Now I seem to recall that I've got a bunch of literature of myth verses fact in Australian history somewhere around here in some books left over from My History units at uni (a long time ago)...I will look them up.

I seem to recall amongst them was one of the "Simpson and his Donkey" - not that it was completely a myth, but that both Simpson and his exploits were embroidered for the benefit of the Aussie collective psyche.

David is right, that historians should always try to go to primary sources - and there's a lot of checking and cross-referencing involved to validate claims. Most "honourable" historians wouldn't dream of promoting something merely on the hearsay from "one" source, but seek corroboration from various sources and outcomes....and yes, there is always some prejudice (to a greater or lesser extent) inherent in any account or explanation - part of the human condition, I'm afraid.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

To study the past properly, it is
usually best to go back to what we call "primary
sources," that is, the original documents from
which historians gather together pieces of
information which they use to compile a theory
about the past.

Of course, the historian can establish that an act
took place on a certain day, but this, by historical
standards, constitutes only chronology. The moment
the historians begins to look critically at motivation,
circumstances, context, or any other such considerations,
the product becomes unacceptable for one of another
camp of readers.

We need to study not only what is in history books but
also what has been at times left out. If you find a
text book that is supposed to report the history of
Australia, and starts with the European exploration of
the Pacific Ocean, you will notice that a significant
group, the original Australians, the Aborigines, are
overlooked. Naturally, no history book can cover
everything that happened in the past, so the best thing
to do is to pick out what is worth learning and try to find source
material that gives the information required.

It is now possible to explore the past by means of a large
number of books, articles, films, novels, songs and
paintings. We can know a great deal about the history of
the Indigenous-Settler-relations.

But knowing brings burdens which can be shirked by those
living in ignorance. With knowledge the question is not
longer what we know but what we are to do, and that is
a much harder matter to deal with.

It will continue to perplex us for many years to come.

State and National libraries and their collections are a good
place to start investigating this subject. Amazing what
one can learn when one starts looking into archival
material.

David,

The point about letters and journals is that they are not 'revised' long after the event, not tidied jup - they are written and that's it, the writer moves on.

I've typed up the 600-page of the missionary, George Taplin, at Pt McLeay 1859-1879, and the same phenomenon can be observed - he writes, sometimes with obvious frustration, sometimes jubilant, and he can't take it back, whatever he writes,he' just too busy. No revision. What is written stands.

Similarly with the thousand pages or so of Superintendent's letters from the same place. Similarly, school rolls and birth and death records - no revision, no changes. There it is, and there it stands.

I was doing some work on letters IN to the Protector, which of course roughly correspond, in his responses, to his letters out. One letter in 1876 from a missionary in the extreme Far North complained about a new pastoral lessee who announced his intention of driving Aboriginal people off 'his' run. Immediately the Protector writes to that bloke, Mr J. Lewis, reminding him that he may be in breach of his lease conditions, which specify that Aboriginal people have the complete freedom to use the land as they had always done, to gather food and water on it, hunt on it, camp on it, carry out ceremonies on it, 'as if the lease had not been made'. That seemed to be the end of the matter.

Those lease conditions, by the way, were still in pastoral leases well into the 1990s in SA, and perhaps in other states as well: a recognition of use-rights, not ownership, to be sure, but full rights to use the land as they always had done - as also suggested in George IV's Letters Patent, 'to occupy and enjoy' the fruits of the land.

I'm not a historian, but I love the surprises that these original - unrevisable - documents throw up.

Joe

[continued]

By the way, pastoral lessees were often happy to act as issuers of Aborigines Stores, one bloke for forty years. They didn't get paid for it, but it ensured a ready supply of labor around the ration depot, sine rations were for the 'sick, elderly and infirm', and occasionally young mothers, while the able-bodied were expected to hunt and gather, or work on stations. In bad seasons, of course, even the able-bodied were provided with rations.

One little story: in the 1860s, people from around Lake Hope near the Cooper's Creek used to travel down to the Flinders for ochre, raiding shepherds' huts on their way back and forth. The Protector's solution: send two tons of ochre up to the Lake Hope people every year.

Hi Lexi,

In SA's State Archives, are some forty metres of primary documents. I've looked at about six inches of them. The Public Library also holds perhaps as much, as does the SA Museum, maybe much more. So there really is no excuse not to delve into them, if someone wants to hold themselves out as some sort of expert or teacher.

It's all there: do those 'experts' and teachers have the courage to check some of it out, or would they prefer to stick with their prejudices ?

Cheers,

Joe

Well you've certainly convinced me david f, that we should cut funding to all university history departments by at least 50%

Dear Hasbeen,

I am sure I convinced you of nothing but merely prompted you to restate a previous prejudice.

Dear Loudmouth,

If you can get an original unedited document that’s great. However, as we go back further back in the past that becomes more difficult. An example of that is the writings of Josephus who chronicled events in ancient Israel. Since there was no evidence of the existence of Jesus outside of the Bible Christian scribes supposedly added such evidence to the writings of Josephus as they copied them. Then other Christians would cite Josephus as evidence for the existence of Jesus.