Instruct: Given a question, retrieve relevant documents that can help answer the question.
Query: When did Keith Windschuttle write Unemployment?
Major published items include Unemployment (1979), which analysed the economic causes and social consequences of unemployment in Australia and advocated a socialist response; The Media: a New Analysis of the Press, Television, Radio and Advertising in Australia (1984), on the political economy and content of the news and entertainment media; The Killing of History (1994), a critique of postmodernism in history;[3] The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume One: Van Diemen's Land 1803–1847 (2002), which accuses a number of Australian historians of falsifying and inventing the degree of violence in the past;[4] The White Australia Policy (2004), a history of that policy which argues that academic historians have exaggerated the degree of racism in Australian history;[5] and The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume Three: The Stolen Generations 1881–2008, which argues the story of the "stolen generations" of Aboriginal children is a myth. He was editor of Quadrant magazine 2008[6]-2015 when he became Chair of the board and editor-in-chief.[7] He has been the publisher of Macleay Press since 1994.
After education at Canterbury Boys' High School (where he was a contemporary of former Liberal Australian prime minister John Howard), Windschuttle was a journalist on newspapers and magazines in Sydney. He completed a BA (first class honours in history) at the University of Sydney in 1969, and an MA (honours in politics) at Macquarie University in 1978. He enrolled in a PhD but did not submit it; instead he published it under the title The Media with Penguin Books. In 1973, he became a tutor in Australian history at the University of New South Wales (UNSW). Between 1977 and 1981, Windschuttle was lecturer in Australian history and in journalism at the New South Wales Institute of Technology (now the University of Technology, Sydney) before returning to UNSW in 1983 as lecturer/senior lecturer in social policy. He resigned from UNSW in 1993 and since then he has been publisher of Macleay Press and a regular visiting and guest lecturer on history and historiography at American universities. In June 2006, he was appointed to the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Australia's non-commercial public broadcaster.[8]
In The Killing of History, Windschuttle defended the practices and methods of traditional empirical history against postmodernism, and praised historians such as Henry Reynolds, but he now argues that some of those he praised for their empirically-grounded work fail to adhere to the principle. In the same book, Windschuttle maintains that historians on both sides of the political spectrum have misrepresented and distorted history to further their respective political causes or ideological positions.
James Boyce, a Tasmanian historian, dismisses Windschuttle's argument as "uninformed slander" based on a failure to read the only documentary sources that matter, the journals of French and British explorers recording the first contacts with Tasmanian aborigines before the colonial period. Examining Windschuttle's use of sources for the view women were treated like slaves and drudges, he says Windschuttle relies on a selective reading of just two of many sources in an early work by Ling Roth, "written at the height of Social Darwinist orthodoxy" (1899). However, Ling Roth did not "write" these sources; he simply translated the diaries of the first contacts by the French explorers. One is from Péron, who noted scars on women, and interpreted them as signs of domestic violence, which however he had never witnessed. Other early observers took this scarring as an indigenous cultural practice. James Cook had noticed Aboriginal men and women's bodies were both incised with scars in the same manner. Péron was less sympathetic than other first observers on the Baudin expedition to Australia. Boyce argues that their observations, including those of the captain Nicolas Baudin, do not support Windschuttle's claims. Even Péron records an encounter at Port Cygnet with an Aboriginal group of men and women, who shared a meal of abalone with the French explorers and, according to Péron, provided "the most striking example we had ever had of attention and reasoning among savage people". Péron would have disagreed, Boyce believes, with Windschuttle's claim that "(t)raditional Aboriginal society placed no constraints on the women's sexual behaviour with men", for he was repeatedly rebuffed when he tried to make physical contact with Aboriginal women. Baudin believed that no one on his ship had managed to have sexual relations with the women on Bruny Island. The behaviour adduced by Windschuttle from the other, late report by J.E. Calder (in 1829) is, for Boyce, "self evidently a product of the extensive disruption of traditional life that had occurred by then". He concludes: "Only someone who is totally blind to the impact of changing power relations, of declining choices, of the profound impact of cultural disintegration and recurring violence and abuse, let alone the simple imperatives of survival, could cite the unfolding tragedy at Bruny Island in this period as evidence for the sexual mores and domestic relations of pre-invasion Aboriginal society".[44]
