Windschuttle on White Australia

I see that Keith Windschuttle has turned his attention to the White Australia policy which, not surprisingly, he defends as a “rational and, in a number of ways, progressive, product of its times”. Although the story is somewhat garbled, it seems likely that WIndschuttle’s defence is that White Australia was not premised on racial superiority, but on the doctrine of “separate but equal” treatment used in the case of Plessy vs Ferguson to defend the Jim Crow laws of the American South and, in its Afrikaans form, as the theoretical basis for apartheid (separate development).

I feel sorry for anyone who defended Windschuttle’s earlier campaign defending the treatment of Tasmanian Aborigines on the assumption that he was an honest seeker after historical truth, rather than, as is now clear, a consistent apologist for racism, happy to use racist arguments in support of his cause. I’d welcome comments from anyone honest enough to retract their previous support for Windschuttle.

I’ll also be happy to publish comments from anyone seeking to use quibbles about the definition of “racism” to claim that a policy that openly defined itself in terms of skin colour was, in some sense, not racist. However, if you want to make such a claim, be aware that it has previously been made by the defenders of Jim Crow and apartheid, and don’t whinge when you get lumped in with them.

110 thoughts on “Windschuttle on White Australia

  1. Comment deleted for abusive language. Anything more like this and you’ll be barred.

  2. Sorry John.

    Thanks for reminding me of the rules.
    Accusing someone of being a racist though you haven’t read the book is ok.
    Using the B….. or upper case is serious stuff.

    How about answering the above issues.

    How can you as a scholar accuse Windschuttle of racism without reading his book? Please…..?

  3. John:
    I just read your attack on me where you accused me of (guess what again) of being a racist.

    You wrote:

    In another lengthy comment, Joe hasn’t taken up my invitation to denounce Windschuttle’s apologies for racism, nor has he so far had the guts to endorse them openly. Why am I not surprised?

    Your question is an inference that I too am a racist. This is not offensive in your universe.

    I, like you haven’t read the book. I put forth the point that this word has very serious connotations.
    I suggest that at the very least you ought to read the book before making such a serious accusation.

    Without one single shread of evidence you impugn me of being racist as well when I all ask is that you ought get your fact’s ( read the book) before making this accusation.

    This is the same universe we both live in?

  4. OK Joe, or maybe I should say Gerry, how about getting your grammar in order. Not to mention your spelling. To your posts, your paranoia is all too obvious, even though you may be actually right. Calm down.

  5. Thanks everyone for helping me reach this milestone. The innings is declared closed. If you want to help me with the double century, please move to the R-word

  6. The pixie historian and the true story of rule number one
    Once upon a time there was a wonderous land and it wasn’t yet called Australia. It was occupied for a very long time by groups of people who met with the usual trials and tribulations of the species. Then one…

  7. rinso history
    John Quiggin is not just a Professor of Economics but a karate expert as well, and the owner of a fine, fierce black beard. Over the weekend he made a symbolic “flicking adders at the underbelly” on Keith Windschuttle for…

  8. Slavery is fun
    Pixie historian Keith Windschuttle is not alone in trying to whitewash historical facts. Via Atrios come this story of some American attempts to “rethink” slavery: Students at one of the area’s largest Christian schools are reading a controversial book…

Comments are closed.