Reynolds/Windshuttle (1 Viewer)

[Gregor Samsa]

Originally posted by tink 18

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.

To briefly respond...

But that's the crux of it. From what I've read of Windschuttle's works (The Fabrication Of Aboriginal History and several articles from his site, www.sydneyline.com ) he criticises others heavily for these mistakes that he also makes, without acknowledging his own fallibility.

This is largely, in my opinion, because of Windschuttle's vehement criticism of post-modernism, which of course has the lack of absolute truth as one of it's central doctrines.. (As seen in texts such as 'The Killing Of History' and his articles about Michel Foucault..). Of course, truth does exist in some form, even within Post-Modernism, but from a speech of his I saw (A debate over the 'value' of post-modern history), Keith believes that Post-Modernism instead equates to absolute relativism, attempting to relate an 'extreme' opinion as widespread, which isn't the case. Personally, I'd constitute this as 'bad history'. (IMO)

Windschuttle's belief in a conspiracy can again be demonstrated by his own writings;

It's no secret that the left controls history in Australia, that most of the humanities departments are themselves left dominated and history itself is by far the worst.

And what that's meant is that leftest radicalism has defined history teaching in Australia..- Lateline, 3/09/03. (While this is perhaps made more direct because of it's medium and context, it is a good indication of Windschuttle's belief of conspiracy amongst the universities...)

Will add to this. (Need to do some research, in the best historiographical sense.)

Haven't quite scuttled the Windschuttle.

 

[NeverSummer]

[It's no secret that the left controls history in Australia, that most of the humanities departments are themselves left dominated and history itself is by far the worst.

And what that's meant is that leftest radicalism has defined history teaching in Australia...indication of Windschuttle's belief of conspiracy amongst the universities...]

I think you take it too far. It is a fact that Australian universities are strongly under the arm of the postmodernists. This is very worrying, and Windschuttle shows due concern.

[he criticises others heavily for these mistakes that he also makes, without acknowledging his own fallibility.]

Please...where where where??! Everyone keeps bringing up his hipocrisy, can someone just give me one example where he fudged figures, distorted evidence, or likewise? (as this alone would account for his hipocrisy. and please dont write back about the attacks on him regarding plagiarism).

 

[meh]

ah, why does the discussion of these two historians always lead to such debate. I love it. I do, however find the subject-matter quite boring so I don't really add anything in, cause I dont take interest in finding out the info.

But what has become very aparent is that the lot of you have forgoten the crux of post-moderninsm and are arguing something essentially against it.

Postmodernism theorists questions the absolute validity of concepts of truth and fact, and imply an inescapable and inevitable relativism in our positions in relation to the past. History, in their view, is nothing more than a tentative hypothesis underpinned by a possibly unstated, but nonetheless specific purpose

PM historians believe that human reason cannot explain the past.

Anna

 

[amyb]

Can i just add one thing: WTF?! I, rather intelligently, avoided the Windschuttle/Reynolds debate at school, as i find the debate over Aboriginal history rather, well, indefinite and unprovable whichever side you support. I have little knowledge on this, but i believe Windschuttle's claims that Reynold's figures are slightly exaggerated, or unproven, are true. You cannot claim to be a true objective historian if your evidence comes from generalisations about the past. There were battles against Aborigines and 'Whites', but that, bo NO means, signifies ALL Tasmanian Aborigines were wiped out. Perhaps Windschuttle's 'benevolent' view of Australian Frontier history is a bit naive, at least he is only sticking to REAL evidence. If something, especially numbers, is not stated, how ON EARTH can you claim it to be real and a fact?!?! Reynolds is trying to say that 20000 were wiped out, when there is no ACTUAL evidence reporting this...therefore it cannot be claimed to be TRUE WHATSOEVER. As historians, we can only write about facts (even PMs believe facts exist)...we cannot use imagination, generalisations or presumptions as evidence...
I must admit, that last sentence i'm sure a 7th grader would know...
One last point, this debaye cannot have a real end with one 'SIDE' winning because the evidence is not there to support any claim fully. Therefore, in my opinion, this debate is futile and gives me quite a HEADACHE...literally.

 

[AsyLum]

Originally posted by amyb
Therefore, in my opinion, this debate is futile and gives me quite a HEADACHE...literally.

muahaha thats the fun of it...

 

[Deathless]

lol I had him as a lecfturer today. Funniest lecture ever.

He made a lot of people angry, some interuptted and argued with him during his lectures. Others stormed out.

He has some valid points, but he is a bit ignorant and arrogant at times... When someone asked if he would debate Reynolds again, he said "I would debate him anytime, but Reynolds is too scared and won't"

 

[Callum3592]

Check out Welcome to The Sydney Line For his speech on "Historical Truth, Postmodern Theory and the Fabrication of Aboriginal History" That he gave at the Tom Mann theater yesterday

 

[Deathless]

yeah i had him at the Tom Mann theatre

Today our hist teacher deconstructed him... and basically it's "who selects the facts" and that "archives do not exist in a vacuum" etc...

 

[Callum3592]

Yea, we just ripped him up in the theater, bout the "cherry picking of his sources" and disregard for aboriginal Oral sources