The History Wars Debate
Main Tasks
These activities are ones that you will need to read the entire reader
to be able to complete. The activities that accompany each of the
articles will help you to locate and pull out the important pieces of
information that will help you to complete these tasks. You can either
complete the tasks as you go through the reader, or do it all at the
end. Whatever makes you happy!!
Task One
Keith Windschuttle is about to become another historian that you can
add to your list. Read through his work and record his P.C.P.C., his
contribution to historiography and his view on objectivity and
subjectivity. You may also like to include any other facts about him
that you find interesting and relevant.
In order to complete this to the best standard you may have to do
some extra research on Windschuttle on the Internet. A good place
for you to start is his own website www.sydneyline.com which has a
great deal of information, not just about Windschuttle but on the
History Wars as well.
Task Two
You are to create an overview of the arguments and accusations that
are made by the key participants on both sides of this debate – the
Black Armband and the White Blindfold. You may choose to do this in
any format that you like, although a table may be a good layout to
consider. Make sure that you include the main argument – that is,
their view on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relations – for both sides,
any attacks (or arguments/accusations) that each side makes against
the other as well as how each side addresses the attacks/allegations
made against it by the other side. It is important that you also record
the names of the participants whenever it is possible.
Activities
Below are the activities that you will need to complete for each of the
articles in the reader. Some of the articles will have extensive
activities to accompany them, others will have only a few questions or
even no activity at all. Each activity has a point; so even if you feel
that some of the stuff is a bit repetitive, just bear with it! All activities
will lead you towards gaining an in depth knowledge of both the
History Wars and its participants.
The activities are laid out underneath the heading of the article that
they accompany. It is recommended that you use the same
subheadings in your books when completing the activities.
The Reynolds-Windschuttle Debate
There are no activities for this reading. It is a simple introduction to
the debate that will help you to get familiar with both sides and points
of view. It is interesting to note that this article discusses the debate
between Keith Windschuttle and Henry Reynolds, whilst the rest of
the reader focuses on the debate between Keith Windschuttle and
Stuart McIntyre (and others). Do not let this confuse you; McIntyre is
just the more recent contributor to the debate on the black armband
side, along with Lyndall Ryan and several others.
Chapter 11. History Wars.
Like the first article, this one is just to give you an overview of the
debate. There is not activity to go with this, but you might like to take
your own notes for future reference.
The Killing of History, Keith Windschuttle.
You have already read this article. I have just included it here as a bit
of a refresher and because it gives you a lot of information about
Windschuttle as an historian. There is no set activity here but this is a
useful article for working out his P.C.P.C.
Fabrication of Aboriginal History – Introduction. Keith Windschuttle
1. Why does this volume focus on Tasmania only?
2. According to Windschuttle the 'debate over Aboriginal History
has gone too far beyond its ostensible subject'. How far does
he claim the debate has spread?
3. According to Windschuttle, what is the debate over Aboriginal
history actually about?
4. What is Windschuttle’s central argument?
5. What does Windschuttle claim was the worst crime committed
by white settlers against the Aboriginal people?
6. Outline Windschuttle’s view on the politicisation of academic
history.
7. What evidence is used by the two sides in constructing their
two versions of the Mistake Creek Massacre?
8. What is the Mistake Creek Massacre? Outline all points of view
on the event.
9. How has the Mistake Creek Massacre been used by political
figures?
10. How important are facts to Windschuttle? Why?
11. Are there any similarities between the types of evidence used
by the different points of view?
The Historian as Prophet and Redeemer. Keith Windschuttle.
1. Discuss Windschuttle’s view of Lieutenant-Governor Arthur’s
opinion of the Tasmanian Aborigines and the conflict between
the Aborigines and non-Aboriginals.
2. How does Windschuttle claim Evangelical thought impacted on
colonists’ views and actions towards the Aboriginal people?
3. Discuss the different views of British law (on paper and in
practice) in relation to the Tasmanian Aborigines.