In reply to Boyce, Windschuttle argues that Boyce could not have read the whole book, or even properly checked the index, which cited "this very evidence", i.e. the journals of early French and British explorers. With respect to Boyce's claims that Windschuttle was "unaware" of or "ignored" various sources, Windschuttle responded that Boyce's claims, based on what was, and was not, in 'Fabrication's' bibliography, misinterpret the purpose of a bibliography. It listed only the sources referred to in the text and in his footnotes, and was not intended as an exhaustive list of every book or document that he had read regarding colonial Tasmania.[32] Windschuttle argues that "were Boyce more familiar with the ethnographic literature", he would know the most telling evidence about the treatment of women comes not from explorers but the Aborigines themselves; from the recorded words of male Aborigines, such as Woorrady, Montpeliatter, Mannalargenna and Nappelarteyer, and those of female Aborigines such as Tencotemainner, Truganini and Walyer. Windschuttle did not claim that women had been sold "into prostitution"[47] but that they were, as Breen admits, traded as commodities. Breen, Windschuttle replies, admits such trading and regards this as an admission of the "cruelty of pre-contact indigenous culture". For Windschuttle, Breen and others can say things that sicken no one, because they contextualise it within a model of British invasion and Aboriginal resistance, whereas he is taken to task for being "pitiless" for making what he argues is the same point, "within a historical model of aboriginal accommodation to a comparatively nonviolent British settlement".[48]
Windschuttle argues that the evidence shows that the claims that parents were deliberately prevented from maintaining contact with their children and that the children were prevented from returning home are falsehoods. In New South Wales, for example, the relevant government board not only allowed parents to visit their children in the Aborigines Protection Board Children's Homes, it provided them with train fare and a daily living allowance to enable them to do so. When children of Aboriginal descent were apprenticed to employers, they often returned home for the holidays and when necessary, were accompanied by officers of the responsible government board to ensure they reached home safely. When they finished their apprenticeships, in common with apprentices of other races, they were free to go wherever they pleased including back to their original homes, permanently or for social visits.[77][78]
Henry Reynolds interprets his book as an attempt to revive the concept of terra nullius, and regards it as "without doubt, the most biased and cantankerous historical work to appear since the publication of G.W. Rusden's three-volume History of Australia in the 1880s".[59] The historian of genocide, Ben Kiernan, who classifies the fate of Aborigines as an example of the practice, situates Windschuttle's polemical history within a new campaign, led by Quadrant, but taken up by a "chorus of right-wing columnists" within the Australian mass media with a record of antagonism to both Aborigines and their "leftist" supporters.[60] Stephen Garton, Professor of History, Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor at Sydney University, argued that "the flaw in Windschuttle's argument is his belief that history can only be based on the evidence that survives. Evidence is always partial and only takes on a meaning if placed in an appropriate context. In other words historians always construct larger worlds from the fragments that survive".[61] The University of Aberdeen's Gregory D. B. Smithers, an Australian comparativist working on native histories, argues that Windschuttle's political agenda shows a "discomfort with the way the "orthodox school" by inflating Aboriginal deaths, impugns Australian identity and its virtuous Anglo-Saxon origins". Windschuttle's book plays to "the white wing populism of white Australians, who feel their racially privileged position is under attack". By reaction, Smithers argues, Windschuttle highlights "the nation's virtues", privileging the opinions of settlers and colonial officials, "while rejecting Aboriginal oral histories". Smithers argues that Windschuttle ignores documentary evidence that contradicts his own ideology, and fails to perceive that the island reserves created for indigenous Tasmanians were "racialized spaces" for a people regarded as a form of "social pollution"". He argues that the book is "a therapeutic history for white (Anglo-Saxon) Australians that distorts and distracts" and that in denying the reliability of historical evidence of racialized groups, Windschuttle employs a tactic used by historians to discredit historical accounts that do not fit with their presentist morality.