The History Question: Who Owns the Past?; Quarterly Essay 23

Quarterly Essay #23

by Inga Clendinnen

In The History Question , Inga Clendinnen looks past the skirmishes and pitched battles of the history wars and asks what's at stake - what kind of history do we want and need? Should our historians be producing the \objective record of achievement\ that the Prime Minister has called for? For Clendinnen, historians cannot be the midwives of national identity and also be true to their history cannot do the work of myth. Clendinnen illuminates the ways in which history, myth and fiction differ from one another, and why the differences are important. In discussing what good history looks like, she pays tribute to the human need for story telling but notes the distinctive critical role of the historian. She offers a spirited critique of Kate Grenville's novel The Secret River , and discusses the Stolen Generations and the role of morality in history writing. This is an eloquent and stimulating essay about a subject that has generated much heat in recent how we should record and regard the nation's past.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Essays, Australia, Society

120 pages, Paperback

First published September 27, 2006

About the author

Inga Clendinnen, AO, FAHA was an Australian author, historian, anthropologist, and academic.

Reviews

[zed · Rating 2 out of 5]

The History Wars in Australia have been going on for a fair while now. This title is from 2006 when the wars were at their height. The then Prime Minister John Howard is a noted anglophile. He regaled the so called “black armband view of history” with the support of the Murdoch press. Rupert Murdoch, who has over the years made a concerted effort to make his father a Great War hero has since renounced his Australian citizenship so as to become a US media tycoon. His influence still looms large to this day in his attempt to turn Australian history into something it has never been. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-26... Though not mentioned in this item his newspapers have been vociferous in their attacks on academia.

Inga Cledinnnenn essay spends far too much time defending the position of professional historians over historical novelists. Is the reading public that removed from historical writing as opposed to novelist telling an either good or bad story of historical interest? I would have thought not but then I hardly care. I would have thought that I read history to be informed about an event, make a value judgement based on my knowledge or lack thereof whereas the historical novel is to enjoy as just a novel. Am I wrong I wonder?
As to the sub title ‘Who owns the past’ PM Howard at one point called for historians to publish objective records of achievement. Inga Cledinnnenn discusses that Howard seemed to think that historians were leaving out the ‘good bits’ and disagrees in that that it is not the historian’s job to pick and choose. I tend to agree with her. When did history writing become slanted towards being a record of achievement? This is not what history should be about for me. Yes achievements are too to be considered but to use a recent book I read, The Van Demonian Wars by Nick Brodie how can anyone water down and be dismissive of this less than savoury event when writing (and teaching) history? This for me is nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of such events. Bad things happen throughout history! Teach about it and learn from it. In fact I find it slightly hypocritical that the same people are angry at the Japanese for not discussing their less than happy history in the 2nd WW.

In the end though this essay rambles and strays from the subject far too often. I mean pages critiquing popular historical novelist Kate Ganville? What a waste.

[Bryn Hammond · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well-known essay in Australian circles, that asks Can a novelist do history? and answers, No.

I of course am on the other side, and think the novelist's case here weakly put: what she argues against is poor novel strategy, not the potential. Nevertheless the essay is justly known for its eloquence, even if you need a cogently written challenge from the opposition.

[Joshua · Rating 3 out of 5]

pretty good

[Craig Bellamy · Rating 5 out of 5]

In her thought-provoking Quarterly Essay, "The History Question: Who Owns the Past?", the late Australian historian Inga Clendinnen delves into the complex relationship between history, fiction, and the ownership of the past (published 2006) Clendinnen argues that the past belongs to everyone, but the role of the historian is to critically examine and interpret historical events based on evidence, rather than to mythologise or fictionalize them. Clendinnen highlights the importance of distinguishing between history and fiction, emphasizing that while both deal with the past, they serve different purposes. History aims to provide an accurate, evidence-based account of past events, while fiction has the freedom to imagine and create narratives. She critiques the notion that novelists can provide a more authentic understanding of history than historians, as exemplified in her analysis of Kate Grenville's novel "The Secret River".

Central to Clendinnen's argument is the concept of collective memory, which plays a crucial role in shaping our understanding of the past. Collective memory is often influenced by societal values, identities, and practices, and can be embodied in various forms, such as language and artifacts Clendinnen acknowledges the human need for storytelling but stresses the historian's responsibility to critically examine these narratives and separate myth from fact.

The essay also touches upon the ethical considerations surrounding the representation of marginalized voices in historical narratives. Clendinnen argues that while it is important to include diverse perspectives, historians must be cautious not to appropriate or misrepresent the experiences of others. Ultimately, Clendinnen's essay is a compelling defence of the historian's craft and a call for critical thinking in our engagement with the past. She reminds us that history is a complex, ongoing conversation that requires rigorous analysis and interpretation rather than simplistic narratives or moral judgments. "The History Question" challenges readers to consider the ownership of the past as a shared responsibility, one that demands both empathy and integrity.

[midsizedchillybin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite having some painfully boring detours that compare fiction writing with history writing, this has a lot of great points to make about the power of history telling. Written in 2006, it’s an interesting snapshot of the late Howard era, and reading it now makes me sad that so many problems of history telling in this country have yet to be significantly addressed.

[Georgia Rose · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thoughtful essay about how history is made, taught and valued in Australia.

The essay gives a decent introduction to the 'culture wars' in Australia and the ongoing fight between so-called 'black armband' and 'white blindfold' versions of Australian history.

I enjoyed the author's reflections on what ANZAC day has meant to her and her family at different points in time. I wonder what she would have to say about the locked down version of that day in 2020. I wasn't as invested in the side quest into novels about the Australian frontier (by Kate Grenville and others). I'm sure I would have gotten more out of that section if I'd read all those novels, but without that context I was left floundering and rushing to get back to the main topic.