Issues

Black Armband History

What is the 'black armband view' of history?

The 'black armband view' of history is a term used by some conservatives to criticise a particular view of Australia's history, by calling it a one-sided story of imperialism and exploitation.

However:

• The term is emotive and does not refer to anyone in particular.
• Looking at the history of colconial disposession continues to be important for our society.
• The term is used as part of a political agenda.

Who is part of the 'black armband brigade'?

While Geoffrey Blainey has referred to Manning Clark, Don atson, Labor Prime Ministers in passing, it has never been clear who is part of the 'black armband brigade'. Specific historical research is never analysed.


Problems with this approach

The argument is that there are individuals, academics and a general segment of society who see Australian history as a one-sided story of oppression. This rhetoric is never substantiated .

The term 'black armband brigade' is a generalization and threatens anyone who has looked symapthetically upon Indigenous issues. The great danger is that both the historians who have made critical investigations into colonial dispossession history and the historical work that they have produced may be undermined.


The importance of focusing upon this history

Until 30 years ago the history of Australia was a 'white blindfold' history. It ignored invasion, dispossession, the massacres and resistance, and said the country was peacefully settled. In the last thrity years historians have sought to correctr this uncritical view of colonial history.

If Australian citizens do not understand or recognise the impact of colonial dispossession on Indigenous people, then the rhetoric used by Prime Minister Howard and Geoffrey Blainey acts to reinforce the prejudices that remain in our society.


The use of history as a political tool

While the Prime Minister says that he recognises Indigenous history, he is unwilling to put this history on the same footing as other aspects of Australian history. This is a terrible contradiction and shows that his claim of even-handed treatment is not sincere.

For example:

• The Prime Minister is not willing to erect a monument at the Australian War emorial in Canberra for the Aboriginal people who have died protecting their land since 1788.
• The Federal government has sought to remove Tent Embassy, a historical icon of the Aboriginal Rights movement. If the Prime Minister was genuine he would recognize this monument as an important symbol of our country's progress.
  

Because colonial dispossession history is being marginalized, the 'black armband' term assists in reestablishing a 'white blindfold' view of history.

The 'white blindfold' view of history allows for the Federal Coalition to disregrd or at least sideline issues that have relevance to Indigenous people today. A significant exaple is the Stolen Generations. Because the Federal government has sought to present the wrongs done to Indigenous people as 'blemishes' rather than serious acts of institutionalised Government racism, they are able to undermine calls for compensation and the establishment of tribunal structures.


How should we look at Australian history?

A 'white blindfold' view of history is a simplified view of history and it does not recognize the experiences of Indigenous people.

The allegations of 'black armband' history misrepresents the complex and multifaceted histories presented by people such as Henry Reynolds and Ros Kidd.

Australian history is not simple and it unproductive to see it as any single story.

The recognition of Indigenous history and its importance to Australian history is not a simplification of history. It in fact recognizes the complexity of our past.


[ TOP ]