Talk:Keith Windschuttle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Keith Windschuttle is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Marxist past
I've restored the sentence
- A Marxist before the 1980s, Windschuttle has moved sharply to the right.
It's absurd to suggest this is POV. Windschuttle is open about his Marxist past and his rejection of it.
"In The Killing of History, Windschuttle defended the of practices and methods of traditional empirical history against postmodernism, and praised left-wing historians such as Henry Reynolds who relied on traditional empirically-oriented approaches. Subsequently, he has adopted an overtly polemical position, attacking Reynolds and others and freely mixing political and empirical arguments." Windschuttle praised Henry Reynolds in his 1994 book TKOH because at that time he believed Reynolds' work to be the result of an empirically-oriented approach. It wasn't until about 2000 that he started checking the evidence for the claims made by Reynolds and others and found that the 'evidence' didn't check out. He found that rather than being 'empirical' Reynolds was 'political', ie had misrepresented the 'evidence' to be found in source documentation to support a political cause.
- It's clear that Windschuttle now takes a position of polemical advocacy, and collects evidence to support his side of the case. You can find writing from him well before 2000 making political attacks on multiculturalism and so on. When he started checking, it was with the express purpose of finding errors. In Reynolds' case, he found only one minor error, yet that didn't lead Windschuttle to restate his earlier support. JQ 09:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV/poor article
This whole article is WAY below Wikipedia standards. It is very sophomoric in its POV. Seems to be written by a Lyndall Ryan toadie. Who are you to judge a schoalrs "motives?" Are you a mind-reader? Also what is a "move sharply to the 'right?' What is "right wing" about exposing scholarship so deceitful that it would result in a jail sentence in any other profession?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.185.83.35 (talk • contribs), 28 April 2006.
‘It's clear that Windschuttle now takes a position of polemical advocacy, and collects evidence to support his side of the case.’
The essence of Windschuttle ‘dispute’ with postmodernism is that history should be an attempt to portray what happened in the past (and why it happened) as accurately as the available evidence allows. It is not a case of ‘you are entitled to your truth and I am entitled to mine’. The truth about historical events should be advocated and untruths should be refuted. The basis for that is the collection and examination of the evidence. And where historians make errors with their evidence, that should be exposed and the proper response of a historian who has had it proved that they made an ‘error’ with the evidence, is to correct it in print asap. Attacking the person who proved you wrong by attributing a political motive to them for doing so isn’t the way to retain any semblance of respect.
“When he started checking, it was with the express purpose of finding errors.”
Of course it was to find errors, that’s why you check anything. What other purpose does checking the evidence serve than to find out whether what you are checking is accurate/correct/truthful?
I assume the ‘only one minor error’ you refer to is the only error Reynolds has admitted to, ie where the record of the words of Lieutenant-Governor Arthur that he feared ‘the eventual extirpation of the aboriginal race itself’ appeared in Reynolds work The Other Side of the Frontier changed to say he feared ‘the eventual extirpation of the colony’. Just because this is the only error Reynolds has admitted to doesn’t mean it’s the only ‘error’. Windschuttle’s writings contain many more criticisms of Reynolds than that one ‘error’. He includes the use by Reynolds of ‘unsubstantiated guesswork’ in reaching his (in)famous assessment of the aboriginal death toll by settlers’ rifles and Reynolds reliance on sources such as the missionaries Threlkeld and Gribble without revealing the fact that both had been caught out making false claims of mistreatment and murder of aboriginals by settlers.
How about Reynolds use of carefully selected quotes from replies to an 1830 government questionnaire sent to Tasmanian settlers? Reynolds quotes only the minority of respondants who advocated genocide or whose words can be made to seem that they favoured it and doesn’t inform his readers that most of the replies to that questionnaire were sympathetic to the aboriginals and most definitely against genocide. Windschuttle has absolutely no reason to become a supporter of Reynolds again.