[62] For Stuart Macintyre, Windschuttle's book was not "so much counter-history as an exercise in incomprehension". He finds Windschuttle's method of calculating Aboriginal losses flimsy, and the figures he allocates to each incident "no more reliable than those, which he dismissed as guesswork, of mainstream frontier historians". He concludes that the first volume is "a shocking book, shocking in its allegation of fabrication and also in its refusal of the interpretive framework that earlier historians employed, and that its author "fails to register the tragedy of what was a fatal encounter". When challenged on his lack of compassion, Windschuttle is reported as replying: "You can't really be serious about feeling sympathy for someone who died 200 years ago". For Macintyre, "It is the absence of any sense of this tragedy, the complete lack of compassion for its victims, that is surely the most disturbing quality of Windschuttle's rewriting of Aboriginal history".[18] For University of Sydney historian Vicki Grieves, Windschuttle's approach reads as though indigenous people "were not the intentional targets of the colonisers but accidental targets, mostly through their inability to be realistic, objective, logical and moral, and thus the "seeds of their own destruction" lay within their own "psyche and culture". Even were one to concede Windschuttle's guesstimate for the pre-white population of Tasmania, by his own figures, the death-rate for his plausible deaths still works out as higher in percentage terms than the mortality risk of the Australian population during WW1, when 60,000 soldiers died. Windschuttle shows, she argues, a predilection for old colonial explanations, and Darwinist values, as though nothing had happened in between. Regarding native treatment of women, who in his account were viciously brutalized, Windschuttle appeals to the reader's moral outrage at the way a 14-year-old native girl was traded. In doing so, he ignores the fact that the age of consent in Britain at that time was 12, and whites themselves on the frontier exchanged wives or traded them for tobacco and rum.[10] James Boyce, in an extended review, notes that Windschuttle ignores native views for the period after 1832, precisely the date when almost all of what is known of Aboriginal perspectives began to be recorded. Examining Windschuttle's use of sources, he finds his selection of material narrow, and his reading of their contents "selective".[63] Bain Attwood of the School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies at Monash University dismisses him as a "tabloid historian".[64] However, Attwood concedes that "Boyce is unable to demonstrate" that the documents he says Windschuttle ignored "would have provided factual killings of Aborigines",[65] and that "'revisionist' critics have demonstrated that the academic historians lacked documentation for most of the killings represented in their accounts".[66] Shayne Breen, lecturer in Aboriginal history at the University of Tasmania, reads the book as "systematic character assassination", replete with "unsupportable generalizations", and nurtured by a "delusion" that only Windschuttle can find the historical truth. For Breen, "In making "the most primitive ever" claim, Windschuttle is not practising forensic scholarship. He is renovating a colonial ideology that decreed that Tasmanian Aborigines were the missing link between apes and man. This idea formed a central plank of what is known to scholars as scientific racism".[67]
The belief that there were pygmy people in northern Queensland was popularised by Keith Windschuttle and Tim Gillin in an article published by the right-wing Quadrant magazine in 2002 (a publication which Windschuttle himself serves as Editor-in-Chief of). Specifically Windschuttle and Gillin claim that "the fact that the Australian pygmies have been so thoroughly expunged from public memory suggests an indecent concurrence between scholarly and political interests". Windschuttle primarily draws on the work of Australian anthropologist Norman Tindale and American anthropologist Joseph Birdsell that suggested there were were 12 Negrito tribes of short-statured Aboriginal peoples living on the coastal and rainforest areas around Cairns on the lands of the Mbabaram people and Djabugay people. 
