-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Reynolds/Windshuttle (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jackson18
- Start date
NeverSummer
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2003
- Messages
- 32
Reynolds/Lyndall Ryan claim all the Tasmanian abos died, Windschuttle says these claims aren't supported by the evidence.
Then they accuse each other of political bias
Then they accuse each other of political bias
It's about Australia's frontier history.
Henry Renolds is like the father of the postmodernist interpretation of Australia's frontier history - it was bad and bloody filled with massacres. This is and has been the common belief of frontier history since the 1960's or so.
Windschuttle is a revisionist historian. His interpretation is completely different in that he believes that the so called frontier conflicts and massacres were a myth created by the postmodernists. He argues that Australia's frontier history was mostly peaceful with few violent conflicts.
More later if someone else doesn't do it.
Henry Renolds is like the father of the postmodernist interpretation of Australia's frontier history - it was bad and bloody filled with massacres. This is and has been the common belief of frontier history since the 1960's or so.
Windschuttle is a revisionist historian. His interpretation is completely different in that he believes that the so called frontier conflicts and massacres were a myth created by the postmodernists. He argues that Australia's frontier history was mostly peaceful with few violent conflicts.
More later if someone else doesn't do it.
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
WIndschuttle is a modernist.
But yeah, he only really seems to nitpick other people's footnotes, doesn't do a lot of independent historical research...
But yeah, he only really seems to nitpick other people's footnotes, doesn't do a lot of independent historical research...
Gregor Samsa
That Guy
Windschuttle seems to believe that there is some sort of historiographical conspiracy going on within Australian universities. He highlights the relations between historians such as Reynolds and Ryan at the beginning of 'The Fabrication Of Aboriginal History', and goes on about how they 'all' believe that the death and dispossession of Australia's indigenous peoples was genocidal.
His main method of 'proving' this belief (Personally, I find it paranoid, seeing there are significant differences in the outlooks of the respective historians, contrary to his depiction of conspiracy) is through finding errors in references and footnotes, as well as using the 'evidence' (Here is a major problem with Windschuttle.. He employs double standards. Reading The Fabrication, it seems that any evidence to justify his interpretation is 'objective' and 'accurate'...) to reveal that some recorded massacres never took place. Windschuttle believes that the 'real' history has been systematically distorted for political gain, contrary to his belief in the objectivity of the historian.
The argument that all history is politicised, that it is impossible for the historian to shed his political interests and prejudices, and that those who believed they could do so are only deluding themselves, has become the most corrupting influence of all. It has turned the traditional role of the historian, to stand outside his contemporary society in order to seek the truth about the past, on its head.....In contrast, the proper role of the historian is to try to stand above politics, difficult though this always will be. -Windschuttle, 'The Construction Of Aboriginal History, Fact Or Fiction?".
What makes it really ironic however, is that Fabrication can be interpreted as a political comment, seeing part of the text is about the Aboriginal 'mistreatment' of heritage areas, being strongly against land rights. Additionally, he denies the notion of an Aboriginal resistance movement, dismissing them instead as 'criminals';
Despite its infamous reputation, Van Diemen's Land was host to nothing that resembled genocide, which requires murderous intention against a whole race of people. In Van Diemen's Land, the infamous "Black Line" of 1830 is commonly described today as an act of "ethnic cleansing". However, its purpose was to remove from the settled districts only two of the nine tribes on the island to uninhabited country from where they could no longer assault white households. The lieutenant-governor specifically ordered that five of the other seven tribes be left alone.".-Windschuttle, 'White Settlement In Australia: Violent Conquest Or Benign Colonisation?"
But yes, his basic thesis is that there was no genocide in Australia, claiming instead that colonisation was a benevolent process. Indeed, he believes that the extinction of Tasmanian Aborigines occured not because of British policy, but instead due to supposed 'weaknesses' in the Aboriginals themselves.. The survival of the Aboriginals in Tasmania until the colonisation was more the result of good fortune than good management.The Fabrication Of Aboriginal History, pg.364.
Politically, Windschuttle is a Neo-Conservative. He was formerly a Marxist, but 'converted' at some point in the 1980's, I believe.
