As a child I loved history. It was the catalyst to my dreams of being a super-cool archaeologist, like Indiana Jones. History is a beautiful thing because we learn about ourselves; why we do and think things in a certain way and hopefully, learn from our mistakes. However, the way in which history is taught is problematic, especially Australia’s Indigenous history. I would go as far to say, the way in which Indigenous history is taught and interpreted has and continues to have a significant impact on the truth.

For centuries the history of Indigenous people has been disproportionately constructed and construed by “white men”; historians, various commentators and politicians. For instance, articles have been published by white males of atrocities committed against first nations people but deny deliberate intention to commit genocide thus concluding genocide did not occur.

Genocide is often denied on the notions of “no intention” (to commit genocide) and no enacted policy. However, the definition of genocide is consistent with what occurred in Australia:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Many accounts of history are merely white Australia’s whitewashed interpretation. Although there is evidence that points to Captain James Cook and Admiral Arthur Phillip not coming to Australia with the intention to commit genocide, it is ludicrous to rule it out. After all, they are not the only leaders in the entirety of Australian history. You do not almost “unintentionally” wipe out an entire race of people.

It is quite evident the Stolen Generations was a deliberate act of genocide. Although it has been implied the deliberate forced removal of children does not amount to genocide, it does satisfy the legal description. Some would argue intent wasn’t present as the Aborigines Protection Act 1915 was enacted to protect Indigenous people (it wasn’t) however, the basis of the Act was the assimilation framework, and consequently if Indigenous people could not be assimilated they would have their children taken.

White Australia wanted the “Indigenous problem” solved. The way in which it was solved was to deliberately take children away in order to destroy a racial group. Not that genocide needs to be blatantly outlined in legislation, but in this case, it was government sanctioned. Considering the framework which within the Act lies, it is blatant that intention was there. Even after this evidence is presented people may still argue, it was good intention. Those people are still wrong. Even in the case that it was good intention, it was only good intention for non-Indigenous people, in that it would have made their lives entirely easier if the “Indigenous problem” did not exist.

Historians have argued the government has at times attempted to stop murders committed against Indigenous people. For instance, the decision reached in the Myall Creek Massacre trial has been treated as an example representing a government attempting to stop murders against Indigenous people. However, as an Indigenous woman I do not believe the government was attempting to stop the murders of Indigenous people. I would go as far as to suggest that committing murder against an Indigenous person was usually equivalent to today’s jaywalking.

Although it was the first instance of people being held accountable for the deaths of Indigenous people, only seven out of 11 men were executed after a decision was made in the second trial. In the first trial all 11 men were found innocent after a 15-minute deliberation. Even though a member of the jury knew the men were guilty, one juror could not see a white man hung for killing a black. The men were sentenced for the single murder of a child “Charley”, and not for the murders of the assumed 27 others. The evidence proves “it was like pulling teeth” to convict the perpetrators of the Myall Creek Massacre. Further, in the 1928 Coniston Massacre (the last “officially-sanctioned” massacre), no one was charged with the murders, there wasn’t even a trial, only a court inquiry, which concluded that those who had committed the murders “acted in self-defence”. To some white historians this is representative of the government attempting to stop murder against Indigenous people but to an Indigenous person, well, I have a different interpretation.

Last month the prime minister, Scott Morrison, announced a $6.7m plan to recreate Captain Cook’s journey in the Endeavour. As a white male Morrison has more than likely read great things about Captain Cook that were written by other white males. However, many people from the Pacific islands believe Cook was a crook. It has even been suggested he was dying of syphilis (which was not contracted from his wife), his men spread disease and even raped children. Tina Ngata, who is Maori, has studied first- hand accounts and given her own interpretation which would have most likely been influenced from generational information. When I first read Ngata’s writing I found myself questioning her, when it dawned on me that this is exactly what people do to Indigenous people here. It is so ingrained in society that we must treat the first-hand written account by the white historian as paramount instead of taking Indigenous voices into consideration and historical information passed down through families.

As an archaeology student, I was taught by white men who used materials written by other white men. We need to question disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology and history as they must be decolonised. Ultimately, at the forefront of these major disciplines are white men who are interpreting society from their perspective. It would be ludicrous to believe that one can interpret history without bias. Failing to include Indigenous voices when interpreting Indigenous history will result in an inaccurate record and continued failed policies.

• Lowanna Gibson is a postgraduate law student at University of Technology Sydney with a BA arts major in Archaeology/Anthropology from University of Sydney. She is a Gamilaroi woman