As a non-historian, I think that this contrived squabble, between a couple of fringe dwelling 'genocide-deniers' and virtually the entire establishment of academic history in Australia, smacks of the kind of totalitarian revisionism alluded to by Orwell when he wrote "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." This is the kind of petty academic squabble that ought to have remained on the pages of obscure journals or confined within ivory tower seminar rooms, rather than being splashed all over mainstream media in an obvious attempt by the neo-conservative mainstream media to conscript the latent racism of their readership to the anti-Aboriginal cause.

If this had been the case, Windschuttle et al might have contributed something constructive to our understanding of Australia's shameful history with respect to Aborigines. In my view, the term 'genocide' has been over-used in its application to the dispossession of Australia's Indigenous peoples, but to my mind these 'deniers' damage their credibility irreparably when they attempt to assert, as Dawson does above, that only 120 Aborigines were killed by whites in Tasmania, on the basis that this is the number that is definitely supported by official records of the time - as if official records record the totality of social relations in the past.

One really has to wonder at the motivations of those who seek to sweep our appalling history of Indigenous dispossession under the carpet via such instruments of waspish pedanticism. Given the increasingly obvious agenda of the neo-cons to revert to a general policy of assimilation with respect to our Indigenous people, I suspect that the embrace by the right wing think tanks, media and Coalition of odious sycophants [deleted for flaming] represents more than a touch of the Orwellian project with which I began this post.

Readers can now see what Moses calls the “invective” of “an attack” by us “history warriors”, and compare it with his “academic” approach.

Notice today is Moses’s “denialist syndrome” day when he calls my denial that anything like genocide occurred in Tasmania a “dogmatically held” belief that “ignores the evidence that is not congenial”. What evidence? On what page of "Whitewash" (the official answer to Fabrication) is the evidence of genocide? Or, if its his “we deny genocide too” day (like 11/4), on what page is the evidence of more killings than Windschuttle says? (Whitewash actually notes 3 killings missed in "Fabrication").

Moses says that Ryan did not imply “that Robinson's diaries recorded 1400 Aborigines shot” as I attributed above. On page 175 of the revised edition of “The Aboriginal Tasmanians”, she says: “Even if only half the stories Robinson heard were true, then it is possible to account for seven hundred shot.” When I went to school 700 was half 1400. But then academics may work to a higher math.

Moses doesn’t like my “hiss” for "proof?!" Actually, I asked for evidence. When I went to school, we didn’t accuse people of despicable crimes without it. But then today’s academics clearly work to a different standard. I am “precritically committed to Windschuttle” as long as he provides evidence. When Moses provides contrary evidence I will be committed to his view. But his habitual ad hominem is evidence of nothing but his disgraceful methodology.

It is true that Windschuttle’s publisher published my book – it cost taxpayers nothing. Do you think any publicly assisted publisher, like Black Inc. or a University Press would have published it? They look after their own - publicly funded academics. But then I apparently have “powerful friends in the media and government”. I only wish Moses who knows all about them would tell me who they are!

Moses says I don’t “rise to the challenge” by reading his book. I didn’t ignore his essay in "Whitewash" when I “rose to the challenge” and wrote "Washout" in response. I challenge him to respond to it.

http://www.wakefieldpress.com.au/books/washout.htm

Garra says that I damage my credibility irreparably by asserting that “only 120 Aborigines were killed by whites in Tasmania ... as if official records record the totality of social relations in the past.”

“Fabrication” lists all the killings of Aborigines by whites over 30 years of colonisation that were recorded by: official records, letters, newspapers, diaries, journals, or any other means. These are rated as plausible, or implausible if negated by more compelling evidence. For instance many of the shootings recorded in Robinson’s diaries are known to be mistaken – as Ryan implies, barely half were credible (half of 188, not half of 1400).

The whole weight of academia tries to discredit Windschuttle's total of 120 killings. One “Whitewash” contributor argues that 120 is an “extraordinarily high” figure. Another argues that Windschuttle observes the objective truth but that that’s not what historians should do. Another says Windschuttle contradicts 170 years of scholarship but is not saying anything new. Others say he ignores mountains of source data, but don’t tell us what it is. Others present more furphies as “evidence”. Others say they have evidence of many more killings but don’t present it. Most lace their arguments with misrepresentation, insult, ad hominem and race-card rhetoric.

