Toast A Step In The Right Direction

[Carringbush2010]

I don't disagree. I just think we will be doing the same with every other social issue, and I think that political debate is a good thing - a sign of a healthy society. I don't think it's futile. I think political debate is something that we need to protect and ensure continues.

Of course the debate will never stop, regardless of whatever policy or change is committed to. I've said that right from the start.

The point is some will lose out, it's the debate about appeasing the minority that I find impractical, or trying to appease all and sundry.

That's not to say I'm not in favour of removing the day, but only for the purpose of quelling the hurt.

The problem there is, it's likely that the majority would like to celebrate the colonialism, not to snub the first nations but to celebrate the achievements. But the 'noise' is only ever about the hurt to the indigenous, fair enough, but it's like it's a bad thing to celebrate modernity of our country and the accomplishments we've made since colonization. < This is where the constant bickering and woe is me from both fringes on both sides is pointless.

 

[Markfs]

If you're implying that I'm for 'not even trying' I'm not.

I know....all you want is for a grateful set of indigenous people and their supporters to show some thanks for the enormous concessions that we would make in ditching this oddity...

 

[Markfs]

Of course the debate will never stop, regardless of whatever policy or change is committed to. I've said that right from the start.

The point is some will lose out, it's the debate about appeasing the minority that I find impractical, or trying to appease all and sundry.

That's not to say I'm not in favour of removing the day, but only for the purpose of quelling the hurt.

The problem there is, it's likely that the majority would like to celebrate the colonialism, not to snub the first nations but to celebrate the achievements. But the 'noise' is only ever about the hurt to the indigenous, fair enough, but it's like it's a bad thing to celebrate modernity of our country and the accomplishments we've made since colonization. < This is where the constant bickering and woe is me from both fringes on both sides is pointless.

in all the posts I have read in this thread... and i've read more than I usually do.....i havent seen anyone post what EXACTLY will the supporters of the current australia day be giving up?.... other than a holiday on 26th jan

 

[Carringbush2010]

I know....all you want is for a grateful set of indigenous people and their supporters to show some thanks for the enormous concessions that we would make in ditching this oddity...

And if that policy was to bare, there'd still be some unsatisfied.

 

[Markfs]

And if that policy was to bare, there'd still be some unsatisfied.

well dissatisfaction drives capitalism.... it is the source of invention....

i hope you'll be telling me of your sense of loss if we had to give up 26th Jan as australia day....do you have an annual bbq? do you polish the kingswood?

 

[Carringbush2010]

in all the posts I have read in this thread... and i've read more than I usually do.....i havent seen anyone post what EXACTLY will the supporters of the current australia day be giving up?.... other than a holiday on 26th jan

Well if we change the date, that would be a step in the right direction because the date itself reflects hurt to first nations people.

The problem is that won't stop some being unsatisfied because history happened and will never let it go. And that is the 'noise' for some, albeit a minuscule minority the 'discussions' are still there.

We're still discussing it now.

 

[Carringbush2010]

well dissatisfaction drives capitalism.... it is the source of invention....

i hope you'll be telling me of your sense of loss if we had to give up 26th Jan as australia day....do you have an annual bbq? do you polish the kingswood?

I don't see a need to have the day on the 26th, I'd like to recognize / celebrate the 'good' things about colonialism and what we've accomplished with it as a country, and no it's not a deliberate snub to indigenous. It's not about the 'date'.

To some that makes me the ant christ indigenous hater, and as long as these people exist, which they always will then there'll be arguments.

 

[Markfs]

"recognize / celebrate the 'good' things about colonialism"...... by celebrating the date of the arrival of the forced migration of a bunch of convicts...

may i suggest the discovery of gold in ballarat might at least have a connection with stimulating capitalism...

this reminds of the ask a christian thread because I cant understand the faith in god concept.....so the arrival of some convicts is important but cook stepped on the land 18 years earlier and actually and laughably claimed it.... of course we know about various dutch and other guys who were the first europeans to step on the land, but evidently we're not racist so we dont celebrate that.....but we do celebrate a bunch of convicts...

maybe because it's the first settlement...oh yes.... thats it...i feel nothing but obviously mainstream australia is deeply affected.

 

[domus]

I think if more white australians had a personal relationship with indigenous people, it would help the situation more than just changing australia day.

