Dear Redneck,
your expansion of your position is most welcome. Specially that you ended it with a question rather than a statement. How wonderful it would be, if those like our beloved Mahatma, would use their apparently considerable experience and education to explore the issue at an issue level, rather than choosing to waste everyones time with abuse.

Your reasoning is bold and backed up by references. A very scholarly approach ! The abuse on the other hand, was sadly lacking in the same.

Mahatma, you need a jolly good shake. At least a stern rebuke for your irresponsible approach to serious matters with which you disagree.

If you find fault in Rednecks reasoning or mine, SHOW IT !
.. and with references and sources. Otherwise, please don't insult the intelligence of those here, who can actually notice your rather 'colorful' (to choose the very best word without lowering myself to your own chosen level) approach.

Yes, Redneck, ask anyone in PNG about the 'Chimbu' and in Malaysia about the 'Bugis', and you will find your theory very much anecdotally validated if not confirmed by formal studies.

I was dropped off at one remote area in Sarawak, where the people were VERY distinct in how they greeted us, and then, the next day, off to a different tribe 10 minutes by plane away, and they were TOTALLY different. Like East is from the West. Even while with the first group a group of jungle nomads (Punan) wandered in, they also were like white is to black in character, temperament and look.

They all expressed the values which were predominant and highly valued in the group. People breed on the basis of values. "IF" there is any genetic aspect to 'personality' and most dog breeders would say there is, then it shows up also in group behavior.

This theory also has implications for societies which embrace Christianity, the new values are also the basis of breeding. If there is a genetic aspect, then the society is also transformed at the biological level as well as the spritual. (Note, this is 'if')

To Swilkie.

I take issue with your unsupported allegation that racism is "inargueably learned."

Group hostility is primarily a function of defence of territory. Humans have always formed self protecting groups which have been hostile to other human groups who have invaded the territory that the primary group considers vital to their survival.

Tolerance is not a function of intellectual intelligence, it is a function of prosperity. Those groups who have plenty can afford to be generous with other groups with the fruits of their territories resources. But groups under stress experiencing survival conditions are not noted either for their generosity or for their friendliness.

Add to this the cultural universal that people of one culture bitterly resent having to live under the rule of another culture on the same territory. The degree of hostility between the two groups is a measure of how much the majority groups values, (that is, their concept of right and wrong), differ markedly from each other. This hostility is greatly exacerbated if the two groups are of different ethnicities or races. Race wars tend to be very bad wars.

Racism is therefore instinctive behaviour which can be reduced or increased through cultural conditioning. But it is a lot easier to promote hostile racist behaviour than tolerant behaviour, especially in times of economic stress, because it is always easier to convince people to behave in ways that they already "feel" is right.

Philo,

‘Oh! I see! You are a coward. Just use verbal denegration but have no case. Thought so’

I hereby reply to your implied suggestion that I could not back up what I say;

1. Seeking to destroy the Federal compact, and to disembowel the Constitutionally predicated continued existence of the states as independent governing entities;

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2440745&TABLE=HANSARDR&TARGET=

also see

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2106&TABLE=BILLS

2. Also for discriminatory, draconian legislation, employers with less than 15 employees would no longer be required to pay redundancy pay to employees (effectively reducing the real wage scale of such employees’ based upon discriminatory identification).

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2110&TABLE=EMS

also see;

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2106&TABLE=BILLS

3. And for legislation which was never proposed, argued or indeed suggested at the last election, which JH has/had no mandate to introduce, see all of the above.

As for my cowardice in refusing to attempt to commence action for something which is probably non-justiciable, perhaps you will remember that you proposed, in your mantra for determining the relative un-Australian-ism (or otherwise) of individuals, the indicia of un-Australian behavior.

As for me, well my family has been here longer than most, in fact I probably have senior bloodlines to most here, except of course those of original Australians. Therefore despite my not being a christian etc. I presumably am unlikely to be deported?

Aaron,
Since you do not choose to expose JH to your claims of his seditious violations of the Federal Constitution then stop your wingeing about him. You should recognise that the States agreement is verified by our Constitution and both sides of the political party spectrum work under this constitution.

If you want change to our Constitution then take it to the people by referundum, that is the proceedure under our Constitution. Those that promote the undermining of our Constution without the will of the people are seditious and unaustralian.

The URL given in your last post is out of date.

Philo,

I am currently authoring a proposal along the lines of the argument I advance in this post;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13#20614

See what you think

Redneck - a good description of what racism is but you haven't supported your argument that racism is 'instinctive'. Read & understand my previous post(s).