Dr. Martin Rundkvist is a Swedish archaeologist, journal editor, public speaker, chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society, atheist, lefty liberal, bookworm, and father of two.
A week ago, Australian historian Keith Windschuttle gave a talk in Sydney under the heading "Postmodernism and the Fabrication of Aboriginal History". The full text is on-line, highly recommended.
"The argument that all history is politicised, that it is impossible for the historian to shed his political interests and prejudices, has become the most corrupting influence of all. It has turned the traditional role of the historian, to stand outside his contemporary society in order to seek the truth about the past, on its head. It has allowed historians to write from an overtly partisan position. It has led them to make things up and to justify this to themselves on the grounds that it is all for a good cause. No cause is ever served by falsehood because eventually someone will come along and expose you. Truth always comes out in the end, and when it does it discredits those causes that were built on lies.An Australian correspondent of mine generously sent me Windschuttle's 2002 book about the fate of the Tasmanian aborigines in the early 19th century, and it's excellent stuff. Level-headed, clearly written, unromantic, painstaking with its sources, humanistic in its values and absolutely devastating to prevailing views. European archaeology needs a Windschuttle of its own.[...] The role of the historian is to stand above politics, difficult though this always will be. Historians should assume a public responsibility to report their evidence fully and accurately, to footnote their sources honestly, and to adopt as objective a stand as possible. To pretend that acceptable interpretations can be drawn from false or non-existent evidence, whose only justification is that it is all in a good cause, is to abandon the pursuit of historical truth altogether."
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
yet Windschuttle has a clear political agenda...
Posted by: Lincoln | June 7, 2007 06:09 PM
European archaeology needs a Windschuttle of its own.
Oh please, by all means take ours. Australia won't miss him, we have pompous braying ideologues to spare.
Posted by: Amanda | June 7, 2007 08:09 PM
I'd have to agree with Lincoln on this one.
It is common that people that accuse others of politicising history, science etc have a political agenda of their own.
Windschuttle's version of history is as extreme as some of those that he opposes. Both sides bring their own biasses into their interpretations.
Posted by: Chris Noble | June 7, 2007 09:47 PM
Yeah, Windschuttle is quite explicit about his conservative political views. I don't share them, but I do share his view of what constitutes good historical scholarship. If a historian is open with their sources, as Windschuttle is, and presents their arguments clearly, as Windschuttle does, then the reader can evaluate each claim regardless of the historian's political bias.
One interpretation is not as good as another. If it were, then all historians and archaeologists should in my opinion be sacked. Scholarship is about seeking the truth. Activities that don't share that aim aren't scholarship.
Posted by: Martin R | June 8, 2007 02:26 AM
Great, except his historical scholarship is patchy to say the best as well. This debate has been going on for years in Australia, I kinda get physically weary at the mere thought of revisiting it all, but there are acres out there dealing with the deficiencies of his scholarship.
His most valuable contribution will end up being people being more paranoid about proofreading footnotes.
Posted by: Mungo Amanda | June 8, 2007 02:41 AM
Heh, ignore the "Mungo" bit. I use that title occasionally (its a sports thing) and it comes up as my saved name in comments sometimes. Mostly I catch it and change it. Bad proofreading from me on this occasion.
Posted by: Amanda | June 8, 2007 02:43 AM
I suggest you read John Quiggin's review of Windschuttle:
Posted by: Tim Lambert | June 8, 2007 02:50 AM
I'm quite ignorant about Australian history, except for an anecdote about the Bishop of Sydney denouncing rectal gonorrhoea. But I find Windschuttle's book enlightening. The authors he criticises haven't just been sloppy with footnotes. They have made important stuff up out of thin air. These are people whose political views I agree with, but I find their professional conduct disgraceful.
Posted by: Martin R | June 8, 2007 02:51 AM
Tim, I'm reading the book right now, and that is not a fair criticism of it. Windschuttle is far from relativist, and there is no trace of racism in his writing.
I'm on the other side of the planet, I've never been to Australia, and I'm a leftie. So I hope you guys will accept that my appreciation of Windschuttle's book (yes, we're talking about the book, not the man in general) is not politically motivated.
