Racist remarks are a 'fact' - but, nobody is ever disturbed by a 'fact'. What 'disturbs' a person is the interpretation they give to the 'fact'. If the person on the receiving end of 'racist remark' believe's that the remark really is an attack on them (i.e., the remark may possibly have some validity attached to it) then the reaction will automatically be "how dare you attack me" --- however, if the person on the receiving end of the 'racist remark' really believes that the remark says more about the state of mind [ignorance, or fear, or both] of the person making the remark than about the person receiving the remark, the person on the receiving end may have an entirely different response - pity, or even compassion for such a person who is so 'fearful' of their own 'status in life' that they feel the need to 'attack' another.

Offence is never 'given' - it is only ever 'taken' - and when offence is 'offered' and 'refused', any offence intended returns to the one who offered it. This is a psychological law that is as fixed as the law of gravity - but it is a law that is much harder for the fear driven egoic mind to really accept.

Thanks Joe,
your last point made me smile, maybe we need to explain to the WASP Anti Racists about being chained to their culture and point out the boundaries of their ideological prison.
I'm trying to change the way I discuss these issues, simply focusing on what I know to be true about White people rather than what I assume to be true of others.
There's presently a lot of discussion of the WASP problem withing the Alternative Right milieu, the feeling is that these extreme xenophiles and protestant revolutionaries actually are a different ethnic group, that the East Anglians are descended from the early immigrants from Jutland and that they still retain much of that Northern European hunter gatherer mentality.
Hunter gatherer societies tend to be more egalitarian, this supposed racial trait would seem to be backed by the observation that the Scandinavian and Northern European societies are more "open" or"progressive" and southern, or Indo European peoples order themselves along hierarchical, aristocratic or caste lines.
The example often given is that the WASP's protestant revolution reached maturity in the American Republic and triumphed once and for all on that continent with the war between the states, when protestant egalitarianism defeated the Indo European, Southern Aristocratic/Slavery state model.
It's an interesting idea, the WASP, "do gooders" certainly behave like a tribe or ethnic group, you can go to certain areas of our society and see it in action, Fitzroy North or Castlemaine are two areas in which you can find concentrations or "tribes"of such people, it's actually valid to make certain broad assumptions about the character and belief system of those communities.

For Rainier
There is no problem in believing I do not have a PhD for which you acknowledged the mistake. But it was your opening statement and you went down hill from there. By the way, I have never met a person who knows much about race relations, Aboriginal people, because they have a PhD. So the PhD means little to me in this context, and never ever do I introduce my self as Dr Dillon.

"I suppose what I find disturbing is that Dillon generalizes and uses the (un cited) words of 'activists' without ever saying who they are."
Well I don't say who they are by name for obvious reasons. Could you imagine if I did. Many of them would say "I have been emotionally wounded, and it is all Anthony's fault."

"He then makes a quantum leap and uses this to 'suggest' all Aboriginal people share these views and that "Aboriginal people" do"
I do not suggest what I applies to all Aborignal people. Just like when i say that Aboriginal people have poorer health, I am not sugesting that it applies to all Aboriginal people.

"He sets up this straw man arguement from which he then emerges as the voice of reasonableness and clarity. Clever yes, but absolutely lazy in every other way."
Can you please point out this straw man argument and I will respond accordingly. I am always happy to be corrected.

For Rainier

"The left over effects of past government policies and laws of segregation and assimilation are bypassed completely in this re-ordering of how racism impacts on the lives of Aboriginal people."
I 'bypassed' them deliberately because they are not the cause of the inequalities we see today, though people like yourslef like to believe that they are. If they were the cause, you have to ask yourself why it is that so many Aboriginal people (despite having this past that you feel we need to be reminded of), are doing exceedingly well in terms of health, well-being, happiness, etc. they make great contributions to society. Perhaps instead of hanging on to the past and making it an excuse for everything they don't like about their lives, they have replaced this self-defeating mindset with the attitude of "I can do it!" An Aboriginal woman (who was removed rom her mother and raised in an orphanage) recently told me "We don't live in the past, the past lives in us." And if it does live in us (which it does as a memory), then we can do something about it. Rainier, we are never victims of the past, but only ever victms of our view of the past. Yes, the past did happen, but we can never change it, but we can change the present.

You give over AKA! Lying is lying and racism which you have bleated on about is also lying so where do we stand with you two now. Liar and apologist with neither of you able to criticise others now. My suggestion is both of you just creep back under your stones!

Anthony,
if you have not already, I would suggest starting at Yin Paradies work - he has written quite a bit on how racism affects health. I presume you would already have the social determinants of Indigenous health. They are good starters. I am guessing you have already looked at the CRCAH discussion papers etc.

You might also want to look up some of Dr Vicki Greives work. Also the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Taskforce on Violence report chaired by Prof Boni Robertson(Qld).

Spirituality from an Indigenous Australian perspective is more than you describe. Vicki Greives touches on that in her CRCAH paper - others do to.

Also useful relating to racism, education etc is Dr Linda Ford's thesis (Deakin), Dr Shayne Williams thesis (Deakin) and Dr Veronica Arbon's book. Prof Judy Atkinson is also a useful source. I have just touched on a few that spring to mind.

If you are interested in reading my work, you will have to wait until the book is published - you are quoted in it. It covers spirituality and racism in more depth.

Spirituality is much more than you describe, it has far more depth and meaning than your parody implies. I feel quite sad that you have not yet experienced it.

Spirituality is experienced in different strengths but I will tell you though that for some people, when they 'come into their spirituality' it can be a wondrous thing but for others it can daunting if they come into contact with mental health professionals.

You may be right that the people you have met who boast about their spirituality being disconnected from it - thereby leading to problems. People I know who are well connected to their spirituality rarely discuss it, but shared their knowledge with me for my research. Spirituality is not a topic for general discussion, except in general terms, but it is very real and significant to those who know it