AND

Home Page

INTRODUCTION

This essay is aimed at assessing the work of Henry Reynolds and Keith Windschuttle. It will analyse the methodologies and the politics that are behind the current historical debate that might only be described as Neo-Historicism. The politics of history and the Aboriginals along with it will be discussed, as well as some historical assessments, as it is certain that the events on the frontier were not short of political interest. A contention of this paper is that Australian history might ultimately turn out to be an eminent shroud deeply enriched, that ignores an immensely intriguing period of facts that heralded the clash of two peoples, the Indigene’s and the Europeans. For it must be kept in mind that the evidence suggests governments did make efforts to avert problems on the frontiers of Australia.

These problems, as contended by Windschuttle, and recorded and interpreted by Reynolds, will be the focus of the paper. However, it is not the facts that are in dispute here, but rather the way in which the two characters have carried out their work. Particularly, Reynolds has been found to be at slight fault with his footnoting and bibliography, as has his critic. However this character is also of the same fault; but added to his indiscretion is his poor grammar. These faults will be analysed in this narrative. It appears that one author does not have the necessary literary skills to carry out a work of recording Australian history.

HISTORY

Henry Reynolds, the well known and respected historian appears as a conservative traditionalist in his writings. The author of no less than eleven books writes with clarity and ease of authorship that is the hallmark of a patient, thoughtful precise writer who aims for purposeful literature. His work brings forth the locations and sources of historical data as it should, with rare mistakes –at least in text. The methodology he uses provides clear substance and although it may not be value free (as Windschuttle does contend) his work can only add to -and not detract from- his pioneering compilations. Though his work is structuralist, his data thus cannot always be emperical and nor can the sources of them always be structured.

Nonetheless, the structure of his historical efforts are highly valuable for their consistency in logical argument and interpretation of cultural positioning; particularly when assessing past events that are gradually diluting in an almost post-cultural era. His work is invaluable and his preferred assessment of genocide as colonialism -though contentious- merely serves to bring forth and place openly, the historicism of Australian archival discourse.

For example, in a book asking why we were not told he realises: ‘Nothing government did called forth more contempt and greater resistance than the endeavour to bring white man to justice for murdering blacks’. A bold statement, probably true and still likely to stir unrest within the community. Reynolds knows: ‘on no other issue was anti-authoritarianism so successful as with this one’. Generally what happened to Aboriginals was that: ‘they were not executed by the state as a result of the operation of the law except in those few situations where martial law was declared’.

Reynolds declares a ‘cult of forgetfulness’ of which his research indicates was still present in 1955, but by the 1960s it was beginning to lift. He says of the academic world at that time: ‘none noticed the complete silence about the long history’. Consistent with the title of the book, Reynolds maintains that generations were not informed about the frontier and the history of it.

That may only pertain to the history of some regions and education departments, because by the 1970s aboriginal knowledge was being dissipated in south-east Victorian schools. Some of which disclosed killings, hunts and tribal knowledge; and in particular an incident at White Woman’s Waterhole. This was a kidnapping of sorts done by the Aborigines that left questions.

In answering his own question, Reynolds believes the reason that people are defensive, and why we were not told is: ‘many Australians want to enjoy both all the benefits brought by conquest and the untroubled conscience that would spring from a peaceful settlement’. He has found evidence of the sociopolitical problems that existed on the frontier, both of the aborigines and the colonists. In discussing the manning of punitive expeditions: ‘Magistrates and other officials usually found it impossible to crack the code of silence and the close confederation of the nomad tribe to gain evidence’.

Reynolds is not afraid to wade into the political historicism of the colonial period. However, in his book Aboriginal Sovereignty, he titles three chapters as if they might really be of aboriginal content, but unfortunately this is not the case. Despite that however, he does make a direct reference to paradigms of aboriginal ways.