However, changing australia day gives indigenous people an indication that the rest of australia is willing to consider their interests. It's a simple thing to do that doesnt require anyone to serve meals to people or even give more money. It might just help. If it was changing anzac day, I could understand resistance. People would feel that they were letting down parents or grandparents who have died. But 26th feb is when the first fleet landed. A load of soldiers and convicts. It means so little

You could change the date tomorrow and activists would simply create or invent another grievance and protest endlessly about that. Do you seriously believe changing the date would mollify the activists? Spending billions on our indigenous people is a far better and practical way to support them than changing the date of Australia Day. Perhaps all statues of Captain Cook and Arthur Phillip should be removed and any mention of them in school texts redacted.

I don't believe the indigenous people in the communities around our country care very much about that date. I think it's your latte sipping locals from the inner city who seem to get upset.

In an era where everybody and everything is racist the whole issue seems rather forced and tired. Why does it only come to a head in the few days leading up to our annual celebration? If it is a significant issue you'd think we'd be hearing about it all year round. It seems to be a burning issue late in January and then not so much.

 

[domus]

I’m not interested in your pitiful attempt to discredit. At my school you would have received a red card for that.

Put forward your view. Why have you raised Aboriginal funding? Let me help you articulate what you really want to say.

If Aboriginal people have received so much government help, why are so many remote communities living in poverty?

Are you disputing the billions which have been spent? The reason for the ongoing cycle of poverty and lack of education amongst our indigenous people is complex but has nothing to do with a lack of effort on behalf of both the Liberal and Labor governments for decades. Whenever large amounts of tax payer funds are available there will be corruption and misuse of the funds. I have a close mate who still teaches up in Darwin and it has been an incredibly frustrating struggle for years. The people must carry some of the blame. It is up to them to break the cycle of violence and alcohol abuse that is so rampant in many of their communities.

The kids are often raised in dysfunctional families and rarely turn up for school two days in a row. But anyone who attempts to address this and other realities is branded a racist so why would you bother to stick your head above the parapet?

I checked some stats on the issue and it said 19% of indigenous people live in poverty compared to 12% of non indigenous here in Australia. That's not a huge gap, yet the indigenous poverty seems to be the issue everybody focuses on.

As for the spending-here are the figures.

There have been significant improvements and money allocations towards the betterment of the indigenous communities in Australia in recent years. In 2017, $33.4 billion went toward government expenditure on indigenous Australians, a 23.7 percent increase since 2009 (taking into account inflation). That is $44,886 per indigenous person or two times the amount of direct government expenditure on non-indigenous peoples. However, Aboriginal peoples are still more than twice as likely to be in the bottom 20 percent for equivalized gross weekly household income. High unemployment and lasting impacts from colonialism have caused low income in Aboriginal homes.

I'm not sure why colonialism is still the cause of the low income of many indigenous people when black Americans were enslaved and yet millions of them live in the middle class and thousands are highly successful in business, law, entertainment, medicine and politics. That has always confused me.

 

[Markfs]

You could change the date tomorrow and activists would simply create or invent another grievance and protest endlessly about that. Do you seriously believe changing the date would mollify the activists? Spending billions on our indigenous people is a far better and practical way to support them than changing the date of Australia Day. Perhaps all statues of Captain Cook and Arthur Phillip should be removed and any mention of them in school texts redacted.

I don't believe the indigenous people in the communities around our country care very much about that date. I think it's your latte sipping locals from the inner city who seem to get upset.

In an era where everybody and everything is racist the whole issue seems rather forced and tired. Why does it only come to a head in the few days leading up to our annual celebration? If it is a significant issue you'd think we'd be hearing about it all year round. It seems to be a burning issue late in January and then not so much.

You know, there are some indigenous radicals who incredibly think that white guys have been imposing solutions on them for the last 200 years..... I dont know how they got that idea. You dont post in their forums, do you?

If you wrote a movie about capital punishment, you'd get the warden to tell the condemned man his final request....

 

[Markfs]

Spending billions on our indigenous people is a far better and practical way to support them than changing the date of Australia Day. Whenever large amounts of tax payer funds are available there will be corruption and misuse of the funds. I have a close mate who still teaches up in Darwin and it has been an incredibly frustrating struggle for years. The people must carry some of the blame. It is up to them to break the cycle of violence and alcohol abuse that is so rampant in many of their communities.


homework....spot the contradiction...