4. What two factors does Windschuttle state are to blame for the
dying out of the Indigenous Tasmanians?
5. What does Windschuttle say is the cause of Aboriginal violence
in the “Black Wars”?
6. Why have these so called ‘myths’ of Aboriginal history persisted
with Australian historians and the public?
7. What is the ‘great Australian silence’? Did it exist?
8. What does Windschuttle claim is the driving force behind
Aboriginal historiography?
The Fabrication of Aboriginal History. Paper to NSW HSC History
Extension Conference. Keith Windschuttle.
1. Why does Windschuttle praise Thucydides?
2. Discuss Windschuttle’s point of view on objectivity.
3. What views are “in the ascendancy” in regards to history today?
4. What is Windschuttle’s opinion on the new direction of history?
5. Discuss Windschuttle’s arguments in relation to historical truth.
6. What is Windschuttle’s opinion of the way that history is
displayed in the National Museum of Australia?
7. Why does Windschuttle argue that social history is no good for
creating and telling national histories?
8. Outline the accusation Windschuttle makes against historians
Lyndall Ryan and Henry Reynolds.
9. Windschuttle says that he himself once believed in the history
“concocted” by historians like Reynolds and Ryan. What made
him change his mind?
10. What two claims are made by historians of Aboriginal
Australia?
11. Outline the claims made by the Black Armband historians in
relation to frontier warfare and Windschuttle’s arguments
against them.
12. What reasons does Windschuttle give for historians or
Aboriginal Australians telling stories of “genocide, frontier
warfare and widespread bloodshed”?
13. What does Windschuttle see as the purpose of the historian?
14. What overall conclusion does Windschuttle wish to make?
HINT: Pay particular attention to his views on the use of
evidence.
15. How important is correct referencing to historians?
Social History, Aboriginal History and the Pursuit of Truth. Keith
Windschuttle.
This article is almost identical to the one preceding it (paper to HSC
students). However, this article does cite some different examples
when discussing the claims made by historians of Aboriginal Australia
and Windschuttle’s arguments against them.
Read through this article and add to your answer for Question 11 in
the activities above.
The Myths of Frontier Massacres in Australian History. Part I and Part
II. Keith Windschuttle.
These articles are a little long and detailed. However, they do provide
you with a lot of information about Windschuttle as an historian as
well as his views on the History Wars debate. Read through both of
these articles and use them to assist you in answering to two main
task set out at the beginning of these activities.
These two articles are both academic pieces so they may be a bit
harder to follow; but persevere and you will be rewarded with some
interesting information and an deeper insight into Windschuttle and
his arguments.
The Use and Abuse of Sources in Aboriginal History. Keith
Windschuttle.
The first half of this article is very similar to The Fabrication of
Aboriginal History (paper to HSC students) and the article Social
History, Aboriginal History and the Pursuit of Truth. However, there is
some extra information here, so bear with the repetition and answer
the set questions below.
1. How does Windschuttle suggest students today should
undertake research on Aboriginal history? Why? Give
examples.
2. Discuss Windschuttle’s argument against Ryan’s claims about
Stolen children in Tasmania.
3. What reasons does Windschuttle give for the decline in the
number of Tasmanian Aboriginals?
4. According to Windschuttle, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s
Australian anthropologists were providing an alternative view on
‘black and white’ relations. Discuss this view and how it differs
from that of the Black Armband view.
MacIntyre-Windschuttle debate on Lateline.
This is a transcript of a debate that took place between Stuart
MacIntyre and Keith Windschuttle in 2003. There are no set activities
here – just read it and enjoy a truly academic (!?!) debate.
This article may also prove useful in helping you to determine the
ideas and P.C.P.C of both historians; so I suggest taking your own
notes anyway.
The History Wars. Stuart MacIntyre.
1. What is Windschuttle’s fundamental allegation in The
Fabrication of Aboriginal History?
2. What is the connection between patriotism and the past?
3. Why was Windschuttle’s version of Australian history tempting
for some listeners?
4. Describe Windschuttle’s allegation about historians. How does
he support his view?
