No, I just found humour in that particular typo. I'm guessing you didn't see why it was humourous (given what you said at the end of the very last post you made before that one).
The definition of the word "racist" agrees with him.
Nope. As I have already said, both of these are actually ethnicities.
Please name for me the "certain specific properties" that "caucasian" defines. What "certain specific properties" must someone have to be called "caucasian"?
I can name the properties for any ethnicity you can name.
Which 'precondition'?
Ethnicity is all about relating people to labels, just like nationality. Race is about giving labels to people, not relating them (name the place, person, or thing that "caucasian" is relating John Howard to - you cannot do it).
It is not "unscientific criteria", it is descriptor - I am of british descent along my mother's side of the family, so I am ethnically british. No doubts about it - either you are ethnically british, or you are not. Please name for me Michael Jackson's race, and explain WHY he is of that race.
You see, race is not a descriptor, so it needs to be backed up by science. However, it is not backed up by science, meaning that it doesn't exist. Ethnicity, on the other hand, is a descriptor, so it does not require science to back it up - just as your name is a descriptor (as demonstration - please provide scientific proof that John Howard's name is "John Howard").
Nope. I refer you to the example of Michael Jackson. Also consider tanned people, albinos, etc.
When have I identified someone as an "ethnic" group they don't belong to? When has any non-racist done so?
Ethnicity is not something that can be identified by looking at someone - a British person is indistinguishable from a French person, from looking at them. It is only when you either hear them talk, or are told their ancestry (or place of birth) that you can identify them as either British or French (or any other ethnicity, for that matter).
Racists operate on observation, and are superficial (Michael Jackson would be clbuttified as "caucasian", if people didn't know him before plastic surgery), whereas ethnicity is a personal thing, something that is inherent in a person's family history and-or their beliefs.
I have shown you the difference more than enough times now. If you have not yet understood, you never will (due to your stupidity).
No. Please point out the definitions (from oxford dictionary) of "ethnicity" and "race" that make them mean the same thing. Please point out which criteria are common to "race" and "ethnicity".
You cannot do it, because they are not the same thing.
See above, and in a number of other posts. I have made the distinction abundantly clear, and if you cannot understand it, then you are the bozo.
Except that ethnicity is not arbitrary - the things that define ethnicity are clearly listed in it's definition, and each can be considered in a binary sense (either you ARE, or you are NOT). Now please define "race" in the same way - what defines race (saying "physical peculiarities" is not sufficient, because it is equally vague).
Thank you. Now if only you would actually read what I write, rather than jumping to your own conclusion and applying it to what I write.
I've already covered that - "African-American" is an ethnicity, not a race. Hence, African-Americans are not racists, in general. Some, of course, are, but they are not racists as a group. Same applies to "Aboriginals".
