Dear Steven,

May I suggest that you re-read the Henderson article.
You seem to be missing the points that are being made.
You also omitted to add in the quote you gave
about, "an essential weakness in the author's approach."

Dear John Dawson,

One moment you compliment me on being well read,
and knowing the subject under discussion
and the next you infer that that I'm nothing of
the sort. That I'm gullible and easily taken in.

I could imply that I have a professional disdain
for inacurracies and self-serving manipulations
and I therefore disregard falsehoods, fictions,
fables, furphies, fantasies, fallacies and
fabrications and have no
intention of focusing my attention on what you and
your colleague and publisher Keith Windshuttle
decide I should.

But I'll leave that sort of language up to you Sir.

I answered your questions to me, openly and honestly.
You took me in Mr Dawson, however, it won't happen
twice.

All I will do is blow you a great big raspberry
and bid you farewell.

Well Foxy, you were telling everybody that Windschuttle is just like David Irving, so I thought you must have read what he said. So I asked you for specific examples of things he had said that he couldn’t back up - who knows, I might have missed something. But your reply told me that you have never read Windschuttle, you just mouth off slurs you pick up from the academics he embarrassed.

Dear John Dawson,

You're making wrong assumptions about
me Sir. I do my research. It's part of
my occupational training, as well as
my nature.

The conclusions I've drawn are as a result
of my findings. I don't have an axe to
grind or a particular political agenda.

And I don't mouth slurs. I don't need to.

As I stated to you in my earlier post -
do your own research on the topic, and it
just may broaden your outlook on the subject.

Have you actually read, "Why weren't We Told?"
by Henry Reynolds or even the autobiography of
Margaret Tucker, "If Everyone Cared.?"
There's so much evidence and resource material
in our State, National, University, and Local
Libraries. If you find academics not to your
liking - try other resources - including oral
histories.

The historian can establish that an act took place
on a certain day, but this, by historical standards
constitutes only chronology or "factology."
A historian has to look critically at motivation,
circumstances, context, or any other consideration.
And above all, a reputable historian should
not try to deny events that actually took place
or produce findings consistent only
with their political views.

Foxy
"I do my research. It's part of my occupational training, as well as my nature."

Prove it! Name specific faults in Windshuttle's work. Exactly what did he claim and exactly why is he wrong? Name members of the stolen generation. The examples that you have used so far provide little evidence that you know this subject as intimately as you claim to.

Good Afternoon benk,

Been there, done that.
Please read the eight examples I've cited
earlier. I was asked for three - I gave
eight. I have no intention of giving any
more - if you're not satisfied - you're
welcome to do your own research.

This discussion isn't about my opinion, (at
least it shouldn't be).

What does matter is setting the record straight.
And, for that you don't have to take
anybody's opinion. Simply do your own researh
on the subject.

There's so much material available now - you can
explore the past by a large number of books,
articles, reports, films, novels, even songs and
paintings. As Henry Reynolds tells us in his book,
"Why Weren't We told?" and I quote:

"Many voices have filled out the space once claimed
by Stanner's Great Australian Silence. We can know
a great deal about the history of indigenous-settler
relations. But knowing brings burdens which can be
shirked by those living in ignorance.
With knowledge the question is no longer what we know
but what we are now to do, and that is a much harder
matter to deal with. It will continue to perplex us
for many years to come..."

Anyway, I'm now leaving this thread and I shan't be
responding to any more posts. As far as I'm concerned
this discussion has run its course and I've got nothing
more to say on the subject. I'm currently reading
Thomas L. Friedman's book, "Hot, Flat, and Crowded,"
on the 'Energy-Climate,' question. An interesting
read - if you want a good book on the subject.

See you on another thread.

What benk might have been looking for Foxy is something like this:

On page 175 of The Aboriginal Tasmanians, Lyndal Ryan states that: “Even if only half the stories Robinson heard were true, then it is possible to account for seven hundred shot.” On page 352 of The Fabrication of Aboriginal History V1, Windschuttle states that Robinson’s diaries record not 700 x 2 but 188 shootings, many of which had been disproved. To this day neither Ryan nor any other academic has published any defense, acknowledgement, or correction of her 750% inflation of the record.

On page 128-9 of Whitewash, Henry Reynolds claims that during the early years of the colonization of Tasmania there were “literally dozens, if not hundreds, of references to the murderous attacks by the ‘borderers’ as they were called” against the Aborigines, but “space forbids any more than a brief reference to the extensive literature”. He then presented a 40 word quote and a 98 word discussion of a report, neither of which reported any specific killings. To this day he has not published examples or a summary of the hundreds of references he claims to have.

From your research, what specific deficiencies such as these can you quote from Windschuttle’s writings that were so egregious that they convinced you he was a David Irving? Or are you just regurgitating insults that were dished up to you by Windschuttle’s antagonists?