5. In what political respect was Windschuttle distinctive as a
champion of an affirmative national history? List the
contemporary political issues that have impacted on
Windschuttle and Howard’s interpretation of out past.
6. On what did Windschuttle base his case?
7. How does MacIntyre interpret the “critics” or the “enthusiasts”
attitude towards school history?
8. According to Windschuttle in The Killing of History, what was
the only proper method for historians? What does empirical
mean in this context?
9. How does Windschuttle’s methodology differ from that of
‘newer’ historians?
10. On what does Windschuttle base his claim that postcolonial
historiography is Eurocentric?
11. Compare Windschuttle’s example of “good history” in 1994
with his argument in The Fabrication of Aboriginal History in
2002. What are the similarities and differences?
12. Why is Windschuttle’s criticism of Reynolds and Rowley
surprising?
13. How does a change in context help explain Windschuttle’s
change in attitude?
14. Explain Ranke’s idea of historicism.
15. In what way is Windschuttle’s attitude towards Aboriginal
Australia inconsistent with this historicism?
16. Outline MacIntyre’s position on methodology.
17. What are the three claims of Windschuttle’s Fabrication of
Aboriginal History that MacIntyre outlines?
18. Briefly outline Windschuttle’s justifications for his arguments in
Fabrication.
19. What problem does MacIntyre outline with Windschuttle’s use
of sources?
20. Explain MacIntyre’s reference to Windschuttle as “a partisan
advocate”.
21. How does MacIntyre compare Windschuttle with Davis Irving?
22. What is Windschuttle, as a revisionist, lacking in his book?
23. How far, and into which fields, has the History Wars debate
spread?
24. Why is the History Wars debate difficult for historians to
contribute to?
25. Why do you think MacIntyre believes the History Wars are an
“ugly side of the Australian present”?
History, Politics and the Philosophy of History. Stuart MacIntyre
This article is almost identical to MacIntyre’s article ‘The History
Wars’. Read this one anyway. This is a more academic article and
does have some minor differences. It is a good way of exposing you
to more academic works (which you should be using in your own
major projects).
The History Wars. Chapter Three What do they say? Stuart
MacIntyre
This article provides an overview of Australian historiography. Whilst
the majority of it focuses on the time before the History Wars debate,
it will provide you with the historiographical context of the debate.
Use this article to create a timeline of the development of Australian
historiography. This will help you to follow and understand the huge
amount of information presented to you in this chapter.
Read pages 43 – 49 to answer the following questions.
1. Why does MacIntyre refer to Aboriginal history as a ‘revival’?
2. Why was the writing of Aboriginal history in the 1970s
significant?
3. Outline the change in focus that took place in the 1980s in
relation to Aboriginal history.
4. According to Windschuttle how do revisionist historians see
Aboriginal history written by authors like Reynolds and Read?
5. What is Windschuttle’s opinion of oral history? Does MacIntyre
agree with him? Why?
6. What problems does Macintyre outline in the process of
conducting historical research – particularly research into
Aboriginal history?
Conservative story is simply not big enough for Australia: Keating
1. Why dies Keating refer to people like John Howard and
Geoffrey Blainey as reactionaries?
2. What impact does he see these reactionaries as having on
Australia’s development?
3. Who does Keating say will be the loser in the great debates
over Australian history?
4. To which side of the debate does Keating belong (white
blindfold or black armband)? How do you know this?
Whitewash. Introduction. Robert Manne
1. How was the Great Australian Silence “shattered”?
2. Manne argues that under the Howard Government a counterrevolution in Aboriginal history took place. Outline the changes
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
that this counter-revolution brought about and how those
changes altered the view of the history of Aboriginal and nonAboriginal relations.
Which issue first sparked this counter-revolution and why?
What is Manne’s view of Windschuttle’s argument in his
Quadrant articles and his methodology?
Why does Manne say that Windschuttle’s views are so
popular?
What role did the media play in the rise of Windschuttle and his
views?
