Query: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: AnnVerna Beedell <A.Beedell@hum.gu.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 19:12:13 +1300
Date Sent: Mon 3 March 1997
Subject: Query: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Look, at the risk of disturbing the tranquility of the pond with my pebble, what do people think about the spectacle of the premier Queensland (Rob Borbidge in case nobody knows of whom I speak) offering to bring historiography into the Queensland government's thinking vis-a-vis its attack upon Wit and the High Court of Australia - following of course Blainey's latest remarks? For those who missed it, Blainey had a 12 second spot on the news claiming that the High Court was historically wrong, and that the result of the Wit decision would be to deliver 'racist' laws. Borbidge's response, (as reported) was to say something about how this showed up how the historians consulted by the High Court must have been nongs, or words to that effect.
The first question is of course, is this what Blainey actually said? or was he quoted out of context? If the answer to the first question is yes, then I think the issue needs airing by historians.
On the question of Wit representing, or leading the way to 'racist' land law, I would personally wish to know how he arrives at such a conclusion, and whether it is founded upon some new knowledge of Australian land law and its history. If Australian land law is racist after Wit, I would very much like to know how it wasn't racist BEFORE Wit. Not being an expert I would very much like to see some of the pros in this field muddy the waters/clear the air with a debate on the issue.
And maybe this is as good a time as any for historians to openly discuss the ramifications of the historicist arguments about relativity. 'Cos if Blainey doesn't scare you witless, Borbidge ought to.
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: the very provocative Philippa Martyr, Tasmanian School of
Nursing
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 16:51:44 +1300
University of Tasmania Date Sent: Tues 4 March 1997
Geoffrey Blainey doesn't scare me witless in the least, because I think he's a fine historical writer and eminently readable. If his views are not those of everyone else on, say, immigration, I don't think that matters. Is he going to be leading an army of white supremicists on a raid on Parliament House?
You may choose to think that while he himself may not lead such a raid, his ideas may prompt others to do so. Fine. Burn his books. While you're at it, burn all of Marx, Engels, the Bible, the Q'ran, and anything by Lenin or Mao. All these have been used to inspire and justify the killing of millions.
If we really do believe that there is no such thing as absolute truth, then why should Blainey or Borbidge or Hitler or anyone be scary? Their views are equally valid, aren't they? Isn't that what the idea of getting rid of the Dead White Male canon of thought meant - that all points of view could flourish?
Of course, it's moments like this I'm extremely glad that I do believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth. That's how I solve this problem of relativity, because when you think about it, the statement "There is no absolute truth" is a logical contradiction, like saying "I lie all the time".
So we get down to this: do we have freedom of thought and speech, or don't we? Do we burn all books, or don't we? Do we ban all historians, or don't we? There really is no half-way house without imposing a politically correct 'pick and choose' on who we ban, and who we don't.
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: Matthew Allen, Social Sciences, Curtin Uni, Perth
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:28:30 +1300
Date Sent: Tues 4 March 1997
In response to Phillipa Martyr who, amongst other things, stated that:
"Of course, it's moments like this I'm extremely glad that I do believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth. That's how I solve this problem of relativity, because when you think about it, the statement 'There is no absolute truth' is a logical contradiction, like saying 'I lie all the time'".
Hm, isn't the point about relativistic thinking that (in part) it questions -and certainly relativises - the logocentric assumptions within the phrase "logical contradiction"? If we are going to discuss this matter then let's at least explore the terms of the debate by which we might seek to understand the philosophical challenges which relativism (whatever that may be - it's about as 'straw person' as 'logocentric'!) might require us to consider.
While we are at it, then, let us at least distinguish between moral relativism and epistemological relativism. The former does not necessarily follow from the latter; nor does moral relativism imply the judgement that 'everyone is right'. Moral relativism can be seen as a much tougher moral or ethical universe than that constituted absolutely since no moral or ethical question can be left to the authority of God, Reason, Utility, Science ( or whatever other transcendental foundation provides the absolute guarantee).
