No abstract

In the last few decades the nature of history making, especially that regarding the contemporary era, has been transformed, changing not only the pasts that are being related but the way in which many people relate to those pasts. The shift in the nature of historical knowledge and historical sensibility owes much to both popular and academic forms of history; indeed, it is largely the outcome of a convergence of the interests and approaches of elite history and culture with those of popular history and culture. Generally speaking, history making has been democratized, but more particularly there has been an unprecedented rise in the significance attributed to experience and thus to testimony. People who have experienced an event and bear witness to it have come to be regarded as the most authentic bearers of truth about the past, indeed as the embodiment of history, and their accounts are increasingly received by many as a substitute for the history of the professional historian who seeks to record and explain a past event. This phenomenon owes much to the fact that we live in a global world in which an ideal of human rights has triumphed, a politics of recognition calling for acknowledgment of the collective experience and identity of minority groups has flourished, new institutions and technologies providing a sense of immediacy have expanded, and a culture of intimacy has become dominant in public institutions, not least in the media. Together, these changes have placed the personal at the center of public culture and put emotion on display; the Public Culture 20:1

No abstract

No abstract

This article considers the influence of a controversial historical work on the law, politics and society of a settler nation. It argues that the impact of Henry Reynolds's 1987 The Law of the Land on legal consideration of indigenous rights to land in Australia can be attributed to the fact that it is best described as juridical history. As such, it told a lego‐historical story that provided the High Court of Australia with a new way of interpreting its own traditional narrative, which had long denied Aboriginal people their rights to land, thus enabling it to make a new determination of those rights as well as resolve a crisis of legitimacy for the law and the nation. This article also contends that this history‐making came to be accepted by many settler Australians because it provided the nation with a newly redemptive, liberal myth narrative. It assesses the cost of a story of this kind, asking whether such simple histories can have an enduring effect, especially where their authors are reluctant to signpost the historical or literary form of their texts. Finally, it suggests that histories truer to the complexities of the past might produce better political and social outcomes.