You’d think the academic left would eventually learn that the path to hell is paved with “good intentions”, but they’re a bit more determined and a bit more dense than that, as exemplified by the extreme relativism, moral revisionism, and personal narrative, which, apparently is how history is taught in our schools today.
It’s safe to assume that these articles won’t make it onto any of our high school history curriculum.
“Publishers in the 1980s and 1990s sanitised Aboriginal history by censoring accounts of violence, including sexual abuse and infanticide.
Award-winning historical author Susanna de Vries has revealed that her books on early colonial life, based on the memoirs of pioneer women, were allegedly toned down so as not to upset Aboriginal sensibilities.
"We don't sanitise anti-Semitism and the Holocaust," said Louis Nowra, author of Bad Dreaming, which documents the use of Aboriginal customary law to legitimise sexual abuse and domestic violence against women and children.”
"Anything to do with the abuse of Aboriginal women and children by their fellow Aborigines has been censored out by editors keen not to offend and raise ghosts of the stolen children stories. Ignoring the other stories of the rape of Aboriginal girls by Aboriginal men; the killing of Aboriginal babies often by leaving them to die in the bush; and the neglect and abuse of Aboriginal and part-Aboriginal children have all been part of a taboo which is based on guilt."
Controversial historian Keith Windschuttle, who came to national prominence for questioning claims by other historians that Tasmanian Aborigines were massacred by white settlers, said the tendency to whitewash Aboriginal culture started in the 1970s.
"People thought by flattering pre-modern Aboriginal culture you would assert esteem in Aboriginal culture and make Aboriginal people feel good about themselves," Mr Windschuttle said. "It also continued the belief that the problem with modern Aboriginal culture doesn't lie with Aborigines, it lies with white people instead of seeing that the problem in many ways lies with both."
Historian Inga Clendinnen said censorship arose from a "very understandable tenderness and concern" towards the Aboriginal community.”
Airbrushing Aboriginal infanticide, tribal warfare, and the rape and removal of women from the history books was incredibly tender and caring.
Yes siree, that sentiment has worked out so well for our Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander communities, particularly the women and kiddies.
Speaking of Keith Windschuttle (we were, weren’t we?) …
“What struck me at the time about the controversy was the evident fact that a large and influential part of the Australian academy and intelligentsia actually wanted there to have been a genocide.”
If the state was founded on genocide then, however superficially satisfactory it might appear at first sight, it is necessary to refound it on a sounder, more ethical basis. And the architects and subsequent owner-managers will, of course, be the intelligentsia, for only they are qualified.”
I’m not necessarily buying into the wishful thinking of the intelligentsia about their qualifications for building six Lego pieces into a tower, let alone a “more” ethical state. I think their motive is more prosaic than that: elevating, romanticizing, and infantilizing the “noble savage” natives, while denigrating and demonizing the invaders – err, that would be us white folk.