1

Contrasting the Black armband and White armband versions of Australian history

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Date
 2

Introduction

The debate over the portrayal of Australian history centers around two conflicting

perspectives: The two major approaches that are taken include the "Black armband" and the

"White armband" perspectives. The “Black armband” interpretation, which can be related to such

historians as Henry Reynolds, focused on the aspects of violence and subjugation, specially the

frontier on which European settlement was carried out, and the wars Indigenous Australians had

to fight. On the other hand, the so-called ‘White armband’ history, which has been propagated by

historians such as Keith Windschuttle 2000, asserts that such stories are mere myths singling out

the event as relatively bloodless, if not downright beneficial. This split traces back to the

ideological arguments regarding the narrative and-memory of the country. Therefore, in this

reflection of two argued narratives of Australian history thru the readings and lectures, this essay

endeavors to express which viewpoint is closer to telling the historical truth about the past. From

this perspective, am comparing the two views of Australia’s legal history, and it shall be seen

why the “Black armband” view, which incorporates Indigenous experiences and historical facts,

is truthfully factual than the better view.

Definition and Origins

Black Armband History

It is now often called by its popular nickname of “Black armband history,” which was

invented by Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey in the early 1990s (Jackson, 2019). It points

out the major flaw, which was detected by Blainey, in the negative and pessimistic approach

used to depict the country’s history. This allusion paints Australia as a country with a

questionable past, especially with regard to Aboriginal oppression and colonization

 3

consequences. Historians, such as Henry Reynolds, reveal frontier violence, genocides as well as

‘settler colonialism’ that the Indigenous Australians had to endure as soon as the Europeans

arrived. This viewpoint presupposes that society cannot come to know these injustices in order to

embrace the corrosion of the entire Australian history. Based on this, it subverts and critiques the

triumphalist and nationalist narratives that gloss over or silence the acts of violence that

vulnerable Indigenous peoples suffers. The desire that underpins the “Black armband” approach

is to create a more comprehensive narrative of Australian history because the histories it unearths

are too often buried, ignored, or erased, and to offer an avenue toward apology and restitution.

White Armband History

The narrative that has been referred to as the “White armband history” started as a

reaction to what was referred to as the “Black armband” view of Australian history which came

to the foreground in the late Twentieth Century in works such as Windschuttle, 2000. It is

positively oriented in presenting the history of Australia meaning that rather than identifying

problems and people’s struggles, it highlights accomplishment, evolution and the motivation

behind Europeans’ arrival. Some claim it is advantageous to make reassessment of Australian

history and focus on the creation of the wealthy and free nation and featuring the achievements

of the settlers. This is mostly because this perspective underplays or even denies the severity of

historical processes including frontier massacres and the suffering of Indigenous Australians.

Reynolds, 1999 and other critics of the ‘Black armband’ school of history argue that so much of

the violence used by European colonizers was overemphasized if not invented, meaning that the

real effects of colonization were less negative than currently portrayed by these historians. The

“White armband” view is an approach to the writing of history that aims at telling the story in a
 4

balanced manner allowing for the recognition of accomplishments while minimizing what they

consider as overemphasis on the guilt and self-criticism of the nation.

Key Arguments

Black Armband View

Black armband view point to the gross violations of Indigenous Australians’ rights

whereby they were dispossessed of their land, other atrocious acts like massacres and policies

such as the stolen generations where children were forcibly taken from their families. This

perspective posits that one must recognize these historical injustices in order to assess the full

consequences of colonization. Opponents claim that compensation and reparation are

unnecessary and that acknowledgment of past inequalities is sufficient to rectify the social harm

done to marginalized communities (Manne, 2001). In addressing such aspects of history, the

Black armband view aims at offering justice to and healing of the Indigenous population.

White Armband View

The White armband view is more with the possibilities of the settlers and advancement of

the contemporary Australian nation to the progress and prosperity. Critics would explain that the

adverse side of history, war, and other misconducts concerning Indigenous Australians are either

overemphasized or misrepresented. They think that history should focus on the benefits of

European colonization such as; ramped economic development, freedom and great civilization.

This approach calls for moderation since they considered as having Australia’s habit of beating

itself up over historical wrongdoings while promoting a more positive and integrated vision of

the country’s past.

