The Fabrication of Australian History (1 Viewer)

[C'est la vie]

For my major work I think I'm doing the debate surrounding the different perspectives of Australian Historians about European Settlement of Australia. Keith Windschuttle claims (a) There was no genocide in Tasmania, (b) there was nothing that earnt the term 'violent frontier' and (c) any historian who claims (a) or (b) has grossly exagerrated or invented facts.

Then you get historians like Henry Reynolds, Lyndall Ryan etc who violently refute it....

Has anyone done this before, or is thinking of doing it this year? If so, I'd love to hear from you...ideas, suggestions etc...

Thanks guys!!
Mwa!! xoxo

 

[sugared plum]

yes lots of us wrote about it in the exam. some of the historians you've mentioned are in the source booklet.

it would work, and be good.

issues of postmodernist history, official records, language, sources. and more

buuttt, talk to your teacher, s/he might not like it because it's very popular and i think lots of poeple write about it.
then again it would be very easy because lots of the historiographical analysis has already been done for you.

 

[Ziff]

Windschuttle... lol
What a funny, funny man. I swear he's a polemicist for the hell of it...

 

[sugared plum]

he likes his dogs.

my friend swears he sat next to the dude on a plane.

 

[C'est la vie]

Thanks guys

It's funny that you say lots of people do it, because when I was having a meeting with my teacher, every single ideal i had he was like 'nope, too common', 'no way, I've read like 500 of them!'

And then when I finally came to this one he was like "Now THERE is one I think really has legs!" But then I guess he's the one marking it, so if he doesn't mind it, I'll go for it! lol.

You know our actual essay thingy? This is where we talk about postmodernism, and sources that have been used differently depending on what the historian wants to prove etc etc?? I'm getting myself kinda confused!!

Thanks!!
xoxo

 

[Bolkonski]

put it this way. Windschuttle is a JOURNALIST.

 

[sugared plum]

Originally posted by C'est la vie
Thanks guys

It's funny that you say lots of people do it, because when I was having a meeting with my teacher, every single ideal i had he was like 'nope, too common', 'no way, I've read like 500 of them!'

And then when I finally came to this one he was like "Now THERE is one I think really has legs!" But then I guess he's the one marking it, so if he doesn't mind it, I'll go for it! lol.

You know our actual essay thingy? This is where we talk about postmodernism, and sources that have been used differently depending on what the historian wants to prove etc etc?? I'm getting myself kinda confused!!

Thanks!!
xoxo

yeah, you've got to think about ISSUES. these are all the things you do in the 'what is history' section. so you think about all the buzz words:

perspective
judgement
bias
reliability
language
sources
history as a science or art
gender
postmodernism
psychoanalysis
narrative
marxism
truth etc etc

and see if you can find issues relating to them in your case study. it's not as hard as it seems

then you find historians - both from your case study and from the 'what is history' thingo (so all the 'theory' if you will) and bung it together, write a synopsis, which is your argument - what you think about how the hisotry of the australian aboriginies has been contructed and then it's all over.

 

[C'est la vie]

god, you can teach better than my teacher....we've had NO guidance AT ALL...and it kills me! but thanks for that...now i actually have SOME idea where I'm heading...nicely done

 

[enter~space~cap]

hmmphhh...i have in my hands a magazine article concerning that debate and the historians you just gave were mentioned i that article...

want me to scan it? or have u already seen it?

 

[abby]

for a general overview, read The History Wars. I cant think of the author off the top of my head, but it discusses motivations (particularly from political and media scenes), but discusses windschuttle in a fair bit of detail and throws around a few names

 

[MiuMiu]

We wouldn't have been allowed to do this for our major work cos we studied it closely as a class for historiography. But if you do choose it it won't be hard cos theres so much on it. Good Luck!

 

[malayz_angel]

I had a friend who did the Windschuttle/Reynolds debate last year, it's a good topic, but yes, it is probably more common that your teacher thinks. However it's pretty hard to come up with an original history extension topic, and odds are, even if you do, there may be a reason such as there are too few sources. So if that's what you really want to do, I say GO FOR IT.

In history extension, it helps to know a bit about at least one historian from each period of time, not just postmodernism. Here are some suggested historians to study, for anyone who's interested.

ANCIENT: Herodotus is the obvious, Thucydides is also good
MEDIEVAL: Bede
LATER ON: Leopold von Ranke, Gibbons, Barbara Tuchman, Evans, Anne Summers and even a bit of Windschuttle/Reynolds could come in handy! And then of course, postmodernists like Derrida.

If you know at least one historian from the Ancient, Medieval, and other periods, you will be well-equipped for incorporating these into any question. And don't forget, the HSC can come up with questions that no one predicted, so rely more on knowing info and your writing skills, instead of memorising essays.

Good luck!

 

[C'est la vie]

Thanks guys!

I feel so much better about my topic now, and the course in general. I've done my prelim research, and I'm just refining my question now.

At the moment, in class, we're summarising various historians (their context, purpose, methods, and the effect they've had on historiography) like Herodotus, Thucydides, Bede, von Ranke, Gibbons, Marx, Bloch etc...

Is this what everyone else is going atm?

Hope you're projects are all taking shape! Good luck with them!

Mwa!
xoxox