Dear Joe,

I shall try again to explain what I meant by "factology."

As I stated earlier -

The historian can
establish that an act took place on a certain day, but
this, by historical standards, constitutes only
chronology, or as Europeans call it - "factologija"
(factology). The moment the historian begins to look
critically at motivation, circumstances, context, or
any other such considerations, the product becomes
unacceptable for one or another camp of readers.

It is for that reason that a historian needs to ask the
relevant questions and look not only for answers, but
the silences as well. When historians ask questions
about the past and cannot get an answer, that too tells
something - it could mean that what was asked was not
considered worth writing about, or that that aspect of the
past is no longer relevant to us.

In any case - I really have nothing further to add to
this discussion. I look forward to our next one.

All The Best.

Dearest Foxy,

Hmmm .... I don't think you can slip out the door quite so easily :)

OF COURSE a historian tries not just to establish what may have happened, or what long-term processes may have been operating - by gathering evidence - but why, what difficulties were encountered, what opposition, what were the costs and benefits, implications and consequences.

Of course, some of a historian's conclusion may be contentious, others may disagree with her methods or the scope of her research. Of course. Many of those who are the objects of some contemporary historical study may feel wronged or slighted by the historian - who may still have been broadly correct. It depends, as someone remarked, what sort of spin you put on it.

So yes indeed, as you say:

"It is for that reason that a historian needs to ask the
relevant questions and look not only for answers, but
the silences as well. When historians ask questions
about the past and cannot get an answer, that too tells
something - it could mean that what was asked was not
considered worth writing about, or that that aspect of the
past is no longer relevant to us."

And after all, those 'silences' may well mean that there was nothing consequential or controversial about what he has been describing - it may be up to another historian to uncover those 'silences' if they existed. Again, one would need evidence that they did.

You don't get away so quietly :)

Love notwithstanding,

Joe

Dear Joe,

There you go - at last we've made the connection
and are seeing things eye-to-eye on this subject.
Glad to finally see that we can agree.

Michael Mansell has published a book in support of a multitude of Aboriginal nations and treaties, and sovereignty. He has had this thought-bubble for more than forty years now but, thanks to freedom of expression laws in Australia, has now put them down in a more systematic way: clearly, the bounds of thought-bubbles can be stretched without endangering their initial contents.

Mansell suggests that areas of Australia 'with a predominantly Aboriginal population' could form a new sovereign nation. I've been trying to estimate where the boundaries of such a nation might run: my best guess would be:

* from 150 km west of Ceduna, up and eastwards to the lower Flinders Ranges, then north-east across the Strzelecki region to the north of Broken Hill, then to the Queensland border east of Tibooburra; from there to the area west of the Atherton Tablelands and Cooktown;

* in the west, from a point say 100 km east of Esperance, up around the Goldfields and east of the Pilbara, then just east of Broome.

* All of that area - excluding major towns like Darwin, Katherine, Derby, Kununurra, Alice Springs and Mt Isa - would be transferred to an Aboriginal sovereign body, perhaps under Mansell's prime-ministership, perhaps five million square kilometres, and currently containing two hundred thousand people in a thousand small communities, in roughly equal numbers of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.

* In order to augment that small (and unskilled) population over such a large area, Aboriginal populations in eastern cities are to be transferred to the new Sovereign State: this could add several hundred thousand (skilled) people and counter any influences of non-Aboriginal people there. This transfer could be completed by train and bus within six months.

* Canberra is to increase funding, so that the influx of new people can be housed.

* Inter-married Aboriginal people would be asked to cease all association with their non-Aboriginal partners when they are moved to the Sovereign State, and to seek Aboriginal partners instead.

[TBC

[continued]

* Non-Aboriginal people within the Sovereign State will either be asked to pay a special tax, or will have any rights to participate in the new State withdrawn. In any case, they will have fewer rights than Aboriginal people, in order to prevent them from ever gaining power and threatening the very raison d'etre of the Aboriginal Sovereign State, i.e. Aboriginal power.

* Canberra will be required to fund new government buildings, including an Indigenous-only university teaching Indigenous-only courses, perhaps an independent airline and a world-wide network of ASS embassies.

In this way, Australians - i.e. the people living on the rest of the continent - and Aboriginal people will find true reconciliation at last.

Roll on, May 27, 2017. I just can't wait to cast my vote.

Joe

Joe