It seems to me that, at the very least, we should also consider questions of application. Theoretically speaking, relativism may be as dubious as Dr Martyr maintains and ideally to be avoided. But, on the other hand, how do we cope with and analyse the apparently widespread human custom of thinking in relative terms and cleverly disguising those terms as absolutes? (I am thinking here, for example, of the treatment of indigenous peoples in Australia by Europeans from 1788 - 1997 at least).
What do people think?
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: Tom Lewis, Darwin <lewist@PEG.APC.ORG>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:43:56 +1300
Date Sent: Tues 4 March 1997
Not buying into this much - I don't think rational debate is very easy to come by in this debate. Two points might be made though - history is generally made by winners and thus is relative; - and it's WIK, not WIT - tho' that might be Freudian....
[Editor's note: can't speak for the original poster, but it wasn't Freudian from me - I haven't seen any media coverage of this in NZ. I will retain the header with the Wit spelling though, because if I change the subject line the archive will register a new thread. Just a reminder that you can search the H-ANZAU log at:
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/logs/mlogs.cgi
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: Jim Duffield, 4 Indigenous Australia <staffy@omen.com.au>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:50:37 +1300
Date Sent: Tues 4 March 1997
Given Phillipa's recent rejoinder about the icon of Blainey:
Whilst I may somewat grudgingly uphold most of that that Phillipa states, I believe that the political alignment of Blainey has compromised his academic credibility. From the Samuel Griffiths Society homepage:
http://www.exhibit.com.au/~griffith/
and notwithstanding that body's political alignment, Blainey, in addressing it stated:
"I do not think there is any parallel in the history of the Commonwealth for such behaviour by a leader. Symbols and institutions are more easily destroyed than created. Mr Keating should think twice about his tactics"
Given the attacks recently on the arm of government known as the judiciary by the anti-"black-armbanders" one has to wonder about "Symbols and institutions" being "more easily destroyed". . .
"Geoffrey Blainey doesn't scare me witless in the least, because I think he's a fine historical writer and eminently readable. If his views are not those of everyone else on, say, immigration, I don't think that matters. Is he going to be leading an army of white supremicists on a raid on Parliament House?"
He may be "a fine historical writer" but is he a fine historian, given his political alignment?
"If we really do believe that there is no such thing as absolute truth, then why should Blainey or Borbidge or Hitler or anyone be scary? Their views are equally valid, aren't they? Isn't that what the idea of getting rid of the Dead White Male canon of thought meant - that all points of view could flourish?"
As a person born in a German concentration camp, the pure objectivity of academia is accepted as being an ideal only, therefore I hope my political alignment in seeing Blainey in the same club as Borbidge and Adolph is seen as being reasonable and not Freudian. However to permit "all points of view" to "flourish" is to permit paedophiles and eugenicists to flourish. I would think not.
"Of course, it's moments like this I'm extremely glad that I do believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth. That's how I solve this problem of relativity, because when you think about it, the statement 'There is no absolute truth" is a logical contradiction, like saying 'I lie all the time'".
Is "absolute truth" different to truth? Substantial fact perhaps.
"So we get down to this: do we have freedom of thought and speech, or don't we? Do we burn all books, or don't we? Do we ban all historians, or don't we? There really is no half-way house without imposing a politically correct 'pick and choose' on who we ban, and who we don't."
One has to wonder what Colin Tatz at the Centre for Comparative Genocide Studies would say about this statement and its (lately) politically correct anti-political correctness stand? (white [and the pun is intended] armbanders?)
However, I do wonder at the point of the original email not being met by Phillipa. Blainey has been hoist on his own petard in attacking the High Court and also a brother academic - Henry Reynolds. He is attacking the same institutions he was critical of a politician, (Keating) attacking, "Symbols and institutions are more easily destroyed than created. Mr Keating should think twice about his tactics." He may be a substantial historian, but he has demonstably failed in his own words, in tactics, and therefore politics.