 

[sr36]

I'm not sure why colonialism is still the cause of the low income of many indigenous people when black Americans were enslaved and yet millions of them live in the middle class and thousands are highly successful in business, law, entertainment, medicine and politics. That has always confused me.

Surprised you're using blacks in the US as an example. Like indigenous Australians, the black population in the USA is well behind the white population in terms of the markers we generally use for equality.

UK is much more interesting. Romany (gypsys) - who are white - are lowest on similar markers, mixed race with Carribean as part of the mix next. Working class white Brits (or more commonly not-working class) are closing the downwards gap quickly (this is a bit artificial as it's really just the poorest of the much larger white Brit group, but this groups current plight is pretty woeful). Black groups are currently doing better than all these groups in the UK.

What does that say for Australia - not much - other than once poverty is entrenched, it's a really difficult cycle of disadvantage to break, regardless of your cultural demographic. Colonisation and the attitudes that existed in it, have undoubtedly put indigenous Australians into a cycle of poverty. Ultimately, it's indigenous Australians who have to get themselves out of the cycle; however, those not in the cycle of poverty need to remove the barriers and offer support to those starting well back in the race.

 

[Markfs]

Surprised you're using blacks in the US as an example. Like indigenous Australians, the black population in the USA is well behind the white population in terms of the markers we generally use for equality.

UK is much more interesting. Romany (gypsys) - who are white - are lowest on similar markers, mixed race with Carribean as part of the mix next. Working class white Brits (or more commonly not-working class) are closing the downwards gap quickly (this is a bit artificial as it's really just the poorest of the much larger white Brit group, but this groups current plight is pretty woeful). Black groups are currently doing better than all these groups in the UK.

What does that say for Australia - not much - other than once poverty is entrenched, it's a really difficult cycle of disadvantage to break, regardless of your cultural demographic. Colonisation and the attitudes that existed in it, have undoubtedly put indigenous Australians into a cycle of poverty. Ultimately, it's indigenous Australians who have to get themselves out of the cycle; however, those not in the cycle of poverty need to remove the barriers and offer support to those starting well back in the race.

what scares me is that this guy says that he was a teacher..... obviously no one has told him that like many black americans, a lot of indigenous australians have done well in law etc...

as for "snapping back to normality from oppression", the good teacher should remind himself of the famous blue eyed/brown eyed experiment done by an ordinary mug teacher 60 years ago..... To remind him...

The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 prompted educator Jane Elliott to create the now-famous "blue eyes/brown eyes exercise."

As a school teacher in the small town of Riceville, Iowa, Elliott first conducted the anti-racism experiment on her all-white third-grade classroom, the day after the civil rights leader was killed.

She wanted them to understand what discrimination felt like. Elliott split her students into two groups, based on eye color. She told them that people with brown eyes were superior to those with blue eyes, for reasons she made up. Brown-eyed people, she told the students, are smarter, more civilized and better than blue-eyed people.

When Elliott first conducted the exercise in 1968, brown-eyed students were given special privileges. She said she watched and was horrified at what she saw.

The students started to internalize, and accept, the characteristics they'd been arbitrarily assigned based on the color of their eyes.

Note : How she could convince brown eyed kids that they were superior to blue eyed is beyond me....

 

[Black_White]

Note : How she could convince brown eyed kids that they were superior to blue eyed is beyond me....

There is a doco about this if you care to seek it out.
It was very easy to convince when you applied the same injustices that were/are applied to people of colour every day.

 

[Markfs]

There is a doco about this if you care to seek it out.
It was very easy to convince when you applied the same injustices that were/are applied to people of colour every day.

there's a few examples. There was a more long term experiment conducted at uni level by a academic with his students. The students ended up treating their fellow students incredibly nastily and the victims were traumatised. And its built around unjust rules and attitudes....and the key point is that it's very hard for the victim to "escape" a loss a self-worth. It's easty to say "just get over it"......and these experiments are short term things....not something with a 200 year history.

 

[sr36]

there's a few examples. There was a more long term experiment conducted at uni level by a academic with his students. The students ended up treating their fellow students incredibly nastily and the victims were traumatised. And its built around unjust rules and attitudes....and the key point is that it's very hard for the victim to "escape" a loss a self-worth. It's easty to say "just get over it"......and these experiments are short term things....not something with a 200 year history.

