To my mind, the more interesting question is, why the History Wars happened in the first place. And the answer to that is political. They were cooked up to justify a right wing agenda against Aboriginal rights under the former Howard Government. And, for a while, they worked, despite the fact that they were ably refuted by several eminent Australian historians.
But nowadays? From my reading in some recent Aboriginal history, I'd say they've almost faded away. Historians who know their stuff in this area have simply chosen to ignore this nonsensical debate. Its died down in the yellow press now that a Labor Government is in power, because there is no political mileage in it anymore. Which goes to show how insubstantial the debate was in the first place.
Update: link to review of Bruce Pascoe's Convincing Ground -
Convincing Ground: Learning to fall in Love with your Country by Bruce Pascoe
First! :)
ReplyDeleteThe thing that always struck me about the debate was how little it involved Indigenous people - the culture warriors were only interested in baiting and tackling the non-Indigenous left.
And congrats on the new blog!!
Some quotes:
ReplyDelete"It seems to me that there can be only one satisfactory solution to the half-caste problem, and that is the ultimate absorption of these persons in the white population."
-Professor Cleland, on the SA State Aborigines Protection Board
"Western Australia has gone further than has any other State, by accepting the view that ultimately the natives must be absorbed into the white population of Australia"
-Mr Neville, WA Protector
(quotes from the Initial Conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Authorities, 1937. It's a very interesting read, pretty much outlines the stolen generation as government policy)
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
OK, so maybe it's not genocide, in the same way attempted murder isn't murder.
bitemylatte,
ReplyDeleteThe Convincing Ground gives a good overview of the debate from an Indigenous perspective.
anfalacious,
The problem with the genocide debate in the Australian context, it seems to me, i to what extent the hunting down of Aborigines was a state-sponsored issue, or a private expedition of squatters and the like. It sort of creates a bit of confusion, when you're trying to define the phenomenon. In the former case I wouldn't hesitate to call it genocide, but in the latter, it doesn't seem to fit the parameters of the UN definition. Even though it was just as bad, or worse, and the intention was the same. And, it seems to me the debate revolves around definition. A bit like arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin, really. To me the more pernicious debate is the one of massacre v. police action. So far as I'm concerned if a whole bunch of people with technologically inferior or no weapons get murdered at the one time by people with a superior techology in arms, whether they're police, Native police or squatters, its still a massacre.
Thanks to both of you for commenting. Check in again soon.
The Convincing Ground - will check it out. Isn't that a place in Western Vic? Eerie name.
ReplyDeletePS That was me - dont know what happened to my moniker first time around!
Yep. Massacre site. I can't remember the name of the Indigenous author offhand, even though I reviewed the book. It's an excellent perspective from the Aboriginal point of view. Both confronting and refreshing. The stuff on Howard is probably a bit dated now, but that doesn't matter, there's so much else in it. Look forward to an exciting and stimulating read.
ReplyDelete