My Freudian slip is showing.
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: Philippa Martyr, University of Tasmania
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:54:15 +1300
Date Sent: Wed 5 March 1997
Dr Allan (for goodness' sake, Matthew, we were both at UWA, so can we be on a first-name basis, please?:-)) says:
"While we are at it, then, let us at least distinguish between moral relativism and epistemological relativism. The former does not necessarily follow from the latter; nor does moral relativism imply the judgement that 'everyone is right'."
As far as I can see, you can't separate the two. Ideas and language and words all have consequences. Moral relativism does actually imply the judgement that everyone is right, because there is - as Matthew says - no final arbiter. That really reduces the arbiter to the party with the most power; in other words, the will of the strongest becomes law. I find this infinitely more scary than Geoffrey Blainey.
But, on the other hand, how do we cope with and analyse the apparently widespread human custom of thinking in relative terms and cleverly disguising those terms as absolutes? (I am thinking here, for example, of the treatment of indigenous peoples in Australia by Europeans from 1788 - 1997 at least).
Darn tootin'. This is the Big Problem, of course. Is there a middle way between the disguise of relativism as absolutism - or, conversely, the disguise of absolutism as relativism, which I see around me far more often - and the Will to Power?
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: Philippa Martyr, <Philippa.Martyr@nursing.utas.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 12:25:07 +1300
Date Sent: Wed 5 March 1997
I'm in like Flynn now, so may as well:
"He may be "a fine historical writer" but is he a fine historian, given his political alignment?"
Do we now check people's voting preferences before setting their texts on our reading lists? I hope not.
"However to permit "all points of view" to "flourish" is to permit paedophiles and eugenicists to flourish. I would think not."
This is also part of my problem with so-called 'epistemological relativity' - that's how eugenics started; as an interesting logistical problem which then began to have awful practical consequences. Unless Matthew's talking about ontological rather than epistemological relativity, but I'd still disagree because language and words are real killers in their own right.
"Is "absolute truth" different to truth? Substantial fact perhaps."
Nah. I differentiate between 'fact', which is open to relativistic interpretation, and 'truth', which is absolute.
"However, I do wonder at the point of the original email not being met by Phillipa. Blainey has been hoist on his own petard in attacking the High Court and also a brother academic - Henry Reynolds."
At the risk of getting into a tit for tat business, Reynolds did have just a few words to say to Our Geoff over the 1984 immigration fracas, and there was what can only be called a witchhunt to detect nascent racism in Blainey's earlier historical writings. Shades of Demidenko.
"He may be a substantial historian, but he has demonstably failed in his own words, in tactics, and therefore politics.
My Freudian slip is showing."
That's all right, ducks. I still think he's a good historian, and reserve my judgement on his political nouse.
And now, having thoroughly put the moggy among the pigeons, I am off to teach about three hundred students for the next four hours.
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: Jeffrey Grey, History/ADFA <j-grey@adfa.oz.au>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 12:27:55 +1300
Date Sent: Wed 5 March 1997
re: Jim Duffield's posting
Whoa - do I understand you correctly? If you are not on the left you are not a serious/proper historian? Do you really mean that?
Blainey is guilty of hyperbole, certainly, and is disingenuous, probably. What I really dislike about the attacks on Blainey (with whom I do not agree, and as I type that I am wondering why I feel the need to put in that defensive disclaimer), is the way in which disagreement with his recent views on contentious issues is used then to damn everything the man has ever written in a retrospective ad hominem assault. He has written some fine books which are also fine history, and some others where I think he falls short of the target he sets himself - much like the rest us.
