My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

« Cabbie Style | Main | Waiting Places »


From what I have read, it is Windschuttle's reading of history that has been found wanting, rather than the majority of historians in this country who think that it is he who is politicising Australian history..

Are you kidding Guy? Windschuttle didnt politicise Australian history, the revisionist activist left did. It was they who started the misinformation about the "genocide" of the Aboriginal population, he mereley refuted their assertions.
Anyway at the end of it all, it is still the Aboriginals who are suffering the effects of our guilt ridden policy of welfare handouts at all costs. When is a good time to admit that this policy has failed look for real solutions beyond political point scoring from both sides.

Err, chuck an and between failed and look in that last sentence.

It has been shown regularly that Windschuttle's use of historical sources is no less biased than those historians he criticises, and on occassions there he has been shown to blatantly mis-quote or incorrectly read his sources. Both he and Reynolds have a very definate take on aboriginal history and only quote those aspects of the historical record that back them up. What the debate has done, is encourage more people to think critically about the way our history is written and told.

I will be interested to read the response to Windschuttle's article. I imagine that as with all his works there will be many historians who refute his more outlandish claims. For once though he seems to be supporting the aboriginal people and their history, but then again he is known to change his views depending on what will get him the most political creedance.

I repeat what I said in "Well Known" comments:

"Well, perhaps boredom, alcohol, petrol and aerosol sniffing has a lot to do with this 'endemic'. Education, education, education and more education...bring dignity back and a desire to achieve! Action, not words!"

"It has been shown regularly that Windschuttle's use of historical sources is no less biased than those historians he criticises"

excellent, give us some examples.

Well Harry, if you want examples I suggest you read R. Mann's edited book "Whitewash: On Keith Windschuttle's Fabrication of Aboriginal History" or Macintyre and Clark's "History Wars" or the National Museum of Australia's response to the criticisms Windschuttle directed at them over their indigenous galleries. These are probably the easiest to find and access, if these aren't what you are after let me know. I've just written part of my masters on the history wars, so happy to give you many more sources.

Bron: "Well Harry, if you want examples I suggest you read ...."
Umm, I believe you were asked to justify your slagging of Windschuttle not to give directions to the nearest library.

John L Devlin...again, it's the same old story...slag, slag, slag...words,words, words...something concrete has to be done! Give the menfolk something to I said early...give them dignity. Hey! I'm not excusing what is no way. But as the saying goes, 'actions are better than words'.....too long these problems within the indigenous society have been pushed under the pillow, so to speak. If it's good enough for the 'white folk' to seriously address the problem, then it is good enough for this problem to be seriously addressed within the indigenous communities. There are no excuses...this I believe. The colour of one's skin and their heritage has nothing to do with it. Child abuse, rapes, violence towards women has to be dealt with swiftly and firmly. There are too many damn 'summits' and 'royal commissions' held by people wearing their 'power suits'. They solve nothing! The time has come...words have been spoken and!

John, I wasn't necessarily slagging off Windschuttle, just pointing out that his interpretation of history has a certain take, as does Reynold's, and subsequently he is just as biased in his reading of sources. I recommended those texts as they are ones that tend to take a fairly critical look at both sides of the debate - and any examples i gave would be taken from them.

Perhaps you should also ask Guy to back up his comment, after all it is along the same lines as mine ... Windschuttle has his faults as a historian, as do others, and when it comes to a topic that is as emotionally charged as australia's aboriginal history has become, the faults become more apparent as each side looks for the holes in the other's arguments.

With respect Bron....because everyone is entitled to an opinion...your response does not cut it.
I have read all the books you mentioned, from both sides, starting with an open mind.
What I particularly liked with Windschuttle was the extensive bibliography he provided to back up his arguments, which allows the reader to check the assertions .
Reynolds, in the main, does not.
Lyndall Ryan admitted "Historians are always making up figures" when pressed to explain on a TV program why she claimed an 1810 Oxley report listed an incident of 100 deaths in Van Diemens Land when the report made no such claim.
Bye bye credibility.
Hence my comment.
Nice to see the evidence.

There are a number of things which are disquietening about this post and particularly the comments, but overall I am left feeling torpid, drowned in an academic malaise.

Indigenous people are the people who live nx door, down the street; they are aunties, uncles,mums n dads - these r living breathing people who are right within our community for us to overcome problems of exclusion right here & now, everyday. We don't need to wait for pollies to fix things, we can start in our own backyard with a simple smile, say gday, welcome & acknowledge aboriginal families as part of your communities, please don't treat them & talk about them as specimens.

Robert Manne labelled Windshuttle's work as 'pitiless'. Correct me if I'm wrong but is it not the historian's brief to interpret historical evidence dispassionately. To take any other position, at the expense of scholarship, surely defines one as an historical novelist.

Windschuttle's work reminds me very much of the 'historian' who claimed there'd been no holocaust.

Thanks Bron, but I've read it and I found it unconvincing.

Perhaps you should read "Washout" by John Dawson, which destroys "Whitewash" completely.

Now, about those examples?

In 1902 there was no welfare for my late father's widowed mother so they both had to find work to get money. My father found work as a boy and later worked in a job for sixty years bought a block land and had a house build. Now we have welfare and a debate about poverty. Why not insist on work then welfare? Cruelty we will be told.

Harry Tuttle should read a book called "Hidden Histories". Can't remember the author but its about the shocking treatment of aborigines in the Kimberley region. You seem to be in love with Windshuttle so I suggest you start reading more widely in future. Also read the "Civilised Surveyor" based on Thomas Mitchells diaries describing his explorations along the Darling River and his interaction with the tribes along the way. Very thought provocking.

A fair review of "Whitewash".

Where is Harry Tuttle these days? Our upholder of the Whiteman's history. The stuff that we learnt in our "Landmarks" history book in the early seventies. Gosh Harry, those aborigines were so ungrateful as to what us Whities had to offer them in the early pioneering days.

Come on Harry. You just keep plugging away supporting our Keith. That post-modernist "selective" pseudo historian.

Harry Tuttle,

John Dawson destroys Whitewash??? How???

Now where are those examples, old son???

How does Washout destroy Whitewash? By doing what academics and students used to do - checking the facts and the premises.

The comments to this entry are closed.