Though the references may be empirical or imperial assessment’s of the aboriginal issues, the small number of raw data in the book is enough to give rise to a realisation that the Aboriginals indeed knew etiquette, diplomacy, formality and some form of political socialisation, such as it was. In locating and publishing this data, Reynolds’ conservative effort is complete, and his knowledge thus preserved. Thus too, the historical recordings of issues and events are preserved and locatable, and so too aboriginal politics.

It is rare to locate a mistake in Reynolds’ literature; that is his grammar remains clean throughout several of his books. Nonetheless, Windschuttle found a mistake and made it publicly known in his new book. Thrust into an academic furore and forced to defend himself, Reynolds said: ‘It gives Keith a free kick. It’s a bad mistake and I have to acknowledge that and thank him for pointing it out’, ‘All historians are fallible and make mistakes. They are usually mistakes and not conspiracies’. The importance of infallible history cannot be overlooked, particularly in Australia.

It might be of benefit to both states of Australia (the Aboriginal nation and the White state) that if a new political history of the Aboriginals along with the period of colonial usurpation was written into authentification. It may be that any form of reconciliation is not possible from either states until this sorry business is done. The Aboriginals may be refusing to be consigned to the dust as an A-political base culture that was unrecorded. Acknowledging and recording it may help halt the conflagration of bi-polar cleavage.

Keith Windschuttle on the other hand, is a different style of academic when it comes to racism. Whilst his efforts at historicism may contribute in some way, he has yet to cover some substantial gaps in his abilities. His research ability may be useable, and his sources relevant; but his literature -namely his grammar- requires some introspection by himself. It seems that his prose might be hurried, as if perhaps the work must be done and published as soon as possible because there is some big point to be made. This can be seen in several of his works.

For example in his book the Killing of History, he makes several errors. On page twelve there is a minor flaw in sentence structure; it reads: ‘to emphasise just how radical is the challenge that is underway’. On page twenty-one he is discussing the meta-physics of text in history, but in paraphrasing and summarising the model he becomes one with the text. Windschuttle is no longer there and it is then that: ‘we are told we do not have access to facts in any objective or permanent sense’. It is no longer Windschuttle giving commentary, but the text taking over. He also makes a spelling error in a critical passage, it reads: ‘Their presence [rules of language] can be detected only though parole, that is, when they are expressed or uttered’. The suggestion in his book is that the structure of English does not exist.

In the book, he discusses post-modern post-structuralist theorists such as Michel Focault and Jacques Derrida, and others. The entry of these theorists into the realm of the social sciences under the banner of ‘cultural studies’ is the central concern of this book. He maintains that the pluralisation of historiographical models has the potential to destroy the data that is the historical record and fact. However, the problem with Windschuttle is that it is not certain whether he is part of the neo-historicism movement, or whether he is a traditional empiricist. The apparent flaws and hurried nature of his work suggests that he is on the side of the people who are pushing for a paradigm shift. It may not be that the shift is a bad thing, however the application of it needs to be addressed with caution.

In 1996, at a conference in Adelaide, a cautious Prime Minister Howard gave a memorial address in which he said: ‘developments in Australian political life over the past decade or so has been the attempt to re-write Australian history in the service of a partisan political cause’. In the case of both men, there is a connection with political parties. In the case of Reynolds it is the communists; and for Windschuttle it is a freedom party overseas.

In the new monograph in which he delves into the case debate about the Tasmanian Aborigines, he (Windschuttle) makes countless errors, both grammatically and in footnote. On page 216 he discusses Governor Arthur’s ‘Black Line’ preference and quotes Arthur in Plomley: (‘I do not see the occasion for their parting with such natives as they have in their employ; pro-vided they use them well it is just what I would wish.’). The context in which he is using this quote does not seem to produce a rational argument, and note the apostrophe. On the next page is a quote that also reads poorly, it is attached to the number fifty-four footnote.