Plus those who were told they were lesser, performed lesser, with their academic performance dropping considerably in a very short period of time.

 

[Markfs]

Plus those who were told they were lesser, performed lesser, with their academic performance dropping considerably.

And some people who project themselves as being teachers, ignore the facts associated with the headline figures. The increase in funding to indigenous people has been the result, in part, of an increase in actual indigenous people. Also, Indigenous people have more kids and governments spend more money on kids than they do on 30 year olds.....also a large section of indigenous people live in non metro areas, and it takes more money to deliver ordinary services like education and health to non metro areas. And finally, a lot of the gov't programs dont address the longterm issues.

Of course, the biggest crime that a supposed teacher can commit is not being wrong with the facts. We all make mistakes. However, it's not a mistake when you quote selectively from an article, and ignore the other facts associated with the figures.

Government spending on Indigenous people is rising, so why do so many still live in poverty?

Despite an increase in government spending in the Indigenous sector, many key outcomes for Indigenous equality are not being met.

theconversation.com

 

[Carringbush2010]

"recognize / celebrate the 'good' things about colonialism"...... by celebrating the date of the arrival of the forced migration of a bunch of convicts...

may i suggest the discovery of gold in ballarat might at least have a connection with stimulating capitalism...

this reminds of the ask a christian thread because I cant understand the faith in god concept.....so the arrival of some convicts is important but cook stepped on the land 18 years earlier and actually and laughably claimed it.... of course we know about various dutch and other guys who were the first europeans to step on the land, but evidently we're not racist so we dont celebrate that.....but we do celebrate a bunch of convicts...

maybe because it's the first settlement...oh yes.... thats it...i feel nothing but obviously mainstream australia is deeply affected.

Well that's not what I meant by 'positive'.

 

[domus]

Surprised you're using blacks in the US as an example. Like indigenous Australians, the black population in the USA is well behind the white population in terms of the markers we generally use for equality.

UK is much more interesting. Romany (gypsys) - who are white - are lowest on similar markers, mixed race with Carribean as part of the mix next. Working class white Brits (or more commonly not-working class) are closing the downwards gap quickly (this is a bit artificial as it's really just the poorest of the much larger white Brit group, but this groups current plight is pretty woeful). Black groups are currently doing better than all these groups in the UK.

What does that say for Australia - not much - other than once poverty is entrenched, it's a really difficult cycle of disadvantage to break, regardless of your cultural demographic. Colonisation and the attitudes that existed in it, have undoubtedly put indigenous Australians into a cycle of poverty. Ultimately, it's indigenous Australians who have to get themselves out of the cycle; however, those not in the cycle of poverty need to remove the barriers and offer support to those starting well back in the race.

But you are saying exactly what I was attempting to say-ultimately it is up to each individual to break the cycle and the fact that some have shows it is possible. I have asked others what the solution is other than giving billions of dollars to the indigenous communities and aside from snide insinuations that I am a racist they have no answer.

I referred to black Americans because the success of many blacks is so apparent in the entertainment, sports, legal and political arena yet we don't see the same level of success from our indigenous people. I know the black population in America makes up 13% of the population and the Indigenous people only 3% here but I still don't understand why the black population in America has had more success in climbing out of the cycle of poverty. I might add there is still a large percentage of whites living in poverty who face similar hurdles when attempting top break out of a generational cycle of poverty.

 

[sr36]

But you are saying exactly what I was attempting to say-ultimately it is up to each individual to break the cycle and the fact that some have shows it is possible. I have asked others what the solution is other than giving billions of dollars to the indigenous communities and aside from snide insinuations that I am a racist they have no answer.

I referred to black Americans because the success of many blacks is so apparent in the entertainment, sports, legal and political arena yet we don't see the same level of success from our indigenous people. I know the black population in America makes up 13% of the population and the Indigenous people only 3% here but I still don't understand why the black population in America has had more success in climbing out of the cycle of poverty. I might add there is still a large percentage of whites living in poverty who face similar hurdles when attempting top break out of a generational cycle of poverty.

I'm not sure if your assertion that a greater percentage of black Americans is really true. However, if it is, a possible explanation is that the larger population meant that in segregated times, a black economy grew with far greater oppurtinity for blacks to become relatively wealthy in a way that didn't exist due to the smaller size of the Australian indigenous population. This is just one of many possible explanations.

