Thanks. It doesn't take long with Windschuttle's work to find serious errors in his scholarship. Given his selective citations and disengenous arguments, one is forced to conclude that his mission to overturn the legacy of Henry Reynolds and other mainstream historians has been utterly hopeless.

Btw - what happened to part 2? He skipped from volume 1 to 3, perhaps think nobody would notice?

Windschuttle is an intellectual nobody who went from one retarded extreme (Marxism) to the other (neo-conservatism). He's like a home grown Christopher Hitchens without any of the colour, interest or erudition. Under his stewardship Quadrant has turned from an intellectually vibrant journal, which took contributions from both sides of politics, to gutter-dwelling reactionary echo chamber.

BBoy,

Perhaps you could cite one error in Windshuttle's 600-page work ? Just one.

As head of the SCC, James Gray reiterated his proposal at the Royal Commission in the Aborigines 1913-16, and what followed ? Legislation was never passed to agree to his request. Never. It was never legal in SA to take Aboriginal children from their parents without cause, the same sorts of causes as states require to take non-Aboriginal children into care, as part of their fiduciary obligation as 'parent of last resort'. The case of Bruce Trevorrow demonstrates this illegality - that when Marj Angus lied to his mother, that constituted grounds for action against the state and Mr Trevorrow was duly awarded damages. One case of an illegal act - then restitution.

Perhaps Dr Raynes could name one other case in Australia. Just one.

Well, Dr Raynes ?

Raynes :” … has a PhD on the moral subtext of Aboriginal oral history but prefers to make things up.”

He prefers to “make things up”. Not unusual among Leftist historians in Australia, and others who try to rubbish Keith Windschuttle.

I have read only the first volume of Windschuttle’s trilogy. It was heavy going, but the fact that he researched properly, unlike Henry Reynolds et al, and footnoted heavily to prove what he was writing, impressed me with his scholarship, unlike someone calling himself ‘BBoy’ who quickly establishes his attitude by parroting such silly expressions such as ‘neo-conservatism’ and other epithets to describe someone he doesn’t like.

As for Cameron Raynes, who likes to make things up, and who fell foul of the Left-wing SA Attorney General, Michael Atkinson, I’ve never heard of him. Anyone who can read has heard of Keith Windschuttle, and his books. How many have heard of ‘The Last Protector’?

There are any number of self- righteous trouble makers who claim that governments and officials acted illegally in their dealings with aboriginals. This is nonsense, as is the very warped idea that there ever was such a thing as a ‘stolen generation’. People who try too impose today’s attitudes and laws on the past are just plain ignorant.

I doubt that Windschuttle will ever know that he has been ‘responded to’ by Raynes.

I doubt that Raynes will have much response to this advertisement for what he calls “my work”.

What's your name, Loudmouth? You know mine. I like to know who I'm talking to. Then I'll answer your question. In the meantime, you should have a read of The Last Protector.

Raynes makes a fair point in his rejoinder. It is funny, sad, and irritating how the ad-hominem attacks almost always come from the people who conceal their real names.

The same goes for BBoy's spray. While I am singularly unimpressed by Windschuttle's capacity to interpret history – you just cannot do it unless you genuinely want to imagine yourself in the shoes of others – to blame 'his stewardship' for a slide in the standards of Quadrant is willfully overdoing it. The sacking of Robert Manne over a decade ago was the decisive moment when Quadrant became a partisan journal. (That was when its board installed Paddy Macguinness as editor.)

No problem, Dr Raynes: my name is Joe Lane, I live in Henley Beach. Do you want my email address as well ?

Just one :)