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: Matthew Allen, Social Sciences, Curtin Uni, Perth
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 15:36:10 +1300
Date Sent: Wed 5 March 1997
In response to Phillipa's comments,
Regarding the distinction between moral and epistemological relativism; yes you can separate them (as you yourself do in another post by referrring to 'facts' (knowledge) and 'truth' - by which I assume you mean values or human purposes (or, perhaps, ultimate grounds on which to base 'facts'). Undoubtedly, they are related: moreal relativism is often a consequence of epistemological relativism but I think that a degree of separation is useful.
Incidentally, if you look at Blainey's _Triumph of the Nomads_ he is morally relativistic (judging indigenous peoples by their own standards) but epistemologically absolute (what he writes is the objective facts).
But, let's move on: the key problem is an insistence on a binary divide between absolute grounds for truth / values and individual relativism (everyone is their own source of authority any 'rightness'). May I suggest that there is a third option? Social or group relativism, in which everyone is _not_ right but that each social or cultural group establishes norms and grounds which act _as if_ they were absolute for that group. In other words, moral or epistemological relativism is about groups/societies/cultures.
Hence it is quite easy for me (as a relativist :-) ) to say that indigenous people did 'come' to Australia from elsewhere ... according to the current dominant criteria for judging the truth or otherwise of that claim, but that it is _wrong_ to use those criteria exclusively. We should be able to live in a world in which we accept as true the proposition that indigenous peoples both came to Australia AND are (and always have been) part of Australia, thereby understanding the differences within our society.
But that's enough from me.
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: P J Martyr, <Philippa.Martyr@nursing.utas.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 13:59:48 +1300
Date Sent: Wed 5 March 1997
Matthew says:
"May I suggest that there is a third option? Social or group relativism, in which everyone is _not_ right but that each social or cultural group establishes norms and grounds which act _as if_ they were absolute for that group. In other words, moral or epistemological relativism is about groups/societies/cultures."
So, say, Nazi genocide, which had the support of the majority of the population - and this is itself a fiddly one - was right, because it was what most of the people wanted? They thought it was absolute, i.e. right and true. Does this make it right? Or can we too plead that we were only obeying orders, this time the 'orders' of the norms and grounds which act as if they were absolute for that group?
"We should be able to live in a world in which we accept as true the proposition that indigenous peoples both came to Australia AND are (and always have been) part of Australia, thereby understanding the differences within our society."
I don't have a problem with this. I do have a problem with the messier side effects of relativism, such as genocide. And whether we like it or not, messy side effects can and do result from both absolutism disguised as relativism, and relativism disguised as absolutism.
I do envy you people the luxury of chatting like this; I'm off for more teaching!
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: Tom Lewis, Darwin <lewist@peg.apc.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 13:59:53 +1300
Date Sent: Thurs 6 March 1997
I think I'll opt for the free speech camp. People like David Irving should be allowed to publish and speak on their views. The ensuing debate does much to highlight the controversial history they're debating - quite often to new audiences. John Stuart Mill says it much better: "If we would know whether or not it is desirable that a proposition should be believed, is it possible to exclude the consideration of whether or not it it true?"
The climate in Australia has become far too much of the "Right and Correct" and anyone dissenting usually these days shuts up rather than face abuse. All that does is breed a brooding resentment from many.
Oh dear, said it now.....
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: Joe Rich, <28401124469@journalism.ss.rmit.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 14:16:37 +1300
Date Sent: Thurs 6 March 1997
Is anyone in this debate seriously intent on denying Blainey the right to express the views he holds?
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: P J Martyr, <Philippa.Martyr@nursing.utas.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 16:53:13 +1300
Date Sent: Thurs 6 March 1997
Joe Rich says -
"Is anyone in this debate seriously intent on denying Blainey the right to express the views he holds?"
I'm not so sure that this is what people intend at all. But saying he shouldn't be listened to is effectively a form of muzzling, and if it were applied to those participating in the Wik decision it would be denounced as racism of the most patronising kind.
