Home > Books and culture > An odd numbering scheme

An odd numbering scheme

December 17th, 2009

Keith Windschuttle has been in the news again lately, making claims of inaccuracy against the film ‘Rabbit Proof Fence’ which were then roundly refuted by the filmmakers, pointing to documentary evidence apparently undiscovered by the ace historian. When even the Oz describes Windy as having been ‘dispatched to the fence’ he clearly has a problem. Having claimed that the girls in the film were removed from their families because they were having sex with white men, he now says his case is unaffected by the discovery that they were actually removed because they were promised as brides for black men. WIndschuttle describes this as “standing by” his statements, a locution I also heard recently from the Queensland government after the economists statement demolishing their case for asset sales. Apparently it means “while I have no credible response to make, I’m not going to retract, let alone change my mind”.

What’s really interesting to me is that all this publicity is in aid of the forthcoming Volume 3 of Windschuttle’s Fabrication of Australian History which caused such a stir when Volume 1 was released in 2002. Three volumes in nearly a decade looks like slow, but steady work, the kind of history Windschuttle supports.

That is, of course, except for the minor detail that there is no Volume 2. Originally Volume 2, due in 2003, was supposed to be the big one, which would refute Henry Reynolds claims about violence on the Queensland frontier, while volume 3, promised for 2004, was going to be about WA. Although promises kept being made, Vol 2 never came out, and in 2008, the “stolen generations” book was announce as Volume 2. It seemed that the Queensland and WA projects had been abandoned.

The new numbering scheme, eccentric as it is, at least implies a promise of a Volume 2 in which Windschuttle will finally put up or be morally obliged to shut up (not that he will of course).

Categories: Books and culture Tags:
  1. paul walter
    December 17th, 2009 at 14:53 | #1

    Ha, ha, ha!
    Immediately put in mind of a parallel; the debate between Monbiot and Plimer on climate change the other night.
    If I lie, which I also do too often, my conscience will inevitably trouble me.
    Perhaps it to do with becoming aware of what “bearing false witness”against others can do to them. I wouldnt want to be the author of anyone else’s grief and hope that others, like wise, wouldn’t do the dirty on me.
    Thus, I wonder, truly, at what sort of quality of life the likes of Plimer,Kelly, Albrechtsen, Windprattle et al must have, as knowing parties to some quite serious crimes against humanity.

  2. jquiggin
    December 17th, 2009 at 15:09 | #2

    Snap! I’m just watching this now.

  3. Freelander
    December 17th, 2009 at 16:26 | #3

    I can’t wait to read the revelation that the fence was not really rabbit proof! More of the Swastika armband view of history.

  4. Alice
    December 17th, 2009 at 16:31 | #4

    JQ – there will be no Windschuttle Vol 2. We all know that. He is too busy earning piece rates for snatch and grab media releases by dubious propaganda oriented organisations.

  5. Alicia
    December 17th, 2009 at 16:54 | #5

    Someone read out Windy’s sexual comments to me at breakfast and I felt ill.

    The sexual use and abuse of Aboriginal women and girls from the earliest years of the Sydney colony onwards through to the generations of stolen children and their treatment by foster families and in institutions has been well documented in oral history format and literature.

    His cruel, prurient, sexist and despicable statements were easily countered by researchers and relatives of the women concerned but were nevertheless appalling, damaging and hurtful once again to Aboriginal women everywhere conscious of and still dealing with this gendered racial history.

  6. Alice
    December 17th, 2009 at 16:58 | #6

    @Alicia
    Alicia, Windschuttle is an entirely odious and obnoxious character…in all possible ways. In some ways its best if he gets no air time. Unfortunately we still have the ugly Murdoch press who persists in giving him air time.

  7. paul walter
    December 17th, 2009 at 17:04 | #7

    No Freelander, you cannot escape the diabolical consequences for your last comment.
    Prof, I DEMAND that you “Godwin” him!!
    Godwin, Godwin, Godwin, Godwin, Godwin…. phwoaahhh!!!…………Godwin, Godwin, Godwin…. hang the criminal!

