hahah stupid stupid windschuttle.
Quite selective of his use of evidence really, and thus conjures an image of Australia pre invasion by underestimating the numbers of indigenous people.
He's been widely ciricised for saying that there was never a genoicide of the Aboriginal people, however you've gotta note that he's not the first or the last, and just one of the many in fact who argue this. In a legal sense, it wans't genocide, then again, it's comparable to Rewanda in that you can spend as much time as the UN did arguing the meaning of genocide but ultimately you're still standing back and watching a race rapidly decline in population.
If you can get your head around his ignorance and misrepresentation (dare I venture into English Frontline?) of the truth by his selective approach to the evidence he uses ((then again, every historian does this!) then it's a good read to get a completely different oppinion to the majority of books that have recently been flung onto the market. I'm going to refer to Rosemary Neill here - a good read, but fairly typical in your controversial "aim to correct the injustices" read.
He's kinda like Australia's version of Michael Moore who recently misrepresented the truth in relation to the war on terror in Dude Where's my Country?.
Unlike Irving, WIndschuttle was completely aware of the injustices committed upon the Aboriginal population, Irving ont he other hand was not meerely ignorant but naive too.
