Writing the History of the Australian Frontier - Assignment Example

Writing the History of the Australian Frontier This paper will compare the views of Keith Windschuttle and Henry Reynolds and place those views within the debate known as the “History Wars”. While mostly concerned with their arguments, the paper will also briefly look at why this vigourous debate has become important in a much larger context. Because, most importantly, the Windschuttle/Reynolds debates are about which interpretation of the historical past is true and which is false. There is considerable disagreement between Reynolds and Windschuttle, especially concerning the topic of ‘massacre’ during Australia’s colonial history. In particular Windschuttle objects to Reynolds figure of ’20,000’ Aboriginal dead, calling the figure (at best) “unwarranted” (Windschuttle 2000: 18). Windschuttle continues, attacking the apparently arbitrary nature of the ’20,000’, arguing that Reynolds and others have taken inductive reasoning to ‘unreasonable’ levels (18). Rather that 20,000 Aboriginal dead he argues that the impossibility of the task, and the lack of credible sources, should convince historians to leave the subject well enough alone (23). In reply to Windschuttle’s claim that he fudged the figures Reynolds weak states that he ‘believes’ his figures are accurate – yet he really provides little solid evidence to support that claim. Instead he assures us that if there were “2000 attacks on the settlers” the vastly superior European weapons combined with an “overwhelming determination to avenge any attack” there must have been tens of thousands of Aboriginals killed during the period (206). This is the very argument that upsets Windschuttle as it appears Reynold’s figures are nothing more than educated guess work. Nonetheless, Reynolds, in reply to Windschuttle’s accusations attacks both Windschuttle’s methodology and his bias. Windschuttle, he says, has a “nose for conspiracy and a penchant for overblown headlines”, he has “almost no experience in the field”, he is a zealot “crude, quixotic and clumsy”, indeed he less than subtly accuses Windschuttle of being akin to “Holocaust deniers who find new and more ingenious reasons to cast doubt on the death toll and who refuse to see what is obvious to everyone else” (204, 207). Indeed, Reynolds and Windschuttle agree on very little. About the only thing that both Reynolds and Windschuttle do agree upon is that the other is an ideologue driven not by the search for truth but by some hidden agenda. At best, both agree that a ‘region by region’ study is the only way to accurately gauge the level of Aboriginal dead (Windschuttle 23: Reynolds 206). Also, both seem to agree on how Reynold’s reached the figure of 20,000 dead, the only difference being that Reynolds considers the figure “defensible”, even though he admits much of his work is supposition (206). Both Windschuttle and Reynold’s argue from a biased position. Windschuttle admits himself that he believes academics specialising in colonial history are distorting facts to suit their own nefarious ends (Windschuttle 23-24). Indeed, he sees the direction that has been taken by many history departments as one leading to a form of post-modern nihilism that is ultimately destroying Australia’s memory of itself. This agenda clouds much of Windschuttle’s often valid observations concerning many historians’ quite obvious factual errors. Reynolds himself is not free of bias either. At best he is guilty of protesting a little too loudly while defending his own arguments against Windschuttle’s attacks. Armband to Blindfold is certainly not a balanced appraisal of Windschuttle’s arguments for example; as seen above it has the nature of a polemic, rather than a rebuttal. The debate between Windschuttle and Reynolds serves as a good example of what has become known as the “History Wars”. Windschuttle for example, argues that some historians, Reynolds included, have become too entrenched in theories concerning literary narrative, confusing “storytelling” with “truth”. (1994: 229) Moreover, he has little time for historians who “abandon truth” and “adopt fiction” regardless of their good intentions – although he does agree that much modern history is too concerned with meaningless boutique topics of no interest to anyone but a small group of like-minded academics (229). However, despite Windschuttle’s attacks, Reynolds notes that much of the research into Aboriginal deaths has been made by historians using tradition methods of empirical history. That is, he argues, Windschuttle is attacking the very historians who have chosen to reject post-modernism (207). So, while Reynolds does not explicitly deny that cultural relativism has a place in the Australian frontier historiography, he does seem to argue that the more traditional empirical approach is still a valid form of historical inquiry (207). As such, Reynolds notes Windschuttle’s attacks seem less based on the defence of empiricism