Historical Evidence and Analysis

 5

Black Armband

Sources in support of the Black armband history include a range of historical accounts

stating the aggressiveness and injustices that Indigenous people suffered at the hands of

Europeans during colonization. These records show events such as frontier warfare,

extermination, and displacement from their ancestral homes. Moreover, other forms of

government rights that include the protection acts and the assimilation policies deprived

Indigenous people of their rights and property hence causing a major social and cultural loss. The

original policies and practices affected indigenous people and their communities in a very

negative way this information is according to testimonies and stories that we have heard from

generations (Shaw, 1992). Therefore, this evidence shows that indigenous Australians are

subjected to systemic injustices and confirms the colonization and oppression narrative inherent

in the Black Armband view.

White Armband History

Arguments that support white armband history include source documents that detail the

triumphs of the settlers and the process of building a nation, including institution and

infrastructure development as well as the creation of consolidated economy. The positive

attributes of European immigrants, among them the Europeans’ boosts to food production,

industrialization, and political systems, are solely depicted as crucial to Australia’s growth and

progress. Supporters of this approach recommend that history should be seen as a progression

and pride of modern Australia from a settlement with less developed social status to the

contemporary sophisticated nation. The colonialists argue that European settlement has had

certain positive effects, including its democratic influences, technological introductions, and

cultural developments (Jackson, 2019). To that extent, articulation of those facets of the White
 6

armband view fosters a powerful and positive story of social cohesion, specifically, that the

British are a fighting race who must endure suffering in order to thrive as a nation.

Critical evaluation of which one is right

The Black armband or White armband perspective poses an intriguing question as to

which of them is right or is more appropriate when proper consideration is given to the history

and particular interpretation and the overall history of Australia. A comparison between the two

means that though both give valuable insights, an analysis of the two opinions means that the

Black armband viewpoint gives a broader and probably truer picture of Australian history. This

idea is anchored on historical records that show instances of violent acts, displacement, and other

forms of injustice done to the Indigenous people of Australia upon colonization. These include

documents such as government documents, survivor and witness statements, and other historical

records that provide credence to the present-day con sequences of colonialism. The other merit

of doing this is that it helps in the process of reconciliation and the current issues of social and

economic Indigenous Australians.

On the other hand, as they perceived from the White armband point of view, the negative

sides of colonial history are minimized or ignored while highlighting the successes of the settlers

and the progress earned by the nation. Although recognition of successes is good, the reduction

or erasure of such pasts continues a cycle of erasure of Indigenous experience and reduces

histories of Australia to simplicity (Manne, 2001). Finally, it is imperative that a nation

recognizes the truths inherent in Black armband view in order to expunge historical amnesia and

see Indigenous people not only as a problem requiring solutions but also as agents who were part

of this world’s creation and have been trauma survivors since colonization began.
 7

Conclusion

The primary purpose of this paper has been to analyze the contrast between Black

armband and White armband perspectives on the history of Australia and identifying which one

is right. In some ways, the Pernell view can be more enlightening, yet, given the historical facts

presented in the Black armband view, it can be considered more comprehensive in explaining the

Australian past when addressing Indigenous injustices. It will be important in the future to

acknowledge that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a right to self-determination

as citizens of Australia, yet at the same time understand that there has been wrongs done in the

past towards the Indigenous peoples of this country. When balanced, national history encourages

people feel a sense of belonging to the nation without leaving out either the accomplishments of

the nation or the wrongs that it committed. The year 2020 revealed society’s rancid underbelly,

allowed Australia to acknowledge its problems, and, in return, provided the potential for the

country’s healing and evolution toward a more tolerant nation. In this regard, history cannot be

oversimplified but has to be accepted and acknowledged in all its complexity so that a humane

and more inclusive world can be built for the generations to come.
 8

References

Jackson, P. (2019). Naming Rights. Springer EBooks, 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-

030-20766-3_7

Manne, R. (2001). Quarterly Essay 1: In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right. In

Google Books. Black Inc. https://books.google.com/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=MWngZ6wvslwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=Manne

Reynolds, H. (1999). Why weren't we told?: A personal search for the truth about our

history. (No Title).

Shaw, A. G. L. (1992). British policy towards the Australian aborigines, 1830–1850. Australian

Historical Studies, 25(99), 265–285.

Windschuttle, K. (2000). The myths of frontier massacres in Australian

history. Quadrant, 44(12), 6-20.