[Note, as you can probably tell, I'm strongly against Windschuttle in this 'dispute', seeing his criticism is hypocritical, and even if he does raise the occasional doubt, there's a vast difference between that and a deliberate fabrication of history..]
As for it's relevance to historiography, it can be seen as questioning the relation of historiography and politics, standards of evidence, objectivity (Eg:Last year's HSC question...), changing perspectives, public relevance/controversy etc:. I like writing about it.
Did anyone else see his speech at that Extension History day? It provoked outrage.. (I briefly 'debated' him outside the room after the major questioning, criticising his use of official evidence as the main basis of his thesis, seeing official sources present the offical view-Peter Burke, and mentioning contextual ideologies.. As in, he uses newspaper reports describing Aboriginals as 'criminals', when this is a contextual viewpoint, rather than the absolute reality.]
His main method of 'proving' this belief (Personally, I find it paranoid, seeing there are significant differences in the outlooks of the respective historians, contrary to his depiction of conspiracy) is through finding errors in references and footnotes, as well as using the 'evidence' (Here is a major problem with Windschuttle.. He employs double standards. Reading The Fabrication, it seems that any evidence to justify his interpretation is 'objective' and 'accurate'...) to reveal that some recorded massacres never took place. Windschuttle believes that the 'real' history has been systematically distorted for political gain, contrary to his belief in the objectivity of the historian.
The argument that all history is politicised, that it is impossible for the historian to shed his political interests and prejudices, and that those who believed they could do so are only deluding themselves, has become the most corrupting influence of all. It has turned the traditional role of the historian, to stand outside his contemporary society in order to seek the truth about the past, on its head.....In contrast, the proper role of the historian is to try to stand above politics, difficult though this always will be. -Windschuttle, 'The Construction Of Aboriginal History, Fact Or Fiction?".
What makes it really ironic however, is that Fabrication can be interpreted as a political comment, seeing part of the text is about the Aboriginal 'mistreatment' of heritage areas, being strongly against land rights. Additionally, he denies the notion of an Aboriginal resistance movement, dismissing them instead as 'criminals';
Despite its infamous reputation, Van Diemen's Land was host to nothing that resembled genocide, which requires murderous intention against a whole race of people. In Van Diemen's Land, the infamous "Black Line" of 1830 is commonly described today as an act of "ethnic cleansing". However, its purpose was to remove from the settled districts only two of the nine tribes on the island to uninhabited country from where they could no longer assault white households. The lieutenant-governor specifically ordered that five of the other seven tribes be left alone.".-Windschuttle, 'White Settlement In Australia: Violent Conquest Or Benign Colonisation?"
But yes, his basic thesis is that there was no genocide in Australia, claiming instead that colonisation was a benevolent process. Indeed, he believes that the extinction of Tasmanian Aborigines occured not because of British policy, but instead due to supposed 'weaknesses' in the Aboriginals themselves.. The survival of the Aboriginals in Tasmania until the colonisation was more the result of good fortune than good management.The Fabrication Of Aboriginal History, pg.364.
Politically, Windschuttle is a Neo-Conservative. He was formerly a Marxist, but 'converted' at some point in the 1980's, I believe.
[Note, as you can probably tell, I'm strongly against Windschuttle in this 'dispute', seeing his criticism is hypocritical, and even if he does raise the occasional doubt, there's a vast difference between that and a deliberate fabrication of history..]
As for it's relevance to historiography, it can be seen as questioning the relation of historiography and politics, standards of evidence, objectivity (Eg:Last year's HSC question...), changing perspectives, public relevance/controversy etc:. I like writing about it.
Did anyone else see his speech at that Extension History day? It provoked outrage.. (I briefly 'debated' him outside the room after the major questioning, criticising his use of official evidence as the main basis of his thesis, seeing official sources present the offical view-Peter Burke, and mentioning contextual ideologies.. As in, he uses newspaper reports describing Aboriginals as 'criminals', when this is a contextual viewpoint, rather than the absolute reality.]