As for his alleged attacks on multiculturalism, multiculturalism isn’t holy writ. Its benefits and potential drawbacks to Australian society, if carelessly handled, are up for discussion and debate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.130.203.197 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC+10 hours) (the above somewhat tardily signed by T.A. Yates, Brisbane = User:138.130.203.197)
[edit] W fails to understand
You know, some people, though intellectually capable in some areas, cant do architecture as they have problems with abstract thought. Some of these then deny this level of thought process exists or that if it does, that it is credible, usually because its stuff they dont understand. I wouldnt ever consider what Windschuttle says re massacres in Oz, as being anything I could take much notice of.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.128 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)
- Re the preceding comment: I think that we all (even Keith Windschuttle) can understand the kind of abstract thought that goes into the sort of history that Windschuttle criticises. A branch of 'history' where you don't need evidence for your claims about what happened and why. You simply make up a colourful story that suits whatever political or social agenda you want to push, attach footnotes that supposedly lead readers back to the source evidence for your claims and hope that no-one checks them and exposes your deceit. That is what post-modernist history was all about and unfortunately it is a world-wide problem. History is not supposed to based on an author's imagination. There actually is a difference between history and historical fiction. There may be a certain amount of creativity involved in making what you are writing about readable, even entertaining at times, but basically it is a matter of collecting and analysing the evidence and then presenting your conclusions (with footnotes that really lead somewhere). Unfortunately a lot of people fell for the line the post-modernists have pushed: "Windschuttle is right-wing...... he's against aboriginal rights...... he wants to overturn Mabo." I'm sure they would have suggested that he eats babies if they thought they would be believed. Try looking at the evidence presented by both sides and weighing it up. The evidence that Windschuttle presented about massacres and the level of violence in colonial Australia stands up to scrutiny. The documents referred to in his footnotes actually exist and they say what he says they do, unlike many of those of the other side of the debate. I am fairly certain I wouldn't want to have the kind of 'intellectual capability' that means not believing that there is any difference between the truth and a politically or ideologically convenient fiction. T.A.Yates.
[edit] Hitchens
I'm dubious about the section on Hitchens for two reasons. First, there are many people who've shifted from left to right, and it's not clear why Hitchens is chosen. Second, although Hitchens is vehement in his support of the Iraq war and an aggressive response to Islamism, he doesn't seem, like Windschuttle, to have become an orthodox rightwinger (at least not yet). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs).
- I've WP:BOLDly deleted the text user 82.36.238.183 (talk • contribs) added. Here's a copy:
- For comparison, see also Christopher Hitchens, another former left-wing intellectual who has become a committed right-winger.
- Prof. Quiggin is quite right.
- If we wanted an example of a move from left to right, there are plenty of people to choose from — Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol and David Horowitz, for example.
- Hitchens still regards himself as being "on the left", not as a "right-winger" and certainly as neither an "orthodox rightwinger" nor a "committed right-winger". For example, his hostility to Henry Kissinger has not softened at all (yay!). He claims that in supporting the overthrow of facist regimes (meaning the Taliban and the Iraqi Baathists) he is being more consistent with leftist ideals than those who opposed toppling those regimes.
- I can't help wondering whether this sentence was added purely as an attack on Hitchens. Nevertheless, I'd be happy to see a cleaned-up version put back into the article.
- —Chris Chittleborough 19:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Left-wing historian
Is the term left wing historian helpful? Unless Reynolds et al. freely admit to interpreting history from a left-wing perspective, adding 'left-wing' seems to be dubious commentary. Ashmoo 07:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. The terms left-wing and right-wing are intellectually sloppy and fail to take into account the diversity of opinions on political matters that any individual may hold. For instance, many left-wing catholics are anti-abortion, a typically right-wing or conservative view. Add that to the fact that 'left wing historian' is clearly an attempt to allege political bias in Reynolds' work. This makes the section clearly biased towards Windschuttle's view that many historians associated with the left are politically motivated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.176.48.24 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticisms of Windschuttle's Reasoning and Replies to his Accusations
Shouldn't some of the rebuttals to Keith Windschuttle's accusations be published here to maintain neutral point of view? I'm also of wary of idealised (or psychologised) representations of what Keith WIndschutle's objectives are. Many of the criticisms of the inductivism of David Stove are relevant to Windschuttle's arguments (interestingly, the POV of the David Stove entry is in question due to a lack of these criticisms). Also relevant are documented incidents of double standards in Windschuttles writings.
