Saying "Sorry" to Indigenous Australia
February 11th 2008 01:28
With an apology to the Indigenous People soon to become a reality, we need to understand exactly what the government is saying ‘sorry’ for. As you will see, it’s much more than just the ‘stolen generation’, for we know the Aborigine became an inherent part of Australia’s political agenda when Captain James Cook wrongfully claimed Australia for the British Crown in 1788. The recording of their history began as Frontier reports of hostile savages reaching Parliament, to acts and decrees passed concerning the ‘Aboriginal problem’. By the late 1800s, the Frontier was tamed and resistance to invasion nullified. Aboriginal historiography, which is recorded as a story of dispossession, abuse, and death, was then wrapped in the comfortable blanket of Terra Nullius: the Aboriginal people were primitive nomads with no concept of land ownership. Hence, Australia was there for the taking. Aboriginal history then became invisible to all but the ardent researcher, and until the 1930s, considered unworthy of inclusion in history as taught to Australian school children.
This cloak of invisibility remained until the 70s, when after a number of discriminatory policies and practices by the States, Indigenous Policy was shifted to the Commonwealth by referendum and Aborigines were included in the national census. Aboriginal historiography was then revised. These revisionist histories and the people that wrote them changed the way Australians viewed their past, especially the wrongful treatment of Aborigines under European occupation.
Yet, are these revisionist histories truthful and unbiased accounts, or as some suggest, politically motivated, unsubstantiated, and at times fabricated? Journalist and former history teacher Keith Windshuttle levelled this serious charge at revisionist historians and asserts this has been the case for a century or more.
Windshuttle states that the disregard for the truth in Aboriginal historiography has its roots in the early nineteenth century, as missionaries exaggerated massacre numbers and lobbied their respective State governments of the need to keep the black population separate from the white. This cause was also taken-up by government officers who wanted to establish ‘protectorates’ and reserves. These embellished massacre stories provided the rationale for the notion of separatism, which dominated government policy toward Aborigines for most of the twentieth Century. Windshuttle goes on to add that ‘the academics who entered the debate more recently had some newer political motives but their main role has been to perpetuate this long tradition’ (Windshuttle 2002, p11)
Of these recent academic revisionist historians, two in particular have come under fire from Windshuttle: Henry Reynold’s in his 1981 book, ‘The Other Side of the Frontier’, and Lyndall Ryan’s thesis/book, ‘The Aboriginal Tasmanians’. Windshuttle uses a forensic approach to refute data stated in these works regarding Aboriginal deaths in Frontier conflict, that approach being the use of government/police reports, eyewitness accounts and identification of remains. Surely, this is a flawed approach given the passage of time, the very nature of the Frontier, and methods used for reporting.
Henry Reynold’s makes no secret of the difficulties involved in calculating the Aboriginal death toll, as opposed to ‘documented’ white settlers. ‘The figure of 20000 Aboriginal deaths in Frontier conflict will be thought of as too high by some, too low by others,’ Reynold’s states (Reynolds 1981 p123). He quantifies this by stating the alarming decline in the Aboriginal population from 1788 to1900: Approx 300000 down to around 50000. After subtraction, that leaves approx. 230000 deaths from causes other than Frontier violence. Even if half of these deaths were attributed to disease that still leaves over 100000 deaths—one third of the original population lost to societal disruption, dislocation, and birthrate decline. Given the bush survival skills of the Aborigine, this figure seems inordinately high. The baseline Reynold’s uses for his estimations are the recorded figures of white deaths from conflict. He then applies a ratio of ten Aboriginal deaths to one white, and granted the long-range rapid-load capacity of the rifle as opposed to spear and boomerang, this seems a realistic estimation. Windshuttle’s forensic techniques would have us believe that only 482 Aboriginal deaths due to Frontier conflict can truly be claimed (Windshuttle 2000 p5). This unrealistically low figure is an affront to the bravery and tenacity of the Aboriginal warrior.
