Keith Windschuttle's book denying Aboriginal genocide has received some
support from renowned historian Geoffrey Blainey. But, writes Phillip
Tardif, the book is deeply flawed.
Keith Windschuttle's book The Fabrication of Aboriginal History has
generated a debate with much heat but little light. Like Holocaust-denier
David Irving, Windschuttle is a lucid writer who deploys primary evidence
to great effect. The only effective response for those who would challenge
him is through serious critique of his methodology.
Windschuttle calls his first chapter 'The Killing Fields at Risdon Cove'.
In it he seeks to reinterpret the May 3, 1804, massacre of Aborigines by
settlers at Risdon Cove in Tasmania. To Windschuttle, the way this event
has been recorded in the past is a metaphor for his broader thesis. It
shows, he says, "how the conflict between Aborigines and settlers has long
been exaggerated by people far removed from the scene and by rumours and
myths".
Windschuttle argues that historians of the Risdon massacre have been led
astray by the testimony of those who were not there. He says that if we
stick to the "facts" as told by the eyewitnesses, we see that the incident
was merely an unfortunate misunderstanding in which just two or three
Aborigines lost their lives. Yet Windschuttle seems to find some "facts"
less convenient than others. While he accepts the word of two of only three
eyewitnesses whose memories of that day were recorded, he goes to
extraordinary lengths to wish away and discredit the testimony of the
third. Is it a coincidence that this eyewitness, Edward White, claimed that
"there were a great many of the Natives slaughtered and wounded"? White, an
Irish ex-convict, left the most extensive account of the massacre under
cross-examination before a committee of inquiry in 1830. He had no interest
in embellishing or playing down the truth. The other witnesses, Lieutenant
William Moore of the NSW Corps and Surgeon Jacob Mountgarrett, were active
participants.
Windschuttle's attempts to wish away the inconvenient evidence of the
Risdon massacre began two years ago in a National Press Club debate with
Henry Reynolds. According to the transcript published on his website,
Windschuttle implied that the reports of Moore and Mountgarrett were the
only first-hand accounts. White's evidence about the number killed was not
mentioned at all. Similarly, in The Fabrication of Aboriginal History,
Moore's and Mountgarrett's accounts are reproduced in full. White's is not.
White's testimony about the peaceable intentions of the Aborigines is
ignored by Windschuttle. According to White, "the natives did not threaten
me; I was not afraid of them; (they) did not attack the soldiers; they
would not have molested them; they had no spears with them; only waddies".
On the contrary, the language in three accounts admits to aggression on the
part of the Europeans. According to White, "the soldiers came down from
their own camp to the creek to attack the Natives".
Elsewhere, Windschuttle uncritically accepts Moore's explanation of events.
Moore's principle justification for the attack by the soldiers was that the
Aborigines were beating the settler Birt at his hut. No other first-hand
account refers to such an incident. Even Moore admits he did not see it
with his own eyes: "I was informed that a party of them was beating Birt,
the Settler, at his farm". White, who was working close to Birt's hut,
swore that the Aborigines never went near it.
Having accepted the stories told by Moore and Mountgarrett at face value,
Windschuttle picks at the tiniest threads of White's evidence to try to
show him as a mere peddler of gossip. First, he claims White could have
only seen a very small part of the action. On the contrary, it is clear
from White's statement that he was familiar with the entire incident.
Next, Windschuttle says that the soldiers would not have been physically
able to kill as many Aborigines as White claims, because they only carried
single-shot muskets. Yet this was a clash that lasted three hours - plenty
of time to reload. There were between 74 and 80 Europeans at Risdon that day.
Finally, White's claim that Mountgarrett sent the bones of some of the
murdered Aborigines to Sydney in two casks is further proof of his
unreliability, according to Windschuttle, because he was a convict and
therefore wouldn't be aware of what members of the "colonial elite" were
doing. This argument is patently absurd. Living as they did cheek by jowl
with 60 or so soldiers and convicts, it is hard to imagine even the most
minor piece of gossip passing at Risdon without every resident knowing
about it.
Keith Windschuttle has erred by weighting the facts to suit his thesis
about what happened at Risdon Cove. The rest of his work warrants similar
scrutiny. We will never know for sure how many were killed that day.
Certainly it was more than two or three. Probably it was fewer than 50.
Somewhere in between lies the "great many" spoken of by Edward White, whose
poignant testimony remains for me the most credible description of this
sorry episode.
Phillip Tardif has published a history of the Tasmanian convict experience.
His study of the first settlement at Risdon Cove will be published later
this year.
http://theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/05/1049459857081.html
