Windschuttle seems to believe that there is some sort of historiographical conspiracy going on within Australian universities. He highlights the relations between historians such as Reynolds and Ryan at the beginning of 'The Fabrication Of Aboriginal History', and goes on about how they 'all' believe that the death and dispossession of Australia's indigenous peoples was genocidal.
His main method of 'proving' this belief (Personally, I find it paranoid, seeing there are significant differences in the outlooks of the respective historians, contrary to his depiction of conspiracy) is through finding errors in references and footnotes, as well as using the 'evidence' (Here is a major problem with Windschuttle.. He employs double standards. Reading The Fabrication, it seems that any evidence to justify his interpretation is 'objective' and 'accurate'...) to reveal that some recorded massacres never took place. Windschuttle believes that the 'real' history has been systematically distorted for political gain, contrary to his belief in the objectivity of the historian.
The argument that all history is politicised, that it is impossible for the historian to shed his political interests and prejudices, and that those who believed they could do so are only deluding themselves, has become the most corrupting influence of all. It has turned the traditional role of the historian, to stand outside his contemporary society in order to seek the truth about the past, on its head.....In contrast, the proper role of the historian is to try to stand above politics, difficult though this always will be. -Windschuttle, 'The Construction Of Aboriginal History, Fact Or Fiction?".
What makes it really ironic however, is that Fabrication can be interpreted as a political comment, seeing part of the text is about the Aboriginal 'mistreatment' of heritage areas, being strongly against land rights. Additionally, he denies the notion of an Aboriginal resistance movement, dismissing them instead as 'criminals';
Despite its infamous reputation, Van Diemen's Land was host to nothing that resembled genocide, which requires murderous intention against a whole race of people. In Van Diemen's Land, the infamous "Black Line" of 1830 is commonly described today as an act of "ethnic cleansing". However, its purpose was to remove from the settled districts only two of the nine tribes on the island to uninhabited country from where they could no longer assault white households. The lieutenant-governor specifically ordered that five of the other seven tribes be left alone.".-Windschuttle, 'White Settlement In Australia: Violent Conquest Or Benign Colonisation?"
But yes, his basic thesis is that there was no genocide in Australia, claiming instead that colonisation was a benevolent process. Indeed, he believes that the extinction of Tasmanian Aborigines occured not because of British policy, but instead due to supposed 'weaknesses' in the Aboriginals themselves..
The survival of the Aboriginals in Tasmania until the colonisation was more the result of good fortune than good management.The Fabrication Of Aboriginal History, pg.364.
Politically, Windschuttle is a Neo-Conservative. He was formerly a Marxist, but 'converted' at some point in the 1980's, I believe.
[Note, as you can probably tell, I'm strongly against Windschuttle in this 'dispute', seeing his criticism is hypocritical, and even if he does raise the occasional doubt, there's a vast difference between that and a deliberate fabrication of history..]
As for it's relevance to historiography, it can be seen as questioning the relation of historiography and politics, standards of evidence, objectivity (Eg:Last year's HSC question...), changing perspectives, public relevance/controversy etc:. I like writing about it.
Did anyone else see his speech at that Extension History day? It provoked outrage.. (I briefly 'debated' him outside the room after the major questioning, criticising his use of official evidence as the main basis of his thesis, seeing
official sources present the offical view-Peter Burke, and mentioning contextual ideologies.. As in, he uses newspaper reports describing Aboriginals as 'criminals', when this is a contextual viewpoint, rather than the absolute reality.]
