HISTORICAL FICTIONS:

History, Lies and Imagination (Padraic McGuinness, March  2003, Quadrant)

It is true that there is more than one "truth" to be discerned in any historical account, and there are always shades of grey. But there should be no misunderstanding of what Keith Windschuttle in his recent writings has been saying. He is not just contesting interpretations of what happened to Aborigines in the past, but is pointing to something much more serious, the deliberate falsification of our history.

His latest book, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History (Macleay Press), is about just that. It is in fact only the first volume of a projected three volume work, and deals with early Tasmanian history only. The volumes to come will deal with Eastern Australia, the Northern Territory and West Australia. Why did he choose such an apparently narrow initial approach? In fact in articles published in Quadrant and elsewhere he has covered a wider canvas. But Tasmania is the place where some historians have made the reputations which back up the work they have done subsequently, and it is of Tasmania that genocide, complete or perhaps only nearly complete, is most frequently alleged. (The original allegations of genocide, the disappearance of the Aboriginal Tasmanians, were revised when the need to find some basis for land rights claims emerged. It remains doubtful whether the tenuous connections of present day claimants with the original Tasmanians are sufficient basis. The shakiness of these claims is only underlined by the bitter opposition to DNA testing of those claiming to be of Aboriginal descent.)

There is no disagreement that Aborigines suffered sorely as a result of white settlement  especially from diseases to which they had no immunity, and from the disruption of their traditional lives and customs. All Australians owe them a debt which can never be fully repaid. But Windschuttle's thesis is not that nothing bad happened, but that so much historians have claimed to have happened, by way of massacres and murders of Aborigines, simply did not happen. There were indeed some massacres. But why fabricate the evidence?

And this is what Windschuttle proves has happened, over and over again. Typically one of the historians whom he criticises will write a passage describing the horrors of a particular occasion at a particular place and time, and as a good academic will provide footnotes pointing to the places where evidence of this can be found. But what if the footnotes lead nowhere, and the sources cited do not even mention an alleged incident, and no other evidence of any kind is available? In these cases it is pretty clear that the historians are not writing history but fiction.

They pretend it is history, and many honest people believe them, so they have had enormous influence on our attitudes to our own history. But are they really, deliberately faking it, or are they making honest mistakes? [...]

There is of course point in moral engagement in the past so long as it is not simply a matter of proving how morally superior in every way the present day historian is to the people of the past. No one now would defend slavery in any circumstances. but it is an historical fact and it is both pointless and absurd to spend one's time denouncing the slave holders of the past as if they could have acted very differently, or as if the present can somehow compensate the descendants of the slaves for the wrongs done to their ancestors, especially if it is claimed that the slave trade had nothing to do with the wars and injustices of the countries whence the slaves came. The history of the world up to the 20th century was one of invasions, conquests, settlement by force, population movements and population absorptions. Human history is not a pretty story. If anything, under the influence of movements which wished to reform humanity, the history of the 20th century was even worse. It is difficult to see what the point of moral engagement which does not take account of the sins of the engagŽs might be. Equally, it is pointless to pretend that history could have been anything other than it has been  although it is worth speculating about how much worse off the Aborigines would have been if their colonisers had been any of the rivals of Britain, the gentlest of all colonial powers. The possibility of not being exposed to European settlers was simply not on the menu. The Aborigines suffered, as every other people has suffered from time to time in the course of world history.

That we owe a duty to Aborigines and their descendants today is not at issue. It has nothing to do with Left or Right, with conservatism or progressivism. But to those who would make it an issue and pretend that one side is good, the other bad, is really a shabby confession of determination to retain control of the writing of history for their own political purposes. The tone of the attacks on Windschuttle make this all too clear. They are not concerned about the welfare of present-day Aborigines, but about preserving the position which has been built up over the last thirty years or so. They are the keepers of the progressive flame, and to it they have subordinated the Aborigines in history and in person.

Unfortunately it's always about how "morally superior" we are, having "progressed" beyond our benighted ancestors. Once, in a class called "American Indian Life Histories", I listened for quite awhile as the professor and fellow students droned on about how awful the American treatment of the natives had been and what beautiful cultures we had destroyed. Finally, I asked: Are you people aware that we're talking about people who couldn't figure out the wheel? What alternative was there when advanced European cultures met up with primitives but that the Stone Age peoples be defeated? It didn't go over too well.

MORE:
-REVIEW: of Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (1997) (Jared Diamond 1937-) 
-REVIEW: of The Other Side of Eden : Hunters, Farmers and the Shaping of the World (2001) (Hugh Brody 1943-)

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 12, 2003 12:39 PM