I'm not calling you racist, but I do think you underappreciate the difficulty of rising up from a culture of entrenched poverty, particularly if from a culture that has consistently been told and treated as though they are inferior by the more dominant culture. And thus I think you underestimate the fairness and importance of removing barriers and providing support. What you seem to see as giving preferential treatment - I view as an important attempt to shift the starting blocks a fraction closer, even though those starting blocks are likely to remain a long way behind for decades.

 

[domus]

And some people who project themselves as being teachers, ignore the facts associated with the headline figures. The increase in funding to indigenous people has been the result, in part, of an increase in actual indigenous people. Also, Indigenous people have more kids and governments spend more money on kids than they do on 30 year olds.....also a large section of indigenous people live in non metro areas, and it takes more money to deliver ordinary services like education and health to non metro areas. And finally, a lot of the gov't programs dont address the longterm issues.

Of course, the biggest crime that a supposed teacher can commit is not being wrong with the facts. We all make mistakes. However, it's not a mistake when you quote selectively from an article, and ignore the other facts associated with the figures.

Government spending on Indigenous people is rising, so why do so many still live in poverty?

Despite an increase in government spending in the Indigenous sector, many key outcomes for Indigenous equality are not being met.

theconversation.com

You are so disingenuous. My response was to Jmac who expressed doubt about the assertion that billions in funding were directed to indigenous communities and issues. If I was cherry picking I would have removed the reference to the effects of colonialism in the paragraph I quoted regarding the government spending on our indigenous. It demonstrated the fact we do indeed spend billions. Why would I include pages of further information unrelated to Jmac's question? You are always looking for the opportunity to grab a "gotcha" moment or infer ulterior motives rather than engage in a genuine discussion.

Why do you seem so desperate to somehow minimize the genuine attempts of our government to close the gap and help our indigenous people with references to growing population -3% or the number of kids? Why would any of these facts be of interest to a cold hearted racist government?

As for your tired references to me being a teacher, I'll rest easy with the lifelong friendships of many students and other precious fruits of my career as testament to my worth in that department.

My students and I watched the blue eye/brown eye experiment every year and had some wonderful discussions. My overriding feeling was being concerned for the poor kids who were used as guinea pigs without any prior warning or explanation. I've watched a fair bit of Jane Elliot and must confess she carries her own bigoted agenda and huge ego. She clearly saw the feelings of the kids in her care as less important than the grand statement she was making. I watched her work with staff of corporations in later years and her abrasive, aggressive attitude toward the people (particularly one demographic) was quite telling given her propensity to lecture us about bigotry. But none of us is without a flaw.

A study into her experiment drew the following conclusions.

Academic research into Elliott's exercise shows moderate results in reducing long-term prejudice[20][21] but is inconclusive on the question of whether the possible psychological harm outweighs the potential benefits.[22][23] Two professors of education in England, Ivor Goodson and Pat Sikes, argue that what Elliott did was unethical, calling the exercise psychologically and emotionally damaging. They also stated ethical concerns pertaining to the fact that the children were not told of the purpose of the exercise beforehand.[6]

Measured results of the diversity training for adults are moderate. The outcomes of a 1990 research study by the Utah State University were that virtually all the subjects reported that the experience was meaningful for them. However, the statistical evidence supporting the effectiveness of the activity for prejudice reduction was moderate; and virtually all the participants, as well as the simulation facilitator, reported stress from the simulation.[21]

Another program evaluation in 2003, conducted by Tracie Stewart at the University of Georgia, showed that white college students had significantly more positive attitudes toward Asian-American and Latino individuals, but only marginally more positive attitudes toward African-American individuals.[20] In some courses, participants can feel frustrated about "their inability to change" and instead begin to feel anger against the very groups to which they are supposed to be more sensitive. It can also lead to anxiety because people become hyper-sensitive about being offensive or being offended.[19][20][21] There are not very good measures of effects on long-term outcomes of these training initiatives.[19]

In a 2003 study, Murdoch University included the "Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes" exercise in their list of "both successful and unsuccessful" strategies to reduce racism, as opposed to, among others, more successful strategies like dialogues about race, and the debunking of false myths. dialogues and de[24]

 

[domus]

I'm not sure if your assertion that a greater percentage of black Americans is really true. However, if it is, a possible explanation is that the larger population meant that in segregated times, a black economy grew with far greater oppurtinity for blacks to become relatively wealthy in a way that didn't exist due to the smaller size of the Australian indigenous population. This is just one of many possible explanations.

