individual,

I'm a little confused about your last post. I was talking about anglo-saxons not mixing into other countries, you seem to have turned into a rant against the public service, dole bludgers and immigrants.

Pauline Hanson in my opinion (and obviously yours differs) plays on the basic mistrust of the different. She does not have a plan for the future, she does not want to move the country forward instead she wants to move it back. I'm sorry, I just can't agree to that. If Pauline Hanson ever achieved power (and no not just as a senator), this country would slide backwards so fast, we'd meet the first fleet coming the other way.

CJ Morgan said: "Of course people's phenotypes reflect the geographical origins of their ancestors, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with their nationality."

You accuse me of faulty logic, but then post a contradictory statement such as the one above. So there is absolutely no overlap between the geographical origins of a population's ancestry and the modern spatial boundaries of ethnically-based nation-states?

"...rather, the markers of ethnicity are culture, language, shared history, identity etc."

For somebody who has spent their life studying such things, I can only assume you are being deliberately mendacious rather than merely ignorant. A common ethnic marker is the claim by members of a group to have shared ancestry, real or imagined.

"Yes, a Finnish national is more likely to have blonde hair and blue eyes than a Chinese national..."

Thank you for admitting the obvious. Wasn't that hard, now was it?

"...but how would you distinguish a Finn from a Swede, Norwegian or Estonian on the basis of eye and hair colour?"

The more cantankerous you become, the more your posts become riddled with logical fallacies. I never claimed there was an exact relationship between nationality and the physical characteristics of a population. Rather, my argument was an inference based on probability. An inference which seems to hold true when comparing the populations of Northern European nations to those of East Asian nations.

To simply observe that the populations of some nations in a particular geography are more likely to have certain physical traits than people from nations in different geographies has nothing to do with 'race'. I know that, and you should to. But then, you are obsessed with this concept of 'race', to point where it seems to be clouding your reasoning.

If this increasingly ridiculous discussion feels like pulling teeth, then why did you bother with the straw man set up in the first place? After all, you first planted and then repeated the question about physical traits and nationality.

And to answer your final irrelevant question, I've only been as far as Denmark.

Rainier said: "Your should not confuse his erudite approach to race and racism theories with your own benign fear and loathing of anyone who is not white."

Unfouded smears and scurrilous character assassinations may be your forte, but I tend to believe that they are the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

Speaking of "race and racism theories", why don't we recycle some of previous vitriolic rants against 'white' people and 'white privilege'?

Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle white.

Dresdener: "If this increasingly ridiculous discussion feels like pulling teeth, then why did you bother with the straw man set up in the first place? After all, you first planted and then repeated the question about physical traits and nationality."

They say you shouldn't argue with an idiot, because it soon becomes difficult for an observer to distinguish between you and the idiot. My initial questions in this thread were directed at Bazz's appallingly racist post about "Australians" being "swamped" by "Chinese" and people "of middle eastern appearance". I simply asked how he knew that the latter two groups weren't Australians without asking them. This prompted a litany of increasingly stupid invective from the xenophobes and racists, including Dresdener.

Far from me posing the first "straw man" question in this silly thread, it was Dresdener himself who asked me "Ever met a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Chinese citizen?" in response to my statement that "It's impossible to tell someone's nationality from their appearance." I'll give him the benefit of the doubt again and say he's mistaken rather than dishonest.

It's not me who is obsessed with 'race', ethnicity, nationality etc. I have no problems with Australia's increasing diversity - as far as I'm concerned, the more culturally and ethnically diverse Australia is the better. To return to the actual topic, it's the racists and xenophobes who would support the execrable Pauline Hanson's new political party who seem to be obsessed with these issues.

As I've said elsewhere, they are miserable, bitter and fearful people who have only themselves to blame for their unhappiness at Australia's increasingly rich cultural diversity.

James Purser, my posts may be a "Rant' to you but I can assure you these things do go on right here in Australia & now. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that it is so easy for the likes of you i.e. chip-on-your-shoulder uni drop-outs to condemn people who actually experience in everyday life the things of which you can only theorise about. You conveniently fail to acknowledge that "whities" too are in minorities and get discriminated against. It is perfectly normal for people to hang around their own kind. The description of enclaves also encompasses tribes as in aborigine tribe.
Anyhow, this thread is about Pauline's new party. She is not going to get anywhere because integrity, truth & fact are on the condemned list in Australia.

individual,

please detail the "everyday life" that you feel that I cannot experience.