Before any of us can continue to post comments on
an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament - it might
be a good idea to know exactly what it would actually
look like and what it would entail in practice:

http://theconversation.com/we-keep-hearing-about-a-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-but-what-would-it-actually-look-like-in-practice-183718#

Lets talk about Keith Windschuttle.

He's criticized so many historians. And of course
they have returned in kind. I guess it all depends
which side of the fence you're sitting on. To try
to get to the bottom of it all is not an easy job.

Windschuttle's methodology appears to consist of
emotional appeals to an audience who are already
inclined to agree with him. They don't need
convincing, and his arguments, therefore, do not need
to be constructed with any degree of care or effort.

He never applies the same rigorous standards of
evidence to his own utterances that he demands of
the historians he attacks. Windschuttle is obsessed
with footnotes, but a close inspection of his
writings reveals a careless regard for detail rather
than anything resembling thoroughness.

The Murdoch press will pay him regardless, after all.
So why need he bother.

For anyone interested in knowing more about the man -
more can be found on the web.

Foxy,

Your waffle about Windschuttle is in keeping with your usual ignorant bigotry.

ttbn,

Try keeping to the subject of your discussion
and not making it personal. That's intellectually
lazy and a cop out.

You can do better surely.

Perhaps not. In any case - it's not just my opinion
of Keith Windschuttle - many historians have been
critical of his aggressive writing - with his careless
regard for detail and thoroughness of evidence to his
claims.

You need to delve more deeply into the issues involved
for yourself rather than simply blindly accepting what
this man says. He's got an axe to grind and an agenda.

But then I suppose - so have you so I guess - it's
understandable.

Any legislation needs a sunset clause or in a hundred years or so we
will have a section of the population having a special privilege to access parliament.
Also the aborigines are not first nation, they might be 2nd or 3rd
nation people. I am probably of the 5th nation.
There was a news item on TV just the other night and the group of
aborigines, about 20, all were white except one or two who seemed brown.
In another 100 years only their dna will tell the difference.
This point cannot be ignored, it is there and no one can ignore it.

"Windschuttles "whitewashing" of aboriginal history has been heavily criticised by many historians"

Yes that's very true. He's been particularly criticised by those historians he has outed as fabricators and falsifiers.

eg Henry Reynolds (the father of the black-armband view of history) was forced to admit, following Windschuttle's revelations, that he'd altered a quote so as to make a policy designed to protect the natives to look like one designed to kill them. Reynolds admitted it....the usual suspects looked the other way.

eg Lyndall Ryan, now treated by the ABC and the left as the pre-eminent aboriginal historian, was shown to have fabricated a quote about a massacre from a newspaper that didn't exist at the time. Ryan admitted it....the usual suspects looked the other way.

I'm more than happy for the left to try to get a referendum through giving one group a special status in the nation. The chances of the public falling for it will be low, and, if they do, we are stuffed anyway.