History Wars

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The History wars in Australia has been a public debate that has been going on for years about the interpretation of the history of European colonization of Australia and its impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders . The debate revolves around the question in Australian history of whether European colonization has occurred since 1788

  • was humane; So the country was settled peacefully, but certain incidents of bad treatment of the indigenous peoples were exceptions; or
  • was characterized by official and unofficial imperialism , exploitation , dispossession , ill-treatment, violent conflict and cultural genocide ; or
  • lies somewhere in between.

The History Wars debate also includes other issues such as national identity; but also methodological questions about the value and reliability of written records from government organizations and settlers, as well as the oral traditions of the Aborigines and how ideologies influence these interpretations.

background

In 1968, Professor WEH “Bill” Stanner , an Australian anthropologist , coined the term Great Australian Silence in the Boyer reading with the title After the Dreaming (pun where dreaming “dreams” and “ Dreamtime ”means; for example:“ After dreaming ”,“ After dreamtime ”). In it he claimed that Australia's historiography was incomplete. He affirmed that the history of the Australian nation had been largely presented in a positive light up to this point, but that the indigenous Australians had been virtually ignored. He saw this as a structural and deliberate attempt to " leave out the several hundred thousand Aboriginal people who lived and died between 1788 and 1938 " and the negative events of history.

A new group of Australian historians then looked into the negative consequences of British colonization for the indigenous Australians. In the 1970s and 1980s, historians such as Manning Clark and Henry Reynolds began to publish books and articles whose stated aim was to correct the selective historiography and falsification or ignoring of the history of indigenous Australians.

This negative view of Australian history was again criticized in articles that were published in the conservative magazine Quadrant in particular (see Black Armband Debate ). This sparked an extensive political debate during the coalition government (1996-2007) under Prime Minister John Howard , chairman of the liberal-conservative Liberal Party of Australia , who publicly supported the views of Quadrant magazine.

Black bracelet Debate

The " Black Armband Historical Perspective" is a term used by Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey at the Sir John Latham Memorial Lecture in 1993 to describe those views of history that focus on the dispossession of Indigenous Australians. The lecture was subsequently published in the political and literary journal Quadrant . Blainey contrasted this view with the Three Cheers view of history (for example: Three Hallelujah Perspectives).

Black bracelet is used by Aboriginal and Anglo-Australian sympathizers as a term to describe the history of Australia after 1788. In 1986, for example, a poster in Alice Springs called on Australians to wear a black mourning ribbon for the "Year of Aboriginal Mourning."

John Howard defined in the Sir Robert Menzies Lecture in 1996 : "The historical perspective of the Black Armband implies that most of Australian history since 1788 has been little more than an unsavory history of imperialism, exploitation, racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination."

In his book Why Weren't We Told? in 1999, Reynolds, arguably the most prominent historian attributed to the Black Bracelet , was referring again to Stanner's "Great Australian Silence", and a " mental block that prevents Australians from accepting the past. " He said that the silence on Australian history of 20th century settlement violence contrasted greatly with the frankness with which violence was admitted and discussed in the 19th century:

“Everything is documented in the libraries and archives. They overflow with evidence of violence. The message they contain is clear. To deny violence it is necessary to deny history. What I found most amazing in the writings of colonial Australia was the open and honest discussion of racial violence and the public acceptance of violence that these discussions signaled. The newspapers were very revealing and the richest source of material. This is particularly the case in Queensland , where there were many small local newspapers that started publishing when the violence was still rampant in the hinterland. There was little thought in discussions about how to 'deal with blacks', although there was always debate and disagreement. But there were also journalists and correspondents from the border who spoke openly about their own brutal acts; who boasted of their deadly heroism, their involvement in massacres, or supported the atrocities from their desks. "

- Reynolds (1999), p. 114.

Genocide Debate

Another debate among Australian historians has been whether the European colonization of Australia led to a genocide of the Aborigines and the Tasmanians in particular . Much of the debate has centered on whether the term genocide can only be applied to the deliberate killing of Aboriginal people, or whether genocide includes those cases where reckless but unintentional behavior or neglect by settlers resulted in Aboriginal deaths.

Historians like Tony Barta suggest that it doesn't matter to the victim group whether they were wiped out by a planned attack or an unplanned one.

Henry Reynolds points out that European colonists and their descendants often use terms such as "extinction" and "extinction" and that, in his opinion, genocide "can take many forms, not all of which involve violence."

Political scientists Kenneth Minogue and Keith Windschuttle disagree and say that no genocide took place. Minogue does not define genocide, but says that the use of the term is an extreme manifestation of the guilt of modern Australian society for their society's mistreatment of the Aborigines. In his opinion, the term is part of the process that Australian society needs to come to terms with its past. However, this overstretched the term genocide in order to be able to be introduced into the debate.

Judy Campbell argues that some historians, such as Henry Reynolds, were so influenced by the idea of ​​European guilt for attempted genocide that they exploited thin references to link the 1789 smallpox epidemic in Australia to the British colonists. She points out that these historians overlooked evidence suggesting that large parts of the Aborigines did not die of smallpox through contact with British settlers, but instead contracted the disease through contact with fishermen from Indonesia.

The Stolen Generations Debate

The 1997 report Bringing Them Home on the Stolen Generation documents the deportation of Aboriginal children from their families by the Australian state and federal authorities and how these children were given to Christian missions . The nature and extent of these compulsory distances is controversial in Australia. Some commentators question the results of the report, arguing that it is exaggerated. Sir Ronald Wilson , former President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission and commissioner of the inquiry, stated that none of the 500 witnesses had ever been cross-examined. The implementation of the report is called into question because the commission did not critically question or test to what extent and how many of the cases were removed from their parents with or without consent and with or without good reason.

A typical example of the style in which the debate was conducted is a dispute between Andrew Bolt and Robert Manne , focusing on individual examples rather than dealing with other documents, such as what the legal basis for removing children in the Changed over time and between different legal terms, or that contemporary journalistic reporting by Ernestine Hill is included.

Andrew Bolt has questioned the very existence of the Stolen generation and says that it is an "obscene" myth; that there was no policy in any state or territory that included the systematic removal of so-called "half-blood" children. Robert Manne replied that Bolt did not heed the documented evidence showing the existence of the Stolen generation and that it was a clear case of historical revisionism and denial. Bolt then asked Manne to deliver 10 cases justifying calling the children stolen rather than removal for neglect, abuse, and abandonment. When Manne did not answer, Bolt saw it as an indication of the unreliability of the claim that the distances involved were systematic. In reply, Manne stated that he supplied a documented list of 250 names Manne then compiled a list of 250 names with no further details or documentation on the circumstances. Bolt was able to secure the identities and histories of some and says none of these cases warrant the term "stolen". As an example against the existence of the stolen generation, he took 13-year-old Dolly, who had been taken into the care of the state after she was "seven months pregnant, not a penny in her pocket, working for free on a cattle ranch."

Windschuttles The Fabrication of Aboriginal History

In 2002, historian Keith Windschuttle published in his book The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One: Van Diemen's Land 1803–1847, questions about the historical evidence on which the number of Aborigines intentionally killed by Europeans is based. He focused specifically on the Black War in Tasmania . He claims there is credible evidence of the violent death of only 118 Aborigines at the hands of the British; although it was beyond doubt that there were an unquantifiable number of other deaths for which there was no evidence. He stated that the Tasmanians were wiped out by a deadly cocktail of introduced diseases and infertility . Windshuttle investigated the violent events and concluded that it was not a battle for territory, but mostly aboriginal attacks on settlers to get goods such as blankets, metal tools, and "exotic food" from the British.

Windschuttle says that Reynolds misused and quoted sources out of context to support claims of "deliberate genocide". In particular, he accuses Reynolds of selectively quoting responses to a survey in Tasmania from 1830, which he used to push terms such as "extinction", "extinction" and "extinction" to the fore. In doing so, he failed to mention that the majority of respondents in other parts of the survey opposed genocide and felt sympathy for the Aboriginal cause; also feared that the conflict caused by the attacks by the Aborigines would lead to their extinction, which is why measures must be taken to prevent this.

Windschuttle's claims and allegations have been rejected by many historians. A comprehensive review of his theses is contained in the 2003 book Whitewash: On Keith Windschuttle's Fabrication of Aboriginal History , an anthology with contributions from Professors Henry Reynolds and Lyndall Ryan. This anthology in turn became the focus of another publication by the businessman and objectivist John Dawson: Washout: On the academic response to The Fabrication of Aboriginal History ( Washout: On the scientific response to the invention of Aboriginal history). Dawson puts forward the counter thesis that Whitewash would make Windschuttle's claims and research irrefutable. However, Windschuttle's theses have also been harshly criticized in numerous other scientific publications, including the book Telling the Truth about Aboriginal History by colonial historian Bain Attwood . Historian Lyndall Ryan countered Windschuttle's allegations against her in her 2012 book Tasmanian Aborigines: A history since 1803 .

consequences

The History Wars debates were barely received in Germany. J. Olaf Kleist assumes that conservative forces in Australia wanted to "undermine the reconciliation of Australian society" and considers the History Wars in the context of injustices suffered such as expropriation and the Stolen Generation. He classifies the History Wars as a sub-process of recognition and reconciliation for Australia as follows:

  • Prime Minister Howard offered a “personal apology” for the injustice suffered, but stressed that actions related to the Stolen generation in particular were based on constitutional law. Nevertheless, his Conservative government was responsible for the fact that in this debate the "European from the indigenous past of Australia was isolated" and the reconciliation blocked because this government refused to make an apology and only expressed its "deep and sincere regrets".
  • It is a major shortcoming that the History Wars were primarily a "dispute between non-Aborigines about how Aboriginal people should be part of Australian society". Unfortunately, most of the Aboriginal representatives would have declined to participate in the discussion of the History Wars on the grounds that historical and current problems would be treated separately. The participation of the Aborigines in the discussion process for the creation of a reconciled nation of Australia is considered essential.
  • The History Wars debate was a "final blow, a revision of conservative historiography," which ultimately turned against and isolated them. There was a strong desire for reconciliation among the general public and in 2000, 250,000 people took to the streets on National Sorry Day in Sydney.

State apology

In the general election of November 24, 2007 , the Australian Labor Party won the election and Kevin Rudd was elected Prime Minister. He apologized to Parliament on February 13, 2008 for the colonial crimes committed against Aboriginal people in Australia:

“Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologized on behalf of the state for the injustice suffered by the indigenous people of the continent, especially the so-called stolen generation. This is a black chapter in Australian history, said Rudd. "

- Australia says sorry. In: STERN. February 13, 2008

literature

Books

items

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Stanner, pp. 198-248.
  2. ↑ Stanner, p. 214.
  3. ^ Robert Manne : What is Rudd's Agenda? In: The Monthly. November 2008.
  4. ^ Geoffrey Blainey : Drawing Up a Balance Sheet of Our History. In: Quadrant. Volume 37 (No. 7-8), July / August 1993.
  5. ^ McKenna: Different Perspectives on Black Armband History: Research Paper 5 1997-98 . Parliament of Australia: Parliamentary Library. 1997. Archived from the original on April 4, 2009. Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Retrieved February 12, 2007. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.aph.gov.au
  6. ↑ Reynolds (1999), p. 114.
  7. ↑ Debates on Genocide - Part One Debates on 'Genocide' in Australian History ( Memento of the original from January 12, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Australian Government Department of Education Science and Training  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.hyperhistory.org
  8. ↑ Debates on Genocide - Part One Debates on 'Genocide' in Australian History. ( Memento of the original from January 12, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Australian Government Department of Education Science and Training. from: Tony Barta: Relations of Genocide: Land and Lives in the Colonization of Australia. In: Isidor Wallimann, Michael N. Dobkowski (Eds.): Genocide and the Modern Age: Etiology and Case Studies of Mass Death. Greenwood Press, New York / Westport / Connecticut / London 1987, ISBN 0-8156-2828-5 , pp. 237-251.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.hyperhistory.org
  9. ↑ Debates on Genocide - Part One Debates on 'Genocide' in Australian History. ( Memento of the original from January 12, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Australian Government Department of Education Science and Training. from: Reynolds: An Indelible Stain? The Question of Genocide in Australia's History. Viking, Ringwood 2001, p. 2.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.hyperhistory.org
  10. ↑ Debates on Genocide - Part Two Debates on 'Genocide' in Australian History. ( Memento of the original from April 20, 2006 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Australian Government Department of Education Science and Training @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.hyperhistory.org
  11. ↑ Windschuttle, Keith
  12. ↑ Debates on Genocide - Part Two Debates on 'Genocide' in Australian History. ( Memento of the original from April 20, 2006 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Australian Government Department of Education Science and Training. Citing Kenneth Minogue: Aborigines and Australian Apologetics. In: Quadrant. September 1998, pp. 11-20. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.hyperhistory.org
  13. ^ Judy Campbell: Invisible Invaders: Smallpox and Other Diseases in Aboriginal Australia 1780-1880. Melbourne University Press, pp. 55, 61.
  14. ↑ Stolen Generations. ( Memento of the original from March 18, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. In: Background Briefing. ABC Radio National , July 2, 2000, accessed February 19, 2008. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.abc.net.au
  15. ↑ Archive link ( Memento of the original dated May 22, 2005 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.australianpolitics.com
  16. ↑ [1]
  17. ^ The Great Australian Loneliness. (London: 1937; Australia: 1940)
  18. ^ A. Buti: The Stolen generation and litigation revisited. Melbourne University Law Review 2008.
  19. ^ Manne, Robert The cruelty of denial , The Age , September 9, 2006
  20. ↑ Be a Manne and name just 10 | Herald Sun
  21. ^ The cruelty of denial.
  22. ^ Robert Manne : The Stolen Generations - a documentary collection (PDF). In: The Monthly , September 3, 2005. Retrieved December 29, 2007. 
  23. ↑ That debate last night.
  24. ↑ Windschuttle, pp. 326-350.
  25. ↑ Quadrant Magazine ( Memento of the original from September 8, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / quadrant.org.au
  26. ↑ J. Olaf Kleist: The Australian History Wars and what belongs to it: Limits of historical recognition and reconciliation.