  8. Alice
    December 17th, 2009 at 17:08 | #8

    @paul walter
    Paul – I do think Freelander was joking (irony alert missing)???? Freelander, explain yourself immediately!!

  9. Freelander
    December 17th, 2009 at 17:19 | #9

    The proper way to combat the nonsense that people like Plimer and Windshuttle spout is not to waste time engaging in serious debate with them. Given that they don’t hold up their side of a serious debate, because they have their own facts and original forms of ‘logic’, engaging them in serious debate only provides them with a respectability they do not merit. Debating them is fine, but the objective should be humour and humiliation. The real reason, for example, that various views like various crude racism became no longer socially acceptable is not because they were defeated by rational argument. They were defeated because, socially, spouting these views became a ticket to opprobrium, ridicule and humiliation.

  10. chris warren
    December 17th, 2009 at 18:10 | #10

    Paul

    It is impossible to avoid Godwins law when confronting Windschuttle.

    He was a right-wing political imposter who thrives on provocation, denial, misrepresentation and scapegoating.

    His disruptive, violent, attacking interventions into history and politics, mimic the tactics of fascists.

  11. Freelander
    December 17th, 2009 at 19:04 | #11

    I think Plimer and Windschuttle break the Godwin Greech Law – manufacturing your own evidence.

  12. paul walter
    December 17th, 2009 at 19:59 | #12

    In response to previous handful of comments, can only add “harrumphhh”.

    Apart from following:
    Chris W, are you sure you are not referring to Steve Conroy?
    Freelander, of course you are right, the vermin proof fence did NOT contain the pests we are discussing, they obviously must have broken in from the deserts, since they are all in Canberra or now writing for the execrable Murdoch press.
    More seriously, Alicia.
    Congrats on your passionate and accurate rebuttal, which reveals a reality that sends a shudder down my spine and turns my stomach, too.

  13. Alice
    December 17th, 2009 at 20:31 | #13

    @paul walter
    says “More seriously, Alicia.
    Congrats on your passionate and accurate rebuttal”

    Ill second.

  14. December 18th, 2009 at 00:26 | #14

    Pr Q said:

    Having claimed that the girls in the film were removed from their families because they were having sex with white men, he now says his case is unaffected by the discovery that they were actually removed because they were promised as brides for black men.

    No doubt Windschuttle is over the top in some of his historical re-revisionism. But he does manage to stir up controversy in a fruitful way. In some ways Noyce’s correction of his views is more damning of the Left-liberal position on Stolen Children than Windschuttle’s faulty debunking.

    Both the girls were minors, according the Australian article “one of the[m], Daisy Kadibill, [was] 8″ years old. So Neville, this so-called “genocidal” scourge of Aboriginal people, was actually doing his job as Protector – by preventing two cases of statutory rape. And no doubt much worse in store for arranged child brides in a tribal mileu dominated by patriarchal elders.

    In many ways remote indigenous communities were better administered under the Aboriginal Protectorate, at least as regards pedophilia and drug abuse. Although this is not to excuse miscegenation laws and unaccountable child removal.

    Windschuttle is not perfect but I would trust him over his ideological critics in this area. Over the past decade or so Left-liberals have used the “Stolen Generation” issue to raise a gigantic smokescreen over indigenous affairs. Mostly to camouflage the catastrophic mess they have made of this area ever since they have had the whip hand in its administration. As Steve Sailer observed in a different context:

    the levels of alcoholism and sexual abuse of children in Aborigine towns only got worse under the administration of culturally sensitive anti-racist post-1960s people, but who’s counting?

    Of course the rampant sexual abuse of Aboriginal children by Big Men outback has now been much better policed ever since evil John Howard made the Intervention the law of that land. Not surprisingly Left-liberals have made this the subject of endless denunciations for spurious human rights breaches.

