http://www.abs.gov.au/852563C30081B50B/0/0BE7A979498079B0CA256D33000C3672 The ABS has removed historical estimates of the number of Aborigines in Tasmania from their website because “the historical context in which the articles were intended to be viewed was not in all cases made evident to people accessing the site”; this “may have offended some people.”
Professor Bunyip believes this has something to do with Keith Windschuttle’s dispute with various historians over (among other things) the number of Aborigines living in Tasmania at the time of British colonisation—Windschuttle believes that there were about 2,000; others believe the number was between 4,000 and 10,000—and, according to one of Professor Bunyip’s readers, the missing articles support the lower estimate. (Geoffrey Blainey review of Windschuttle’s book.)
Fortunately, Google’s cache holds one of the articles: The Aborigines of Australia, contributed by W. Ramsay Smith. This makes clear what is meant by the “historical context” not being “made evident to people accessing the site”: for some strange reason, the fact that this article appeared in the Year Book Australia of 1910 is not immediately apparent. The only date that appears on the first screen is 2002, and it’s only by looking at the Bibliography that it becomes clear that the article was written a very long time ago. (Unsurprisingly, the article contains quite a few dodgy statements about the physical characteristics and customs, etc. of Aborigines that the ABS is not prepared to stand by in 2002.) Evidence of a conspiracy against Windschuttle? I don’t think so. (Though the ABS certainly could’ve been clearer about why they were withdrawn.)
(I do hope the ABS puts puts the articles back (though hopefully with better presentation): it is important that everything they’ve ever produced is available to the public, for all time—for some purposes, the wronger they were, the better.) 13:39