Revisionist historian Lyndall Ryan, in her own words states that her thesis/book’s purpose ‘is to demolish this myth of the “last Tasmanian”, as having disappeared from history (Ryan 1981 p1). Windshuttle charges her with fabricating footnotes to massacres and providing false estimates of numbers of Aborigines killed on the Tasmanian Frontier (Ryan 2003 p123). Ryan’s answer to these charges is the admission of minor errors: footnote misplacement, use of inaccurate information, use of unreliable sources, and referencing omission. As stated, all minor faults.
Ryan uses a baseline ratio of four Aboriginal deaths to one white, and as stated before in the use of Reynold’s ratio of 10:1, this seems realistic if we factor in the difference in population numbers to the mainland. Yet, Windshuttle’s approach states that due to the unaccountability of 480 deaths, a ratio of 1.6 black deaths to one white is all that can be claimed. Again, an unrealistically low estimate given the nature of the Aboriginal warrior and the weapons they fought against.
Therefore, following in the vein of Windshuttle’s forensic examination, is there any real evidence to support his assertion that there has been a disregard for the truth in revisionist Aboriginal historiography? Both Reynold’s and Ryan clearly state their motives: to provide another perspective, as the title of Reynold’s suggests, and to dispel a myth, as Ryan states (Ryan 1981 p1). Ryan has admitted her mistakes, and both have stated the difficulty in obtaining definite information about the Frontier. So unless it could be proven that there has been personal or political gain—which if there had been surely Windshuttle would have exposed it—then in the absence of further evidence, the answer would have to be: No. Politicians have used Aboriginal historiography as political tools certainly, however fabrication and unsubstantiated guesswork by historians makes no sense at all.
It is painfully clear that even with numeric mistakes factored in, treatment of the Indigenous People of Australia is a historical tale of woe in any language. And yes, white settlers played a role, however Government, both State and Federal, is where the ‘buck stops’. No wonder Kevin Rudd is thinking long and hard on the wording of an apology, for as can be seen, ‘sorry’ needs to cover many more wrongs than just the ‘stolen generation’. On a personal level, most of us know that to receive an apology for a wrong committed is a good thing, it will not absolve all the hurt, but it’s a start, a way forward. Advance Australia.
Referencing
Reynolds, Henry 1981, The Other Side of the Frontier: An Interpretation of the Aboriginal Response to the Invasion and Settlement of Australia, Penguin, Ringwood, pp 1-3 121-127, 198-202.
Ryan, Lyndall 1996 [1981], The Aboriginal Tasmanians, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp 1-6.
Ryan, Lyndall “Who is the Fabricator’ in Manne, Robert (ed) 2003, Whitewash: On Kieth Windshuttle’s Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Black Ink.Agenda, Melbourne, pp 230-233, 254-257.
Windshuttle, K. 2000, ‘The myths of frontier massacres in Australian history, Part 1: The invention of massacre stories’ Quadrant, October 200, Vol.44, No.10,
Really Long Link Retrieved 7th March 2005, pp 1-6, 10-11.
Windshuttle, K.2002, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume One, Van Diemen’s Land 1803-1847, Macleay Press, Sydney, pp1-10, 398-403, 412-416.
Yet, are these revisionist histories truthful and unbiased accounts, or as some suggest, politically motivated, unsubstantiated, and at times fabricated? Journalist and former history teacher Keith Windshuttle levelled this serious charge at revisionist historians and asserts this has been the case for a century or more.
Of these recent academic revisionist historians, two in particular have come under fire from Windshuttle: Henry Reynold’s in his 1981 book, ‘The Other Side of the Frontier’, and Lyndall Ryan’s thesis/book, ‘The Aboriginal Tasmanians’. Windshuttle uses a forensic approach to refute data stated in these works regarding Aboriginal deaths in Frontier conflict, that approach being the use of government/police reports, eyewitness accounts and identification of remains. Surely, this is a flawed approach given the passage of time, the very nature of the Frontier, and methods used for reporting.
