As a follow up to my post about Judith Brett’s Quarterly Essay the other day, I wanted to write briefly about some resonances her argument has with another book I’ve recently read - Bain Atwood’s Telling the Truth About Aboriginal History. Although in part a refutation of Keith Windschuttle (who in any event, John Quiggin informs us is vacating the field of Indigenous history to write a tome on the superiority of Western civilisation), Attwood raises some larger questions about the politics of Australian historical wars and the relationship between national histories and national identities.
As readers may recall, I endorsed this passage from Brett:
But are nations necessarily pathological? Is any appeal to a national “us” a sort of warm-up for an attack on a non-national “them”, a dog-whistle letting people know they really can hate the other? I know many of Howard’s critics think so, and this has in my view shaped much of the Left’s commentary on his prime ministership. It is also the basic reason for its ineffectiveness, because it has made it impossible to devise successful oppositional strategies.
It struck me while reading Attwood that he argues that one of the reasons why the Windschuttle view of Indigenous history has its appeal and why Howard’s claims about “black armband history” ring true is rather similar.
Attwood writes:
As the New Zealand political philosopher Richard Mulgan has observed in his criticisms of reconciliation in Australia, a sense of one’s collective self-worth is as important for dominant majorities as it is for subordinate minorities. However, reconciliationists give little consideration to the impact their historical narrative might have upon those who identified closely with the original white colonisers. In other words, they failed to take into account the fact that the old settler history was the source of considerable meaning and value for many settler Australians. Not surprisingly, their attack on settlers’ allegiance to this narrative also fuelled resentment. There can be little doubt that some reconciliationists also tended to set themselves apart from other settler Australians, past and present, by expressing their moral revulsion at the values, opinions and actions of their predecessors. This, too, provoked anger.
Too much of the history… told was cast in oppositional terms. It could have drawn more attention to those occasions when friendly relations existed between Aboriginal and settler peoples, the moments when the ideals and values of both societies’ cultures were upheld to the advantage of one or other or both, and the ways in which both peoples have drawn on the others’ culture to their advantage.
Attwood is at pains to point out that the view of history Windschuttle attacks is not the academic orthodoxy. The fact that it’s seen as so being popularly is in part an indictment on journalists and commentators who run stories and write polemics about the history wars without reading much history. Attwood convincingly argues that since Reynolds’ early publications (and other works which Windschuttle attacks, such as Lyndall Ryan’s), academic historians have increasingly emphasised, and researched, the dialectical and/or dialogical nature of the process of settlement and response.
That’s not to say that Indigenous people weren’t disposessed, and that reconciliation is not a valuable goal. They were, and it is. But Attwood challenges all of us to understand that history is not written in black and white, and we should resist partisan attempts on both sides to appropriate it as if it were. Attwood, like Brett, is implicitly suggesting that the way forward for the Left is to recognise the power of historical identifications, and recognise that there is both good and bad in Australian history, and emphasising the good as well as the bad can provide a basis for conversations about how to move forward, rather than tired dismissals of either black arm banded elites on one side and ignorant Hansonites on the other.
Nice post.
I’m more frequently thinking that the left side of politics in Oz (meaning me) is far too reactive to some of these issues. We tend to try to use a sledgehammer when what we need is a few taps with the heel of a shoe. Sometimes it might help us a bit to see what the right is saying and adopt some of the less-reprehensible stuff. I guess the problem, as always, is where to draw the line.
I think it’s more a matter of looking at how what one is saying plays with the majority of people, mick, and taking into account widely held views in the community, though of course one should always know one’s opponent and of course credit her or him with what insight and wisdom they have.
Mark - Yea, you are right, I completely agree. I think we (the left) sometimes fall into the trap of getting a little high and mighty and end up taking positions that are somehow controversial to the majority. I guess this is just dumb politics. Or rather, academics being academics as opposed to politicians.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing, mick, but I think avoiding controversy is not necessarily the answer - it’s more the lines of agreement and division and convincing a majority.
Good post Mark. Been thinking the same for years now. This is why Im always banging on about Arthur Philip and Watkin Tench. Part of the problem of the ‘history wars’ has been the lack of attention to the everpresent subset of white settlers who attempted to cohabit with respect for the ancient civilisation they encountered. There’s always been another way, and this is a neglected part of white history - though Henry Reynolds “other side of the frontier” dwells on the complexity of interactions.