Calling for "impartial objectivity", while ignoring evidence on contrived technicalities, or more importantly, cricising Cultural Studies (wrongly conflated with Post-Modernism) in The Killing of History, then employing a culturally relativistic approach to belittling Tasmanian Aboriginies in Fabrication. Specifically arguing that they had no words for humanity or compassion therefore were unable to concieve them. An approach contradicted again in Fabrication, where WIndschuttle accuses Abroiginies of a willingness to prostitute their women. Contradicting the earlier "humanity and compassion argument" because there were no words for prostitution. (Arguments by John Quiggin)
His foray into Science Philosophy, in Killing of History also drew some criticisms back in the day, particularly his extention of David Stove's critcisms of Popper (including a blatant staw man against Popper's position on knowledge.) Said Straw Man tactic was observed to be used against the "POMOs" at the August 2002 "Great Debate About History" held at the University of NSW. (Arguments I believe penned by Catherine Keenan)
Possibly the replies by Lyndall Ryan should be considered, given that she was the focus of some of the more material criticisms by Windschuttle, rather than the rather more pedantic (and utterly singular) attack on Reynolds. I think that she has published these replies (after spending a good deal of time going back over her criticised work.)
Raverant2006 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to publish the rebuttals then do you publish the rebuttals of the rebuttals and so on? You’d wind up with a discussion page the length of several books. For example, Whitewash (edited by Robert Manne) was supposed to be the ultimate rebuttal of Windschuttle’s work, Washout (author John Dawson) dissected Whitewash and rebutted it quite thoroughly.
There is no need for psychologised representations of what Keith Windschutle's objectives are, he has stated them repeatedly; read his work, the best starting point being The Killing of History. In many of the comments, I’ve made on this page (and elsewhere) I’ve merely paraphrased Windschuttle’s own statements of his objectives.
The psychologised representations of Windschuttle's objectives I’m most wary of are those that suggest that his historical arguments must be influenced by his political beliefs. Look at the historical arguments, look at the evidence. Is the evidence accurately and fully disclosed? Does the evidence support Windschuttle’s arguments and not those of his opponents? Answer: yes. The political beliefs of a historian are only relevant if the historian manipulates the evidence to support a political position, which is exactly what Windschuttle criticises.
Interesting to see that the above refers to “documented incidents of double standards in Windschuttle’s writings” without identifying what the “documented incidents” are.
What evidence did he ignore? And on what contrived technicalities? From what I’ve seen, Windschuttle fairly states the case made by the ‘other side’; accurately describes the evidence they rely upon, presents other evidence that the ‘other side’ either didn’t mention or dismissed without giving adequate reason for doing so and then draws his conclusions giving reasons why some evidence is to be preferred. I am not the only one to make this observation about his work.
Instances in which I have seen this kind of accusation levelled at Windschuttle include the incident at Risdon Cove in which Windschuttle allegedly ignores the evidence of the ex-convict, Edward White, and bases his conclusion solely on the reports by the military officer and the surgeon. If you actually read Windschuttle’s account of this incident you can see that he fairly reports White’s evidence (at greater length than the other accounts, in fact) and that of the other two accounts. He gives good reasons why the contemporary reports of the officer and the surgeon are to be considered more reliable than that of the ex-convict, given many years later. These reasons are consistant with standard historical practice.
What I find ridiculous is the suggestion that we should believe the unsupported story told many years later by an ex-convict with every reason to make up a nasty story about the troops who were also his former jailers, i.e. the ones who flogged him and kept him from escaping. We are expected to simply presume that the officer and the surgeon both lied when no evidence to contradict their statements has been presented except the statement of an ex-convict.
Where did Windschuttle argue that that because they had no words for humanity or compassion therefore (they) were unable to conceive of them? Page number, please? I have seen him argue that people and societies are broadly influenced by certain factors including philosophical and religious standards. For example, he argues that Christian standards and Enlightenment philosophy influenced colonists and colonial administrators. He never argued that every colonist, everywhere, at all times, lived up to those standards, though some have attempted to ‘belittle’ him by suggesting that he did.
Is the accusation of ‘belittling’ aboriginals founded in some of the descriptions of Tasmanian aboriginal society in Fabrication including use of the terms ‘primitive’ and ‘dysfunctional’? Windschuttle used these descriptions, not as a gratuitous slur upon Tasmanian aboriginals, but as a small part of an accurate explanation for the demise of the full-blooded Tasmanian aboriginal. The term ‘primitive’ in this context is a technical one, a dispassionate assessment of their level of development. There is an obvious correlation between their ‘primitive’ society with its lack of luxuries and comforts and the desire of Tasmanian aboriginals to acquire Western luxuries and comforts (such as clothing, blankets, ‘exotic’ foods, alcohol, tobacco, metal tools, etc). This resulted in them engaging in conduct that, arguably, hastened their own demise. This conduct included attacking remote settlers’ huts to steal goods and also ‘selling’ aboriginal women and girls (be they members of their own tribes or captives from other tribes) to white men in return for such goods. The first invited the colonisers to respond with violence and the last, of course, removed these women from the full-blood gene pool, which was small to start with. The apparently common practice of aboriginal men allowing white men to sleep with their women in return for ‘presents’ sometimes as trifling as a loaf or two of bread (an exotic, luxury food to aborigines) provided multiple gateways into the aboriginal population for venereal diseases that had devastating effects, particularly on reproductive health and capacity, in a non-resistant population. Windschuttle was called racist for daring to use the word ‘prostitution’ for this ‘cultural practice’ but a rose by any other name…..