Last edited:
NeverSummer
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2003
- Messages
- 32
"contrary to his belief in the objectivity of the historian."
Sorry, but i'm not following your argument. I agree that Winschuttle does have political impacts, (though intention is debatable) even though he says that 'Historians should stand above politics', but i dont see your point against his historical objectivity. I personally think he is doing good things for history, which has become far too postmodernist (take a look at all the australian universities).
Sorry, but i'm not following your argument. I agree that Winschuttle does have political impacts, (though intention is debatable) even though he says that 'Historians should stand above politics', but i dont see your point against his historical objectivity. I personally think he is doing good things for history, which has become far too postmodernist (take a look at all the australian universities).
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
I think he meant he is contradicting himself when he purports to believe in and support historical objectivity, but there are clear attempts in his works at justifying HIS truths and what HE wants history to say.
Gregor Samsa
That Guy
Yeah. I view it as hypocritical, but that's just my opinion...
SmokedSalmon
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2003
- Messages
- 900
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2003
I agree. Thanks Gregor... now I understand what type of historian windshuttle is. I had him in my trials for section 1 (not using for case study) and I was like... "wtf?"Originally posted by AsyLum
whoa....thats a nice little summary of it gregor
Thanks again
NeverSummer
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2003
- Messages
- 32
No no that is not true at or unless it was a joke?
I think i really have to disagree with you Gregor.
[Note, as you can probably tell, I'm strongly against Windschuttle in this 'dispute', seeing his criticism is hypocritical, and even if he does raise the occasional doubt, there's a vast difference between that and a deliberate fabrication of history..]
This is a deliberate fabrication of history, and Windschuttle provides a more than adequate amount of evidence for his claims. You seem to brush aside Windschuttle's findings in following the footnotes and references of Reynolds and Ryan. His findings are very significant, and it questions the historiography of the past thirty years which are the produce of "people working with the same assumptions, methods and objectives."
You wrote his method or 'proving' in inverted commas. By this can i understand that you think he has not significantly proved anything, or his methodology, annoyingly picking at some references is not a valid process? The inconsistensies indeed point to a fabrication. Windschuttle draws attention to Reynold's widely accepted figure of 20,000 for the figure of violent aboriginal deaths. In order to get this number, Reynolds has added up the estimates of other historians andd a little more. He justifies his adjustments to the figure taking into account "the level and longevity of the conflict, the vast superiority of European weapons and the overwhelming determination to avenge any attackon on a settler..." . Yet he does not comment on the reliability of the sources, rather "naively" accepting the sources which support his thesis. Further, Reynolds arrives at this number drawign on a ratio which Ryan has made up of 4:1 aboriginal deaths the European deaths. Her evidence? Claiming 800 aboriginal deaths, for which only 280 are legitimately supported. When questioned, Ryan claimed her numbers are supported by "her interpretation of the colonist's attitudes towards the Aborigines and their opportunites to shoot at them; [her] knowledge of the terrain in which incidents took place", which does not constitute valid historical evidence!
Windschuttle also claims that the Aborigines were not massacred, as the term implies they were helpless, but that there was a genuine battle between the two, (citing the Battle of Pinjarra in WA). In response to this, Reynolds quotes a diary extract from C.F.Moore. Here is a blatant and obviously intentional misuse of evidence and as evidence itself of the fabrication of history. Reynolds incorrectly sources the name, and makes it seem as if Moore was en eye witness, which he was not. But he also leaves out a section of the passage which changes the meaning entirely.
You say Windschuttle is hypocritical, but to me, his allegations and construction of the truth seem to be objective. Has Windschuttle not provided adequate evidence? If you dont approve of Windschuttle, i can hardly see how you can approve of Reynolds or Ryan. Their uncritical use of evidence and approach that any evidence from any source is used as long as if fits the dominant thesis, the assumption being that, because it fits the thesis, it must be true, is inexcusable. He has exposed a fabrication of Aboriginal history and major problems in the methodology and practice of these leading historians, let alone the historiography on the matter for the past thirty years. Blainey, a respected Australian historian, concedes that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion these historians were biased since most of their inaccuracies were used to bolster the case for the deliberate destruction of aborigines.
