History by committee: Representing the ‘facts’ of settler colonialism in a local historical society museum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his critical review of the National Gallery of Victoria's 2018 exhibition Colony, Bain Attwood (2019) suggests that the curators' aim of representing colonisation from both settler and Indigenous perspectives reflects the recent boom in exhibitions that seek to address what is termed 'difficult history' (see also Macdonald, 2008).Internationally, museums are displaying confronting histories and challenging nationalist erasures; for example, the International Slavery Museum in Liverpool and the Indian Residential School History and Dialogue Centre in Vancouver.In Australia, Indigenous artists such as Fiona Foley (2018) have pointed out that practices of historiographic critique and memorialisation have taken place in moveable Indigenous art, outside of national and academic institutions, in creative and community spaces (see also Foley & Howell, 2017;Grieves & Spiers, 2020;Konishi, 2019).Magdalena H Gross and Luke Terra (2018, p. 52) define 'difficult history' as 'periods that reverberate in the present and surface fundamental disagreements over who we are and what values we hold'.They note that some schoolteachers are reluctant to teach these periods of history, which include civil wars and colonisation, because they are too 'controversial' and 'divisive'.'What makes difficult history difficult', they explain, 'is … the degree to which it challenges or undermines the 10.HISTORY BY COMMITTEE Prowse, 2015).While there has been change in these spaces, and we must be careful not to dismiss the unique and sometimes also collaborative or consultative initiatives in place, commonly these museums retain aspects of a 'pioneer mythology' of settlement, with a focus on industry and early settler families.As Cameo Dalley has written elsewhere, these kinds of discussions about 'history by committee' also raise key questions around the reflexive and educational 'pre-decolonial' groundwork that settler individuals and groups can engage in before usefully contributing to decolonial activities, specifically in the realm of narrating local histories (Dalley, 2021; see also Land, 2015). Local history in focusAttention to local history spaces is of renewed importance following the 2018 delivery of the Final Report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.The recommendations for truth-telling within the report state that it is 'best implemented at local and regional levels' (Section 6.54).Legal scholars Gabrielle Appleby and Megan Davis (2018) noted in their submission that 'truth-telling must come from local communities, led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples working with non-Aboriginal people in that community'.'Local history societies' are one of the partners they list (Section 6.56).If such societies are to play a role, it is important to understand more about their current remit, how they are run, and their interest in, and capacity to educate visitors about, histories that may be seen as sensitive, confronting or divisive.This is of particular importance given that, in most Australian towns, local museums are often central venues for learning about history for locals and tourists, making them pivotal in the transmission of information and education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".