There’s a number of projects going on around he world, as we speak, caclled “negotiated history” in conflict zones - Palestine, N Ireland. They very much take this approach.
That’s interesting, Lefty E, I’ll have to read up on that.
About Reynolds - as I said, Windschuttle takes aim largely at his early work.
The other good thing about Attwood’s book is his attention to the absolutely black and white way Windschuttle sees things and the way that his opponents are seen as a mirrored opposite of his position rather than in their own right - for instance, the claim that he is refuting a hegemonic thesis of genocide in Tasmania is wrong as that term has not been applied in the way that he claims, and by a small minority of scholars writing about it.
He’s good on the historiographical/methodological questions too.
But the broader context and political implications are the really new and interesting stuff in the book.
Yea, I think we agree Mark, I think I’m just struggling with English this afternoon. Too much emphasis on critiques in high school, not enough attention to grammar and the classics :-).
Sounds good, will get it. I thought Macintyre and Clark’s 2003 book was useful too, but obviously slapped together too quickly, very poorly edited.
Publisher’s dont do it in house anymore, but that’s no excuse.
Mark, see History Workshop Journal’s ‘history on the line’ series (most recent volume) for the ‘negotiated history’ idea.
Lefty Elitist; “This is why Im always banging on about Arthur Philip and Watkin Tench.”
Or this evidence in the Bringing Them Home Report;
Australians mirror the human experience. They are warm and generous people. However, our institutions, including government have been positively hostile to its people. The History Wars are more about excusing government tyranny than anything else. It is about the government getting to decide what historical narrative is told, which preferrably excuses government’s violence toward its own minorities. Popularising, with the “black armband history”, is an attempt to cast the shadow to modern Australians, so that by rejecting their involvement in it (quite rightly) they are also rejecting our government’s involvement in it (wrongly).
Most folks on this site believe government can be an agent for positive change. The “history wars” are an attempt to sweep past tyrannies under the carpet, and maybe even leave the way open for more discrimination against minorities and the politically weak. Positive change cannot happen while political rights remain at the arbitrary will of the government.
Wise words Cameron - and that would make a government apology a more palatable initiative. I think White Australians do bear a level of complicity in dispossession, solely as a matter of accrued advantage, but its very, very limited liability compared to the past actions of government.
“However, our institutions, including government have been positively hostile to its people. The History Wars are more about excusing government tyranny than anything else. It is about the government getting to decide what historical narrative is told, which preferrably excuses government‚Äôs violence toward its own minorities. ”
I am rather gobsmacked by this thread. I was wondering at some stage if you were all taking the piss.
But anyway, the above quote, I think it is a little bit unfair and a touch paranoid. I don’t believe that is what the History Wars and the Governments black arm band rhetoric was all about at all. In the case of Windschuttle I believe that it was an attempt to redress inbalance, probably with inbalance. Howard was trying to (for many reasons some altruistic some pragmatic) help Australians feel better about themselves. The middle class educated (it’s easierand quicker to say ‘elite’ )left has been perceived to be doing their best to make them feel like shit.
James, Ive always wondered - why would Australians “feel like shit” when confronting some difficult realities of our history? Its a psychological truism - you cant “make” anyone feel anything, unless its already there, somewhere.
Its probably because there’s a deep thread of unresolved tension in all of us about race relations.
Ive always thought maybe a formal apology from the government would help all Australians: black AND white. An apology is part of moving on in any relationship. But I do tend to agree that the government, not ‘the people’ per se, are the ones to do it. And I also think that the many positive stories out there have also fallen victim to the stark dualism of the white blindfold/ black armband debate. The imbalance meets imbalance - as you put it.
I think the psychologically dysfunctional repression and denial that there’s “any problem at all” is what gives Anglo- Australia haemhorroids like Hanson.
‘Genocide’ and ’stolen generations’ were always overboard terms, although there may have been some merit in an awareness raising exercise. However it was inevitable that such a pendulum would swing too far and out of control. Reality of course is much more complex than that and many are beginning to realise that it’s about outcomes not rhetoric or entrenched ideological positions
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1465620.htm
why would Australians “feel like shit” when confronting some difficult realities of our history?
Because they’re not ‘realities’, but lies — lies designed to make Australians feel like shit.
