Dr Naomi Parry is an Australian historian specializing in post-invasion Aboriginal history, notably the Stolen Generations (see: http://newmatilda.com/2010/02/15/culture-wars-are-over-and-heres-proof#comment-20604 ).
Dr Naomi Parry critiquing Keith Windschuttle’s offending book “The Fabrication of Aboriginal History” (2003): “Keith Windschuttle has presented The Fabrication of Aboriginal History as 'the most exhaustive study that's ever been done'.1 Yet within its pages are many examples of errors and misrepresentations that cast doubt on his management of colonial source material. One conspicuous blunder is in his treatment of the Risdon Cove massacre of May 1804.2 The shooting was certainly mass murder — even Windschuttle concedes three Aborigines were killed. An eyewitness, Edward White, informed the 1830s Aborigines Committee that 'a great many' Aborigines were killed, and the attack was unprovoked. Windschuttle discredits White, saying the man was working at a creek below the settlement and could not have seen the shootings. Either Windschuttle did not read White's statement properly or he misleads his readers, for White's account continues: 'the soldiers came down from their own camp to the creek to attack the Natives'… I have spent much of the last year mulling over the reasons why this contorted book was written. The last three chapters are simply abhorrent. Windschuttle picks out the most negative accounts to present the Tasmanians as 'maladapted', 'internally dysfunctional' and 'incompatible with the looming presence of the rest of the world'. He goes so far as to argue that the Tasmanians were 'active agents in their own demise' because the men 'held their women cheaply'.26 His thesis that Musquito led the Tasmanians into aggression is just another way of dehumanising the Tasmanian people. The purpose of this dehumanisation becomes clear in the epilogue, in which Windschuttle attempts to discredit contemporary Aboriginal Tasmanians by questioning their genealogies, and attacking their attempts to regain control over their cultural heritage. And all this from a writer who claims to be 'apolitical'. 13 This essay shows that Windschuttle has twisted source material to suit his own bitter interpretations. Now is the time for a new generation of historians to mine the rich vein of colonial source material in Tasmania. I hope these new voices will not be afraid to convey the drama and tragedy of the Tasmanian frontier, and to express the compassion that is so lacking in this book.” [1].