Last edited:
[This is a deliberate fabrication of history, and Windschuttle provides a more than adequate amount of evidence for his claims.] You mean the fact that one publishing error...thats right not a chapter, not a substantial claim, but one little leaf from the tree so to speak....and as a fabrication of history...now people can we all say Post-Modernism....the fact that there is no unbiased opinion, no one truth...to claim someone is fabricating history is hypocritical in that you too are fabricating history to purport the very notion and perspective which you hold....
[His findings are very significant, and it questions the historiography of the past thirty years which are the produce of "people working with the same assumptions, methods and objectives."] Not likely...Manning Clark, Henry Reynolds, Robert Manne have all but discredited his claims that there was no massacre and genocide, his claims of there being a war are solely based upon the records of a policeman, a police record which in its 'officiality' been held up upon a pedestal as the ONE key proof that there was no genocide...
[By this can i understand that you think he has not significantly proved anything, or his methodology, annoyingly picking at some references is not a valid process? The inconsistensies indeed point to a fabrication. Windschuttle draws attention to Reynold's widely accepted figure of 20,000 for the figure of violent aboriginal deaths. In order to get this number, Reynolds has added up the estimates of other historians andd a little more. He justifies his adjustments to the figure taking into account "the level and longevity of the conflict, the vast superiority of European weapons and the overwhelming determination to avenge any attackon on a settler..." . Yet he does not comment on the reliability of the sources, rather "naively" accepting the sources which support his thesis. Further, Reynolds arrives at this number drawign on a ratio which Ryan has made up of 4:1 aboriginal deaths the European deaths. Her evidence? Claiming 800 aboriginal deaths, for which only 280 are legitimately supported. When questioned, Ryan claimed her numbers are supported by "her interpretation of the colonist's attitudes towards the Aborigines and their opportunites to shoot at them; [her] knowledge of the terrain in which incidents took place", which does not constitute valid historical evidence!]
The method of keeping people honest isnt what is at the core of my problem with Windschuttle, rather it is his overreaction and hypocritical stance upon the event...for he too makes mistakes and by double standards does not apply the same scrutiny and over zealous findings upon himself....his books and theories are riddled with the incredible ego-tistic ramblings of this historian with the false mantle of truth with which he claims his aims upon....
[Windschuttle also claims that the Aborigines were not massacred, as the term implies they were helpless, but that there was a genuine battle between the two, (citing the Battle of Pinjarra in WA). In response to this, Reynolds quotes a diary extract from C.F.Moore. Here is a blatant and obviously intentional misuse of evidence and as evidence itself of the fabrication of history. Reynolds incorrectly sources the name, and makes it seem as if Moore was en eye witness, which he was not. But he also leaves out a section of the passage which changes the meaning entirely.] Massacre...the word constitutes the vast annihilation of one side against another...i dont know about you but gun powder against spears is quite a mismatch in anyones language...what the underdogs do have is guerilla tactics, surprise attacks and complacency from the enemy...as for the moore incident, like i said previously, there is a place for scrutinisers, but Windschuttle overreacts to these things....
[You say Windschuttle is hypocritical, but to me, his allegations and construction of the truth seem to be objective. Has Windschuttle not provided adequate evidence? If you dont approve of Windschuttle, i can hardly see how you can approve of Reynolds or Ryan. Their uncritical use of evidence and approach that any evidence from any source is used as long as if fits the dominant thesis, the assumption being that, because it fits the thesis, it must be true, is inexcusable. He has exposed a fabrication of Aboriginal history and major problems in the methodology and practice of these leading historians, let alone the historiography on the matter for the past thirty years. Blainey, a respected Australian historian, concedes that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion these historians were biased since most of their inaccuracies were used to bolster the case for the deliberate destruction of aborigines.]
You had credibility until this paragraph..at which point the only reaction i coudl muster was an uncontrollable laughter to which i lost the ability to breathe for a few minutes...