Windschuttle challenges the idea that mass killings were commonplace, arguing that the colonial settlers of Australia did not commit widespread massacres against Indigenous Australians; he drastically reduces the figures for the Tasmanian Aboriginal death toll, and writes that Aborigines referred to by both Reynolds and Ryan as resistance figures, included "black bushrangers" and others engaged in acts normally regarded as "criminality"; arguing that the evidence clearly shows that attacks by Aborigines on settlers were almost invariably directed at acquiring goods, such as flour, sugar, tea and tobacco, and that claims by orthodox historians that this was a form of guerrilla warfare against British settlement aren't supported by credible evidence.[18][23][24] Vicki Grieves argues that Windschuttle regards Aboriginal men who traded their women's services as pimps, although Windschuttle does not use the term.[10] Adducing the work of a source who Stuart Macintyre claims is 'a particularly tendentious American anthropologist',[25] he argues that the Tasmanian Aboriginal society was primitive, dysfunctional and on the verge of collapse, because their putative maltreatment of women impaired their ability to reproduce in a number of critical ways.[18] Windschuttle agrees with earlier historical analysis, such as that of Geoffrey Blainey, that introduced disease was the primary cause of the demise of the Tasmanian Aboriginal people.[26] He is highly critical of recent historical scholarship, arguing that much of it ignores the scholar's basic duties to be objective and true to the evidence, and he advances a sympathetic analysis of settler opinion, arguing that historians such as Henry Reynolds had misrepresented the contents of records of settler opinion to conceal the fact that the majority of settlers were consistently in favor of the protection of the Aborigines.[27] He also criticises Aboriginal land right politics,[28] arguing that it has resulted in many Aboriginal people being effectively confined to remote settlements far from viable employment opportunities and from the benefits of a modern society.[29] His own examination of archives, contemporary newspapers, diaries and official accounts yields a provisory figure[30] of approximately 120 deaths of Tasmanian Aborigines "for which there is a plausible record of some kind" as having been killed by settlers, as opposed to earlier figures ranging as high as 700,[31] and thus far less than the number of whites (187) reported as killed during the Black War of 1824 to 1828 by Aborigines.[32][33] Windschuttle argues that the principles of the Enlightenment, fused with the 19th century evangelical revival within the Church of England and Britain's rule of law had a profound effect on colonial policy and behaviour, which was humane and just,[34] that together made the claimed genocide culturally impossible. Gregory D.B. Smithers argues that Windschuttle interpreted settler violence as self-defence.[24][33]
In January 2009, Windschuttle was hoaxed into publishing an article in Quadrant. The stated aim of the hoax was to expose Windschuttle's alleged right wing bias by proving he would publish an inaccurate article and not check its footnotes or authenticity if it met his preconceptions. An author using the pseudonym "biotechnologist Dr Sharon Gould" submitted an article claiming that CSIRO had planned to produce food crops engineered with human genes. However, "Gould" revealed that she had regarded the article as an Alan Sokal style hoax, referring to an instance in which writings described as obvious scientific nonsense were submitted to and accepted by an academic journal.[83] Based on the reporter's intimate knowledge of the hoax and what he described as her "triumphant" tone when disclosing the hoax to him, Windschuttle accused the online publication Crikey of being involved in the hoax, a claim Crikey denied.[84][85] Two days later, Crikey revealed that "Gould" was in fact the writer, editor and activist Katherine Wilson. Wilson agreed to being named by Crikey, as her name had already appeared in online speculation and it seemed likely that her identity was about to be revealed by other journalists.[86]
In 2002, a controversy that came to involve Timms developed when writer Keith Windschuttle argued that claims made by some historians about the killing of indigenous people by white landholders were false. Windschuttle's arguments were part of a broader debate about Australian indigenous historiography and conflict between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. One argument put in this debate was that some authors, including Windschuttle, were privileging written history (which was at that time invariably recorded by white Australians) over oral histories of indigenous people. These oral histories included accounts of a massacre of indigenous people (including members of Timms' family) at a place called Mistake Creek. Angered by Windschuttle and others' claims, Timms and several other artists including Paddy Bedford created paintings documenting the events recorded in their oral histories. These paintings were exhibited in "Blood on the spinifex" at the Ian Potter Museum of Art in 2003.
, at The New Criterion , at The Spectator , by R.J. Stove Retrieved from Internet Archive 13 December 2013. (contains edited transcript of 2002 ABC radio interviews by Peter McCutcheon with historian and author Keith Windschuttle and historian and author Henry Reynolds) a sympathetic New Criterion review of Keith Windschuttle's book casting doubt on a supposed Tasmanian genocide. Retrieved from Internet Archive 13 December 2013. Sunday with Keith Windschuttle, Prof. Henry Reynolds, Prof. Cassandra Pybus, Prof. Lyndall Ryan, and others. Retrieved from Internet Archive 13 December 2013.
