Aidan,
The Mughals practised slavery:
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=3312:islams-indian-slave-trade-part-i-in-islams-genocidal-slavery-

Lewontin argued in the 1960's that more diversity exists between members of a particular population than between populations but his position was never solid and today he criticises the idea of distinctive races mostly on the points on which race is to be defined, semantics in other words and not science.
If you go looking for similarities between groups you'll find similarities, if you're investigating the difference between say, Turks and Fijians you can find answers in DNA.
Though it's largely substantiated by modern DNA testing and examination of ancient remains even if race really is a social construct and nothing more then it's quite clear that social constructs should be placed ahead of genetics in defining who should live where on the planet.

Paul,
The first smallpox epidemic among Aboriginals witnessed by outsiders was documented in 1789, it wasn't the first outbreak ever and there's little doubt now that smallpox was in Aboriginal populations before European arrival and that it originated in Indonesia and was spread to Australia by Macassan Trepang fishermen.
This whole idea of "White man's diseases" is false, more and more information is coming to light about the spread of epidemics before Europeans took to seafaring:
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/08/seals-infected-early-americans-tuberculosis
Influenza can be spread by birds, are you seriously saying that Aboriginals were never infected with colds, the flu and whatnot by migrating birds? The chances that Australia was a disease free continent before European settlement is statistically highly improbable.
Take a look at this paper on diseases in ancient America, before European contact they had polio, whooping cough, Hepatitis,tuberculosis, herpes, rabies and amoebic dysentry but low population numbers and sparse settlement meant that these ailments along with other chronic diseases such as osteoarthritis, syphillis, osteomylitis and staph infections were not in epidemic proportions.
It was their poor diet and debilitation from other chronic conditions which resulted in lowered resistance to introduced diseases, particularly among women and children who it seems were less healthy than the men of ancient America.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071659/
The rest of your post is nonsense.

Jay,
I stand corrected re slavery in Mogul India.

<<Lewontin argued in the 1960's that more diversity exists between members of a particular population than between populations but his position was never solid>>
On the contrary, his position was rock solid. There is such overwhelming evidence to show that individual traits vary more within races than between them that I'm amazed you've been able to hang on to the delusion that there isn't.

<<and today he criticises the idea of distinctive races mostly on the points on which race is to be defined, semantics in other words and not science.>>
And that is his fallacy.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

SPQR,
"To continually broadcast white atrocities" serves the purpose of counteracting the (still widely held) opinion that, as Is Mise said "Just as what my ancestors may or may'nt have done has no bearing on the status of Aboriginal people now, except that their actions have brought the Aboriginals into the modern world". But when that opinion recedes, or when it genuinely ceases to have a bearing, the difference between the historical coverage of white on black and black on black violence is likely to diminish.

And it is generally well accepted that a significant advantage of living in smallish tribal groups is that it is much less conducive to the spread of disease, especially when the people are not farming animals. And that when the settlers arrived there was a big problem of people encountering multiple diseases at once. Acknowledging that doesn't in any way imply Australia was an Eden.

Aidan,

<<"To continually broadcast white atrocities" serves the purpose of counteracting …the opinion that…[what whites did ] … has no bearing on the status of Aboriginal people now…>>

Sorry I have to disagree. Counteract implies forces of equal measure ala a well-balanced arm-wrestle. What we have rather is saturation coverage of the (phony) PC version which would fit in well in North Korea.

Oh it will nose-lead a lot of those who cant or don’t want to think for themselves …but it will not win friends and influence anyone with independent thought who will see that they are being fed propaganda . Especially when, advocates of the PC version spout buzzwords about the need to be honest and open.

<<And it is generally well accepted that a significant advantage of living in smallish tribal groups is that it is much less conducive to the spread of disease…>>

Absolutely. But please read Jay’s posts about what is being learnt from recent research but not factored into the discourse.

Aidan,
Lewontin is still alive, he's still sticking to his theory but he's wrong, he and his colleagues are either incompetent or liars.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=0
Lewontin's argument simply doesn't work, it's not a scientific theory it's an argument against racial discrimination.
http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/lewontins-argument/
Here's a blog dedicated entirely to examining the very latest research in anthropology, ancient genetics and so forth:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/
The latest research says that there are drastic differences in the way what we know as modern races and ethnic groups developed, that changes in physique and genetic makeup occurred very rapidly, that Eurasians are descendants of the out of Africa migrants, Neanderthals and a third, as yet undiscovered human-like group.
The latest information is incredible, did you know that some people in Europe a few thousand years ago had dark skin and blue eyes?
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72508000/jpg/_72508699_brana_i_final.jpg
They've also discovered human remains 40,000 years old which are physically Australoid but genetically European, Kennewick man in the U.S who is physically Eurasian and genetically Native American and that the San people of South Africa have Eurasian admixture which occurred in medieval times.

Aidan the differences are huge and none of the old paradigms still are still relevant, there's no need to cling to 50 year old anti-racist rhetoric and disregard 21st century science, it makes you look like a pig headed hick.

Jay, when the truth does not suit your glowing white narrative you simply manufacture some conjecture then present it as fact. A prime example, as it is very inconvenient to admit the European spread a whole range of poxy diseases to indigenous peoples throughout the world, mainly due to their filthy lack of hygiene, Aboriginals were no exception, you conjure up something of no substance, then present it as fact. I said the first outbreak of smallpox in Aboriginal people was recorded in 1798, well it could have been dropped off by a passing bird, but is far more likely to have been spread by a bunch of unsanitary Europeans hanging around Sydney Cove. As this is most inconvenient for you to accept, you post this drivel and call it fact; << it wasn't the first outbreak ever and there's little doubt now that smallpox was in Aboriginal populations before European arrival and that it originated in Indonesia and was spread to Australia by Macassan Trepang fishermen.>>
You have no evidence of this claim, but state "it wasn't" not it might have been, no, it defiantly wasn't and then it becomes "little doubt" as if it is vitally a proven fact. After blaiming one group of non whites for spreading a deadly disease, you start blaming the birds. Then we have the <<statistically highly improbable>> Where are those statistics that prove the high improbability>> in your minds eye, you see it all. To back up your claims about Aboriginal people of which you have not the slightest evidence, you refer to what you think in the next best thing << this paper on diseases in ancient America>>

Your whole post is nonsense.

Aidan,
Then we agree, Europeans weren't immune to measles, influenza, smallpox, mumps etc unless they'd contracted survived the disease themselves,resistance to infectious diseases isn't hereditary so the same rules of nature applied to Aborigines.
Smallpox has a mortality rate of 30%, nobody has natural resistance to the disease at birth so if Aborigines died at rates higher than the mean (which isn't certain) then there are clearly other factors at play.
There's no evidence that the 1789 epidemic broke out of the coastal communities and spread beyond the highlands, yet explorers like Thomas Mitchell and others reported encountering Aborigines with Smallpox scarring in Victoria and South Australia.
There's an excellent paper on the subject, "A great deal of dying" Introduced diseases among the Aboriginal People of
colonial Southeast Australia 1788-1900 (P.J Dowling ANU 1997)

I'm not trying to get my people off the hook for the manifold problems of colonisation, I'm just trying to get us out from under the pile of lies and urban myths promoted by our enemies.