A lot is made of the possibility of “unrecorded killings”. But everyone agrees that colonial Tasmania was particularly well documented, and many of those who recorded violence (like Robinson) had a vested interest in inflating the number of Aborigines killed rather than reducing it. Apart from two years of martial law, killing Aborigines was a capital offence. And everyone agrees that the Aborigines bested the British in bush combat.

Could there have been more than 120 killed? Of course, but to arbitrarily assert that there were hundreds killed when there is no evidence, is a fallacious approach – you have to put forward some reason to at least suspect killings. All such arguments are dealt with in “Fabrication”. And the academics to date have not dented it –they just keep slinging mud.

http://www.wakefieldpress.com.au/books/washout.html

Mollydukes, genocide is the only thing I deny. To apply that term to the Tasmanian Aboriginals is absolutely incorrect.

Dirk – you should stand in front of a mirror, read your post aloud, and apply some of it to yourself. It’s almost beyond belief that you claim victim status in the debate, considering what Windschuttle has been through. And what do you mean Ryan didn’t say that historians make up figures all the time? That’s exactly what she said. I hope your book is more accurate than your post.

A good example of the way history is manipulated for political ends is the Risdon Cove incident in Tasmania in 1804. The actual eyewitness reports of the event say that several hundred Aboriginals charged into a settlers camp brandishing spears and clubs. The eyewitness’s plainly state that the Aboriginals were chasing kangaroos. The settlers fired shots and the military officer present shot a small cannon to disperse the Aboriginals. As a result of this 3 Aboriginals were killed and some wounded. 3 in the settler camp were attacked. Now that is the eyewitness reports of the incident.

15 years later the same incident is being retold with the Aboriginals entering the camp singing and holding branches as a sign of peace. They were met with a barrage of shots from a military detachment especially banded to kill Aboriginals. These days the number killed ranges from 40 to 100.

Why is the “new and improved” version the closest to the one heard today? What reason is there to disregard actual eyewitnesses? If the eyewitnesses wished to embellish the story, why would they say that the Aboriginals were chasing kangaroos instead of saying they attacked with murderous intent?

Of course the end result of this selective history is that Risdon Cove is now in the possession of an Aboriginal group. There’s much to be gained by the politicisation of history.

Garra – the debate is about genocide, not dispossession of land. Playing the race card is very old hat and not nearly as effective as it once was.

Most historians seem to agree that there were something like 5000 Aborigines lived in Tasmania at the beginning of the 19th century, when British colonists invaded the island. This number declined to zero over the next 70 years. Now, if the colonists were responsible for only 120 deaths, where did the other 4880 Aborigines go?

While we can assume that introduced diseases accounted for many, it would have to have been an unprecedentedly efficient pathogen to have achieved that kind of mortality. Even contemporary diseases such as ebola, SARS, etc do not kill with such efficiency. Even if the disease was caused by early 'germ warfare', this would have to have been a WMD that would have made a Saddam proud. What happened to the Tasmanian Aborigines who weren't among the 120 killed by whites or among those who succumbed to disease? Did they all conveniently leave the island by canoe, or did they leap, lemming-like, into the Southern Ocean? Windschuttle, Dawson & their supporters would have us believe that, because they can only 'prove' 120 official deaths, that is the total number of Tasmanian Aborigines who died at white hands during the brutal process of their dispossession.

What the protagonists aren't telling us here is that part of the argument lies in the definition of what constitutes 'genocide': notably whether or not genocide is confined to deliberate acts that are intended by one group of people to wipe out another sociocultural group. There is some controversy as to whether 'genocide' should be applied to the deliberate destruction of culture (as opposed to being restricted to the actual killing of people), and whether or not genocidal acts include those that, while in themselves were not murderous, represented unconscionable neglect of the victims. For the information of apologists like "Bozzie", you can't separate Aboriginal genocide from their dispossession from their land: that's why it was done, silly.

I note that Dawson has resisted my invitation to explain his motivation and that of the other 'genocide-deniers'. Please elucidate.

Dear Garra,

Genocide Denier here.
The entire paternal side of my grandfathers family were raised from their beds in the middle of the night by jackbooted National SOCIALISTS, sent by train to the ags Chambers, stripped, herder into "Showers" & gassed to death along with millions of others. This is not heresay, this is fact.
There is no debate as to the voracity of Genocide claims perpetuated on the Jews in WW2.

Please stop comparing the incomprehensible, just to score points!