History wars Totally Explained

The History wars are an ongoing public debate in Australia over the interpretation of the history of the European colonisation of Australia, and its impact on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. The debate centres on whether Australia's history of European settlement since 1788 was:
a) humane, with the country being peacefully settled, with specific instances of mistreatment of Indigenous Australians being aberrations;
b) marred by both official and unofficial imperialism, exploitation, ill treatment, colonial dispossession, violent conflict and cultural genocide; or
c) somewhere in between.
The History Wars also relates to broader themes concerning national identity, as well as methodological questions concerning the value and reliability of written records (of the authorities and settlers) and the oral tradition (of the Indigenous Australians), along with the ideological biases of those who interpret them.

Background

In 1968 Professor W. E. H. "Bill" Stanner, an Australian anthropologist, coined the term the "Great Australian Silence" in a Boyer Lecture entitled "After the Dreaming", where he argued that the writing of Australian history was incomplete. He asserted that Australian national history as documented up to that point had largely been presented in a positive light, but that Indigenous Australians had been virtually ignored. He saw this as a structural and deliberate process to omit "… several hundred thousand Aborigines who lived and died between 1788 and 1938…(who were but) … negative facts of history and … were in no way consequential for the modern period".
   A new strand of Australian historiography subsequently emerged which gave much greater attention to the negative experiences wrought on Indigenous Australians by the British settlement of Australia. In the 1970s and 1980s, a number of progressive historians such as Henry Reynolds began to publish books and articles which they saw as a corrective to the narrow, selective historiography which had, in their view, hitherto misrepresented or simply ignored Indigenous Australian history.
   During these years, a small circle of people grouped around the conservative literary and political journal Quadrant resisted these arguments. Chief among these critics was Australian historian Professor Geoffrey Blainey, who in his 1993 Sir John Latham Memorial Lecture coined the phrase "Black armband view of history". This phrase began to be used pejoratively by some right-wing and conservative Australian social scientists, politicians, commentators and intellectuals about historians whom they viewed as having presented an overly critical portrayal of Australian history, and as being preoccupied with mourning, grieving or shame. In response these critics have been said to hold a 'white blindfold' view of history.
   These critics gained greater prominence after the election of the conservative federal Coalition government in 1996, with Prime Minister of Australia John Howard publicly championing their views. Conservative scholars, intellectuals, journalists and politicians have publicly challenged historians and others who interpret Australian settlement as being characterised by extensive violent conflict between the European settlers and Indigenous Australians.
   Though originally waged primarily in the academic environment, an increasingly large proportion of the History Wars has been played out in the Australian print media, with regular opinion pieces being published in major broadsheets such as The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Recently, arguments surrounding the History Wars have become intertwined with the debates about the content of high school history curricula.

Black armband debate

The 'black armband' view of history is a phrase used by Australian historian Professor Geoffrey Blainey in his 1993 Sir John Latham Memorial Lecture to describe a view of history that focuses, as an illustrative example on the dispossession of Indigenous Australians. The lecture was subsequently published in conservative political and literary journal, Quadrant.
   Blainey contrasted this view with the Three Cheers view of history. Use of the term is part of the larger debate about the interpretation of Australian history known as the History Wars.
   Although it's claimed that Blainey coined the term, the phrase in the context of Australian history predates Blainey's 1993 speech by at least more than a decade. Leading up to the 1988 Bicentenary, Aboriginal protesters and Anglo-Celtic sympathisers used the phrase 'black armband' to describe the post-1788 history of Aboriginal Australia. In particular, a 1986 poster in Alice Springs asked Australians to 'wear a Black Armband' for the 'Aboriginal year of mourning'.
   The phrase is used pejoratively by some Australian social scientists, politicians, commentators and intellectuals about historians who are seen to be writing critical Australian history 'while wearing a black armband' of mourning and grieving, or shame. They contest interpretations of Australia's history since 1788 that argue that the history is marred by both official and unofficial imperialism, exploitation, ill treatment, colonial dispossession and cultural genocide.
   Historians such as Tony Barta argues that for the victim group it matters little if they were wiped out as part of a planned attack. If a group is decimated as a result of smallpox introduced to Australia by British settlers, or introduced European farming methods causing a group of Aborigines to starve to death, the result is in his opinion genocide. Henry Reynolds points out that European colonists and their descendants frequently use expressions that included "extermination", "extinction", and "extirpation" when discussing the treatment of Aborigines during the colonial period, and as in his opinion genocide "can take many forms, not all of them violent" this is an indicator of genocide. He also points out that Raphael Lemkin considered "the action of the Tasmanian colonial government in the 1820s and 1830s" as genocide. Minogue doesn't try to define genocide but argues that its use is an extreme manifestation of the guilt felt by modern Australian society about the past misconduct of their society to Aborigines. In his opinion its use reflects the process by which Australian society is trying to come to terms with its past wrongs and in doing this Australians are stretching the meaning of genocide to fit within this internal debate.
   In 2002 Windschuttle, in his book The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One: Van Diemen's Land 1803-1847, questions the historical evidence used to identify the actual number of Aborigines deliberately killed during European colonisation, especially focusing on the Black War in Tasmania. He argues that there's credible evidence for the violent deaths of only 118 Tasmanian Aborigines, as having been directly killed by the British, although there were undoubtedly an unquantifiable number of other deaths for which no evidence exists. He argues that the Tasmanian Aboriginal population was devastated by a lethal cocktail of introduced diseases to which they'd little or no resistance due to their isolation from the mainland and the rest of humanity for thousands of years. The deaths and infertility caused by these introduced diseases, combined with the deaths from what violent conflict there was, rapidly decimated the relatively small Aboriginal population. Windschuttle also examined the nature of those violent episodes that did occur and concluded that there's no credible evidence of warfare over territory. Windschuttle argues that the primary source of conflict between the British and the Aborigines was raids by Aborigines, often involving violent attacks on settlers, to acquire goods (such as blankets, metal implements and 'exotic' foods) from the British. With this and with a detailed examination of evidence cited by the earlier historical works, he refutes the claims by historians such as Henry Reynolds and Professor Lyndall Ryan that there was a campaign of guerrilla warfare against British settlement. Particular historians and histories that are challenged include Henry Reynolds and the histories of massacres, particularly in Tasmania but also elsewhere in Australia. Windschuttle's claims are based upon the argument that the 'orthodox' view of Australian history were founded on hearsay or the misleading use of evidence by historians.
   Windschuttle's claims and research have been disputed by other historians, in Whitewash. On Keith Windschuttle's Fabrication of Aboriginal History, an anthology edited and introduced by Robert Manne, professor of politics at La Trobe University. This anthology has itself been the subject of examination by author John Dawson, in Washout: On the academic response to The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, which minutely dissects "Whitewash" and argues that "Whitewash" leaves Windschuttle's claims and research unrefuted. S.G. Foster also examined Windschuttle's claims in "Contra Windschuttle" an article published in Quadrant, March 2003, 47:3.

