History wars have occurred in nations across the world, including Australia and America. History wars are unlike any other wars, because they are not physical. Rather, history wars occur when two competing sides debate over how a nation’s history should be told. In Australia, the history wars debate is centered on how the Aboriginal populations have been treated since the beginning of colonization (McKenna 1997).

Australian history has continuously represented the white majority perspective for generations, leaving out the perspective of minority groups, such as Aboriginal peoples. This concept is often referred to as “whitewashing” history, which is defined as “portraying (the past) in a way that increases the prominence, relevance, or impact of white people and minimizes or misrepresents that of nonwhite people” (Merriam-Webster 2011, n.p.). Australian scholars and historians have been working to include minority experiences and perspectives within Australian history, but this has caused debate, leading to the history wars.

Each country in the world has a unique and complex history. The way that a country’s history is portrayed impacts the image of the nation. In nations who have a past with colonialism, “History wars have come to be dominated by the past treatment of Indigenous people and whether this treatment constitutes a meritorious or shameful record” (Mundro 2021, p. 9). Ideally, countries would not be founded on violence, but this is the harsh reality that we must recognize. Recognizing and understanding former wrongdoings can provide us with insights to ensure that these mistakes are not repeated. That being said, reflecting on the past can be uncomfortable, because it forces all parties to acknowledge the harm and mistreatment that occurred. This is where the debate lies, as one side aims to preserve the image of a nation, while the other side aims to acknowledge the wrongs of the past for a better future.

History wars, by definition, are confrontational, where the two sides are pinned against one another. Historian and professor Mark McKenna (1997) illustrates the two sides of the history wars debate stating that “One side alleges that the other has no pride in Australia's history, and the other alleges that its opponents want to censor Australian history and deny the truth about the history of Aboriginal dispossession.” The two sides are in debate, as both sides accuse the other of seeking to warp history. Coming to terms with the reality of history presents internal battles, because people must adjust to a new version of how they view themselves, their country’s history, and the present circumstances of their society. Australia historian and professor Mark McKenna (1997) states that “As a people, we are trying to come to terms with the fact that 'Australian' history is no longer written purely from the perspective of the majority” (para. 11). For generations, majority groups have had the privilege of viewing history from the perspective of their own identities, so rewriting history to include minority perspectives forces those in the majority to modify their previously held interpretations of history.

How history is represented and written about has a tremendous impact on future generations. History is a subject that aids children in understanding the origins of their nation, while additionally impacting how they view themselves and how they view others in relation to their nation’s history. For more than two decades in Australia, public skirmishes have been prevalent over what history is being taught in schools (Parkes and Donnelly 2021).

Presently, the history wars controversy is centered around terminology, particularly in school history courses and textbooks. Terminology is important when discussing historical events, because the words that we use to describe history impacts our understanding. In recent years, controversy reappeared after the University of New South Wales released a guide for teachers, which suggested referring to Australia as having “been invaded, occupied, or colonized”, rather than “settled or discovered” (Smyth 2016). Teachers were urged not to use the term “discovered” when referring to the arrival of the First Fleet in Australia, because this terminology implies that the land had no previous inhabitants or occupiers. In reality, Aboriginal Australians had been living on the land for thousands of years prior to British colonizers invading their homeland.

Australian High Court decisions, such as Mabo and Wik, have changed the way that historical events are defined and interpreted by the greater public. The Mabo and Wik cases were separate High Court cases in Australia that were centered around Aboriginal land rights. For example, the overturning of The Doctrine of Terra Nullius (land belonging to no one), in the Mabo case, demonstrated that Aboriginal groups had land rights prior to British colonial invasion (Mabo v. Queensland 1988-1993). For this reason, the Mabo case provides a strong basis for using the term “invasion” rather than “discovery,” because the case altered the foundations of land law and British claims of land possession that Australia was founded on.

The term “Black-Armband view of history” was coined by Australian historian and professor Geoffrey Blainey. In 1993, Blainey defined the black-armband view as one that exaggerates a negative view of Australia’s contemporary origins (Taylor 2016). Blainey feared Australian views of history were swinging in a direction that distorted the nation’s image, because of the critical lens that the other side was taking. Blainey further described the 'black-armband view of history' as a historical perspective that resulted from a “swing of the pendulum from a position that had been too favorable to an opposite extreme that is decidedly jaundiced” (McKenna 1997, para. 14). The black-armband view of history is a central element of the debate of the history wars in Australia, because it demonstrates how the two sides view the opposing arguments as extreme and exaggerated.

The Bicentenary in Australia, January 26th 1988, marked 200 years since the arrival of the First Fleet, which was when British colonists first arrived in Australia. During the Bicentenary, Aboriginal Australians officially marked the anniversary of the First Fleet arrival as a day of mourning; this mourning is for all of the Aboriginal lives and cultures that were lost throughout colonialism. To demonstrate mourning, members of the Aboriginal communities would dress in black attire, including black armbands (McKenna 1997). In years following, those who protested against the impacts of colonialism continued to employ the wearing of black armbands at demonstrations on Australia Day/Invasion Day, which is the annual anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet.