I admire Alan Sokal greatly. Like him, I'm a leftie who has put a lot of effort into criticising poor scholarship and hyper-relativism among my political fellows. That's what Windschuttle's book does for me.
Posted by: Martin R | June 8, 2007 02:58 AM
Someone unfamiliar might not realise the intense heat (sometimes light) this whole thing and Windy in particular generates down here. It's like innocently saying "Yeah, I've been reading a book by some guy called Michael Moore. Kinda cool! Anyone heard of him?"
So expect to receive a quick education in the Culture Wars, Aussie Style. ;-)
Posted by: Amanda | June 8, 2007 03:10 AM
Michael Moore, yeah, I'm a fan!
But you mean the Science Wars, right? I'm kind of a traumatised veteran of them myself.
Posted by: Martin R | June 8, 2007 03:17 AM
It's called the History Wars. Surely Windschuttle's bias is obvious? How can he possible claim to be standing above politics?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | June 8, 2007 04:23 AM
He isn't claiming to stand above politics generally: he states his political position explicitly. What he does claim, and here I agree with him, is that it is possible for a historian to produce objective testable work. Indeed, this is the only acceptable way to do research in any discipline unless you want to be called a propagandist or a fraud.
I see the sciences and humanities as instances of the same thing, what the Germans call Wissenschaft. We can probably agree that it is possible to do good work in astronomy without letting your political opinions bias the results. Historical research is no different in principle, though political objectivity takes harder work here.
I believe, quite non-ironically, that a historian's duty is simply to find out about the past as it was. And I believe that this is possible. If it were not, then historians should not be paid.
Posted by: Martin R | June 8, 2007 04:35 AM
Ok, here's Windschuttle:
Do you think that is objective?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | June 8, 2007 04:45 AM
I haven't the knowledge to tell if it's true, but it's certainly testable. Which part do you find subjective?
Posted by: Martin R | June 8, 2007 04:49 AM
It's difficult for history to be testable in the same way as science is. Histories are constructed, whether you like it or not. Now I'm not suggesting that people throw out objectivity altogether, but I do think there is value in recognising that history is not the same as science. History is never going to be testable in the same was as science until somebody invents a time machine.
Posted by: Lincoln | June 8, 2007 05:07 AM
Oh, come on, don't give me "histories are constructed"! They are constructed in the same manner as woodpeckers and atoms are constructed.
Historical sources have the same kind of relationship to the reality behind them as scientific data has to that reality. Scientific data are never easy to interpret and there are often undetected biases in them.
What I'm saying is not that scientific data are really good and historical sources are almost as good. I'm saying that historical sources are pretty bad and scientific data aren't much better. But they're the best we can get. Much better than making it all up.
Posted by: Martin R | June 8, 2007 05:12 AM
Windschuttle only counts deaths that meet his standards for documentation. It should be obvious that not all deaths will be recorded this way. Windschuttle puts the original population at 2,000 - that means that, even using his figures, 5% of the population were killed, a larger percentage than in Bosnia last decade. Surely something serious was going on there?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | June 8, 2007 05:14 AM
Regarding aboriginal deaths, it seems Windschuttle places the burden of proof upon those who cry genocide. Bosnia surely can't be a comparable case -- the absolute number is more interesting than the relative one. We loathe the Nazis because they killed a large number of Jews etc., not because of a large percentage of the total.
If I understand correctly, the Tasmanian aborigines were largely wiped out by unfamiliar respiratory diseases (they even died of the common cold, poor bastards!), at the same time as their nativity figures became severely lowered by unfamiliar STDs. I don't think anyone in their right mind disputes that the arrival of the Europeans was the cause of the aboriginals' demise. But I find Windschuttle's case for this having been unintentional very strong. The colonial administration and many private citizens were working hard to preserve those people. And they failed.
Am I the only one around here who's even read the book? I recommend it, it's a good read and certainly not some nasty fascist tract.
Posted by: Martin R | June 8, 2007 05:29 AM
And even if you don't buy "post-modernism" or whatever you want to call it, you just need to look to cognitive science to realise how wrong that statement is.
