Windshuttle query (2 Viewers)

[tink 18]

Keith Windschuttle has his own website where he discusses his view on the aboriginal history debate, 'isms' and 'studies' (postmodernism, environmental studies, gender studies etc.) other historians, books etc.
the website if you want it is:

www.sydneyline.com

 

[LaTrobe]

Originally posted by tink 18

www.sydneyline.com

That site is bloody good mate. Great post!!

 

[LaTrobe]

For interests sake...how do we all spell windschuttle?
sch or sh? I've seen the different variations on published material.

 

[SmokedSalmon]

its windschuttle.. sorry i spelt it wrong in my title

 

[MiuMiu]

I never thought that Windschuttle was a post-modernist

In my Warren textbook they call him a modernist and so that is what I am sticking to. He believes that you can indeed uncover a 'true' history, and that post-modernists neglect hard research.

 

[SmokedSalmon]

i'm calling windschuttle a polemist and a pamphleteer

 

[amyb]

SmokedSalmon...hmm, me having stuff organised....well maybe not. I like Pm stuff, i find their theories interesting, and yes, confusing...but it makes me want to try to decode what they are saying.
I am so stuck on my Q2 response. I do convict women in NSW...how are people structuring this Q? Either way i can think of is horrible, very unstylish. Pretty much it seems i have to kind of divide my essay into 2 parts, dealing with each Area of interest...ugh. Bloody extension history! lol

 

[SmokedSalmon]

what do you mean hmmm amyb? I asked advice line and they say its perfectly fine to call him that. I don't even recognise him as a proper historian anyway.
But how you been answering section 2 over ur previous exams? If you have been doing well you'll be fine for HSC. btw is it ur last exam? its mine!

 

[LaTrobe]

Originally posted by SmokedSalmon
its windschuttle.. sorry i spelt it wrong in my title

Man thats the way they spelt it in the 2003 CSSA trial. Just found it interesting --> shows my complete boredom of studies

 

[SmokedSalmon]

lol LaTrobe... same here. I try to study for longer then 30 mins but then I get distracted by this lovely site.

 

[amyb]

Smoked Salmon:
i did not mean "hmm" in relation to what you said about him being a polemist. I think that sums him up COMPLETELY, he is afterall, writing a very controversial stance on a very controversial issue...if that isn't a polemic, then i don't know what is!
I mean "hmm" in relation to me being organised, as you said i was. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
It's my LAST exam....gosh am i one VERY HAPPY GIRL that it will be over in 2 days...!!!!

About the structure of Q2, well i have always done it as a mix of the two possible structures, but i have always hated how jumbled it is. We had a revision class today, and i asked the question about structure and my teacher agreed there is no sylish way to structure the essay. Thing is, when i don't feel good about the structure, the level of coherency kind of wanes as well...

One last thing: I hope people have heard of Alan Bullock, because i am having trouble 'labelling' him as a particular type of historian. I once thought he was influenced by the Annales School, but now i am not so sure. He believes the historian cannot escape his bias, as he is influenced invariably by his context, but that he should try to check this bias. Bullock demands that generalisations about human nature, etc. be done away with; that history is about breaking down assumptions not buidling them up. He goes on to say in 'The Philosophy of History in Our Time' (written 1959) that the historian should not find out "why they had to follow...but why in fact they followed'. (he is obviously referring to evets, noting that prediction and hindsight should not occur in history, that we have to experience the events as they happened, not as we now know the sequences.)
So...who has studied Bullock at least in part, and can help me label him???
I await enlightenment...haha
Thanx

 

[SmokedSalmon]

oh ok amyb. it is kind of hard to distinguish what 'hmm' means... because as we all know each historian comes up with an different perspective of the 'hm' then others. therefore... (ok i'm going off course here into post modernism so i'll shut up now)
But that's good you agree with me amyb.

alan Bullock: I would place him as a relativist... (relativism was during the 50s and 60s but of course u know that)
as Elton claims that a relativist is "to deny that meaningful truth can be found, in that there are numbers of possible views, none of which can be proved to be the 'right' one".
But really what Bullock talks about sounds very much like relativism. So place him under that category would be ur best bet.
But check with the advice line to be sure!

 

[amyb]

As far as i can tell, he believes there is truth in history. Here is a quotation that sums up his approach:
' Without hypothesis or synthesis, history remains a pastime for antiquarians; just as without criticism and erudition it loses itself in the realm of fantasy.'
So, really, i guess he is like...what's his name...agh, hate it when i can't remember names...maybe you know who i'm talking about...in the meantime i will look
;

 

[amyb]

I think like Bloch...but without the total history approach. Like Bullock wants the connections discovered, so that events can be truly understood. Bloch, i think, wanted to include everything...a broad range of sources encompassing broad topics.
So, i guess, afterall this, Bullock is influenced by the Annales School...haha. Post-Annales? Can i label him that?

 

[lazybum]

Originally posted by amyb

' Without hypothesis or synthesis, history remains a pastime for antiquarians; just as without criticism and erudition it loses itself in the realm of fantasy.'

;

does this quote say there is truth in history?
it tells me that without hyothesis and synthesis, there is no history, but with it it doesn't specify anything!!!!
what i mean to say that onne single quote of his does not place him in any category

 

[Katgurl]

Originally posted by 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?

I did get a little mixed up but i didn't pull the numbers out of thin air, i checked it out and 20 000 is the number proposed by Henry Reynolds as the number of deaths during the colonialisation, 120 is the number that Windschuttle sticks to because he strongly believes that the archinves has an objectivity of their own and never die.

This test is going to kill me! I know so much but i know so little... i'm scared!
Good luck everyone!

 

[amyb]

Lazybum, i was referring to the whole article, which i did not quote due to my own laziness, not the single quote to accredit him with believing in truth. That quotation was meant to show how he is like Foucault, i guess, saying that history needs both factual elements, and some presupposition. Facts alone do not say things, i guess is the point i was trying to highlight that Bullock believes. But hey, it's no worry, because i didn't end up using him in my response anyway.

 

[narrator]

windshuttle is a post modernit wannabe with a superiority complex and a less than acceptable opinion of australian history. he should do us all a favour and fly to a distant galaxy to wallow forever and ever in his own arrogance.

sorry, what was your query again? who cares, whatever it was, i just answered it. the guy is a loser and a moron.

 

[tink 18]

hey, narrator haven't you paid attention to the whole thread? i thought everyone had actually concluded that Windschuttle isn't a postmodernist. On his website he clearly states that he is against postmodernism, so i think unless you have gone and researched the topic properly than i wouldn't go around and say that he is a postmodernist unless you can actually prove it

 

[narrator]

a postmodernist and a postmodernist wannabe are two very distinct things, he thinks he can regulate and reason histiry through modernist means, making it accessable to a postmodern world, maybe you should read more clearly before accussing me of not researching the topic properly