It is supposedly taken from the diary of:- Robinson, 1830- Friendly Mission; but amazingly, the full reference does not exist in the bibliography. The nearest is:- Robinson- Periodical Report, June 1837. What has in fact occurred here is that Windschuttle has cited the Robinson diaries incorrectly. They are to be found in the 1966 publication of NJB Plomley’s book the: Friendly Mission. The title of a friendly mission does not apply to the journals of GA Robinson in the 1830s as found in Windschuttle. On the footnotes, the entries appear as ‘Robinson’, it should be ‘Robinson in Plomley’ or plain ‘Plomley’.

More amazingly, on the first page of his bibliography -on the first entry, he footnotes a long descriptive note about sources in which he finally denounces Henry Reynolds for being ‘sloppy and misleading’ with his endnote work. While his analysis is correct, it is but half wrong, because Volume 1/330 of which he refers to, is in fact not endnoted, nor listed in the bibliography. He is correct about 1/319 being omitted in the bibliography, however it is in the endnotes on page 229; and 1/318 is bibliographed twice, as he claims.

And in Quadrant too, to which Windschuttle is a regular contributor, he makes some mistakes in his grammar. Again, the fault is in his sentence structure that reads: ‘in the journeys both to and from Waterloo Creek there are several days that Millis reckons are unaccounted for. Millis thinks that, at a distance of 150 years, he can tell how long the journey between each of the pastoral stations where Nunn stayed for the night should have taken him’. While this is barely intelligible today -the question must be raised- how much could this statement be misconstrued in the future as the cultural interpretation of language shifts with time. The same principle can be applied to past history and thus our interpretation of the past may be culturally clouded or worse, incorrect. Two paragraphs later he cites an article in the Australian which Roger Millis had used in his book that says: ‘who revisited the scene some times afterwards reported that’. His hurried ways and mistakes were picked up at a conference.

In a recent conference in Melbourne, Windschuttle gave a presentation that spoke both about his findings of frontier history plus the genocide scenario, and he disputed some of Henry Reynolds works and findings. Once again his appraisal was hurried, it was a stumbling and crammed speech. At the same conference, history Professor Grimshaw gave an aloof, emotive, Victorian style presentation that criticised Windschuttle’s sociopolitical assessment of aboriginal life at the time of colonisation. Grimshaw took issue with: ‘the expansion of settlement instead gave the Aborigines more opportunity to engage in robbery and murder, to customs they had come to relish’; which she repeated. Grimshaw also found Windschuttle’s assessment of ‘senseless aboriginal violence’ a little hard to accept. Her feigned astonishment and distaste at the remarks about Aborigines killing their babies and neglecting their women shows she is offended by, and ignorant of, the facts about indigene socialism, and it showed in the seminar.

The tone of the seminar at the Trades Hall in Melbourne was one of academic competition, a play to obtain the high ground. One academic using emotive methods, the other using discipline specific assault. It seemed to be more of an argument for trend-setters on one side riding the ‘genocide’ explanation of history, versus the neo-historicists viewing the information from different disciplinary methodologies. Both camps seemed to be vying for ground in the sociopolitical arena that may only provide space for one model of historicism.

Nonetheless, Windschuttle; like Reynolds, dabbles into an assessment of the sociopolitical historicism of the indigene’s. In his new book he relates that:

The real tragedy of the Aborigines was not British colonisation per se but that their society was, on the one hand, so internally dysfunctional and, on the other hand, so incompatible with the looming presence of the rest of the world’.

The work of Keith Windschuttle may have opened up a chance to fully deconstruct the history of Australia’s colonial period. Whether it be with intent or not, he seems to be breaking down some barriers in historiography that will allow some new assessments that might tease out some inadequacies; in modern terms this would be meta-deconstruction. However, this may not be received very well by the established practitioners of the discipline, Grimshaw for one. These currently treat the whole debate as one of mere scholarly competence. A debate that is rather more about who has said what went on; one that is distracted by how it has been said or recorded. The underlying theme -that is history- and the data of it from both representative states (the colony and the colonised) about what actually took place, seems to have been reconciled to political unimportance.