Mind you, it's preferable to arresting Blainey or the Wik people. I'd rather be laughed at than burnt. Actually, I'd prefer neither, but if I were given a choice, I know which one I'd choose!
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: AnnVerna Beedell <A.Beedell@hum.gu.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 12:05:18 +1300
Date Sent: Thurs 6 March 1997
I'll try again.
The point of my original query was to open up a debate around the role of historiography within the politico/ ethical sphere. There was no mention anywhere of banning anyone. I was particularly interested to hear from anyone who had information on the context in which Blainey made his latest remarks (he may well have been mis-represented), or about his claim that on the basis of 'wrong' historical advice, the High Court was in the process of creating 'racist law' relating to land.
The speed with which the debate centred around Blainey's 'right to be heard' was very touching. And of course he has no problem being heard at all. Seems like he only has to clear his throat and the media leap to attention. And far be it for me to suggest that this should be otherwise. But having got himself onto the podium (so to speak) I think it only right that his views be challenged, especially since he challenged the work of other historians, which then allowed the premier of Queensland Rob Borbidge (who wants native title extinguished and for leasehold to be turned into freehold - correct me if I'm wrong there) to go on the record saying that the historians who had advised the High Court must be 'nongs' (I think that was the word used) and this from a man who has called for the politicization of the High Court.
I'm sorry if all that is a bit garbled and not better expressed. My point about relativism as it pertains to history, is that the work of historians - all historians - has been diminished by it. In postmodernist terms we are all just so many novelists. This would be alright as far as it goes except that history is central to issues like Native Title - acknowledged in Blainey's being trotted out to diminish the work of people like Henry Reynolds - and underlined by the use made of Blainey's remarks by the Premier of Queensland.
Those historians who take the view that relativity releases them from responsibility to try to discover truth - or to open up a proper discourse with that in mind - should perhaps look at the current scenario very carefully, in which history takes centre stage as a form of evidence upon which could hang the whole land rights question.
Blainey has made his statements without having to argue them. And he has been believed because he is an historian of academic weight - precisely because of his reputation - and the reputation of historiograpy itself. I believe he needs now to support his views with evidence otherwise he ceases being an historian and becomes a right-wing rent-a-quote: and historiography becomes just so much media fodder.
Far from wishing to silence Blainey, I believe he should now be heard in a proper academic forum where his ideas can be properly scrutinized. Perhaps together with the historians he has maligned so cavalierly - for whom I note, there was very little support. What is it with Blainey that elicits such protective instincts in Australian historians? an instinct distincly lacking in regard to Henry Reynolds who I believe has set new paths and new standards in Australian historiography. I salute him.
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: George Morgan, <george.morgan@uws.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 12:07:38 +1300
Date Sent: Fri 7 March 1997
Matthew Allen wrote:
"But, let's move on: the key problem is an insistence on a binary divide between absolute grounds for truth / values and individual relativism (everyone is their own source of authority any 'rightness'). May I suggest that there is a third option? Social or group relativism, in which everyone is _not_ right but that each social or cultural group establishes norms and grounds which act _as if_ they were absolute for that group. In other words, moral or epistemological relativism is about groups/societies/cultures."
This is a glib and dangerous formulation which masquerades as an expression of solidarity and support for moral cultural self determination. It conceals a very conservative politics. How is a group relativism much better than individual relativism? I recently read a document describing the public torture of an Aboriginal woman accused of adultery around the turn of the century. Her punishment under tribal law was to have the sinews of her legs burnt through so as to disable her permanently.
If such a situation were to occur today I would have no qualms in supporting the intervention of the white state to prevent such violence. There are numerous other examples of barbarous acts which are carried out under the banner of cultural tradition and self determination.
To say that a group/society/culture should have the right to moral self determination presupposes that it is clear which social unit should be activated in each situation. In modern society we all live at the intersection of a range of social groupings. Identities are fragmented, we are drawn to and beckoned by a range of cultures. In addition, what appear to be powerful and unified social groups are frequently riven with internal tensions and power relations. It is not always clear what is the source of cultural authority in any situation.
