Relax Anthony, I have not misquoted you. Something you wrote fit in well with something I was working on, it gave me a bit of inspiration that I elaborated on. It is not a critique.

I find it odd that you disbelieve the effects of racism. At the Indigenous Academic doctors forum in Canberra, Nov 11, racism was raised as an issue by many of the 90 odd that attended. Your stance puts you at odds with the majority, have you never wondered about that? Indigenous people from all walks of life, well off and destitute, talk of racism affecting them. How much more evidence do you need, or will you cling onto your assertion regardless?

Regarding me supplying you with more information on the 'working together' book, you are a researcher it is not for me to do your work for you. Like you, on forums such as this I don't use academic writing style.

Namaste the reliance on Platoism is a little odd. Talk about relying on an ancient culture. Plato had some weird ideas, and it seems to me that he expected people to just accept their lot in life which is ok if well off but a bit hard on his slaves.

individual,

Sorry if I assumed you were having a go.

Btw - you're not backwards in coming forwards yourself, as in the charming rejoinder in your parting sentence to me.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13353&page=0#230958

You really are a class act.

AKA

You stated "Namaste the reliance on Platoism is a little odd. Talk about relying on an ancient culture. Plato had some weird ideas, and it seems to me that he expected people to just accept their lot in life which is ok if well off but a bit hard on his slaves."

You seem to have missed the 'use' that I was making of Plato's metaphorical 'Cave' story (i.e., that someone who holds and presents a more enlightened view to that cherished by the majority is not likely to be welcomed) and instead 'read into' what I was actually using Plato's illustration for to suggest that I was using him to support some view on slavery - that I was using him as an 'authority' on anything at all!

With a metaphor - and that is the only use I was making of Plato's story - the reader has to bring themselves to an understanding of the meaning of the metaphor (in other words they must do their part in seeing the 'truth' that is hidden the metaphor, and such 'truth' is only revealed to the 'open mind' that desires to 'see' beyond their existing preconceptions) or they simply 'don't get it' at all.

Metaphor's are useful because they avoid useless arguments (a discussion becomes an argument, when the person become the object - and this always happens the moment the ego gets involved in the discussion) with minds that are unwilling in the first place to 'see' another possible position or perspective. The intellect cannot understand what the heart won't accept. 'Food is for the hungry' - and I would rather present a metaphor as a hint at something deeper, than continue with futile attempts to 'force feed' material that is unpalatable to the receiving mind - 'force feeding' only makes people 'gag' and hate the 'food' even more. And I do recognise that what is 'food' for one mind is 'poison' for another -- ah well.
I assume that your comments were intended to be positive, and I have responded to them with that in mind. Thanks

Namaste,
my comment on Plato relates to the way in which Indigenous Australians are derided for the 'stone age culture'. Drawing on knowledge before colonisation is seen as backwards while the drawing on the likes of Plato's knowledge is acceptable. Why is this?

I refer to your use of Platoism because of the notion of 'turning the other cheek', or racism isn't racism if you don't accept that it is.

You state that "the person who attributed no ‘ill-intent’ would no longer engage in negative conflict aimed at inducing ‘guilt’ ... but rather, if they were serious about change, would allow them to begin to work on solving the ‘root cause’ of the problem." It sounds a lot like Platoism to me - to help a person accept their lot in life be it rich, poor or slave.

Is the thrust of your argument that if one refuses to acknowledge racism it ceases to exist?

Perhaps we are looking at the same issue from different angles, I for one have seen that ignoring racism does not make the perpetrator open to changing their ways. Do you subscribe the same actions to bullying - if it is ignored it does not really exist

For Aka,
“Relax Anthony, I have not misquoted you. . ..”
Thanks for the advice about relaxing (always welcomed). I am often misquoted or taken out of context by people who need to prop up their arguments that oppose mine, hence my “knee jerk response”.

“I find it odd that you disbelieve the effects of racism. At the Indigenous Academic doctors . . . Your stance puts you at odds with the majority, have you never wondered about that?”

People love to make these grand claims “Racism is a major problem.” Claims like that are easy to make, but much more difficult to prove – and you seem to have a bit of difficulty proving your claims. I agree, you are certainly in the majority here. But as you have trouble proving your claims (or at least providing any strong evidence), I would not wish to follow the majority. I think it is extremely weak when a person’s best argument is “many other people agree with me so I must be right.” On the matter of the effects of racism, an equally weak argument is “well people believe racism affects them, so it must be true.” It is a fundamental principle of psychology, that people have no problem finding many explanations (rationalisations) for their behaviours. For example, a student may believe (or at least claim) that he failed the test because the lecturer had it in for him. That is an easier pill to swallow than “I did not study enough.” Just because he describes what he believes to be true about himself, does not make it true.

Are you aware that correlation does not equal causation? Based on your postings, I suspect not. A person may be not doing well in life (may be poor, unhappy, etc.), and also observe (often with extreme subjectivity) that racism exists. To conclude that “it is racism that causes me to be unhappy” is a leap of faith. Again, if racism is the problem, then why is it that so many Aboriginal people seem to be unaffected by it and doing well?

For Aka

“Regarding me supplying you with more information on the 'working together' book, you are a researcher it is not for me to do your work for you. Like you, on forums such as this I don't use academic writing style.”

Asking for a brief summary of what the publication is about is not asking you to do my work. If the publication’s message is the same as your messages given here, and the others you have quoted, then I can guess what the message is. I don’t wish to waste my time reading nonsense that only disempowers Australia’s already most disempowered people.

Yes, I realise that you (like me) use a different style of writing in forums like this. I was referring to the logic you use. Specifically, your claims that what you say (in regard to racism) is true because other people (the majority) agree with you. I do not deny the existence of racist acts and attitudes (though I suspect they are less wide spread than what you would like to believe). But I do not see the evidence that this racism is a significant cause of the problems facing Aboriginal people. In fact I see much counter evidence – which you seem to be in denial of. Why is that? I suspect I will be waiting a long time for you to prove your claims. In the meantime, you may have to just rely on your consensus argument (can there be any weaker evidence to support one’s position?)

You are aware that people like Copernicus and Galileo went against the majority? They did not win any popularity contests in their day. Have you read about Ignaz Semmelwei? I would encourage you to do so. Another man who was not afraid to break with the majority. Now I don’t claim to put myself in the same category as these great people, but just wanted to make the point, that just because a lot of people believe something, that does not make it true.