an attitude is intellectually dishonest, and it is not the mindset of a person who has mastered the art of objective critical thinking.

You have accepted the concept of “all men are equal” because you knew that it was expected of you to do so. It never occurred to you to question what you had been culturally conditioned to regard as “only normal”. Then along comes a heretic who contradicts the prevailing orthodoxy on the grounds of reasoned logic, and you are outraged. Since your cultural conditioning assures you that racists are all idiots, you confidently go into battle against us armed with little more than a conviction of moral superiority and some easily refuted cut and paste arguments which you simply parrot with an air of self righteous indignation.

But you come up against an opponent who has acquired his conviction from an objective assessment of known facts, and you flounder badly.

Let’s see if we can make more progress, BOAZ_David. You lament the horrific cost of ‘blood/genetic mixing’ - human life, the displacement of countless families, the loss of land. Following this sensitive reasoning, I presume you also lament the loss of lives, displacements and loss of land of Australia’s Indigenous people. But I notice in your statement of what's needed that you do not mention Indigenous Australians. Is this an oversight or do you have some ideological opposition to their equal participation in Australian life?

You appear to say ‘the greatest danger for Australia’ is in cultural conflict between Australians of Anglo/Irish/Scottish/Celt background (the majority collectively) and those who come from other backgrounds. You lament that these ‘others’ have a ‘much stronger sense of cultural identity from the old country’. Do you have evidence or is this just another seat-of-the-pants judgment. (I notice your list of these ‘others’ is predominantly European and wonder if that is consciously chosen?)

I wonder if your argument confuses ancestry with culture? Culture is a complex web of influences. A Scottish doctor and a Vietnamese-background psychologist in Melbourne are likely to have more affinity with each other culturally than with a Scottish fruit-picker and a Vietnamese-speaking fruit-grower in Mildura. New cultural variables: occupation/income/education and location and what about gender, religion, political beliefs or age?.

When ‘a 3rd generation Aussie of Greek background says "I'm so proud to be (wait for it)..."GREEK", you say “…something is seriously wrong with that persons attitude in regard to Australia”.’ Should I be equally worried when my son-in-law says he is so proud to be (wait for it)… “ENGLISH”. What are you frightened of? Noticed any Greek-Australians on the rampage lately? Can I walk on Russell Street tonight?

A friend sent me this: “Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, and then travelling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV. And the most British thing of all? Suspicion of anything foreign ".