Some historians argue that European disease did not appear to be a serious factor until after 1829. Other historians including Geoffrey Blainey and Keith Windschuttle, point to introduced disease as the main cause of the destruction of the full-blooded Tasmanian Aboriginal population. Keith Windschuttle argues that while smallpox never reached Tasmania, respiratory diseases such as influenza, pneumonia and tuberculosis and the effects of venereal diseases devastated the Tasmanian Aboriginal population whose long isolation from contact with the mainland compromised their resistance to introduced disease. The work of historian James Bonwick and anthropologist H. Ling Roth, both writing in the 19th century, also point to the significant role of epidemics and infertility without clear attribution of the sources of the diseases as having been introduced through contact with Europeans. Bonwick, however, did note that Tasmanian Aboriginal women were infected with venereal diseases by Europeans. Introduced venereal disease not only directly caused deaths but, more insidiously, left a significant percentage of the population unable to reproduce. Josephine Flood, archaeologist, wrote: "Venereal disease sterilised and chest complaints – influenza, pneumonia and tuberculosis – killed."
"Contra Windschuttle", S.G. Foster, Quadrant, March 2003, 47:3. , P. Francis, The Journal of GEOS, 2000. "Whitewash Confirms the Fabrication of Aboriginal History", Keith Windschuttle, Quadrant, October 2003. "The Return of Postmodernism in Aboriginal History", Keith Windschuttle, Quadrant, April 2006.
Windschuttle's claims and research have been disputed by some historians, in "Whitewash. On Keith Windschuttle's Fabrication of Aboriginal History", an anthology including contributions from Henry Reynolds and Professor Lyndall Ryan, edited and introduced by Robert Manne, professor of politics at La Trobe University. This anthology has itself been the subject of examination by Melbourne businessman, freelance writer and Objectivist John Dawson, in "Washout: On the academic response to The Fabrication of Aboriginal History", which argues that "Whitewash" leaves Windschuttle's claims and research unrefuted.
Within a year Windschuttle's claims and research produced a volume of rebuttal, namely Whitewash. On Keith Windschuttle's Fabrication of Aboriginal History, an anthology edited and introduced by Robert Manne, professor of politics at La Trobe University, with contributions by Australian academics from a range of disciplines. Manne, who called the book "one of the most implausible, ignorant and pitiless books about Australian history written for many years",[54] himself summed up the case against Windschuttle, noting that Windschuttle's evidence for Aboriginal deaths is derived from a scholar, Plomley, who denied that any estimate for them could be made from the documentary record; that a scrupulous conservative scholar, H. A. Willis, using exactly the same sources as Windschuttle, came up with a figure of 188 violent deaths, and another 145 rumoured deaths; that Windschuttle's method excludes deaths of Aborigines who were wounded, and later died; that all surviving Aborigines transported by Robinson to Flinders' Island bore marks of violence and gunshot wounds "perpetrated on them by depraved whites"; that Windschuttle cannot deny that between 1803 and 1834 almost all Tasmanian Aborigines died, and the only evidence for disease as a factor before 1829 rests on a single conversation recorded by James Bonwick, and that Aboriginal women who lived with sealers did not, however, die off from contact with bearers of foreign disease; that Windschuttle likened Aboriginal attacks on British settlers to "modern-day junkies raiding service stations for money", whereas both colonial records and modern historians speak of them as highly "patriotic", attached to their lands, and engaged in a veritable war to defend it from settlement; that by Windschuttle's own figures, the violent death rate of Aborigines in Tasmania in the 1820s must have been 360 times the murder rate in contemporary New York; that Windschuttle shows scarce familiarity with period books, citing only 3 of the 30 books published on Van Diemen's land for the period 1803–1834, and with one of them confuses the date of the first visit by the French with the publication date of the volume that recounted their expedition; that it is nonsensical to argue that a people who had wandered over an island and survived for 34,000 years had no attachment to their land; that Windschuttle finds no native words in 19th century wordlists for "land" to attest to such an attachment, when modern wordlists show 23 entries under "country".[55][56]
In response to his critics, Windschuttle comments that they are "selective" in their critique, "politicised" in their judgment and do not address the "major charges" against the historians whom he criticised in Fabrication.