Even ordinary contact between aboriginals and settlers resulting from the desire to obtain goods as outright gifts or in return for labour, animal skins, game-meat or other kinds of trade was an opportunity for the isolated, non-resistant aboriginal population to catch diseases from the settlers. It was inadvertently introduced diseases for which they had little or no resistance that were the main culprits in the demise of the full-blooded Tasmanian aboriginals. Here, too, some of the critics pounce; what difference is there between deliberate genocide by violence and the extinction of a race by introduced diseases? The answer is, of course, a great deal of difference; the differences between ‘deliberate’, ‘inadvertent’ and ‘accidental’, especially when you consider that at the time the Western world had very little idea about the true nature of disease and its transmission or of immunity and resistance. The notion of disease being caused by ‘noxious vapours’ was still prevalent at the time. Bloodletting was still a popular remedy for all ills. They had no idea that a race isolated from the rest of humanity for perhaps 10,000 years would die in large numbers due to diseases that were much less harmful to the British settlers.
The so-called straw man argument at the “Great Debate” that so offended Catherine Keenan is apparently that Windschuttle made use of his limited time at the podium to go after the most extreme practitioners and forms of post-modernism rather than letting them off the hook by concentrating on somewhat less extreme examples offered up earlier. In other words, he didn’t allow himself to be lead astray by a red herring.
I suppose that insisting historians actually do the work and try to get it right could be considered by some as pedantic.
Which replies by Lyndall Ryan should be considered? The ones I’ve seen have basically consisted of her arguing that the reason the documents that she refers to in her footnotes don’t say what she said they say is that the correct documents were ‘accidentally’ left out or misplaced. When you look at the ‘new’ documents, however, you find that they don’t support what she says either. For example, in her book The Aboriginal Tasmanians, Lyndall Ryan claimed the diaries of a Reverend Knopwood as evidence for the deaths of 100 aborigines and 20 Europeans. When Windschuttle pointed out that the diaries don’t contain any mention of the deaths of 100 aborigines and 20 Europeans, Ryan responded that a footnote to another paragraph about kangaroo hunting contain references to reports by John Oxley, the explorer and these were meant to support the death toll. So, this is where the ‘missing’ footnote disappeared to, attached to the wrong paragraph in her book? Except these reports don’t contain the required death toll either. When asked by a reporter about the fact that her new reference doesn’t support her claim either and whether she had made up the figures, Ryan claimed, “Historians are always making up figures.” Should be “bad historians are always making up figures”.
T. A. Yates
[edit] Hitchens and Horowitz
User Apeloverage (talk • contribs) recently added the following lines to the article, which I've moved here for further discussion:
- ==See also==
- Both former leftists, who like Windschuttle have active right-wingers.
Some comments:
- It would help if that fragment had a verb ;-).
- As discussed above, Hitchens says he is still 'of the left', and should not be included in a list like this.
- Horowitz has certainly moved from left to right.
- "See also" is probably not the right heading. Perhaps "Other writers who have moved from left to right"?
- It might be possible to write up a good Wikipedia article on people who have moved from left to right politically.
What do other people think? CWC(talk) 14:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changed it in light of the comments above. --Apeloverage 14:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ben Kiernan citation
The Ben Kiernan citation may more properly belong on the History wars article. Note that Kiernan changed his mind on the Cambodian genocide, so using his early opinion to discredit Kiernan is poor logic. Paul foord 08:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The original Ben Kiernan citation included a reference to Kiernan's 'credentials' as head of the Yale University Genocide Project and basically was citing his 'opinion' as a 'genocide expert', i.e. Wikipedia implies that Kiernan's opinion on Windschuttle can be trusted by readers because of Kiernan's expertise and his work on genocide. If people are supposed to rely on Wikipedia as a credible encyclopaedia, there needs to be a full disclosure of the 'credentials' of such sources; either that or don't use the citation. The credibility of a source is an important issue and their past history of extreme bad judgment or wilful, ideological blindness on issues such as the crimes of the Khmer Rouge is extremely relevant to their current day credibility. The fact that Kiernan was denying Khmer Rouge crimes at a time that there were multiple accounts of Khmer Rouge atrocities coming out of Cambodia and when it was overwhelmingly obvious that they were homicidal monsters bears directly on his credibility.
