Windshuttle query (1 Viewer)

[SmokedSalmon]

I called up the Advice line recently and two teachers on there promptly informed me that Windshuttle was not a post modernist. Also that many students incorrectly believe he is one. I think they commented he was an imperialist or something...
Can someone fill me in on what type of historian windshuttle is?
Just want some opinions people and whether I am getting the right information.

 

[Bolkonski]

Have you read the opening chapter of his "Killing of History"?
Well, he goes through all the type of problems that are encounted within the dialogue between the historian and the source.. bla bla bla bla.. he basically states that in the end although truth is hard to uncover... the process of finding objective history is attainable, but only through a mass amount of corroboration with other historians etc..

in the article I have from him he states that true objective history is attainable through a vast amount of corroboration with other historians..
he also believes that sources do limit the way we can construct a case and that sources themselves have their own form of objectivitiyy.. he points out for example that public insititution records cannot lie or have bias because they are plain fact.. statistics..
through this.. i sorta regard him as a revised version of post modernism.. he believes there is an objective history, but that it is only attainable through scrutiny ... historical debate..

"Historians adhere to a disciplined methedology that involves the construction of explanations from evidence"

"footnoted references and proper documentation are essential to the practise of the discipline (of objective history). this means that the work of historians, like that of scientists may be subject to both corroboration and testability by others in the field"

"Historians are not free to interpret evidence according to their theories or prejudices. The evidence itself will restrict the purposes for which it can be used"

so sorta... I suppose through these quotes we can sorta see him as a structuralist as welll.... btw must note that Killing of History was written in 94.

and and P.S. I got this wrong all the way up until now.. and its spelt... Windschuttle.

 

[AsyLum]

lol....yes...

Windschuttle is as far from post modern as you can get hahah.....


he may be revisionist but much more to the extent that he is in fact reverting from the popular trend of postmodernistic historiography rather than the previous method of the one singular truth

 

[*10#]

for starters windschuttle reckons you can get to the truth through research and source ananlysis - so theres no chance of him being a postmodernist

reynolds is closer to a postmodernist as he believes that all sources such as oral sources of the indigenous ppl are valid ie even the marginalised views should be taken into consideration not just the voices of the powerful in a society such as police records - but even then i dont know if he is strictly a postmodernist

 

[lazybum]

Reynolds is a 'postmodernist' in a sense that he lookks to the past and tries to find out what's missing . He doesn't take authority as the be all and end all. Nevertheless, even he you can't classify as a total postmodernist because it's no that he believes every truth is relative, rather he bellieves Abo history should be ADDED to Australian history to make a more OBJECTIVE history.

Windshuttle challenges this belief about the Abo's but it is important to note that Windshuttle does not challenge Reynolds Historical belief that there is an ultimate truth. He too believes that there is only one truth , you just have to workk on it.

Consequently, i really wouldn;t highlight either Reynolds or Windshuttle as being 'postmodernist.' I wouldn't even classify thhem as anything because historians don't like to be classified ie Evans denies he is a poststructuralist

It's confusing, but that;s the problem with postmodernism , their arguemment hell makes NO sense!!!

 

[AsyLum]

postmodernist historiography can make sense, for the most part anyway, the procedures still need to be refined and things such as David Irving or Keith Windschuttle are bound to pop up from place to place...in that i mean denying/revisionism...

 

[Katgurl]

Back in the old days Windschuttle was a strong Marxist, leaning quite strongly towards the left, but it is important to note that he is NO LONGER marxist (communist), he has within the last few years done a complete turn around and become feverently conservative, his recent works are what you would call empirical, this is a branch of history that is based strongly on historical method, particularly emphasising the accuracy of primary sources.

Windschuttle is writing primarily as a reaction against the "black armband" history of Reynolds and Ryan. You should note that these people were writing during a period when it was popular to write history from the standpoint of victims and the oppressed. In particular Ryan's book was written 20 years ago.