Throughout Australian history, Aboriginal peoples have suffered loss of life, culture, religion, family, and children at the hands of British colonists. There stands a debate of whether these acts should be classified as genocide, as Australian historians, academics, politicians, and citizens are divided on whether the events were genocidal in intent.

Genocide was officially defined at the United Nations (UN) Conference of 1948, where five elements of genocide were established with “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, or religious group.”

The five elements of genocide:

1)Killing members of the group

2)Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

3)Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

4)Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

5)Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (United Nations 1948)

In Australia, historians and academics demonstrated differences in how they perceived and interpreted history. Historians Manning Clark Geoffrey Blainey were each advocates for their respective side of the history wars debates. Clark (liberal left) and Blainey (radical right) were firmly associated with Australia’s partisan politics (McKenna 1997). Although academics such as Clark and Geoffrey played a significant role in the history wars, the debate was further ignited in the public sphere when politicians became involved.

John Howard, former conservative Prime Minister of Australia, further ignited the Australian history wars when he criticised academics as “guilt purveyors” who viewed the country’s history as “little more than a disgraceful story of imperialism, exploitation, racism, sexism and other intellectual forms of discrimination” (Smyth 2016, para. 13). Later, Paul Keating, former Labor Party Prime Minister of Australia, intervened in the debate. This reignited the history wars, bringing them back to a public platform (Mundro 2021). Political involvement further polarized both sides of the debate, as the history wars pinned the right-wing versus the left-wing. Right-wing politics were associated with preserving patriotism and the positive image of Australia, while left-wing politics were associated with highlighting the violence of the past and acknowledging the wrongdoings of colonization.

Since the history wars are inherently a debate between two sides, there is little middle ground that is shared between sides. That being said, in a spirit of reconciliation, there have been attempts from both sides to move forward and find compromises. For example, some Australian Aboriginal leaders, such as Noel Pearson, have aspired to establish common ground by pointing out “the complexity of the past” (McKenna 1997, para. 12).

In an address to the Parliament in 2008, Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd

turned his attention to the history wars, where he stated that he had “no sympathy at all for those who have refused to confront some hard truths about our past, as if our forebears were all men and women of absolute nobility, without spot or blemish” (Manne 2009, para. 4). Beyond this, Rudd stated that he lacked sympathy for people who think “revolutionaries” and “renegades” should be exclusively celebrated, because this would exclude the “pioneers” and “entrepreneurs” (Manne 2009). In Rudd’s address he failed to choose a side in the debate, which one could argue is finding middle ground, but it could also be argued that a side must be chosen, in matters such as these, due to the elements of human rights involved.

If you would like to learn more about the current inclusion of Aboriginal History in Australian primary schools, you can visit: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au. The Australian Curriculum website provides examples of current curriculum and lesson plans, which shows what measures are being taken presently to include Aboriginal perspectives in history courses.

Curthoys, A. (2010). Genocide in Tasmania: The History of an Idea. In A. D. Moses (Ed.), Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History (1st ed., pp. 229–252). Berghahn Books. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qd5qb.13

Davidson, H. (2014). John Howard: There was no genocide against Indigenous Australians. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/22/john-howard-there-was-no-genocide-against-indigenous-australians

Korff, J. (2020). Paul Keating's Redfern Speech. Creative Spirits. https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/politics/paul-keatings-redfern-speech

Mabo v. Queensland (1988) 166 CLR 186.

Madley, B. (2008). From Terror to Genocide: Britain’s Tasmanian Penal Colony and Australia’s History Wars. Journal of British Studies, 47(1), 77–106. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25482686

McKenna, M. (2013). Different perspectives on black armband history. Home – Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9798/98RP05

Manne, R. (2016). The history wars. The Monthly. https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2009/november/1270703045/robert-manne/comment#mtr

Mundro, D. (2021). The Australian History Wars. In History Wars: The Peter Ryan – Manning Clark Controversy (1st ed., pp. 17–26). ANU Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv23hcdtd.9

Parkes, R., & Donnelly, D. (2021). The educational legacies of the history wars - public history weekly - the open peer review journal. Public History Weekly. Retrieved December 5, 2022, from https://public-history-weekly.degruyter.com/9-2021-7/australia-history-wars/

Smyth, J. (2016). Return of Australia 'history wars'. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/d0a0e7c2-f7b9-11e5-803c-d27c7117d132

Taylor, T. (2016). Australia's 'history wars' reignite. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/australias-history-wars-reignite-57065

United Nations. (1948). United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the responsibility to protect. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Whitewash. (2011). In Merriam-Webster.com.