Which side of the debate does Manne belong to? How do you
know this?
Discuss Manne’s opinion of the members of the White Blindfold
side of the debate?
Whitewash Confirms the Fabrication of Aboriginal History. Keith
Windschuttle.
1. What is Windschuttle’s view of the defense mounted by the
historians in whitewash?
2. How does Windschuttle defend himself against Manne’s claim
that “he failed to do the basic research”?
3. What reasons does Windschuttle provide for Fabrications
popularity?
4. Throughout this article Windschuttle discusses the use of
sources in an historical work. From this, what can we tell of
Windschuttle’s view on historical sources and evidence and
about his own methodology?
5. Windschuttle states that he did not “exclude Aboriginal oral
testimony” (p5) when conducting his research; he then briefly
outlines the oral history he made use of. Is this really oral
history? Why?
6. What evidence does Windschuttle provide to support his theory
that only 120 Aboriginals were killed in Tasmania?
7. Windschuttle wrote this article in response to the book
Whitewash. He claims that Whitewash, far from providing an
argument against his Fabrication, actually manages to support
his work. How does he argue it does this?
Whitewash: On Keith Windschuttle’s Fabrication of Aboriginal History.
Rebe Taylor
1. How does Taylor view Windschuttle’s Fabrication? How do you
know this?
2. Taylor discusses several contributors to Whitewash. What is
her viewpoint of the authors and the arguments they present?
3. What does Taylor identify as the weak point of Whitewash?
Why?
4. What tradition does Taylor accuse Windschuttle of
perpetrating?
5. What is Taylor’s overall opinion of the main issues in the
History Wars debate? E.g. does Australia have a history to be
proud of or ashamed of?
Tackling Fakery in the Halls of Academe. Padraic McGuinness
1. What is McGuinness’ view of Windschuttle’s argument in
Fabrication?
2. How does McGuinness view the concept of ‘truth’ in relation to
this debate?
3. What dies McGuinness suggest as possible reasons for
historians, like Ryan, writing their versions of Aboriginal history?
4. Which side of the debate does McGuinness fall? How do you
know this?
Postcolonialism and the Historian. The Aboriginal History Wars.
Lyndall Ryan
1. What is Ryan’s overall view of the purpose of the History Wars?
2. What, according to Ryan, is Windschuttle’s purpose in
constructing his position in the history wars debate?
3. Ryan spends much of this article putting forward an argument
against Windschuttle and his version of Aboriginal history. She
claims that her own version is the ‘truth’. She attacks
Windschuttle and his use of sources, whilst supporting her own
methodology. However, what evidence dies she provide to
support either her version of the history or her own
methodology?
The Right Book for the Right Time. Lyndall Ryan
1. How does Ryan address /defend herself against the charges
made by Windschuttle?
2. What criticisms does she make of Windschuttle and his
methodology?
Responses. The Fabrication of a Benign Colonisation? Keith
Windschuttle on History. Patricia Grimshaw
1. According to Grimshaw how do sources affect the history that is
written?
2. What two influences does she state are viewed by Windschuttle
as having a negative impact on the new histories that are being
written?
3. Outline Grimshaw’s responses to (or arguments against)
Windschuttle’s claim that the British had no intention of harming
or killing the Tasmanian Aboriginies in the colonial period? Do
you think she is being anachronistic or just considering history
from the Aboriginal position (history from below)?
4. What comment does Grimshaw make in reference to
Windschuttle’s use of sources – and choice of sources – when
discussing the death tolls in Tasmania?
5. What is Grimsahw’s overall view of Windschuttle’s
methodology?
Many Deeds of Terror: Windschuttle and Musquito. Naomi Parry
This article is an attack on Windschuttle’s work in Fabrication. It is
narrowly focused, dealing with only his references to one man and his
alleged actions. However, it does provide us with another attack on
Windschuttle and his methodology.
1. List the problems Parry identifies in Windschuttle’s
methodology when dealing with (writing about) Musquito.