    Notice the pattern? Left-liberals let no good deed ever go unpunished, at least where Right-wingers constrain child abuse.

    Instead of nit-picking with Windschuttle over rhetorical trifles perhaps Pr Q would like to address the Left-liberals Big Lie. Straining at gnats and swallowing camels, that sort of thing.

  15. paul walter
    December 18th, 2009 at 00:38 | #15

    Jack, we do NOT swallow camels!
    It would be unkind and besides the indigestion later would likely be unbearable.
    Ok , seriously.
    Surprised at your comments above, Jack.
    What do you think has created this mess within aboriginal culture?
    Or, like Windprattle, do you propose that colonisation has only been of benefit to the wretched natives?
    Don’t kick the victims when they are down, go after those too mingy to have their tax spent on repairing the damage done by white conquest to victims both male and female.

  16. Freelander
    December 18th, 2009 at 00:38 | #16

    How disappointing. No further ‘contribution’ to ” Bookblogging: Implications of trickle down”? An end to that experiment. How about a new one?

    “Notice the pattern? Left-liberals let no good deed ever go unpunished, at least where Right-wingers constrain child abuse.

    Instead of nit-picking with Windschuttle over rhetorical trufles perhaps Pr Q would like to address the Left-liberals Big Lie. Straining at gnats and swallowing camels, that sort of thing… Blah, Blah, Blah, that sort of thing… ”
    Intelligent species?

  17. paul walter
    December 18th, 2009 at 00:39 | #17

    Ahh Freelander. Is this singularity a case of great minds thinking alike or fools never differing?

  18. Freelander
    December 18th, 2009 at 00:46 | #18

    @paul walter

    Mr Strocchi is an interesting, if somewhat compulsive, specimen!

  19. paul walter
    December 18th, 2009 at 01:05 | #19

    I agree. Sometimes he’s quite interesting. But the stuff tonight is cumbersome, stodgy and self indulgent. He should remember how he travels when he thinks for himself instead staying on autopilot regurgitating quite stale right wing ideology.

  20. James
    December 18th, 2009 at 12:01 | #20

    @Jack Strocchi
    In classificatory kinship structures where one’s spouse is determined by one’s kinship position, being “promised as a bride” does not imply that the husband-to-be commences having s-x with a girl immediately, or before the girl reaches child-bearing age. It determines which lineage the girl will marry into when she reaches puberty, and who benefits from her labour. That is all.

    One can of course say that this removes the girl’s freedom of choice in marriage and exploits women, but it should be remembered that arranged marriages are the standard in most of the world’s societies, including ours until this century, and exploitation of women is still, sadly, the norm everywhere. They are not the same as paedophilia.

    As for your comments on the Intervention, I’ll remind you once more that the ACC found no evidence of paedophile rings – made up of Big Men (a PNG rank – get your ethnic groups right), elders, or anyone else – in indigenous communities. Nor have they generated information leading to the arrest of even one paedophile. They found high levels of general violence, including s-xual violence, but as the ACC’s own background research mentions, “The Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse published its findings in April 2007, stating that “sexual abuse of Aboriginal children is common, widespread and grossly underreported” and that “everything we have learned. . . convinces us that . . . [this is symptomatic of] a breakdown of Aboriginal culture and society””. Abuse is not the result of that culture and society, but of the destruction of that culture by the settlers, missions and protection system you extol.

    As to your attacks on self-determination, the medical literature regularly finds that the return to country of small settlements, outstations, etc has been good for indigenous health; aboriginal people living on country live longer, are less stressed, less obese, feel happier about themselves and their lives, etcetera, etcetera. Hardly the record of failure you claim.

  21. Davi Irving (no relation)
    December 20th, 2009 at 11:12 | #21

    Freelander @ 9, I agree. The best way to counter people like Windschuttle, Plimer, and my namesake is through loud and prolonged ridicule.

Comments are closed.