That’s a good link observa, and more or less reinforces what I mean. Deep mistrust of government among aboriginal communities leads to dysfunctional outcomes. How to break to the cycle?
Through business as usual? By calling one side a ‘liar’, EP?
I doubt it.
Refusing to reinforce the lies that are presented as history would contribute toward breaking the cycle.
The “stolen generation” was a myth created by guilt-ridden whites, themselves influenced by the feel-like-shit propaganda foisted on us by the Left.
Now, as observa’s link points out, the myth is having real consequences as abused children are left with their abusers rather than raise the spectre of the imaginary “stolen children”. And so the cycle of abuse continues.
Dispensing with the politically correct myths, and dealing with realities instead, would go a long way towards solving the problems of Aboriginal communities.
Gee, I dont know how to break to news to you EP, but whatever you wish to call it, the forced removal of mixed-race children from their aboriginal parents was not imaginary. Governments dont deny this practice was widespread. You’re out on your own there.
So, that doesn’t leave much of your point. Aside from nomenclature, I guess.
As for “realities”, I agree ‘practical’ reconcilation need to occur. But dealing with the big issues of recognising past wrongs is an important part of that - its a very practical step in race relations. I personally dont see why Anglo-Australians today should feel like shit about this happening. dont think the finger should be pointed at them.
From my link to ABC Radio:
“Natalie Hunter the Director of one welfare agency, Karu, says this week alone five children have been removed from families in Darwin because of neglect.
But she says while she supports Mick Gooda’s claims it’s imperative that children who are removed are placed with other similar families to preserve their culture and language.”
Presumably Natalie Hunter can say-”it’s imperative that children who are removed are placed with other similar families to preserve their culture and language.” and she’s only concerned for the welfare of aboriginal children, but if Fraser says a similar thing about retaining his children’s culture, then he’s a vile racist bastard!
I love this thread. It demonstrates why the Left are unable to engage with mainstream voters. If the ALP continues along this path then they will continue to lose elections at the Federal level.
Aboriginals have received apologies at the State and local levels. They have received land rights. They have had there own, seperate welfare, legal aid and health care systems. It has failed them. Continuing down this path is a waste of time. You are letting the disadvantaged aboriginals down by continuing with this clearly failed thinking.
Some of us of course are going to be very interested in ‘Shades of Grey: Towards a New Australian Story’ right about now.
Fraser is advocating wiping out other cultures to preserve his own Observa. A bit different. If he was advocating putting Anglo children with Anglo foster parents so that they were brought up with similar values to their parents then I don’t think anyone would give a toss.
“Fraser is advocating wiping out other cultures to preserve his own Observa.”
Where does he say that Mindy?
“James, Ive always wondered - why would Australians “feel like shit” when confronting some difficult realities of our history? Its a psychological truism - you cant “make” anyone feel anything, unless its already there, somewhere.
Its probably because there‚Äôs a deep thread of unresolved tension in all of us about race relations”
Well I said “perceived to be doing their best”; perhaps I was being unreasonable by making a strong statement “feel like shit” and then attaching a diluting escape clauses.
You are right in the sense that we are essentially responsible for our feelings and I but I should probably have said that what we feel in this case is irritated by the liberal left forcing us to confront our difficult realities when we don’t see the point. I do not want our nations current agenda to be driven by those harsh relities only on what works for the present. Do I think a national apology would do any good whatsoever? No, I sincerely don’t. The process of reconciliation has been recently, less so now due to Howard’s machinations (if steadfast lack of movement can be a machination), more about the process than the outcome. I have always felt this, rather uncharitably, about protest movements. The walk across Sydney Harbour bridge and the various protests about our military involvements, candlelight vigils (candlelight vigils really get me offside - I’d love to uncover why in therapy if I believed in it) they are all about the joy of feeling righteous of the joy of feeling. Material wealth and a sense of security and be really mind and soul numbing and guilt is a drug to help you feel something. Meanwhile our fellow Australians are suffering out in the communities and I can’t help thinking that the liberal left will be asking our grandchildren to apologise for what is being done by us right now.
Get the under-priviliged to be where they can be educated, healthy, and paying taxes rather than draining them - if you’re a RWDB you believe the rest will follow. To be fair for my own part if all that I have to put up with is the liberal left holding vigils, I’m doing alright. It’s not that bad and I am here on this blog, afterall.
