Geoffrey Blainey Essay

Geoffrey Blainey is one of the most prominent historian in Australian. He was once described by Professor Graeme Davison, the Head of Historical Studies in Monash University as the most prolific, wide-ranging, and controversial of Australia's living historians (Davison, Hirst & Macintyre 2001, p. 74). Born in Melbourne on 11th March 1930, Blainey was graduated from the University of Melbourne, the same university where he was held the Dean of the Faculty of Art during his controversial speech in 1984 which resulted Blainey being the subject to threats of violence and eventually resigned from the position. He has published close to 40 books between 1954 to 2015 and his works on shaping the major themes of Australian history are hailed by Allsop

(2010). Some of his notable books are The Tyranny of Distance, Triumph of the Nomads and A Land Half Won and he was awarded gold medals for "excellence in the dissemination of knowledge for the benefit of mankind" by United Nation. In 2000, he was named Companion of the Order of Australia for his service to academia, research and scholarship.
Since the beginning of his career, Blainey’s historical method is different than others.

Allsop (2010) reports that Blainey’s first book does not contain footnotes, which is regarded as path-breaking and he soon developed a widely imitated method of relegating his references to the back of the volume and keying them to the text without forbidding numerical superscripts or unnecessary formalities. However, that is only a trivia of his characteristics where he always challenges conventional views. Throughout his career, his is well-known for his engagement in Australian History Wars and views on Asian immigration. In this essay, we will examine his involvement and contribution in Australian history and economics which he famously stirred

controversies.
The history wars in Australia are an ongoing public debate over the interpretation of the history of Australia. There were questions concerning the researches and history writing by historians along with the political or similar ideological biases of those who interpret them, for example, the history of the Indigenous Australians might be virtually ignored (Stanner 1969, p. 174). In the early 1970s, Blainey started to include Aboriginal history in a general Australian history subject while he was a Professor of Economic History in University of Melbourne and he is the first academic historian in the country to do so. Blainey claimed that ninety-nine per cent of Australia's history prior to European settlement was worth studying (Allsop 2010). This approach has created mixed reviews and Sydney Morning Herald had criticised Blainey for being too sympathetic to Australia's indigenous population. Blainey continued to research and assess Aboriginal history especially their lifestyle before 1788 which led to the publication of the book Triumph of the Nomads. The book was deemed to be revolutionary back then as he delivered Aboriginal history and culture in a way that no one had before. However, Indigenous Affairs Editor Stephen Fitzpatrick (2015) reported that even though Blainey has expressed his admiration towards the first people’s traditions, skills in hunting and mastery of resources, He has shown little sympathy on the colonization and claimed that Aboriginal and British would not be able to live side by side due to the vast different in culture. He also added that we have to give credits to British for making this continent into a major producer of food and minerals in the world.

The debates of history wars are not only around the accuracy and prejudicial of Australian history but also concerns on describing history leaning towards an overly negative or an overly positive point of view.

Blainey believed that much of the Australian have been focusing on the unfair treatment, massacre and the death of Aboriginal people, which he referred as the 'black armband view’ in one of his speech in 1993 (Barns 2003). Blainey (1993) explains that the term ‘black armband view’ is a metaphor of mourning and grieving, especially towards killing, exploitation and stealing of lands by the British. In contrast, people who believe that everything came after convict era was good is taunted as ‘Three Cheers’ view and others referred it a ‘white blindfold’ where people were blind by white supremacy (Convict Creations 2000). Blainey (1993) criticizes Left wing historian Manning Clark for spreading glooming view and claimed that it was unnecessary for being too sympathetic to Australia's indigenous population. Ironically, it was Blainey who first launched the book about Aboriginal’s history in Triumph of the Nomads in the 1970s which during that time, he was criticised by Sydney Morning Herald for being sympathetic to the indigenous people. Also, Clark could not agree with many of Blainey’s views and described it as an attempt to silence him (Allsop

2010).

