Abbott’s version of Australian history draws criticism for outdated views

Dr Michael Galvin writes that Tony Abbott’s new book attempts to revive the outdated “three cheers” narrative of White triumphalism and in doing so reveals the decline of his own worldview.

TOO MEA. READERS are no doubt aware that he is tireless. Tony Abbott recently published his own history of Australia. (Australia: A HistoryHarperCollins 2025).

Interestingly, Abbott became history in Abbott History In more ways than one, as I intend to show in this article.

This is good news for those of us who see it as one of those nightmares from the past that weigh heavily on the minds of those who live it, especially young Australians.

I want to show that, although he does not intend to, in this book Abbott exposes the failure of his own anachronistic worldviews. He’s really once young, now old, an old fogy to borrow Paul KeatingSummary of years ago.

This book is a document of surrender, pure and simple, a threat to be defeated. A tribute to past glories, especially to the British White man.

What’s it like to enter Abbott’s world?

A starting point might be the following claim:

‘The Anglo-Saxon races owe their leading position in the world to their extraordinary qualities.’

Abbott was coming of age when he became a Melbourne academic. Ronald Taft published a article inside Australian Journal of Psychology in the name ‘Convergence on the Assimilation of Immigrants’. Taft had devised a 28-point “Australianism Scale” whose purpose was to measure how and why immigrant groups might make good (White) Australians. The obvious superiority of the Anglo-Saxon races (sic!) was one of the 28 points on his scale.

Or another starting point could be the words of the 95-year-old historian. Geoffrey BlaineyThe person who wrote the foreword to Abbott’s book.

It couldn’t have been Blainey during the history wars of the 1980s. clearer What were their preferences:

‘The cult of the immigrant, the emphasis on the separation of ethnic groups, the courting of Asia and shunning Britain are all part of cutting this thread.’

“Thread cutting” references Blainey “The red thread of kinship”1890 to express Sir Henry Parkes He explains what he thinks should be preserved in the country that emerged in 1901. In other words, Blainey here endorses his kindred view of what Australia should ideally be like. Pay attention to blood and earth tones. This proposal for 2025 is economic, racially discriminatory and geopolitical nonsense.

Abbott is not a racist, but he is picking up where Blainey left off. Blainey has no problem with the “three cheers” view of Australia’s success and success. Almost everything the white man (almost always male) has done since 1788 has been great. Never mind the rest of the world or its original inhabitants; To use a metaphor that appealed to Abbott, it was White Anglo-Celtic Australians who won the lottery of life.

This is the kind of Australia that Abbott (and baby boomers) were spoon-fed as children. This “three cheers” view reached its peak more than half a century ago, when Australia was a third of its current size and hardly anyone had completed high school, let alone university.

I turn to Abbott.

Although Abbott is trying to revive the “three cheers” era, which is now completely in the twilight zone and can only be seen in places like The Sky After DarkHis book is also a lucid and highly readable account of the political events of the last few hundred years. It’s even enjoyable in some places. Abbott has a journalistic instinct for colorful detail, odd but telling facts, and a wry turn of phrase.

He is a much better writer than a speaker; He’s less prone to brain farts that come out of his mouth when he’s talking thoughtlessly. (Even Blainey notes in his foreword that readers expecting more of Abbott’s ingrained pugilism will be disappointed.)

But that doesn’t mean that Abbott won’t turn to his own private obsessions when it suits him. Kevin Ruddof 2008 Apology to the Stolen Generations cursed with faint praise (Page 373). And while he calls out organizations that still represent the best of civil society in Australia, he cannot resist the pleasure of listing just two (volunteer firefighting, surf lifesaving) of which he has been a part of for decades (Page 297).

A similar example would be the Country Women’s Association (C.W.A.), an organization with a similar number of members and an equally long history. But it would be futile to look for a sustainable female perspective in the Australian story, Abbott being Abbott. It’s definitely not there.

Yet Abbott, as always, has an agenda, and that agenda comes out in ways big and small, and is revealed in the very strange first sentence of the book:

‘This is the book that should never be needed.’

This short sentence says a lot in various ways.