Posted by: Lincoln | June 8, 2007 06:04 AM
Despite its infamous reputation, Van Diemen’s Land was host to nothing that resembled genocide, or any intention to exterminate the Aborigines.
There's your bias right there - the assumption that it only counts as genocide if it's explicitly intentional. OK, the British didn't deliberately set out to exterminate the Aboriginies, they just took a series of actions which would inevitably lead to that outcome with absolutely no regard to whether they lived or died.
Under Scots law, taking an action which a reasonable person would expect to lead to another's death, with no regard for the outcome, is regarded as murder. You don't need to demonstrate a specific intent.
[T]he absolute number is more interesting than the relative one.
So if there are only a hundred members of a species or culture and you kill 99 of them, it's no big deal - whereas if there are a hundred million, and you kill one million, it is? I can't say I agree.
Posted by: Dunc | June 8, 2007 06:27 AM
How to be a successful conservative revisionist in six easy steps:
1. pick your *stupidest* opponents
-- attack their worst arguments
-- repeat x 10
2. pick your most *noxious* supporters
-- criticize mildly, but self-righteously
-- repeat, but no more than once or twice
3. proclaim yourself an objective seeker after Truth, because you oppose the 'nutjobs on both sides'
-- Come up with a catchy slogan for this position
---- like 'fair and balanced'
4. Equate *all* your opponents to the people attacked in step one
-- Hence imply (for example) that *anyone* who thinks the Australian settlers wiped out entire native populations must believe the past didn't really happen and that it's all subjective anyway.
-- nevertheless freely ignore actual, honset-to-goodness evidence when it goes against you
---- because it's biased
---- or because it's a matter of faith
---- or because it's a controversy and you should teach both sides
5. Sell books to thirsting creationists, global warming skeptics, or tory seekers after Glorious Nationalist Histories,
6. Profit!!
Posted by: D | June 8, 2007 06:30 AM
Dunc, it seems the main decision on the part of the British that led to the demise of the Tasmanian aborigines was "let's colonise Tasmania". In most other cases, such decisions had not led to the extinction of the indigenous people. Let's save "genocide" for the guys who herd people into football arenas and shoot them, OK?
If I accidentally sneezed on the last remaining Frenchman and killed him with flu, then I would have committed genocide with your reasoning. 100 percent!
Posted by: Martin R | June 8, 2007 06:53 AM
And of course intentions are important when we assess possible cases of genocide. Why do you think everyone's heard of the Wannsee conference?
Posted by: Martin R | June 8, 2007 06:57 AM
KW's stuff would be roughtly the equivalent of saying "hey, slavery in the US wasn't so bad. At least they got fed!" Maybe it's true, but it misses the point.
See also http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/24/1066631621572.html - only a review of some refutations, but it show's some of his cherry-picking and misrepresentations.
Until the Myall Creek Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myall_Creek_Massacre) Aborigines were routinely killed by white settlers in Australia. That particular massacre is notable largely because someone was finally punished - and the killers genuinely believed what they did was legal. So did a lot of people at the time.
As recently as the 1928 Coniston massacre: A WW1 veteran shot 32 Aborigines at Coniston in the Northern Territory after a white dingo trapper and station owner were attacked by Aborigines. A survivor of the massacre, Billy Stockman Tjapaltjarri, later became part of the first generation of Papunya painting men. Billy Stockman was saved by his mother who put him in a coolamon [see 'The Tjulkurra': Billy Stockman Tjapaltjarri, ISBN 1-876622-37-7] A court of inquiry said the European action was ‘justified'. (From wikipedia)
KW's attampted dehumanisation of Aboriginal Australians is bloody reulsive.
Posted by: SmellyTerror | June 8, 2007 08:02 AM
Myall Creek is in New South Wales on the Australian mainland. The book I'm reading treats only Tasmania. It doesn't attempt to dehumanise anyone and is not, in my opinion, repulsive at all.
Posted by: Martin R | June 8, 2007 08:47 AM
I agree that some form of intentionality is important in defining genocide. However, even the legal definition is much more broad than "shooting people at football stadiums":
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Posted by: windy | June 8, 2007 08:58 AM