Windschuttle wrote an article against postmodernism which can be found online at http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2347

Windschuttle's primary argument is that a footnote in Ryan's book suggests that genocide occured in Tasmania, Windschuttle went back to the archives to argue against this and has reduced her estimate of 20 000 deaths to 120 "Proven" deaths. However much of his assumptions are a little naive considering that he does not really take into account the biases of the primary sources to their full extent and claims that oral history (which interestingly enough does not support his claims as fully as the written "white" history) which is the only history of the Aboriginal people at the time was insufficient.

In this case it is the evidence that has been questioned.

 

[NeverSummer]

I think you've got your numbers a little mixed up, but that's the general gist. Nice info on context.

Although, wouldnt you agree the case is about the treatment of evidence?

 

[SmokedSalmon]

Thanks everyone for your replies. I was getting so confuzzled by Postmodernism and Windschuttle... now I have some idea of it now.

By the way, I was not going to use Windschuttle or post modernism really for Section 1, unless I found it essential for my arguement. Would that be the wrong thing to do?
My historians are Herodotus, Thucydides, Van Ranke, Becker, Collenger and probably the debate E.H Carr/Elton. Should I learn more?

 

[LaTrobe]

Originally posted by SmokedSalmon

By the way, I was not going to use Windschuttle or post modernism really for Section 1, unless I found it essential for my arguement. Would that be the wrong thing to do?

My history teacher said its crucial to include post-modernism (he's a hsc marker) but its your choice i guess.

 

[amyb]

You can include PM without using Winschuttle/Renolds. Foucault, Carr/Elton, White...blah blah. They're not the most recent, or attribute the most controversy, but they are PMs all the same.

 

[SmokedSalmon]

Originally posted by LaTrobe
My history teacher said its crucial to include post-modernism (he's a hsc marker) but its your choice i guess.

Alrite alrite I learnt post modernism finally. I pulled out John Warren and went through it. Quite interesting actually. I have never mentioned post modernism in my previous exams and seemed to have done great... meh I'll use it anyway, since an HSC marker told you!

 

[NeverSummer]

I think Foucalt was a poststructuralist and Carr was pre-postmodernism...i think

 

[SmokedSalmon]

John Warren states that Derridar, White and Foucault are poststructuralists. So yeah ur right.
Carr... is similar to post modernism except for one thing apparently... but isn't he a relativist? bah its late.

 

[LaTrobe]

One of the reasons Carr can't be labbeled post-modern is that he was before the era. Writting on 50s or 60s i believe while Post-modern began in 70s

 

[SmokedSalmon]

yep exactly. Relativisim was during the 50s and 60s... and post modernism is later on.

 

[AsyLum]

Originally posted by LaTrobe
One of the reasons Carr can't be labbeled post-modern is that he was before the era. Writting on 50s or 60s i believe while Post-modern began in 70s

post structrualism and the advent of the french school of post modernism/structuralism began in the 60's


post modernism itself was attributed firstly to Freidrich Nietzsche if i recall first, the term postmodern really did not group together a particular era, but rather the reaction against the modernist movements/ideals...

i read that from somewhere was quite surprised as well

 

[SmokedSalmon]

John Warren states "The term [postmodern] was first applied to particular approaches in the creative arts in the 1970s. As the word suggests, it involves a deliberate rejection of modernism"

thats strange with your 60s comment... what is your source?

 

[amyb]

Yeah, i suppose he isn't, sorry. He came up with an interesting argument...rather strange really: he said that the objective historian was one who was able to understand the development of history, which includes the likely shape of the future. Hmm, anyone else seeing that as completey SUBJECTIVE, and as Warren points out, slightly Marxist????

I think Foucault can be labelled as a PM, but also as a post-strucuralist. He believed that "each society has...its own regime of truth...'Truth' is linked...with systems of power which produce and sustain it."
That statement does suggest a PM stance, especially if you note the lack of belief in one truth and the "'Truth'" as it is written...this suggests some degree of sarcasm being pointed at the theory that truth exists...a VERY PM viewpoint.

 

[SmokedSalmon]

Carr: I sure do. Sh!t I better look over Marxism... haven't yet. Wouldn't be a bad idea ey?
Foucault: John Warren deems foucault as a postmodernist/structuralist, so yeah you are correct there. You sound like your very well prepared, congrats amyb!
Btw, this post modernist stuff is hell fascinating... hope I can write it in the exam if I got time.