Many Deeds of Terror
Windschuttle and Musquito
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 2748816 |
|---|---|
| Authors | N Parry (0000-0003-3139-3997, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2003 |
| Issue | 85 |
| Pages | 207 |
| Publication date | 2003-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Labour History (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0023-6942 • E-ISSN: 1839-3039 |
| Publisher | Liverpool University Press (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.2307/27515938 |
| OpenAlex | W2082416895 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
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'.3 White also claimed that Surgeon Mountgarret packed bones in barrels and sent them to Port Jackson, which Windschuttle disputes, saying that White, a convict, could not have had any direct knowledge of the behaviour of a member of the colonial elite. This is laughable. Risdon Cove was a tiny outpost that relied on convict labourers who were perfectly placed to observe the activities of their masters. There is no reason to doubt White's recollection or to pour scorn on those who tell the story today. This article challenges Windschuttle's self image as a purveyor of 'truth', by forensically examining another of his misrepresentations that the Black War of 1824-31 is a misnomer. Windschuttle claims it was not a war but a 'crime spree' begun by Musquito, the Sydney Aborigine who joined ranks with the Oyster Bay people of Tasmania. Windschuttle's depiction of Musquito reveals the shallowness of his research. The notion that Musquito led the Tasmanians into aggression, and consequent denial of their agency in the conflict, dates from Governor Arthur's time. In replicating this narrative Windschuttle obscures significant information to present Musquito as a criminal antagonist because he sees the Tasmanian people as primitive degenerates who were incapable of political organisation, and who were not fighting for their land, but engaging in 'senseless violence'.4 This essay will present the known details of Musquito's life in a more complex light. While Musquito was a skilled fighter, his involvement in Tasmanian hostilities lasted only seven months, and only a few of the attacks that occurred within that period can possibly be associated with Musquito. 'The guerrilla warfare thesis' is the name given by Windschuttle to the view, shared by most contemporary historians, that the Aboriginal violence that broke out in 1824 and continued into the 1830s was a concerted campaign against the colonists. In chapters three and four Windschuttle attributes the outbreak of hostilities to the work of a band of 'detribalised' or 'Europeanised' Aborigines, who were 'simply outlaws', engaged in a 'minor crime wave'. At the head of this band of
Art · Criminology · Media studies · Political science · Sociology · Australian History and Society · Law
| Citations per year | 0.26 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2007 - 2024 (18) |
| Highly cited | No |