Windschuttle’s Fabrication of Aboriginal History: a view from the other
side. Vicki Grieves
1. According to Grieves, what political point is Windschuttle trying
to make?
2. What does she claim that Windschuttle would have us believe
about our past?
3. What, according to this source, is Windschuttle’s view on
Tasmanian Aborigines and their demise?
4. Discuss the point of view given by Grieves in response to
Windschuttle’s arguments in relation to:
a. White deaths in Tasmania
b. Aborigines as thieves
c. Women
5. What is Grieves opinion of Windschuttle’s methodology?
Indigenocide and the Massacre of Aboriginal History. Raymond
Evans and Bill Thorpe
1. What is meant by the term ‘patriotically correct’?
2. Why do the authors claim that there is more evidence of white
deaths in colonial records than Aboriginal deaths?
3. What is ‘book end history’? What problem does it create for the
BIG picture of Aboriginal history?
4. Evans and Thorpe argue that Windschuttle is wrong to suggest
that there was only one genuine massacre of Aboriginal people
in Australian history. Outline their argument and include the
evidence that they put forward to disprove Windschuttle’s point
of view.
5. What is the authors’ view of Windschuttle’s methodology and
his use/treatment and views of historical sources?
6. Write a paragraph outlining the discussion of Aboriginal
massacres in Queensland. Include details of frequency, death
tolls (of possible) reasons, etc.
7. What was the frontier pattern outlined by Evans and Thorpe
(p31)?
8. According to the authors, does the term genocide apply to what
happened in Australia? Do you agree with their point of view?
Why?
9. What role does intent play in determining whether genocide
took place? i.e. is it only genocide if it was done on purpose?
10. What is indigenocide? What are the “vital ingredients” of
indigenocide?
11. Evans and Thorpe present a great deal of information to show
widespread Aboriginal killings in Queensland – evidence which is
largely ignored by Windschuttle. How does the fact that
Windschuttle appears to have ignored this information affect your
own view of his methodology and purpose for writing history?
Who’s still afraid of Keith Windschuttle. Ean Higgins
1. What does Higgins mean when he says “the thrust of
Windschuttle’s thesis was that political correctness and
triumphed over historical fact”?
2. In a lecture given in response to Windschuttle’s work Ryan
states that the “AHA and universities need strategies and
protocols in place to address future assaults on academic
historians”. Historian Cathie Clement furthers this statement by
calling for a “code of ethics that would gag historians from
criticising the integrity of their peers in public”. If such a thing
were to happen, what impact would it have on any history
written in the future?
3. Why, does Higgins argue, are historians so concerned with the
impact of Windschuttle on Australian and Aboriginal history?
Historical Error versus Historical Invention. A Reply to Stuart
MacIntyre and Patricia Grimshaw on The Fabrication of Aboriginal
History. Keith Windschuttle
Just read this article. Windschuttle makes the same old argument –
with the same examples. It is a refresher. It does, however, provide
us with a lot of information about his view on the purpose of history
and the historian and on the importance of evidence. There are also
some hints about his methodology.
Bicentenary Battles.
This article briefly outline the different views and arguments
surrounding Australia’s bicentenary celebrations in 1988. It shows
how the central themes of the history wars debate have become
highly politicised issues.
Discuss how the history wars issues have become so politicised by
outlining the views of both sides in relation to the bicentenary
celebrations. Who falls on which side of the debate?
Going Down in History. Michael Gordon
1. What was Keating’s purpose in giving his speech at the launch
of MacIntyre and Clarks book The History Wars?
2. Howard and Keating are both key political figures in the History
Wars debate. Briefly outline their viewpoints and positions in
this debate.
3. Do you think politicians play an important role in the continuing
History Wars debate? Why?
4. Watson says that “empathy and imagination are more important
tools for the historian than official records”. Do you agree?
Why?
This next section deals with the ways that the History Wars debate is
being fought out in Australian museums – particularly the National
Museum of Australia. There are activities to go with each of the
articles but there is also one questions that you should seek to
answer using the information you will gather from all of the articles.
