Dear Joe,

You seem to not count oral history as real history.

All I can suggest is that if you haven't already
done so - get hold of a copy of Bain Atwood's "Telling
the Truth about Aboriginal History," and Dirk Moses -
"Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and
Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History."

Then of course there's also the "Bringing Them Home,"
Report which might help.

My concern with wanting change on this issue, is that with Aboriginal stories that were told, this is factually correct, but the stories themselves are likely to be a myth (in terms of what happened). Like essentially spiritual stories. This does not mean they are unimportant.

Comparisons could be made to like what some people take on terms of the Bible, but people who take this view can be very selective.

Also like Shakespeare. This does not mean these stories are not interesting or have important connections to them (in terms of say Aboriginal people) or others who have heard them over time.

I watched the program Backroads on the ABC. The town of Hermannsberg in NT was visited. Stories were told about history, both of its Aboriginal and German origins. A historic (built) precinct in the area, still standing shows the original German settlement, that's like a small village. There are many interesting stories. For example some Aboriginal people still go to the Hermannsberg Lutheran Church

Stories are interesting to keep. People don't always need to be told the truth in a way, that some want. That with Aboriginal people negative only. The Backroads program highlighted how Lutherans protected Aboriginal people locally from others and how Albert Namatjira was directly connected to the arts in the historic village of Hermannsberg.

The program itself was wonderful and eye catching. It highlights the good and the bad, but does not want to 'skew' the situation in one direction.

Hi Steele,

So to you, Andrew Bolt is an authority ? And what "facts" are we talking about ? Evidence would be nice. Until some is presented, I'm reconciled to being the shag on a rock.

Dearest Foxy,

No, oral history - on its own - is not history. It's yarns, stories, myths, UNTIL it's backed up by some evidence. I look forward to academics telling the truth-with-evidence, rather than the truth-with-passion.

The "Bringing Them Home" Report ? So how come only one case has ever been proven in court (and even that was pretty dodgy in so many ways) ? Don't you think that there would be a file on every one of those children taken into care, which they could present in court ? Without that, it's still just yarns, stories, myths. If people think they have a case, they can easily take it to court.

Many oral histories are charming. But they need some corroboration, evidence, back-up, independent verification, substantiation, if their tellers want people to take them seriously.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Studying history does not just involve memorizing
names and dates, kings and queens, wars, revolutions,
explorations, and so on. They are only part of the
story. If we really want to know about the past we
need to know - how people lived, what they thought
about themselves and their world, how they solved
their problems, and so on. To do this it's necessary
to study not only the 'superstars' of the age, but
the ordinary people, the men, women and children, old
people, and minority groups - in other words the
social history - the study of society in the past.

We have to be able to ask the relevant questions and listen
not only to the answers, but to the silences as well.
A lot of things for a variety of reasons may not always
be recorded. That's why oral histories do play an important
part. We need to always bear in mind that there is more
than one side to every story. It isn't wise to accept any
one interpretation of events as your only source of
information. You need many sides to be able to make a fair
assessment. It's important to know who said what, in order to
be able to detect the bias that author's may have. That goes
for government records and newspaper ones.

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

Dearest Foxy,

Yes, of course, most of what you write is incontestable, but really neither here nor there. I've never thought of history as memorising names and dates, although they sometimes are very handy pegs to hang events and forces for social change on. For example, the 1440-1450s: the rapid rise of Portuguese naval technology and exploration at about the same time that the Ottomans captured Constantinople: so the shift from east to west Europe ? From an orientation to Asia by land, to one by sea ?

You commit a slight sleight of hand here: "Historians can establish that an act took place on a certain day, but this by historical standards constitutes only chronology or - 'factology'."

"Only" chronology ? So how would you consider a story which actually CAN'T establish that an act took place, ever, because it is not based on any actual evidence ? It may not be much but I'm sure that if a historian was able to establish that a crucial act took place, something that his fellow-historians had been unaware of, he would be over the moon.

"Factology". Mere "factology". "All 'facts' are mere interpretations of what may have happened, based on 'mere' evidence. "Feh ! Evidence ! Give me belief without evidence !"

So what would you call "factology" without evidence ? Oral history ? Give me naïve 'factology' any day.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I can see that you are reluctant to modify your
judgements concerning oral histories.

Therefore I shall slowly step away from this
discussion.

Cheers.