Bozzie,
before you go demanding explanations for or interpretations of decontextualised fragments from my book -- or indeed from any other -- you need to equip yourself with the information to participate in this debate in an informed way. This means you need to read my book. You also need to read Keith's, as well as others in the 'history wars'. You will find the answers to the questions you pose there. You don't even have to buy the books; they are in libraries.
Dirk

Dirk – Your statement quoted is a direct analogy between settler treatment of Aboriginals and the Nazi Holocaust involving the deaths of millions Jews and Gypsies. It doesn’t really matter what context it was in. If you really don’t think there is any comparison to be made then why mention the Holocaust at all?

My questions relate to the impression that you differentiate between Nazis and the German people as a whole but do not extend the same differentiation to the Australian people. The one passage from your book was enough to make that impression on me, but I agree that I would need to read more to see if my impression is fair or not.

I have read many books on this subject, Reynolds, Ryan and Windschuttle, amongst other. Most seem dedicated to the cause of using history to promote current political aims. At least Windschuttle appears to me to be trying to uncover the truth of our history and put it in the context of its time.

I do intend to read your book, that is after I recover from the shock of paying $42.95 for it!

Bozzie I do not need historians of the future to condemn me for sitting around and allowing the inhuman things that are happening in the world - and in this country. I condemn myself all the time but I am powerless to stop these things happening.

Didn't you know there were white settlers who condemned the behaviour of other white settlers - the ones who perpetrated the inhuman things that Windschuttle tries to deny happened. I guess they didn't know how to stop it happening either.

But do not be so sure that Windschuttle does this to achieve tenure or acceptance from his peers. It seems obvious to me from listening to him in interviews that he has a huge chip on his shoulder and a degree of paranoia.

His big mistake is to believe that University 'elites' are out to get him because he takes a view opposed to theirs. The truth is that his research and scholarship are poor, driven by his personal agenda and not up to the standard required by the elites.

I don't really understand this academic point scoring. All I know is that an aboriginal being hunted down in 19th century Tasmania probably felt the same about it as a gypsy or a jew on the cattle trucks in 20th century Poland. Persecution of other human beings because of their race or perceived difference is always wrong. Whether one type of persecution was more wrong than another type...well, I guess non-experts like me will always remain bewildered and confused about the energy expended on such arguments.

Ringtail – That is one of the points I am making. It would be unfair for future historians to judge our society without taking into account the context of that society. A future historian describing hatred of homosexuals as being “intrinsic to the deep structure” of our society would be quite wrong. Yet that is what your “elites” are guilty of. I know that there were plenty of whites who were appalled by some of the treatments dished out to Aboriginals. It’s a pity the revisionists give this point scant attention.

Your statement about Windschuttle’s standard of scholarship and research is just plain wrong. If you want to see some good examples of shoddy research, twisting of facts and outright fabrications just read some of the stuff by Henry “All Historians are Fallible and Make Mistakes” Reynolds and Lyndall “Historians are Always Making up Figures” Ryan.

Enjay – The point isn’t whether or not persecution is wrong. That question has been answered long ago.

Jews might have been exterminated simply because of their race, but Aboriginals were not (they were not exterminated, nor were they killed just because they were Aboriginals).

You might not think that the factual reading of history is important, indeed many of our prominent historians believe that history is better “imagined” than uncovered, but since we’re always demanding truth and honesty from our politicians, our police, and our business leaders, it shouldn’t be too much to ask it from our historians as well.

I'm not sure about the points being made - do some people think that the 'Blackarmband' view presents the attempt to wipe out the Blackfellas as worse than other genocide attempts?

It seems to me that Windschuttle is trying to minimise what happened and say that it was not really a bad thing.

But surely there is no denying that some settlers wanted to wipe them out - debating the numbers is like trying to argue about how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.

What does it matter if some people - the blackarmbanders err on the side of exaggeration? How does that hurt the 'winners'? But denial that it was a serious event for the Indigenous really does hurt them.

Why does Windschuttle want to do this?