over relativism seeming more concerned with attacking anyone who disagrees with his particular version of Australian history (204). The debate between empiricism and cultural relativism is continued by Lyndall Ryan – herself a victim of Windshuttle’s attacks (Windschuttle 2000: 18). Ryan’s counter-argument is for the most part convincing. For example, she makes an excellent point concerning Windschuttle’s own standards for evidence. It does appear that Windschuttle places extraordinary high standards on those sources that contradict his views, yet he seems to place almost no scrutiny on those pieces of evidence which support his claims (Ryan 34). For example, Windschuttle seems to consider the testimonies of the two clergymen, Threlkeld and Gribble, as bordering on outright lies, while he considers the writings of various Australian Governors as sacrosanct (33-34). However, there is a less convincing aspect to the argument. Ryan argues vigorously that the methodology for determining the number of Aboriginal dead is complex, thorough, and above all sound. Yet, she then provides Windschuttle with tremendous ammunition by claiming that while there were “large numbers of people killed” and that “the overall evidence is overwhelming” it “doesn’t really matter how many were killed” (92). It is this type of attitude that upsets Windschuttle. It is important how many died, he argues, because while educated guesses are acceptable in some circles it is accuracy and truth that should dictate how history is written (1994: 231). Overall, the debate between Windschuttle and Reynolds over whose version of colonial history is correct is a prime example of what has become termed the “History Wars”. As Ann Curthoys and John Docker note in Is History Fiction, the Australian History Wars certainly appear to be similar to other contests of historical ownership; such as the debates over Japanese and German atrocities during World War Two (Curthoys 232). Indeed, if the term ‘History War’ describes the contest over who owns a historical discourse then the Australian experience certainly appears to fit the bill (232). Notions of truth, objectivity and bias are all apparent in the Windschuttle/Reynolds debates, indeed the idea of ‘truth’ is central to Windschuttle’s claims that post-modernism has led history astray (1994: 227). Facts and figures are the heart and soul of historical inquiry, argues Windschuttle, and to replace them with supposition, guess work, even fiction may result in many things, but it does not result in proper history (231). Non-empirical methodology, such as Reynold’s use of oral history, has no value in Windschuttle’s world either. If history is “collective memory” as John Tosh argues, then we have to accept that memories are imperfect (Tosh 1). Things get forgotten, events that we thought were facts turn out to be fabrications upon closer inspection. Moreover, sometimes we ‘remember’ things that never happened at all, yet for whatever reason we believe that they happened and that they are true. These are sentiments that Windschuttle would certainly agree with. Moreover, the Australian debates have become issues of “national interest and meaning” (Curthoys 234). What is really being debated is what version of truth we should all accept as ‘true’. If Windschuttle is correct colonial Australia was a benign place filled with peaceful Christian minded folk reluctant to hurt anyone. If Reynolds is right then Australia’s history was a bloody one filled with colonial conquest, violence, even extermination. These are mutually opposing views with little common ground affecting more than just the Historiography. As Curthoys and Docker argue the “morality of the nation is seen to be at stake”, and that can affect everything from government policy to legal decisions over land claims (234). This fact alone could go a long way to explaining why the History Wars have been so hotly contested. Overall the Windschuttle/Reynolds perhaps tells us more about the nature of historical inquiry than they do about the Australian Frontier. So many claims and counterclaims have flown back and forth that it is hard to know just exactly who should be believed. However, there is one benefit. While the History Wars may create confusion they also create debate. And regardless of which side of this particular debate you may support, debate is always something to be encouraged. Bibliography Curthoys, Ann: John Docker. Is History Fiction? Sydney, University of New South Wales (2006). Ryan, Lyndall. “Postcolonialism and the historian: the Aboriginal history wars.” Australian Historical Association 92 (2001): 31-37. Reynolds, Henry. “From Armband to Blindfold”, The Australian Review of Books, (March 2001): 8-9, 26. Tosh, John. The Pursuit of History, London, Longman (1984) Windshuttle, Keith. The Killing of History, Paddington, Macleay Press (1994) Windshuttle, Keith. “The Myths of Frontier Massacre in Australian History”, Quadrant, 44 (2000): 17-24. Read More