I'm not calling you racist, but I do think you underappreciate the difficulty of rising up from a culture of entrenched poverty, particularly if from a culture that has consistently been told and treated as though they are inferior by the more dominant culture. And thus I think you underestimate the fairness and importance of removing barriers and providing support. What you seem to see as giving preferential treatment - I view as an important attempt to shift the starting blocks a fraction closer, even though those starting blocks are likely to remain a long way behind for decades.

But sr36- where did I say I opposed the extra assistance being given to our indigenous people?

 

[sr36]

But sr36- where did I say I opposed the extra assistance being given to our indigenous people?

I infer it in the billions of dollars of handouts comments and you've previously stated it more explicitly in previous comments opposed to preferential hiring practices. I'm sure that you are correct in your criticism of some of the handouts and some of the preferences given, but I've read a focus on opposing a raft of support, without reading any approval for endeavours to level the playing field. Apologies if I've misconstrued your stance.

 

[Markfs]

You are so disingenuous. My response was to Jmac who expressed doubt about the assertion that billions in funding were directed to indigenous communities and issues. If I was cherry picking I would have removed the reference to the effects of colonialism in the paragraph I quoted regarding the government spending on our indigenous. It demonstrated the fact we do indeed spend billions. Why would I include pages of further information unrelated to Jmac's question? You are always looking for the opportunity to grab a "gotcha" moment or infer ulterior motives rather than engage in a genuine discussion.

Why do you seem so desperate to somehow minimize the genuine attempts of our government to close the gap and help our indigenous people with references to growing population -3% or the number of kids? Why would any of these facts be of interest to a cold hearted racist government?

As for your tired references to me being a teacher, I'll rest easy with the lifelong friendships of many students and other precious fruits of my career as testament to my worth in that department.

My students and I watched the blue eye/brown eye experiment every year and had some wonderful discussions. My overriding feeling was being concerned for the poor kids who were used as guinea pigs without any prior warning or explanation. I've watched a fair bit of Jane Elliot and must confess she carries her own bigoted agenda and huge ego. She clearly saw the feelings of the kids in her care as less important than the grand statement she was making. I watched her work with staff of corporations in later years and her abrasive, aggressive attitude toward the people (particularly one demographic) was quite telling given her propensity to lecture us about bigotry. But none of us is without a flaw.

A study into her experiment drew the following conclusions.

Academic research into Elliott's exercise shows moderate results in reducing long-term prejudice[20][21] but is inconclusive on the question of whether the possible psychological harm outweighs the potential benefits.[22][23] Two professors of education in England, Ivor Goodson and Pat Sikes, argue that what Elliott did was unethical, calling the exercise psychologically and emotionally damaging. They also stated ethical concerns pertaining to the fact that the children were not told of the purpose of the exercise beforehand.[6]

Measured results of the diversity training for adults are moderate. The outcomes of a 1990 research study by the Utah State University were that virtually all the subjects reported that the experience was meaningful for them. However, the statistical evidence supporting the effectiveness of the activity for prejudice reduction was moderate; and virtually all the participants, as well as the simulation facilitator, reported stress from the simulation.[21]

Another program evaluation in 2003, conducted by Tracie Stewart at the University of Georgia, showed that white college students had significantly more positive attitudes toward Asian-American and Latino individuals, but only marginally more positive attitudes toward African-American individuals.[20] In some courses, participants can feel frustrated about "their inability to change" and instead begin to feel anger against the very groups to which they are supposed to be more sensitive. It can also lead to anxiety because people become hyper-sensitive about being offensive or being offended.[19][20][21] There are not very good measures of effects on long-term outcomes of these training initiatives.[19]

In a 2003 study, Murdoch University included the "Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes" exercise in their list of "both successful and unsuccessful" strategies to reduce racism, as opposed to, among others, more successful strategies like dialogues about race, and the debunking of false myths. dialogues and de[24]

obviously, elliot was unethical. I wouldnt suggest her "experiment" should be used to reduce racism.....again obviously. But you can learn things from studying her "experiment" ....obviously... and her conclusion that the students internalised the discrimination, which I actually do think is valid and it was THAT point that I was making, in response to an assertion that the indigenous people should just get over it.