Section 3: Essay 1 Flashcards
Historians and the degree to which their interpretations affect how we understand Australian history
Primary vs secondary sources
Great Australian Silence
Focuses by different historians- personal biases
- What was ‘the Great Australian Silence’?
Great Australian Silence
Absence of Aboriginal people in our Australian history
Silence only exists in secondary sources
Used euphemisms
E.g. Assimilation Knew they weren’t supposed to kill people and were trying to justify their actions
Look at the words used
White side not use words like massacres etc. they saw it as ‘helping them’
- Has it shattered? Not completely…
Who helped shatter the ‘Great Australian Silence’
A term written by W E H Stanner abut the absence of Aboriginal people in Australian historical narratives
Describe the issues with the methods and sources used by a historian
Methods and sources. A historian may choose to seek evidence from primary or secondary sources whether that be literary, material or oral depending on which they deem credible.
What is Reynolds’ view about sources?
Reynolds is an advocate for secondary information and suggests that a historian can only have experience in sensing what is likely to have happened.
What is Windschuttle’s view about sources?
Windschuttle on the other hand, validates primary resources but believes that there is not enough evidence or forensics that can explain the thirty to forty years of frontier conflict
Why might sources be manipulated?
The sources and methods used in historical research of frontier conflict can be manipulated to tell the story of Australia’s culture confrontations. ‘Great Australian silence’
What does Windschuttle argue about sources in the context of Aboriginal history?
Windschuttle argues that traditional scholarly standards are no longer appropriate for the study of Aboriginal history. He believes that today historians take evidence and exaggerate it for a purpose.
What does Reynolds’ think about Windschuttle’s belief that traditional scholarly sources are not appropriate for studying Aboriginal history?
Reynolds finds this a hypocritical opinion as he believes that Windschuttle tries to discredit sources that announce an excessive number of Aboriginal deaths during frontier conflict, acting as if he is a defense for the settlers and government.
How might societal context impact historian interpretations?
The modern era now introduces political goals that considers
Aboriginal courses acting as a guide for political correctness when presenting Aboriginal history. This can act as a barrier to historians fully expressing their understandings
Why is the Battle of Pinjarra is a frontier event that is debated by many historians?
The main question is whether it was a legitimate police action or a ruthless ambush. There is also controversy about whether it was a massacre or a battle.
What does Reynolds think about the Battle of Pinjarra?
Reynolds opinion is that the military action that occurred in Pinjarra, was intended to scare the Aboriginals in order to end retaliation.
What does Windschuttle think about the Battle of Pinjarra?
Windschuttle alternatively vocalises that it was specific action towards one Nyunga named Noona, who was responsible for the death of a white man, that escalated to more violence with retaliation from other Aboriginals.
Does Windschuttle believe the Battle of Pinjarra was a battle or a massacre? Why?
Windschuttle also argues that it cannot be considered a massacre as the term implies that people were innocent, which he believes was not the case as they were all a part of the killings.
Does Reynolds believe the Battle of Pinjarra was a battle or a massacre? Why?
Disagreement by Reynolds indicates that only two white men were injured one of which was not the results of Aboriginal action but was the result of the man falling off his horse, causing concussion which led to his death days later. He states that implying the man died on the spot during the fight is “grossly distorting what occurred.”