To avoid the difficult task of formulating transcendent values is to evade the territory of politics in favour of a detached deconstructivism which collapses the public sphere (inaccessible though it undoubtedly is to many people), and shatters the social world into fragments.
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: P J Martyr, <Philippa.Martyr@nursing.utas.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 14:19:11 +1300
Date Sent: Fri 7 March 1997
I find the whole Blainey business of great interest, which is why I get so hoppy about it.
"Far from wishing to silence Blainey, I believe he should now be heard in a proper academic forum where his ideas can be properly scrutinized. Perhaps together with the historians he has maligned so cavalierly - for whom I note, there was very little support."
A bit of reading through the historiography of the Blainey affair will find that the boot was on the other foot in 1984 through to 1988, when Blainey was effectively hounded out of academia. The recent 'Frontline' episode on the 'racist professor' was built on the Blainey affair.
"What is it with Blainey that elicits such protective instincts in Australian historians? an instinct distincly lacking in regard to Henry Reynolds who I believe has set new paths and new standards in Australian historiography. I salute him."
Possibly because deep down some of us think that perhaps Blainey should have been heard in an academic forum back in 1984, instead of being turfed out of his job at Melbourne Uni. I also can't think of the last time Henry Reynolds lost his job over his views. In fact, I was at the launch of his latest book at the AHA conference in Melbourne last year, and saw him only loved and admired by hordes of historians.
But still, it's good to clear the air from time to time.
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: David Philips, Department of History, University of Melbourne
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 17:37:01 +1300
Date Sent: Fri 7 March 1997
I generally make it a rule not to reply to Philippa Martyr's frequent intercessions, but I must make an exception here. She says:
"A bit of reading through the historiography of the Blainey affair will find that the boot was on the other foot in 1984 through to 1988, when Blainey was effectively hounded out of academia. The recent 'Frontline' episode on the 'racist professor' was built on the Blainey affair. And possibly because deep down some of us think that perhaps Blainey should have been heard in an academic forum back in 1984, instead of being turfed out of his job at Melbourne Uni. I also can't think of the last time Henry Reynolds lost his job over his views."
The truth is - and Philippa has recently been proclaiming her devotion to "the truth" in history - that Blainey was NOT "hounded out of academia", was NOT "turfed out of his job" as a result of his views. In 1984, when he began to publish his views against Asian immigration, he was Professor of History at Melbourne University; I was a member of his department. When, after MONTHS of Blainey getting maximum publicity for his views, the majority of the Department signed a very temperate letter to the newspapers pointing out that we did not agree with Blainey's views, he was furious - and we found some very powerful people in Melbourne University gunning for us because we had dared to attack the mighty professor. But Blainey had not the slightest trouble finding media outlets for his views; the "Herald" newspaper gave him a regular column, and the radio and TV reported his every utterance; it was we, who opposed him, who found it VERY difficult to get any access to the media. The AHA conference was held at Melbourne University in 1984; 2 special symposia were organised, one on Migration Policy, and the other on 'The Social Responsibility of the Historian'; Blainey was invited to take part in both, but he declined. Channel 9 sent a camera crew to cover the Immigration Forum, but withdrew as soon as they found that Blainey wasn't there, so there wouldn't be any ratings-attracting fireworks.
Blainey remained Ernest Scott Professor in the Department of History - even if we had wanted to, we had no way of "hounding him out" of the University - until he chose to take early retirement at the end of 1988 (4 years later) - I remember, since I was Acting-Head of Dept at the time. In other words, there is nothing even remotely accurate in what Philippa Martyr is disgorging in the alleged name of loyalty to truth and accuracy.