It was as inappropriate to use Kiernan as a source of criticism of Keith Windschuttle's work without giving readers all the relevant information with which to judge Kiernan's credibility as it was for another user to cite the contributors to 'Whitewash' as critics of Windschuttle without revealing that those contributors included the very historians whom Windschuttle had directly accused of misrepresenting and fabricating history. T.A. Yates
-
- The above exemplifies the reasoning of a demagogic mentality. Kiernan acknowledged his misjudgements about Pol Pot over 28 years ago, and since then has consistently opposed and condemned the Khmer Rouge, even at times when Western governments were supporting Pol Pot. So the question is what weighs more? The misjudgements of a young historian, or 28 years of careful historical study that speaks for itself? The demagogues seem to be implying that the young historian had some sort of inherent character flaw that could never be atoned for. The demagogues are an extreme minority. Many of the most serious Cambodia scholars from all sides of the political spectrum, including conservatively inclined senior historians such as Milton Osborne and David Chandler, defended Kiernan's credibility when he was attacked by an ideologue who happens to have striking similarities to Windschuttle.
-
- "We have full confidence in Prof. Kiernan's integrity, professional scholarship, and ability to carry out the important work of the Cambodian Genocide Program. He is a first-rate historian and an excellent choice for the State Department grant." (Phnom Penh Post, June 30 - July 13,1995. See also The Wall Street Journal, 13 July 1995.)
-
- Kiernan presented arguments against Windschuttle related to what he believes is important material that Windschuttle ignored and misrepresentation of evidence. Instead of dealing with the arguments at hand Windschuttle's supporters attempted to change the subject. Gee now, I wonder why? - L'Ecuirreil
Hmmm, the reasoning of 'a demagogic mentality'? As opposed to someone who just accepts the pronouncements of someone like Ben Kiernan as true without considering his track record or the merits of his arguments?
The 'arguments' Kiernan presented against Windschuttle were largely a sad rehash of the ideologically driven reasoning that got the study of history in this country into such a dire state in the first place. Along with the ideology, Kiernan led in with discussion of writers who had denied atrocities we know really did occur in East Timor and then moved on to Windschuttle. Robert Manne did something similar by referring to David Irving (the Holocaust denier) and Helen Darville (literary hoaxer) in his commentary on Windschuttle. It's a kind of guilt by association; mention someone in the same context as those we know produced false or fraudulent work and some people will find it easier to believe that your target is in the same category. The rest of Kiernan's commentary on Windschuttle amounted to simply restating claims made by Reynolds, Rowley and others (including himself) without offering any kind of detailed examination as to whether the evidence for those claims stands up under close scrutiny. It's a statement of faith, Kiernan chooses to believe what Reynolds and others have claimed; evidence is irrelevant to faith.
Kiernan also used what has been a standard tactic against Windschuttle; misrepresent what Windschuttle has written and then criticise him on the misrepresented material. For example, Kiernan suggested that Windschuttle's 'honesty' can be judged from the 'fact' that Windschuttle had claimed that Kiernan had 'noted' hundreds of massacres that took place in the 20th century when Kiernan had really 'noted' hundreds of massacres from the 19th century. If you actually read the article by Windschuttle that Kiernan is referring to (entitled "The fabrication of Aboriginal history" in The New Criterion Vol. 20, No. 1, September 2001), you find that Windschuttle wrote "Kiernan wrote of British colonists in the nineteenth century mounting “punitive expeditions” and committing “hundreds of massacres.” " and later Windschuttle refers to Kiernan's writings on one (1) alleged 20th century massacre. Whose honesty should be suspect here?
The black armband historians have convinced themselves and the gullible that exaggerated tales of genocide, massacre and general bad behaviour on the part of white settlers are necessary or desirable in order to somehow provide ‘support’ for claims for aboriginal land rights and for reparations for past wrongs. Windschuttle’s work is perceived to ‘undercut’ the work of the black armband historians, therefore he must be wrong. Does any rational person actually believe that aboriginal land rights are dependent upon genocide and hundreds of massacres having occurred?