“but if Fraser says a similar thing about retaining his children‚Äôs culture, then he‚Äôs a vile racist bastard!”
Is his children’s culture under threat Observa?
Or, is he, perchance, just a paranoid loony?
“Aboriginals have received apologies at the State and local levels.” Thats right Razor, and the ALP keeps winning those levels in a one-horse race canter. So much for your ‘mainstream voter’s cant handle reconciliation’ theory.
James - Im with you on vigils. I also agree that Howard’ “practical” approach seems to involve doing very little of anything. For me, Its a symbolic approach too - just a negative one, in the denial vein.
sorry Observa, after writing that I realised that I’d drawn too long a bow on that one. He’s not saying wipe out other cultures, but make so called white culture dominant again because it is under threat of being swamped. Which is complete codswallop IMHO.
Obviously having all the States and Territories is more important than Federal Government. What was I thinking?
EP’s being plus royaliste que le Roi
Eventually reality catches up with even the most faith based RWDBs - and silence echoes - as with the total absence of the “Iraq is a wonderful example of freedom and democracy” comments on most Lefty blogs of late.
The only disappointing thing about intervening in Iraq was we needed to do it twice.
Mark’s beating a straw man again.
Exactly who, on which lefty blogs, commented that “Iraq is a wonderful example of freedom and democracy”, and when?
And what relevance does this have to the topic of the present thread?
I’ve been on the fringe of this issue right from my early years when my parents told me about what had been told to them by their previous generation about a massacre on Juandah Station in the nineteenth century. Then as a teenager I spent two weeks on a holiday on Hopevale Mission in the 1950s (Noel Pearson wasn’t born then) where my sister taught for two years.
Paternalism and racism were not hard to find back then. What distresses me is that they still aren’t.
I do think the “liberal left [and possibly the right] will be asking our grandchildren to apologise for what is being done [and not done] by us right now.” And I do feel like shite when I run into rampant racism from counrty folk. (I’m not saying they have a monopoly on racism.) But there are no easy answers, as the discourse above indicates.
Mark, by coincidence Phillip Adams did an interview with Bain Attwood on yesterday’s Late Night Live. He struck me as a gentle, intelligent fellow. He indicated to Adams that no he wouldn’t debate Windschuttle on the program. It’s clear that he has a low regard for Windschuttle as an historian, but recognises that he can sound plausible in a superficial way. Attwood teaches a course on Aboriginal history and said he had set a Windschuttle chapter for his students to read. He reckons that as 2nd and 3rd year students they worked Windschuttle out without any urging from him.
One point that struck me was that he insists that Windschuttle routinely misrepresents the historians he attacks, including Henry Reynolds. Windschuttle also routinely exemplifies himself what he complains of in others, eg the politicisation of history.
So debating him would give him undeserving credibility. No doubt the Right will regard that attitude as arrogant. Personally I think it’s fair enough.
Meanwhile, Aboriginal children are raped daily because the “stolen generation” myth prevents them being removed from abusive households.
The fictions of the academic Left are not merely wrong, as Windschuttle has proven, but are also actively harmful to Aborigines.
And while leftoid intellectuals cast around for new, more convincing ways to impose guilt complexes on white Australians, politically tolerated Aboriginal violence shuts down efforts to help an Aboriginal community.
Nothing to see here, folks. It’s all whitey’s fault.
Thanks, Brian - I think he’s of the view engaging with Windschuttle is a waste of time and energy.
Mark, I think that’s right. To be accurate, on the Adams program he said directly in response to Adams’ invitation to have an on-air debate with Windschuttle that he likes to “engage” with other historians but finds it impossible to do so with Windschuttle. But I think he was letting Adams know gently that he just wasn’t interested.
EP I can’t engage in detail with all that stuff you are raising about the stolen generations, because I don’t know enough about it. Nevertheless I have heard on the radio multiple times that in Qld they were having to consider removing ‘at risk’ Aboriginal children to non-Aboriginal foster care because of the lack of suitable Aboriginal families available. But then I understand they are having trouble finding enough suitable foster families period.
Also the failure of the Gunner and Cubillo cases only means that the Gunner and Cubillo cases failed, surely. It doesn’t mean that other children were not removed inappropriately. My impression was that Gunner and Cubillo had both suffered in childhood, but it was a long time ago and the Commonwealth mounted a enormously resourced defence.