Henry Reynold’s makes no secret of the difficulties involved in calculating the Aboriginal death toll, as opposed to ‘documented’ white settlers. ‘The figure of 20000 Aboriginal deaths in Frontier conflict will be thought of as too high by some, too low by others,’ Reynold’s states (Reynolds 1981 p123). He quantifies this by stating the alarming decline in the Aboriginal population from 1788 to1900: Approx 300000 down to around 50000. After subtraction, that leaves approx. 230000 deaths from causes other than Frontier violence. Even if half of these deaths were attributed to disease that still leaves over 100000 deaths—one third of the original population lost to societal disruption, dislocation, and birthrate decline. Given the bush survival skills of the Aborigine, this figure seems inordinately high. The baseline Reynold’s uses for his estimations are the recorded figures of white deaths from conflict. He then applies a ratio of ten Aboriginal deaths to one white, and granted the long-range rapid-load capacity of the rifle as opposed to spear and boomerang, this seems a realistic estimation. Windshuttle’s forensic techniques would have us believe that only 482 Aboriginal deaths due to Frontier conflict can truly be claimed (Windshuttle 2000 p5). This unrealistically low figure is an affront to the bravery and tenacity of the Aboriginal warrior.
Revisionist historian Lyndall Ryan, in her own words states that her thesis/book’s purpose ‘is to demolish this myth of the “last Tasmanian”, as having disappeared from history (Ryan 1981 p1). Windshuttle charges her with fabricating footnotes to massacres and providing false estimates of numbers of Aborigines killed on the Tasmanian Frontier (Ryan 2003 p123). Ryan’s answer to these charges is the admission of minor errors: footnote misplacement, use of inaccurate information, use of unreliable sources, and referencing omission. As stated, all minor faults.
Ryan uses a baseline ratio of four Aboriginal deaths to one white, and as stated before in the use of Reynold’s ratio of 10:1, this seems realistic if we factor in the difference in population numbers to the mainland. Yet, Windshuttle’s approach states that due to the unaccountability of 480 deaths, a ratio of 1.6 black deaths to one white is all that can be claimed. Again, an unrealistically low estimate given the nature of the Aboriginal warrior and the weapons they fought against.
Therefore, following in the vein of Windshuttle’s forensic examination, is there any real evidence to support his assertion that there has been a disregard for the truth in revisionist Aboriginal historiography? Both Reynold’s and Ryan clearly state their motives: to provide another perspective, as the title of Reynold’s suggests, and to dispel a myth, as Ryan states (Ryan 1981 p1). Ryan has admitted her mistakes, and both have stated the difficulty in obtaining definite information about the Frontier. So unless it could be proven that there has been personal or political gain—which if there had been surely Windshuttle would have exposed it—then in the absence of further evidence, the answer would have to be: No. Politicians have used Aboriginal historiography as political tools certainly, however fabrication and unsubstantiated guesswork by historians makes no sense at all.
It is painfully clear that even with numeric mistakes factored in, treatment of the Indigenous People of Australia is a historical tale of woe in any language. And yes, white settlers played a role, however Government, both State and Federal, is where the ‘buck stops’. No wonder Kevin Rudd is thinking long and hard on the wording of an apology, for as can be seen, ‘sorry’ needs to cover many more wrongs than just the ‘stolen generation’. On a personal level, most of us know that to receive an apology for a wrong committed is a good thing, it will not absolve all the hurt, but it’s a start, a way forward. Advance Australia.
Referencing
Reynolds, Henry 1981, The Other Side of the Frontier: An Interpretation of the Aboriginal Response to the Invasion and Settlement of Australia, Penguin, Ringwood, pp 1-3 121-127, 198-202.
Ryan, Lyndall 1996 [1981], The Aboriginal Tasmanians, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp 1-6.
Ryan, Lyndall “Who is the Fabricator’ in Manne, Robert (ed) 2003, Whitewash: On Kieth Windshuttle’s Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Black Ink.Agenda, Melbourne, pp 230-233, 254-257.
Windshuttle, K. 2000, ‘The myths of frontier massacres in Australian history, Part 1: The invention of massacre stories’ Quadrant, October 200, Vol.44, No.10,
Really Long Link Retrieved 7th March 2005, pp 1-6, 10-11.
Windshuttle, K.2002, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume One, Van Diemen’s Land 1803-1847, Macleay Press, Sydney, pp1-10, 398-403, 412-416.
| 94 |
| Vote |
Comment by Barlow Redfearn
The Heart of Darkness
Saying sorry is more than an apology - it is the beginnings of ridding Australia from the hateful and xenophobic ideas of the Howard years.
Great post