In particular, the importance of the political history of the period which is in need of some serious professional analysis aimed at defining the political platform of the colonial administrators should not be underestimated. As well, the platform of the Aboriginals needs to be accounted for, as it is clear that theirs was not baseless and without paradigms. The Aborigines with their base-level existence needs a full political description and understanding to preserve its history. Other important factors are questions of what the colonist’s attitudes were, and how much they used these to pressure authorities to act; for example, the punitive expeditions.

The matter of local pressure groups, of vigilantes and sport hunters needs a proper account as does double agents or infiltrators that may have acted to incite disruption and outrages by Aborigines. Or, as the case was for Walter Authur in Tasmania, Aborigines employed by the Europeans as ‘artful dodgers’, to carry out robberies and crimes. The accounts of history need to be de-polarised so that the aboriginal version is known.

‘Aboriginal people should write about these things since they are in the best position to convey to others what if feels to be on the receiving end’ writes aboriginal Jackie Huggins. She understands the problem of sourcing materials that perpetuate a biased perspective: ‘too often the writer has had to rely on the most biased sources’ nonetheless ‘It is therefore essential that close and detailed studies of black/white relations be made in every region before any overall picture…can emerge’.

CONCLUSION

The emerging debate sparked by Keith Windschuttle and his controversial mistakes, are of prime concern to historians. The ability to resurrect the facts and store them in literature is the nature of historicism, and the two identities in this essay have challenged this methodology. Though it seems that Windschuttle is the instigator of the new comparative debate, and Henry Reynolds the steadfast benchmark over which a new perspective might be found. The key to the whole remonstration in current historicism for Australia is the nature in which it is written.

With the advent of the personal computer it is now possible for anybody to write a story into history in a fairly short time. And, as mentioned before this seems to have been what occurred in the case of Windschuttle. His footnote and endnote work has been ‘sloppy’ and his scripting is far from rational in many places and books. Therefore, his efforts at historicism must be called into question because if what he writes is illegible and irrational, then the facts that surround his literature can only be misconstrued and thoroughly incorrect. This then is not historical recording; however it may be a model of usurpation that can be used by others to glean new and erroneous data from the original material. Also, with time, as the culture of Australia evolves, so too will the interpretation of our literature and history. Particularly as we are a multicultural society, thereby allowing other cultures to put an even greater pressure onto the facts.

The task of this essay was to assess the work and facts of two social commentators. The findings of this effort suggest that one academic (namely Keith Windschuttle) needs to be seriously questioned about his work. It may be that his mistakes are entirely intended, thus revealing a hidden agenda. The agenda would then likely be a paradigm shift.

Home Page

BIBLIOGRAPHY

JANSON, Susan,. and Stuart Macintyre.1990. Through White Eyes.

London: Unwin Hyman Limited.

McQUEEN, Humphrey,.1997. Suspect History: Manning Clark and the Future of

Australia’s Past. South Australia: Wakefeild Press.

REYNOLDS, Henry,.2001. An Indelible Stain?: the question of genocide in

Australia’s history. Australia: Penguin Books Australia Ltd.

REYNOLDS, Henry,.1999. Why Weren’t We Told?: a personal search for the truth

about our history. Victoria: Penguin Books Australia Ltd.

REYNOLDS, Henry,.1998. This Whispering In Our Hearts.

NSW: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd.

REYNOLDS, Henry,.1996. Aboriginal Sovereignty: reflections on race, state and

nation. NSW: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd.

REYNOLDS, Henry,.1995. Fate of a Free People. Australia: Penguin Books

Australia Ltd.

WINDSCHUTTLE, Keith,.2003.(Reprint). The Fabrication of Aboriginal History.

Vol 1. Van Diemen’s Land 1803-1847. NSW: Macleay Press.

WINDSCHUTTLE, Keith,.1994. The Killing of History.

NSW: Macleay Press.

Historian admits misquoting governor Arthur over Aboriginal attacks.

November 30 2002.

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2002/11/29/1038386313878.htm

White Settlement in Australia. on: CD. March 2003.

Melbourne: Trades Hall -Conference.