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: Joe Rich <29E099D72EB@journalism.ss.rmit.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 17:41:49 +1300
Date Sent: Fri 7 March 1997
I have found this debate very interesting, both for what it has contained-such as the discussion of historiographical relativity and absolutismn-and what it has omitted-such as reasoned argmuent in favour of or opposed to Blainey's recent remarks apropos of the Wik judgement.
The latter, as closely as I remember, comprised a statement to the effect that Wik was based on faulty historical advice and involves a concept of land tenure that is peculiar to Aborigines and that the judgement was therefore racist.
I (and my students) would dearly love to hear some argument which addresses that issue while refraining from comments on the alleged moral turpitude of Borbage, Blainey and/or Melbourne University. The view under examination may (or may not) be a revealing reflection of Blainey's essentially right wing political views. But is it correct?
I hope someone will oblige as I (and my students) are interested in that question.
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: P J Marty <Philippa.Martyr@nursing.utas.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 14:15:56 +1300
Date Sent: Fri 7 March 1997
Cor blimey. This one *is* a can of worms, isn't it? Still, I must maintain that there's nothing like clearing the air.
It's just a pity David hasn't been reading my comments. I haven't been proclaiming my devotion to "the truth" in history recently at all. I've been arguing that I do believe there is such a thing as absolute truth.
Whether that has any application to history in any way, shape or form, or whether it even can have any application to a discipline which is based on interpretation of 'fact', is another point entirely. I haven't even touched on it. I'm more than willing to, at any time. How about it?
On the other hand, Joe Rich has my full sympathy for his request, but I think it may be a lost cause by now!
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: Tom Lewis, Darwin <lewist@peg.apc.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 14:15:59 +1300
Date Sent: Sat 8 March 1997
In response to Joe Rich's request
"I (and my students) would dearly love to hear some argument which addresses that issue while refraining from comments on the alleged moral turpitude of Borbage, Blainey and/or Melbourne University. The view under examination may (or may not) be a revealing reflection of Blainey's essentially right wing political views. But is it correct?
I hope someone will oblige as I (and my students) are interested in that question."
OK. How's this one. ANY discrimination on the basis of race is racism.....
Tom (trembling quietly now....)
[Editor's note: Given the 'flaming' situation that is breaking out on this topic, I'm going to restrict posts on this thread to ones which I think add something to the debate, and perhaps try to answer the original post and Joe Rich's request - Caroline]
Reply: Borbidge, Blainey and Wit
Author: Matthew Allen, Social Sciences, Curtin Uni, Perth
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:18:48 +1300
Date Sent: Mon 10 March 1997
George Morgan wrote, in part, in response to the suggestion that relativism is not solely individualistic...
"This is a glib and dangerous formulation which masquerades as an expression of solidarity and support for moral cultural self determination. It conceals a very conservative politics. How is a group relativism much better than individual relativism?.... [snip]
To avoid the difficult task of formulating transcendent values is to evade the territory of politics in favour of a detached deconstructivism which collapses the public sphere (inaccessible though it undoubtedly is to many people), and shatters the social world into fragments."
I do not wish to debate my personal politics here. My intervention in this issue was certainly not designed to suggest that group relativism or social relativism is some sort of foundational answer for all moral problems. My point is precisely the opposite: assumptions of foundational answers are the problem itself.
I had not, on reflection, made myself clear enough (and for that I apologise. What I am trying to say is that ethico-political behaviour, within the type of post-structuralist philosophy which informs my life (and that is not necessarily the same as 'postmodernism' - in any of its varieties), demands a constant negotiation (via animated conversation, awkward silence, reflexivity, action and contemplation) of the conditions under which criteria for judgement of good and bad are established, practised and challenged. To the extent that differing criteria emerge within different communities (perhaps a better word than societies of groups), necessarily that process of negotiation must take into account the criteria relative to their conditions and communities. (But I also recognise the difficulty of articulating this position)
Sometimes I am nostalgic for the certainty which foundationalism provides ;-)
[an error occurred while processing this directive]