The disagreement of history views between Blainey and Clark has evolved into political wars in 1980s. The participation of politicians in the battle of history wars was led by both Labor and Liberal leaders at that time. Barns (2003) suggests if the battle was like a game of Dodgeball, Paul Keating, Don Watson, Robert Manne, Henry Reynolds and Stuart Macintyre are on one side of the tennis court, and John Howard, Geoffrey Blainey, Keith Windschuttle, Peter Ryan and David Flint on the other. Labor’s leader and also Prime Minister at that time Paul Keating is a strong supporter of Manning Clark and often promote Clark’s ideology in the federal government. On the other hand, Liberal’s leader John Howard and Blainey charged Paul Keating and his team for stimulating ‘black armband view’ especially during the election period (Young 2007). The fight over Australian historical record is well illustrated by cartoonist Peter Nicholson in one of his drawings where prime ministers Paul Keating and John Howard ready to cross swords during the war. Loaded into their cannons are two of Australia’s most prominent historians, Manning Clark and Geoffrey Blainey (Davies 2011). In 1992, Paul Keating has famously acknowledged the history taken place in the Aboriginal population. "We [non-Indigenous people] took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life, we brought the diseases. The alcohol … We took the children from their mothers". He said during his speech to mark the International Year of the World's Indigenous People in Sydney (Clark 2016). Dr Mark McKenna (1997) from Politics and Public Administration Group described that John Howard responded by declaring he wanted Australian to feel comfortable and relaxed about their history and eventually, Howard-Blainey partnership have won the political battle as John Howard has become the Prime Minister in 1996 succeeding Paul Keating. Blainey's interpretation has been influential in determining the position of the Howard government on Australian history. However, the fight of History wars carries on until today. For example, in early March reporter Clarissa Bye (2016) reported that University of New South Wales students were told to refer to Australia as having been invaded instead of colonised.
Besides the involvement in Australian History Wars, Blainey has engaged in culture wars as well. His speech towards Asian immigrant in 1984 has sparked a great controversy that not only affected the immigration policy of both major parties over the next quarter-century but also taken a toll on his academic career according to The Standard (2008). Standing in front of a full packed crowd in Warrnambool’s Rotary Club, Blainey quoted “In the last few years, we have given powerful preference to Asian migrants. It is almost as if we have turned the White Australia policy inside out”. The Standard (2008) further reports that the next day, left wing historian Stuart Macintyre who is also a professor in the University of Melbourne compiled a list of 24 signatures from the staffs and published in Newspaper to dissociate from the views expressed by Blainey and claimed that the debate would incite feelings of racial hatred. (standard.net). However, Blainey’s speech has attracted widespread, prominent media coverage across Australia and inspired Parliamentary debates. Liberal party was among the first who adopted the approach of 1984 immigration debate with the proposition of rejecting Asian Immigration (Stevens 2016, p. 55). The Liberal has also recommended a reduction in Asian immigration due to public interest and coined the term ‘cut the Asian family reunion’. There is no coincidence that when John Howard was in charge of the Prime Minister Office, the English language ability test for concessional family immigrants was removed in 1983 but reinstalled in 1988 (Stevens 2016, p. 47).
Blainey’s speech also marked the downfall of his academic career and right wing historian Keith Windschuttle (2008) believes this is a political controversy. After Blainey’s speech was published, students and activists were gathered around the University of Melbourne to demonstrate against him, forcing him to cancel his lectures and other activities that he planned. Eventually, He resigned the University due to public pressure and Stuart Macintyre took over the Dean of Art position. Windschuttle (2008) claimed that the speech was far from inciting racial hatred and Blainey was criticising the volume of Asian immigration at a time of recession where unemployment rate was at record levels. Windschuttle (2008) further suggested that Blainey’s was concerned and sympathised with those working-class Australians competing with high number of Asian immigrants on the job market. Nevertheless, playing the racial card seems to resonate with John Howard’s One Australia policy which intended to reject Asian immigrants and Aboriginal people. Journalist John Pilger (2007) reported that one of Howard’s first acts as prime minister was to cut $400m from the Aboriginal affairs budget.
In conclusion, there are both positive and negative impacts of Blainey’s affairs in history wars and multiculturalism. Although he is associated with right wing party, this essay shows that he is positioned nearer to the centre of political spectrum. Let’s not forget that he is one of the first historians who wrote about Aboriginal history and emphasized the importance of Indigenous study in history subject. Today, Blainey is still one of the most prominent and celebrated historian in Australia.