(Redirected from Black armband view of history)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 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.
Similar debates have also occurred in the
USA (see
culture wars) and
Canada.
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"
[1], 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".
[2]
A new strand of Australian
historiography subsequently emerged which gave much greater attention to the negative experiences wrought on Indigenous Australians by the European 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''.
[Geoffrey Blainey, 'Drawing Up a Balance Sheet of Our History', in Quadrant, vol.37( 7-8), July/August 1993]
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 is 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 white 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'.
[3]
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.
's involvement in the
National Museum of Australia controversy and
Keith Windschuttle's claims about
Tasmanian settlement constitute arguments within this theoretical perspective. As was argued by Howard in the 1996
Sir Robert Menzies Lecture:
Manning Clark was identified as being on the liberal left of the debate and was specifically named by Blainey in his 1993 speech as having "done much to spread the gloomy view and also the compassionate view with his powerful prose and Old Testament phrases."
Particular historians and histories that are challenged include
Henry Reynolds and the histories of
massacres, particularly in
Tasmania but also elsewhere in Australia.
Genocide debate
Australian historians are split as to whether the European colonisation of Australian resulted in the
genocide of groups of
Aborigines and in particular the
Tasmanian Aborigines, this is often to do with if the "the term 'genocide' only applies to cases of deliberate mass killings of Aborigines by European settlers, or whether the term 'genocide' might also apply to instances in which many Aboriginal people were killed by the reckless or unintended actions and omissions of settlers."
[Debates on Genocide - Part One Debates on 'Genocide' in Australian History, Australian Government Department of Education Science and Traning]
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 white settlers, or introduced European farming methods causing a group of Aborigines to starve to death, the result is in his opinion genocide.
[Debates on Genocide - Part One Debates on 'Genocide' in Australian History, Australian Government Department of Education Science and Traning. citing Tony Barta, ''Relations of Genocide: Land and Lives in the Colonization of Australia'', in Genocide and the Modern Age: Etiology and Case Studies of Mass Death, Isidor Wallimann & Michael N. Dobkowski (eds.), New York, Westport, Connecticut, London, Greenwood Press, 1987, pp. 237-251.] 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"
[Debates on Genocide - Part One Debates on 'Genocide' in Australian History, Australian Government Department of Education Science and Traning. citing Reynolds, An Indelible Stain? The Question of Genocide in Australia’s History, Ringwood, Viking, 2001, p. 2.] 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.
The political scientist Kenneth Minogue and other historians such as Keith Windschuttle and disagree and think that no genocide took place.[ Debates on Genocide - Part Two Debates on 'Genocide' in Australian History. Australian Government Department of Education Science and Traning][''The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One: Van Diemen's Land 1803-1847'', Keith Windschuttle, 2002, ISBN 1-876492-05-8] Minogue does not 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.[Debates on Genocide - Part Two Debates on 'Genocide' in Australian History. Australian Government Department of Education Science and Traning. Citing Kenneth Minogue, 'Aborigines and Australian Apologetics', Quadrant, (September 1998), pp. 11-20.]
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 is 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 had 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 is 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.[4]
Stolen Generations debate
Main articles: Stolen Generation
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. Some commentators have questioned the conduct of the Royal Commission which produced the report, arguing that the Commission failed to conduct even the most cursory investigations into the accuracy of the allegations on which it based the report. 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 is 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.[Manne, Robert The cruelty of denial, The Age, September 9, 2006] 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.[5]
Stuart Macintyre's ''The History Wars''
In 2003 Australian historian Stuart Macintyre published ''The History Wars'', written with Anna Clark.[6] 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."[7] 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."[8] Keith Windschuttle said that Macintyre attempted to "caricature the history debate."[9] 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."[6]
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.[11]
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.[12]
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.[13]
See also
★ History of Australia
★ Indigenous Australians
★ Tasmanian Aborigine
★ Black War
★ List of massacres of indigenous Australians
★ Stolen generation
Protagonists
★ Geoffrey Blainey
★ Stuart Macintyre
★ Robert Manne
★ Henry Reynolds
★ Lyndall Ryan
★ Keith Windschuttle
References
1. "After the Dreaming" in White Man Got No Dreaming: Essays 1938-1973, W.E.H. Stanner, 1979, pp. 198-248, ed. W.E.H. Stanner, ISBN 0-7081-1802-X, pp. 198-248.
2. "After the Dreaming" in White Man Got No Dreaming: Essays 1938-1973, W.E.H. Stanner, 1979, pp. 198-248, ed. W.E.H. Stanner, ISBN 0-7081-1802-X, p. 214.
3. Different Perspectives on Black Armband History: Research Paper 5 1997-98
4. "Contra Windschuttle", S.G. Foster ''Quadrant'', March 2003, 47:3 [1]
5. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,19610693-25717,00.html
6. Macintyre, Stuart & Clark, Anna, ''The History Wars'' Melbourne University Publishing, Carlton, Victoria, 2003, ISBN 0-522-85091-X.
7. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/05/1062549021882.html
8. http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/summer03-04/polsumm0304-7.htm.
9. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s938399.htm.
10. Macintyre, Stuart & Clark, Anna, ''The History Wars'' Melbourne University Publishing, Carlton, Victoria, 2003, ISBN 0-522-85091-X.
11. http://www.nma.gov.au/about_us/exhibitions_and_public_programs_review/review_report/>.
12. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s902872.htm.
13. http://www.sydneyline.com/National%20Museum.htm.
Sources
Articles
★ Foster, S.G. ''Contra Windschuttle'', 'Quadrant', March 2003, 47:3
★ Francis, P., ''The Whole Truth...?'', (2000) , ''The Journal of GEOS''
Books
★ ''The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One: Van Diemen's Land 1803-1847'', Keith Windschuttle, 2002, ISBN 1-876492-05-8
★ ''The History Wars'', Stuart Macintyre and Anna Clark, 2003, ISBN 0-522-85091-X
★ ''Whitewash. On Keith Windschuttle's Fabrication of Aboriginal History''. Robert Manne (ed), 2003 ISBN 0-9750769-0-6
★ ''Washout: On the academic response to The Fabrication of Aboriginal History'', John Dawson, 2004 ISBN 1-876492-12-0
★ ''Telling The Truth About Aboriginal History '', Bain Attwood, 2005 ISBN 1-74114-577-5
★ "After the Dreaming" in ''White Man Got No Dreaming: Essays 1938-1973'', W.E.H. Stanner, 1979, pp. 198-248, ed. W.E.H. Stanner, ISBN 0-7081-1802-X
External links
★ History Wars Special in the Sydney Morning Herald
★ Who plays Stalin in our History Wars? Stuart Macintyre
★ Keith Windschuttle, "Postmodernism and the Fabrication of Aboriginal History"
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
