To the layperson, the shifts and variations in government policy and its effects on Aboriginal lives can be bewildering, even during the past decade. Tim Rowse has done a great service by analysing more than a century of this tangled history, locating its patterns and its driving forces and making sense of it. He has produced a humane and convincing account of the demographic and social recovery of an Aboriginal population as it absorbed and accommodated the effects of intrusive social policies. At one level, Indigenous and Other Australians since 1901 provides a coherent account of the origins, implications, and outcomes of Aboriginal policy formation since Federation, ranging deftly across state and territory jurisdictions, decade by decade.
Philip Jones reviews 'Indigenous and Other Australians since 1901' by Tim Rowse
Philip Jones is a historian and museum ethnographer specialising in the historical trajectories of objects and images across cultural...
Read the rest of this article by purchasing a subscription to ABR Online, or subscribe to the print edition to receive access to ABR Online free of charge.
If you are already a subscriber, click here, or on the ‘Log In’ tab in the top right hand corner of the screen, and enter your username and password to log in. If you have logged in but are still seeing this message your subscription to ABR Online may have expired. Please contact us or click here to renew your subscription to ABR Online. More information about ABR Online can be found on our Frequently Asked Questions page.
Leave a comment
I'm surprised that Philip Jones was impressed and seemingly convinced of the validity of Tim Rowse's argument that institutionalisation 'ensur[ed] the survival' of Australia's indigenous population. Isn't this just another way of saying 'at least European invaders didn't massacre them all'?Monday, 12 March 2018 12:41 posted byClare Rhoden
The reviewer also comments, with apparent disapproval, that "For some historians, an appreciation of the actual damage done to Aboriginal people by colonialism can cause bias to affect their work." I would think that the most objective historians should be rightly concerned about 'actual damage done to Aboriginal people by colonialism', and that acknowledging that damage should not draw a charge of bias.
I'm afraid I disagree with your reviewer - Rowse's work sounds very much like an apologist interpretation of colonial policies, at least from this review of it.
Leave a comment
Please note that all comments must be approved by ABR and comply with our Terms & Conditions.
NB: If you are an ABR Online subscriber or contributor, you will need to login to ABR Online in order to post a comment. If you have forgotten your login details, or if you receive an error message when trying to submit your comment, please email your comment (and the name of the article to which it relates) to firstname.lastname@example.org. We will review your comment and, subject to approval, we will post it under your name.