By the end of the book, Abbott proved that:

• At this moment in the history wars, the black armband view of Australian history (Blainey’s deplorable statement – for its obvious racist underbelly – but John Howard (because he knew it would turn out well for his legion of racist voters) he erased the “three cheers” view of White triumphalism and exceptionalism that had been dominant until the 1960s.
• Abbott admits defeat, acknowledging that his point of view has been defeated in the court of academic, intellectual and mainstream political thought. As he said, if his side had won, he would not have needed to write this book. It would be unnecessary.
• Even though he now feels like he’s on the losing side, he has no choice but to keep fighting. Samuel BeckettThe theater of the absurd comes to my mind: ‘I’ve never tried. I have never failed. It doesn’t matter. Try again. Fail again. ‘Better fail.’ or in other lines From Beckett: ‘You must continue. I can’t continue. ‘I will continue.’

(It brings to mind a gentleman from the South after the Civil War who still clung to the Lost Cause. Or a Japanese soldier fighting somewhere in the jungle years after his country had surrendered.)

Abbott’s first sentence sets the tone for the rest of the book. The musical score from beginning to end is the exact opposite of Blainey. Blainey writes in C Major; Abbott’s is an elegy in D Minor. These pages are dominated by deep pessimism and anxiety about the present and the future.

Of course, Abbott being Abbott, he enjoys the counterintuitive but superficially plausible discontinuity to make a point. One egregious example appears on page seven. It is worth examining this series of three sentences in some detail.

The first sentence points out that many Australians have inaccurate and inaccurate information about Australia’s early European history. It’s probably true. In the third sentence, Abbott then uses this “fact” to justify his conclusion that the majority of young Australians under the age of 25 want 26 January to be known as “Invasion Day”.

Frankly, Abbott wants us to believe that the reason young people can come to such a horrifying (in his view) view is because they don’t know enough history.

A more careful thinker, better ability to remember Chef or PhilipThe exact dates of are qualitatively different from the deliberate choice to use “Invasion Day” for January 26. As Abbott would know, correlation does not equal causation. But it doesn’t matter if sleight of hand helps him make an ideological point.

Anyway, here’s the interlude where Abbott betrays his fallacy:

‘It would hardly be surprising if a country where ignorance or misunderstanding of its history is widespread would be prone to believe the worst about itself.’

The shallow thought in this sentence is astounding. Doesn’t Abbott realize that the opposite could be just as true? Could this ignorance easily lead to delusions of grandeur, making people prone to believe only the best about themselves?

This kind of slippery thinking permeates the book when Abbott moves from the events themselves to what they mean. This is especially true in the final chapter titled Significantly. ‘We are drifting backwards’.

Abbott sees an Australia that ‘Materially rich but spiritually poor’ (page 385).

In keeping with the theme of the first pages, Abbott writes:

‘…there is a disturbing sense that the country is marking time, even drifting backwards, influenced by climate and identity politics.’

Again, Abbott fails to see that many Australians could use the words “climate denial”, “White racism” or “neoliberalism” and his sentence would make just as much sense.

Australia may be poor in spirit, but in my view, for reasons exactly opposite to Abbott’s.

In my view, Australia will remain poor in spirit until Abbott’s view of contemporary Australia becomes even more discredited. And his own book is a positive first step in that direction, because it is essentially a lament that he is on the losing side of history. The country he thought he lived in is drifting backwards.

All but the original inhabitants live on stolen land. This is true for immigrants who arrived last year or last week, as well as for those whose ancestors date back to convict days. Until there is a national consensus that recognizes this truth, and until there is a widespread desire to confess, repent, ask for forgiveness, and be forgiven (speaking in the language that Abbott would understand), rather than increasingly harsh and desperate denial and suppression of the truth, true reconciliation and bridging the gap will remain an impossible dream.

Aspect Voice campaign It showed that we, as a nation, are not yet close to this point. Racism remains deeply rooted in Australian history and the Australian psyche. Forgiveness may not happen in our lifetime, but it will happen one day. History shows this to be true. Australians forgave Japan. The Vietnamese forgave Australia.

The fact that Abbott can write a book on Australian history that acknowledges throughout that the “three cheers” view of our history has now failed is a necessary step in winning hearts and minds towards a less intolerable future.

Dr Michael Galvin is an adjunct researcher at the University of Victoria and a former media and communications academic at the University of Victoria. University of South Australia.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.

Related Articles