Bozzie I think you are being too precious about the definition of 'genocide'. Words can change to accomodate changes in attitude.

The use of the word 'genocide' to include the wiping out of a 'race' of people, either by passive acceptance or deliberate policy or a combination of both is not something that one would object to unless one has an emotional (read irrational) need to deny that white people killed Indigenous people as if they were animals and were quite prepared to see them killed or die out.

I did not learn my attitude from the list of people who somebody provided - this list only emphasises the limitation of this person's knowledge of the real history of Australia.

My information came from my father who worked in the outback way back in the 30's and spoke to people who actually were involved in hunting parties who went out to shoot Indigenous people indiscriminately and there were no penalities. Police were involved in the hunting.

Also you might like to talk to Ted Egan who also has considerable personal knowledge of the behaviour and attitudes of many settlers.

One only has to talk to people in the outback now to see that the attitude is still very anti Indigneous and many of them will still tell you that they should be wiped out. Surely they haven't adopted this attitude recently.

All the knowledge I have about human nature, about the dynamics of settlement, about the racial beliefs of the time leads to the undeniable conclusion that 'it' happened.

What do you want to call it if not 'genocide'? This is just quibbling over semantics.

Bozzie, don't worry about Mollydukes. He/she likes feeling sorry for aboriginal people so the worse previous treatment of them appears, the more deeply apologetic Molly can be.

t.u.s.

This discussion is becoming ever less fruitful. The predictable polarity has emerged. Plainly, no learning processes will take place on these terms, so consider the following:

1) Who of you have read the UN Convention on Genocide and the writings of the man who invented the term, Raphael Lemkin? If you have not, you have not equipped yourself to participate in a discussion on the topic in an informed way.

2) Despite what Dawson, Windschuttle and their ilk think, hardly any historians advance a case for genocide in Tasmania. Reynolds does not, nor do I. Lyndall Ryan's book (how many of you know its name?) was written to show the survival of Indigenous peoples, not a conscious policy of genocide. There is no consensus among historians.

3) No historian in this country is arguing that a Holocaust took place in Australia.

4) The purposes of Robert Manne's edited book, WHITEWASH, is not to make a case for genocide. The claim of Dawson that it fails to do so and that therefore Windschuttle is vindicated is fatuous and yet another example of the diversionary tactics of the history warriors.

5) No-one has equated Windschuttle with David Irving. I have examined the issue of denialism more broadly in my chapter in WHITEWASH. Make up your own mind on it rather than rely on Dawson's contorted rendering of the argument.

6) There has been sufficient ill- or semi-informed speculation and emoting in these 'comments'. If they are to advance discussion rather than score points (which is boring and a waste of time), people need to spend some time reading what is out there before sallying forth on the net.

7) A structural feature of these 'comments' is that everyone wants to get in the last word and claim victory. Rather than succumb to this vain temptation, and because diminishing returns is now evident in the puerile attacks on 'Mollydukes', this is my last posting.

Enjoy reading some scholarship on these important topics -- if you dare. The intellectual labour involved is harder than dashing off a smarty-pants 'comment' about which one can boast.

Yes people, Dirk has obviously read far more widely than the rest of us so we are unable to comment on his article.

Kinda of self defeating really, because if he wanted to keep the debate in academic circles he could have, but instead he chose to post his extract on a public opinion website which attracts people from a wider range of occupations and backgrounds.

Not to be too pedantic, but Dirk's last post had accusations of people point scoring and trying to have the last word - when he stated he would not be posting anymore (last word) and mentioned Dawson Wndschuttle and their ilk to pointscore against people he disagrees with.

If he didn't know how some these forums evolve (or is that degnerate) he shouldn't have posted his article in the first place. But people are entitled to their opinions even if not informed at such as high level as Dirk.

I think generally the population of posters is well informed even if not all have advanced university degrees.

t.u.s

You’re exactly right, t.u.s. Very well said.

Dirk – if what you say is true; that is you and your “ilk” do not advance the idea of genocide, why is it that most people in this country believe genocide to have taken place? Why is the word constantly uttered when the subject of early treatment of Aboriginal people is debated?

There’s one point I think you miss entirely. Maybe it’s because you’re used to conversing on these points with others who spend their days reading and studying the subject. Most people have to earn a living and don’t have the same time or access to resources as you do. It’s your job to do the study and inform the rest of us, (I might add in an honest and un-politicised way). We might be the great unwashed, but we’re not all idiots. If it’s your view that genocide didn’t take place in Tasmania, then you haven’t done a good job in getting that message out. Instead of dismissing this forum maybe you could use some of the views expressed as a guide as to which areas of public perception need attention.

You and your friends politicize the issue to the extreme and then express dismay when the debate becomes polarized. Maybe when the study of history returns to the seeking of knowledge and truth, instead of the seeking of outcomes, polarization will need not occur.

Your petulant declaration of no more posts is disappointing. Thanks for posting your article, even though is must seem like feeding strawberries to pigs.

Mollydukes – knowledge of human nature, settlement dynamics and racial beliefs has absolutely nothing to do with actual events and contexts of early 19th century Australia. Contrary to the views of some historians today, history cannot be “imagined”.

Reading Dirk's posts here, it does not seem to me that he's expecting people to have a PhD in history in order to contribute to the debate. He's asking people to read a book or two.

I suppose he's saying like what else can academics do? Take out ads during the Footy Show? There is his book, of course, which no-one here appears to have read yet. And Henry Reynolds wrote one on genocide aswell in 2001 called _An Indelible Stain?_. Does anyone here know it?

Incidentally, Lemkin's writings are easily accessible online. Here is the key chapter in which he defines genocide for the first time.

http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/AxisRule1944-1.htm

Instead of trading insults, why don't we share our thoughts on Lemkin?