Windschuttle being objective...has post-modernism taught you nothing?...has the subtle fact that the language of humanity is tainted with bias, opinions and the very core of language is to convince others to a particular view...however subtle...Windschuttle and his claims of objectivity deserve to lie where his works belong...as mere paperweights
i will follow or edit this post with the relevant evidence but as of now im too tired to search through my papers
[His findings are very significant, and it questions the historiography of the past thirty years which are the produce of "people working with the same assumptions, methods and objectives."] Not likely...Manning Clark, Henry Reynolds, Robert Manne have all but discredited his claims that there was no massacre and genocide, his claims of there being a war are solely based upon the records of a policeman, a police record which in its 'officiality' been held up upon a pedestal as the ONE key proof that there was no genocide...
[By this can i understand that you think he has not significantly proved anything, or his methodology, annoyingly picking at some references is not a valid process? The inconsistensies indeed point to a fabrication. Windschuttle draws attention to Reynold's widely accepted figure of 20,000 for the figure of violent aboriginal deaths. In order to get this number, Reynolds has added up the estimates of other historians andd a little more. He justifies his adjustments to the figure taking into account "the level and longevity of the conflict, the vast superiority of European weapons and the overwhelming determination to avenge any attackon on a settler..." . Yet he does not comment on the reliability of the sources, rather "naively" accepting the sources which support his thesis. Further, Reynolds arrives at this number drawign on a ratio which Ryan has made up of 4:1 aboriginal deaths the European deaths. Her evidence? Claiming 800 aboriginal deaths, for which only 280 are legitimately supported. When questioned, Ryan claimed her numbers are supported by "her interpretation of the colonist's attitudes towards the Aborigines and their opportunites to shoot at them; [her] knowledge of the terrain in which incidents took place", which does not constitute valid historical evidence!]
The method of keeping people honest isnt what is at the core of my problem with Windschuttle, rather it is his overreaction and hypocritical stance upon the event...for he too makes mistakes and by double standards does not apply the same scrutiny and over zealous findings upon himself....his books and theories are riddled with the incredible ego-tistic ramblings of this historian with the false mantle of truth with which he claims his aims upon....
[Windschuttle also claims that the Aborigines were not massacred, as the term implies they were helpless, but that there was a genuine battle between the two, (citing the Battle of Pinjarra in WA). In response to this, Reynolds quotes a diary extract from C.F.Moore. Here is a blatant and obviously intentional misuse of evidence and as evidence itself of the fabrication of history. Reynolds incorrectly sources the name, and makes it seem as if Moore was en eye witness, which he was not. But he also leaves out a section of the passage which changes the meaning entirely.] Massacre...the word constitutes the vast annihilation of one side against another...i dont know about you but gun powder against spears is quite a mismatch in anyones language...what the underdogs do have is guerilla tactics, surprise attacks and complacency from the enemy...as for the moore incident, like i said previously, there is a place for scrutinisers, but Windschuttle overreacts to these things....
[You say Windschuttle is hypocritical, but to me, his allegations and construction of the truth seem to be objective. Has Windschuttle not provided adequate evidence? If you dont approve of Windschuttle, i can hardly see how you can approve of Reynolds or Ryan. Their uncritical use of evidence and approach that any evidence from any source is used as long as if fits the dominant thesis, the assumption being that, because it fits the thesis, it must be true, is inexcusable. He has exposed a fabrication of Aboriginal history and major problems in the methodology and practice of these leading historians, let alone the historiography on the matter for the past thirty years. Blainey, a respected Australian historian, concedes that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion these historians were biased since most of their inaccuracies were used to bolster the case for the deliberate destruction of aborigines.]
You had credibility until this paragraph..at which point the only reaction i coudl muster was an uncontrollable laughter to which i lost the ability to breathe for a few minutes...
Windschuttle being objective...has post-modernism taught you nothing?...has the subtle fact that the language of humanity is tainted with bias, opinions and the very core of language is to convince others to a particular view...however subtle...Windschuttle and his claims of objectivity deserve to lie where his works belong...as mere paperweights
i will follow or edit this post with the relevant evidence but as of now im too tired to search through my papers
NeverSummer
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2003
- Messages
- 32
Oh dear...i'll get back to you on that
NeverSummer
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2003
- Messages
- 32
[You had credibility until this paragraph..at which point the only reaction i coudl muster was an uncontrollable laughter to which i lost the ability to breathe for a few minutes... ]
Thank you. Kind words.
