Why do Aussie leftists get triggered so hard by this book /his/?

>>2882094
It's inaccurate and basically whitewashing history. We know that beyond official number white whalers were killing men and enslaving and raping women in droves. In fact the remaining Aboriginals of Tasmania are the results of white whalers enslaving women and forcing them to seal and muttonbird in harems at times. Slaughter and genocide did take place.

>>2882121
You haven't read the book, have you?

>>2882121
Boong alert

>>2882175
I have, have you because clearly my retort would make sense if you did

>>2882094
Because Australians are retarded.

I've never heard of it, but after reading a couple of reviews it seems like a filibuster.
This was particularly enlightening

>[Windschuttle] derides the suggestion that Tasmanian Aborigines might act with "humanity and compassion" because such notions were "literally unthinkable" to them [because their language had no words for these concepts]. This baseless claim not only displays the cultural relativism that Windschuttle otherwise scorns, it also goes against significant evidence that was available to him.

>Windschuttle is not consistent in this however. While denying the Tasmanians the basic concepts of humanity and the defence of their native land on linguistic grounds, he is perfectly happy to accuse them of being responsible for their own extinction by virtue of their willingness to 'prostitute their women', a concept that would surely be hard to frame in a society with no experience of money or commerce (leaving aside the well-documented and widespread incidence of rape).

If the historian writing a revisionist history can't be consistent with his claims, then why should I take his word over 170 years of scholarship that argues that the Tasmanian Aborigines were genocided and that their treatment was abhorrent even by the most extreme colonial standards. If there were still Tasmanian Aborigines around to raise some public outcry, this book would be treated in the same vein as Holocaust denier's.

Windschuttle is a huge cunt whose writing revolves around decrying the unsubstantiated claims of others while providing his own unsubstantiated claims. Honestly I was surprised to hear that Quadrant still existed the other week.

>>2882121
>>2882205
Good one. you guys gave a very vague admonishment accusing him of 'whitewashing' and being in the same vein as "holocaust deniers". Yous till haven't refuted anything he specifically said. Typical leftist obfuscation.

>>2882211
The burden of proof lies on historians like Windschuttle who make claims that go against the common historical consensus.

>>2882211
This is some idiot's interpretation of how proof and argument works.

>>2882230
This is some idiot's idea of a refutation.

If you hate Abos, whatever. But to bullshit about history is unethical.

>>2882244
>Something requires a refutation

I'm Napoleon. Refute this statement.

>>2882253
Again you're making a claim that goes against historical consensus, the burden of proof sits with you.
I don't think history is for you, champ.

>>2882253
>prove a negative statement

damn you libshits are slow

>>2882265
>Can't refute it

Delete thread, it's over.

>>2882211
>Post full of green refutation
>"There's no refutation!"

>>2882211
You didn't really address the points presented in >>2882205.

>>2882285
/thread?

>>2882253
He's dead, though. Does that count as a refutation?