Stolen Generations debate

Despite the lengthy and detailed findings set out in the 1997 Bringing Them Home report into the Stolen Generation, which documented the removal of Aboriginal children from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions, the nature and extent of the removals have been disputed within Australia, with some commentators questioning the findings contained in the report and asserting that the Stolen Generation has been exaggerated. An Australian Federal Government submission has questioned the conduct of the Commission which produced the report, arguing that the Commission failed to critically appraise or test the claims on which it based the report and fails to distinguish between those separated from their families "with and without consent, and with and without good reason". Not only has the number of children removed from their parents been questioned, but also the intent and effects of the government policy.
Some conservative critics, such as Andrew Bolt, have publicly questioned the very existence of the Stolen Generation. Bolt considers that it's a "preposterous and obscene" myth and that there was actually no policy in any state or territory at any time for the systematic removal of "half-caste" Aboriginal children. Robert Manne has responded that Bolt's failure to address the wealth of documentary evidence demonstrating the existence of the Stolen Generations amounts to a clear case of historical denialism. Bolt has publicly challenged Robert Manne to produce ten cases in which the evidence justifies the claim that they were "stolen" as opposed to having been removed for legitimate reasons such as neglect, abuse, abandonment, etc. He argues that Robert Manne's inability to produce as few as ten credible cases is a good indicator of how unreliable the claims that there was policy of systematic removal are.

Stuart Macintyre's The History Wars

In 2003 Australian historian Stuart Macintyre published The History Wars, written with Anna Clark. This was a study of the background of, and arguments surrounding, recent developments in Australian historiography. The book was launched by former Prime Minister Paul Keating, who took the opportunity to criticise conservative views of Australian history, and those who hold them (such as the current Prime Minister John Howard), saying that they suffered from "a failure of imagination", and said that The History Wars "rolls out the canvas of this debate." Macintyre's critics, such as Greg Melluish (History Lecturer at the University of Wollongong), responded to the book by declaring that Macintyre was a partisan history warrior himself, and that "its primary arguments are derived from the pro-Communist polemics of the Cold War." Keith Windschuttle said that Macintyre attempted to "caricature the history debate." In a foreword to the book, former Chief Justice of Australia Sir Anthony Mason said that the book was "a fascinating study of the recent endeavours to rewrite or reinterpret the history of European settlement in Australia."

National Museum of Australia controversy

In 2003 the Howard Government commissioned a review of the National Museum of Australia. The investigating panel found that many of the historical narratives contained within the Museum exhibits were incoherent, confusing and unbalanced. While the report concluded that there was no systemic bias, it recommended that there be more recognition in the exhibits of European achievements.
The report drew the ire of some historians in Australia, who claimed that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to politicise the museum and move it more towards a position which Geoff Blainey called "the three cheers" version of Australian history (all the good things), rather than the so called "black armband" view.
Others argue that the National Museum was already grossly politicised and that a National Museum should present a more balanced view of the nation's history rather than a relentless focus on the negative.

Protagonists

External results

Click here for more details on History Wars

External Link Exchanges

Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:

<a href="http://history_wars.totallyexplained.com">History wars Totally Explained</a>

Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned.