Writing the History of the Australian Frontier - Essay Example

Critical review: Writing the History of the Australian Frontier Writing the history of the Australian frontier provided one of the most significant controversial topics of discussion in the study of Australian history. Two of the most prominent figures in such a controversial debate on the history of the Australian frontier have been Henry Reynolds and Keith Windschuttle who promulgated essential conflicting views of the topic. The conflict over the topic started when an article by Keith Windschuttle, countering the arguments of Henry Reynolds in the article "Resistance: Tactics and Traditions", appeared in the Sidney Morning Herald, during the Olympic Games. According to the article by Windschuttle, many massacres of Aborigines in the Australian frontier were fabricated and it emphasized that the number of casualties in the frontier was far fewer than estimations 20000 casualties by Henry Reynolds in 1981. However, Reynolds denied the claim by Windschuttle and stood by his original estimate. Thus, there started a conflict between the two distinguished figures over the number of Aboriginals killed in the frontier. "This skirmish was the first in what has since become known as the Aboriginal history wars. Windschuttle fired more shots in articles in the last four issues of Quadrant in 2000. Reynolds returned fire in a major article in the March 2001 issue of The Australian Review of Books. And there have been carefully staged verbal skirmishes in venues like Gould's Book Arcade in Sydney, on ABCTV Lateline and at the National Press Club in Canberra." (Ryan 2001, P. 31). Therefore, there has been a significant conflict of ideas and arguments by Henry Reynolds and Keith Windschuttle on the topic of writing the history of the Australian frontier and it is essential to comprehend the main areas of disagreement and agreement between the two. This paper undertakes an exploratory analysis of the major arguments by Reynolds and Windschuttle in order to identify the major areas of disagreement and agreement between them, the evidence provided by each of them to support his position, and the utility of Ryan's article to comprehend the realities of this controversy. One of the most essential differences in the arguments between Henry Reynolds and Keith Windschuttle has been their positions on the number of causalities in the Australian frontier and the two proposed significant substantive evidences to argue their positions. According to Reynolds, "It seems reasonable to suggest that Aborigines killed somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500 Europeans in the course of the invasion and settlement of the continent. There were many hundreds of others who were injured and carried both physical and psychological scars for the rest of their lives. Calculating the Aboriginal death toll is much more difficult For the continent as a whole it is reasonable to suppose that at least were killed as a direct result of conflict with the settlers." (Reynolds 1981, P. 99). Therefore, he mainly argues that the casualties can be calculated around 2,000-2,500 Europeans, and it is much more difficult to calculate the Aboriginal death toll. He also ascertains that Tasmania documented the conflict better than anywhere else in the country and Ryan's estimate of 800 is possibly more precise than the other estimations. The secondary effects of the invasion include disease, deprivation, and disruption which were responsible for the premature deaths of many more people and it is not possible to arrive at a realistic figure on the question. Windschuttle confronted the views by Reynolds on the number of deaths in the Australian frontier and his article "The Myths of Frontier Massacres in Australian History," claimed that many massacres of Aborigines in the Australian frontier were fabricated pointing out that the number of casualties in the frontier was far fewer than estimations of Henry Reynolds. He also disagrees with Reynolds' argument that the number of the Aborigines who died defending their territory outnumbers, in both relative and even absolute terms, the number of white Australian war dead. Windschuttle promulgates that Reynolds made use of the figure of 30,000 Aboriginal dead many times in order to depict the Australian pastoral frontier as a scene of 'open warfare'. According to him, it has now entered the established record and become part of the received wisdom of Australian historiography and it is the current consensus among Australian historians. Windschuttle argues: "When you trace the references from which the overall estimates are calculated, you find that the original sources on which they are based themselves openly admit that they have little idea what the actual figures were and that they are doing no more than guessing what the actual figures were the and that they have been. Moreover, when you look at the arithmetic behind the national calculation you find its assumptions are designed to produce not an impartial figure but as large a total as possible, no matter how much finding is required." (Windschuttle 2000, P. 18). Windschuttle illustrates this factor in his article by discussing the sources on which each of the three main Australia-wide estimates has been based, and his main attempt is to confront the arguments by Reynolds. Windschuttle regarded the article by Reynolds as lacking sustentative evidences and called it 'the unsubstantiated guesswork of Henry Reynolds.' In reply to the controversial counterarguments placed against his earlier work, Henry Reynolds wrote his article "From Armband to Blindfold" which also reinstated his earlier position on question of number of casualties in the Australian frontier. Arguing that Keith Windschuttle misrepresented Australian history and the political aspirations of Aborigines, the article affirms that Windschuttle has a taste for controversy, a nose for conspiracy and a penchant for sensation and overblown headlines. Thus, there are also personal attacks in the new article by Reynolds. "At its simplest he [Windschuttle] attacks a central proposition of the historiography of the last 30 years - that Australia had a violent frontier and that conflict accompanied national life for well over 100 years. He endeavours to effect a pincer movement against his adversaries. One arm of the movement attempts to exculpate authority - imperial, colonial, state and federal - and paint a flattering portrait of their actions while at the same time arguing that good Christian gentlemen would always observe the rules of decency and fair play." (Reynolds 2001, P 8). Therefore, the article continues the debates concerning the Australian frontier and establishes his major position in the earlier article. This work by Reynolds which dealt with the Aboriginal deaths on the colonial frontier prompted new opinions Keith Windschuttle replied the arguments made by Reynolds in an expanded letters section in a later edition. In his article, Reynolds quoted a passage from the diary of the colonial official, C.F. Moore, in order to show how Stirling's expedition trapped the Aborigines between the banks of a river and then picked them off with gunfire as they tried to hide in the water. In disputation to this source used by Reynolds, the "Selected Readings" made the following arguments. "There are a number of points to make about this quotation. First, Reynolds got the diarist's name wrong. He was G.F. (George fletdrer) Moore. Second, Reynolds gives the impression that Moore was an eyewitness to these events. He neglects to say that he was not in the expedition to Pinjarra." (Windschuttle 200l, 5). All these points substantiate the arguments by each writer. One of the major contributions to the understanding of the debate has been the article "Post colonialism and the Historian: The Aboriginal History Wars" which summarizes and identifies the essential arguments by the two authors mentioned above. After pointing out the important developments on the topic of debate, Lyndall Ryan discusses the major impact of the controversy. "On one level the Windschuttle/ Reynolds skirmishes are great theatre, contributing to the wider debate about the writing of Australian history. On another they are ideological exchanges in a well-orchestrated campaign by Quadrant to deny current claims by Aborigines for sovereignty a treaty and an apology- from the Australian government. This campaign is designed to cast doubt in the minds of ordinary Australians about the significance of frontier conflict in the past and how it has shaped relations between Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians in the present." (Ryan 2001, P. 31). Therefore, the work by Ryan has been most valuable in comprehending the issues concerning the massacre of the Australian frontier. All through the study, Ryan has been challenging the arguments made by Windschuttle and he seems to be supporting the classic claims by Reynolds. In conclusion, there is essential disagreement between Henry Reynolds and Keith Windschuttle on the question of the number of deaths in the Australian frontier and the sustentative evidences provided by booth are very valid. The topic of writing the history of the Australian frontier needs to be realized in terms of the arguments and counter arguments placed by both of the writers and the utility of Ryan's article to comprehend the realities of this controversy is indubitable. Bibliography Reynolds, Henry. (1981). "Resistance: Tactics and Traditions." The Other Side of the Frontier: An Interpretation of the Aboriginal Response to the Invasion and Settlement of Australia. Townsville, QLD: James Cook University Press. P. 98-104. Reynolds, Henry. (2001). "From Armband to Blindfold." The Australian Review of Books. P. 8-9 &26. Ryan, Lyndall. (2001). Post colonialism and the Historian: The Aboriginal History Wars. Australian Historical Association Bulletin. 92. P. 3l-37. Windschuttle, Keith. (2000). "The Myths of Frontier Massacres in Australian History." Quadrant. 44. P. 17 -24. Windschuttle, Keith. (200l). "Selected Readings." The Australian Review of Books. P 5. Read More