This question will help you to organise all of the information you will
be presented with so that you will be able to write about it in a
coherent, sophisticated but to the point kind of way (which is what
you will need to be able to do in your exams).
1. Outline the role that museums are playing in the History Wars
debate.
History Wars in the National Museum of Australia. Angela Philip
1. What new role are museums seen to be playing in Australian
history and its construction?
2. Explain the concept of a ‘new museum’.
3. How does the National Museum of Australia (NMA) position
itself?
4. What sources, or evidence, does the NMA rely on in
constructing their histories?
5. Outline the objections made by Barnett in relation to the NMA.
Were his opinions well received or agreed with?
6. Outline and discuss the ‘controversy’ surrounding the
interpretations and constructions of Australian history presented
by the NMA.
How not to Run a Museum. Keith Windschuttle
1. What ‘problem’ does Windschuttle identify with the design of
the NMA building?
2. According to Darryl MacIntyre and Kirsten Wehner, what should
be the role of a national museum?
3. MacIntyre and Wehner state that by reorganising the diversity
in Australian history some social groups will have to be ignored.
Which groups does Windschuttle claim will be ignored?
4. What are the five principles of the new museology, according to
Davison (p14)?
5. Read the section ‘The museum and Australian culture’. Outline
the criticisms Windschuttle makes of the NMA exhibitions.
6. Why does Windschuttle state that social history is ‘boring’?
7. What is Windschuttle’s view of ‘history from below’? Why does
he view it this way?
8. Why does Windschuttle argue that a national museum would be
wrong to focus too heavily on minorities in constructing their
exhibitions?
9. Why is coherence a problem for social history?
10. Why were museums originally created? What was their
purpose? What is Windschuttle’s view of this purpose?
11. Outline the criticisms made by Windschuttle over the displays
in the NMA’s ‘First Australians’ exhibition.
What’s at Stake. History Wars, the National Museum of Australia and
Good Government. Julie Marcus
This article is focused on the NMA as a whole, rather than directly on
the History Wars. It is also largely about the establishment of the
museum and the subsequent review of its practices and exhibitions
only two years after its opening. However, through this discussion it
does provide us with an insight into how the themes of the history
wars debate permeate into all aspects of Australian history in the
NMA. Use this article as a guide as to how the History Wars debate is
more than just an argument between academic historians, but has in
fact spread into the fields of politics and museums.
This article will also be useful in a more general sense. Through the
discussion provided in this article you will also gain a limited overview
of how history is – and can be – constructed in a museum setting.
This will give you an alternative to written history when discussing the
changing constructions of history in your examinations.
1. What does Marcus identify as the purpose of a national
museum?
2. What impact is national politics having on the NMA, according
to Marcus?
3. The Howard Government provided the $150 million worth of
funding necessary to establish the NMA. Why did he do this?
What was his purpose?
Truce, and truth, in history wars. Miranda Devine
1. Why was the NMA’s acquisition of the painting Mistake Creek
Massacre by Queenie McKenzie so controversial?
2. Why is the design of the NMA building such a ‘hoot’ for the
enemies of the Howard Government?
Aboriginal ‘genocide’ claim denied. Imre Sulusinszky
This article was written in response to the release of a small excerpt
from Windschuttle’s Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume II: The
Stolen Generations. In this volume Windschuttle leaves behind his
discussion of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relations in Tasmania
and turns to a discussion over the existence – on non-existence – of
the Stolen Generation. This article shows how the history wars
debate is still ongoing and is in fact spreading into new field of
debate.
Just read this article. There are some points here about the
politicisation of the debate and on Windschuttle’s methodology.
Don’t let facts spoil the day. Keith Windschuttle
Read this article and take your own notes on Windschuttle’s
arguments in relation to the stolen generation. Pay close attention to
his discussion of evidence in constructing and presenting these
arguments.
You are done!!! Well done on all your hard work.
May many long and heated debates over these
issues be coming your way. Debate and
controversy is what history is all about!!