I must admit it has been a long time since ive had a look at Windschuttle and now i do concede despite his claims he is far from objective.
[Windschuttle and his claims of objectivity deserve to lie where his works belong...as mere paperweights]
Yet, despite his hipocrisy and other failings, has he not raised some very significant questions and issues?
[he too makes mistakes and by double standards does not apply the same scrutiny and over zealous findings upon himself]
A valid comment im sure, but could you give an example? It seems that there is a real hostility against Windshuttle, constant attacks against hipocrisy and false facade of truth and egotistic ramblings. What has prompted this similar response by everyone? It seems that i'm the only person who sees that Windschuttle despite being far from the perfect historian, has uncovered some serious problems in Aboriginal history.
[You mean the fact that one publishing error...thats right not a chapter, not a substantial claim, but one little leaf from the tree so to speak....and as a fabrication of history...now people can we all say Post-Modernism....the fact that there is no unbiased opinion, no one truth...to claim someone is fabricating history is hypocritical in that you too are fabricating history to purport the very notion and perspective which you hold....]
It seems you apply the same defence as Ryan: "Two truths are told. Is only one 'truth' correct?" ....."As we continue to uncover and examine the evidence, responsible scholars realise that no one can claim a final and complete 'truth'." And yes i do agree with you to an extent on this, but historians should strive for objectivity, and if not arriving at the same conclusion, at least be reconcilable. Ryan and Reynold's views are not. They are consistent in their blunders to support the deliberate destruction of Aborigines. Such consistency is worrying, and is it not possible that though there may be infinite 'truths', one can be close to the truth than another?
Personally, i find Ryan's defence weak. Though there is truth in what she says, it does not justify her conclusion.
[his claims of there being a war are solely based upon the records of a policeman, a police record which in its 'officiality' been held up upon a pedestal as the ONE key proof that there was no genocide...]
I am not 100% on this issue, but i believe that it was not Windschuttle who used the G.F.Moore Diaries but Reynolds, who with it disreputed Windschuttle's claims of a battle by omitting key sentences.
If you find Windschuttle's contribution as completely insignificant, "paperweights", i am interested of your opinion on Reynolds and Ryan. Are their writings sufficient?
You offer your criticism of Windschuttle as a historian, so what? You need to rebut his claims of which i have seen no substaintial comment yet. If you cannot, as i remain, I think his comments have real weight. and in this do not Reynolds and Ryan also deserve much criticism?
Thank you. Kind words.
I must admit it has been a long time since ive had a look at Windschuttle and now i do concede despite his claims he is far from objective.
[Windschuttle and his claims of objectivity deserve to lie where his works belong...as mere paperweights]
Yet, despite his hipocrisy and other failings, has he not raised some very significant questions and issues?
[he too makes mistakes and by double standards does not apply the same scrutiny and over zealous findings upon himself]
A valid comment im sure, but could you give an example? It seems that there is a real hostility against Windshuttle, constant attacks against hipocrisy and false facade of truth and egotistic ramblings. What has prompted this similar response by everyone? It seems that i'm the only person who sees that Windschuttle despite being far from the perfect historian, has uncovered some serious problems in Aboriginal history.
[You mean the fact that one publishing error...thats right not a chapter, not a substantial claim, but one little leaf from the tree so to speak....and as a fabrication of history...now people can we all say Post-Modernism....the fact that there is no unbiased opinion, no one truth...to claim someone is fabricating history is hypocritical in that you too are fabricating history to purport the very notion and perspective which you hold....]
It seems you apply the same defence as Ryan: "Two truths are told. Is only one 'truth' correct?" ....."As we continue to uncover and examine the evidence, responsible scholars realise that no one can claim a final and complete 'truth'." And yes i do agree with you to an extent on this, but historians should strive for objectivity, and if not arriving at the same conclusion, at least be reconcilable. Ryan and Reynold's views are not. They are consistent in their blunders to support the deliberate destruction of Aborigines. Such consistency is worrying, and is it not possible that though there may be infinite 'truths', one can be close to the truth than another?