This in turn provoked Melbourne writer and Objectivist John Dawson,[57] to undertake a counter-rebuttal, Washout: On the academic response to The Fabrication of Aboriginal History in which he argues that Whitewash leaves Windschuttle's claims and research unrefuted.[58]
The Australian historian Keith Windschuttle has used holidays like Ochpaniztli as part of his indictment of multiculturalism, which argues that all cultures are of equal value. Windschuttle has argued under multiculturalism, the bloodthirsty culture of the Mexica must be considered equal with Western culture, a position that Windschuttle rejects as he argued that Mexica culture was "so perverted and alien to all the natural springs of life that its people indeed justify the label of "The Other", and was the Spanish conquest of Mexico, which resulted in the destruction of Mexica culture, should not be condemned by historians.
In reply to his critics, Windschuttle argues that Henry Reynolds "willfully misinterprets" what he wrote, since his argument about Aboriginal concepts of land is based not on their words but on their deeds. "It is not primarily an argument about Aboriginal language but about Aboriginal behaviour. I demonstrated the Tasmanian Aborigines did not act as if they demanded the exclusive usage of land. They had no concept of trespass".[29][32]
Keith Windschuttle (born 1942) is an Australian writer, historian,[1][2] and former ABC board member.
In April 2010, Windschuttle announced that the two remaining books in the series, Volume Two on the Colonial Frontier from 1788 onwards, and Volume Four on the History Wars, originally projected for publication in 2003 and 2004, will be published at a date yet to be announced.[81] In December 2013, Windschuttle advised that he hopes to have Volume Two published "in time to take its place in the discussions about our past during the Anzac Centenary in April 2015".[82]
With respect to the testing of the claims in court, Windschuttle writes: "... when they tested specific policies before the Federal Court, and when they argued the general intentions of the parliaments and legislators before the High Court, the historians and political activists who invented the notion of the Stolen Generations proved incapable of substantiating their case. As far as Australia's highest courts are concerned, the central hypothesis of the Stolen Generations is legally extinct"... "The only legal cases with any potential credibility would be those made by individuals such as Bruce Trevorrow, who was unlawfully removed from his family and suffered badly as a result".[79] However in the Trevorrow case, Windschuttle argues that the decision shows "that the actions of the Aborigines Protection Board in placing Bruce in foster care without his parents' agreement was actually illegal at the time" and not the result of a policy of removal but rather the illegal actions of welfare officials who believed, rightly or wrongly, that Bruce Trevorrow was neglected and that his health and life would be in danger if they returned him to his mother. The fact that Bruce Trevorrow's siblings were never removed is an indicator that there was no such policy and that welfare officials were not empowered to remove Aboriginal children on racial grounds.[80]
In 2002, historian and journalist, Keith Windschuttle, in his book "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One: Van Diemen's Land 1803–1847", disputed whether the colonial settlers of Australia committed widespread genocide against Indigenous Australians, especially focussing on the Black War in Tasmania, and denied the claims by historians such as Reynolds and Professor Lyndall Ryan that there was a campaign of guerrilla warfare against British settlement. He accused Reynolds of inventing evidence and making many claims without any documentary support at all. Subsequently, in "Whitewash: on Keith Windschuttle's fabrication of Aboriginal history" it was argued that Windschuttle failed to meet the criteria that he used to assess 'orthodox historians' and thus his accusations of deliberately and extensively misrepresenting, misquoting, exaggerating and fabricating evidence were flawed.
The historian Keith Windschuttle also disputed the film's depiction of events, stating in his work "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History" that Molly and the two other girls had been removed for their own welfare, and that the two older girls had been sexually involved with white men. Noyce and Olsen rejected these criticisms, stating that Windschuttle's research was incomplete. Pilkington Garimara denied Windschuttle's claims of sexual activity between her mother and local whites, stating that the claims were a distortion of history.