That Kiernan finally acknowledged his misjudgements about Pol Pot was commendable. It would be great if acknowledging that he made a mistake about Pol Pot guaranteed that Kiernan had been cured of the bad judgment or ideological blindness that caused it but I don’t think that we can just assume that it did. In the past, I’ve had to acknowledge a personal tendancy to sarcasm but acknowledging it hasn’t cured me of the habit.
Continuing to support the Khmer Rouge for years after evidence of atrocities began to emerge was no minor mistake or youthful indiscretion. It is the sort of track record that will, and should, be remembered because it raises serious questions about Kiernan’s judgment and credibility. If this level of either misjudgement or ideological blindness is, or may be, a lifelong character trait then how can anyone rely on his assessment of Windschuttle’s work? L’Ecuirreil writes of “28 years of careful historical study that speaks for itself”. Does everything that Kiernan has done over the past 28 years stand up to scrutiny? Who knows, for sure, aside from L’Ecuirreil, of course? I’ve certainly not made an intensive study of Kiernan’s work and am not inclined to do so, given what I’ve seen of it so far. We should bear in mind the fact that, although not as well known as Reynolds, Ryan and some others, Kiernan is one of the historians who have published work claiming that the aborigines were subject to genocide. (Ben Kiernan, “Australia’s Aboriginal Genocide.” Yale Journal of Human Rights 1, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 49-56.) That puts him squarely in the ranks of black armband historians whose work is under suspicion as a result of Windschuttle’s revelations of widespread misrepresentation, exaggeration and fabrication of the evidence in this field. Is Kiernan’s assessment of Windschuttle’s work based on an objective assessment of the evidence, on protecting his own professional reputation or on his ideological and social preferences? How can we know if someone is a reliable source if we don’t look at his or her history? Once you know something of Kiernan's history, of his early denial of Khmer Rouge genocide, followed by an extremely late acknowledgement of it and of his much more recent claims of aboriginal genocide in Australia, it becomes pretty obvious that he is not a source that you can place a great deal of reliance on if you want an unbiased assessment of Windschuttle's work.
This is perhaps the main reason why it is inappropriate to include mere opinion from rivals, critics or from supporters in an encyclopaedia article. An encyclopaedia article is generally not the appropriate place for such opinions because it simply raises the question of the credentials and credibility of the source. The fact that L’Ecuirreil can cite some other historians who say that Kiernan is OK by them merely brings up the question of those historians’ judgment and whether their opinion, which may be based on familiarity with a very limited range of Kiernan’s work, is relevant to Kiernan’s assessment of Windschuttle’s work. It may well be that Kiernan is dead on target with his more recent work on genocide in Cambodia but still wearing ideological blinkers with respect to aboriginal history. It becomes a debate and an encyclopaedia article isn’t a debate. It should be as neutral in an area of controversy as possible. So I fully support the removal of the Kiernan citation from the article.
Kiernan’s attack on Windschuttle, excerpts from which were included in the citation, clearly indicates that Kiernan’s criticism is based on the effect that Windschuttle’s work may have on Aboriginal land rights claims and how ‘denial’ of genocide “undercuts Aboriginal claims based on justice”. For a historian, this shouldn’t be a professional concern. The current day consequences of the historical evidence aren’t within the historian’s purview. Once you start thinking that a historian is responsible for how the evidence and arguments that he presents may affect current day land rights or reparations claims, you open the door to acceptance of the practice of misrepresenting and fabricating the evidence to support such claims, i.e. to get the ‘right’ result. History becomes meaningless except as a tool to manipulate public opinion.
If the evidence indicates that genocide or some alleged massacres didn’t happen, then that is what the historical record should reflect. Historians shouldn’t consider the effect of their work on any claim for reparations or apology. How society deals with the consequences of history isn’t up to the historian. If an objective examination of the history of Aboriginal cultural attitudes to land and their ‘ownership’ and use of it, were to make it difficult in the 21st century for a tribal group to establish a land rights claim (perhaps because they may not be able to establish that they ever ‘owned’ that land in terms of exclusive, or reasonably exclusive, possession and use of it, i.e. because other tribes shared or used it), that is not the historian’s responsibility. It is not the role of historians to make land rights claims easy and if the effect of the historical evidence makes them more difficult, then that’s just how it is.
T.A. Yates