Personally, i find Ryan's defence weak. Though there is truth in what she says, it does not justify her conclusion.
[his claims of there being a war are solely based upon the records of a policeman, a police record which in its 'officiality' been held up upon a pedestal as the ONE key proof that there was no genocide...]
I am not 100% on this issue, but i believe that it was not Windschuttle who used the G.F.Moore Diaries but Reynolds, who with it disreputed Windschuttle's claims of a battle by omitting key sentences.
If you find Windschuttle's contribution as completely insignificant, "paperweights", i am interested of your opinion on Reynolds and Ryan. Are their writings sufficient?
You offer your criticism of Windschuttle as a historian, so what? You need to rebut his claims of which i have seen no substaintial comment yet. If you cannot, as i remain, I think his comments have real weight. and in this do not Reynolds and Ryan also deserve much criticism?
tink 18
Member
Is this a Windschuttle bag out session?
I mean most of what i have read on this is thread is aimed not at the Windschuttle V Reynolds debate but soley at Criticising Windschuttle. If i was to write an essay in class like most of what has been written here, where it is definetly an unbalanced discussion about the debate i would fail for sure. Except for the last post by NeverSummer where they wrote:
"in this do not Reynolds and Ryan also deserve much criticism? "
You cant just criticise one person for their methodology when yours yourself is not perfect.
Windschuttle has gone out there and caused a massive debate over Aboriginal history and Methodology in Australia but dont you think that by simply criticising him, you are doing exactly what he is doing to Reynolds, Ryan, Deanne, Manne and co. Going out and trying to find some means of criticism for their work. You cant just go out there like some of you have and Blast Windschuttle because that is bad history
The idea about objective/scientific/traditional history is to look at an event etc from the outside, not letting your biases, political agendas or personal perspectives influence you.
I seriously thought history extension students who have been studying this course for a year would know not to just straight out criticise someone.
Windschuttle does go out and basically makes the same mistakes that he accuses other historians of making. But dont go out and criticise him because that is just showing bias without evidence. You need to criticise If that is what you wish by analysing his works and coming to well thought out and logical conclusions.
I mean most of what i have read on this is thread is aimed not at the Windschuttle V Reynolds debate but soley at Criticising Windschuttle. If i was to write an essay in class like most of what has been written here, where it is definetly an unbalanced discussion about the debate i would fail for sure. Except for the last post by NeverSummer where they wrote:
"in this do not Reynolds and Ryan also deserve much criticism? "
You cant just criticise one person for their methodology when yours yourself is not perfect.
Windschuttle has gone out there and caused a massive debate over Aboriginal history and Methodology in Australia but dont you think that by simply criticising him, you are doing exactly what he is doing to Reynolds, Ryan, Deanne, Manne and co. Going out and trying to find some means of criticism for their work. You cant just go out there like some of you have and Blast Windschuttle because that is bad history
The idea about objective/scientific/traditional history is to look at an event etc from the outside, not letting your biases, political agendas or personal perspectives influence you.
I seriously thought history extension students who have been studying this course for a year would know not to just straight out criticise someone.
Windschuttle does go out and basically makes the same mistakes that he accuses other historians of making. But dont go out and criticise him because that is just showing bias without evidence. You need to criticise If that is what you wish by analysing his works and coming to well thought out and logical conclusions.
ladypenelope85
Member
ok. not studying windschuttle, is this going to be a disadvantage? been getting band 6's all way thru, but have effectively 'avoided' windschuttle debate. anyone reckon i should use this week to study him/reynolds all the other happy campers intensely?? just saw the cssa trial, and it looks pretty specific on this.
tink 18
Member
I dont think it would be a major disadvantage at all. there might be one however minuet if the source for the historiography question is on Windschuttle V Reynolds but other wise i dont think so. It might be a good idea to do some study on them just incase they are in the exam but unless you intend to discuss them in depth i would only do enough to give you a bit of background information on the debate.