"Don H" wrote in message $V7.90012@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Swampfox" wrote in message
> $0$18200$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Don H" wrote in message
>> $V7.209320@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> > "fasgnadh" wrote in message
>> > $0$23753$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The Prime Minister's push to overhaul the teaching of history,
>> >> is making him look silly as the Commonwealth is already
>> >> spending millions of dollars to teach what he's complaining
>> >> is not taught! B^D
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Australia Day: PM wants new history"
>> >> - The Herald Sun 26/1/2006
>> >>
>> >> In 1984 they rewrote New History every day!
>> >>
>> >> Howard is always trying to rewrite history to
>> >> suit his White Eyepatch view, but this latest
>> >> outburst show he is either out of touch or
>> >> is doing a little of the Dog Whistling he is
>> >> famous for;
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Mr Howard condemned teachers yesterday for focusing
>> >> on abstract themes at the expense of the timeline of
>> >> history.
>> >>
>> >> "Too often, it is taught without any sense of structured
>> >> narrative, replaced by a fragmented stew of themes
>> >> and issues," he said.
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> Mr Howard said it was ridiculous to think history could
>> >> be taught without students knowing when the Battle of
>> >> Hastings was fought (1066) or when Captain Cook arrived
>> >> in Australia (1770)."
>> >>
>> >> The PM's emphassis on Date's and Timelines seems odd,
>> >> as these certainly are taught already.. has he had a look
>> >> at the VCE History Exam? B^p
>> >>
>> >> BTW: The Battle of Hastings is ENGLISH History, not Australian
>> >> History! BD
>> >>
>> >> What's more, his concern that students are taught
>> >> Themes, such as Australians at War , and issues,
>> >> such as Anzac Day, bring those dates ALIVE for young
>> >> students.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Kate Cameron, the immediate past national president of the History
>> >> Teachers' Association, says Mr Howard of all people should know the
>> >> Commonwealth has invested millions of dollars into the teaching of
>> > history.
>> >>
>> >> She says the prime minister will soon realise his claims that young
>> >> people do not have a full understanding of Australian history are
>> > unfounded.
>> >>
>> >> "Well, I don't know what he would base that assertion upon - he just
>> >> said it was obvious to him but he didn't explain what his sources were
>> >> about how obvious it was," Ms Cameron told ABC Radio.
>> >>
>> >> "I think he's going to be extremely embarrassed when he realises that
>> >> his own government has poured millions of dollars into providing
>> >> wonderful teaching resources and professional development
>> >> opportunities
>> >> ... to promote the teaching of Australian history."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Whats more, it is through looking at Gallipoli, and Kokoda
>> >> that Australian Values such as mateship and self sacrifice
>> >> are explored!
>> >>
>> >> The PM is also contradicting himself because elsewhere he claims
>> >> teaching those values IS important.. (Is he getting Past It?)!
> B^p
>> >>
>> >> "At the National Press Club in Canberra today, John Howard talked
>> >> about
>> >> the balance between maintaining Australian values, and allowing
> sections
>> >> of the community to express their culture and beliefs."
>> >>
>> >> So how do we teach what those Australian values are unless
>> >> we teach the about Simpson, and the Anzac tradition,
>> >> themes of Mateship and loyalty.. rather than the Date
>> >> which King Fauntleroy ascended to the British throne!?
>> >> (After all, they are all pretenders after the French
>> >> Bastard ascended the throne! B^0
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It also sounds as if The PM wants to teach beliefs, HIS beliefs,
>> >> rather than teaching facts and letting students decide for
>> >> themselves what they believe in.... he sounds more like a
>> >> Cardinal discussin RE classes, or a Mullah in a Madrassa,
>> >> than the PM of a secular education system;
>> >>
>> >> "We should have faith in what we have achieved and what we have
> become,"
>> >> he said.
>> >>
>> >> "The Howard vision for teaching would cover
>> >> indigenous history, the influence of the West
>> >> and the stories of nations who fed European settlement."
>> >>
>> >> But thats simply a strategy for excluding some immigrants
>> >> in favour of the PM's ethnic group!
>> >>
>> >> His prescription, Dates and Timelines, would mean NOTHING
>> >> would be taught in the proposed 'indigenous history' other
>> >> than some distant arrival date and White Settlement.
>> >>
>> >> Indigenous history is not about dates and timelines, so his
>> >> call to have more of 1066 and All That, and effectively
>> >> abolish indigenous history about events, values and meaning.
>> >>
>> >> And 'the stories of Nations who fed European settlement'
>> >> means your kids learn about Serbs and Croats, but not
>> >> about the Chinese who arrived much earlier, or the Vietnamese,
>> >> whose story is interwoven with our own! B^p
>> >>
>> >> As usual, it appears as if he has his usual agenda, and what
>> >> a cheap ploy to fire his shots in the Culture Wars on Australia
>> >> Day! B^p
>> >>
>> >> The ALP simply pointed out the Federal governments role in
>> >> educating History teachers "after an inquiry five years
>> >> ago identified the need to improve preparation of university
>> >> history teachers."
>> >>
>> >> "More than five years later John Howard is speaking about the same
>> >> problems," Ms Macklin said. "If he is so concerned about history
>> >> teaching he should ask (former education minister) Brendan Nelson what
>> >> he has been doing."
>> >>
>> >> State Education ministers just seem puzzled what the PM was
>> >> raving about, as Dates, timelines and Chronology are the
>> >> essence of history traching.. but so is understanding what the
>> >> events MEANT, and how values developed!
>> >>
>> >> "Australia's evolution as a nation and its development is
>> >> a critical part of the curriculum taught in Victorian schools,"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Howard, stuck in the 1950's is out of touch and out of DATE! B^)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> "There is a fundamental distinction between
>> >> multicultural and Multiculturalism, which racists
>> >> constantly and deliberately confuse.
>> >>
>> >> A society is multicultural if it has more than one
>> >> culture being practised within that society.
>> >>
>> >> 'Multicultural - A society which embraces a number
>> >> of minority cultures' - Macquarie Dictionary
>> >>
>> >> Multiculturalism is two things, the -ISM indicates that it
>> >> is a set of beliefs or ideas about multiculture,
>> >> ie a recognition of multicultural REALITY, an acceptance of it,
>> >> a celebration of it.
>> >> But it is ALSO a set of government policies to
>> >> formalize that recognition, acceptance and celebration!
>> >> Thus the Howard government has a Department which documents
>> >> the positive economic social and foreign policy benefits from
>> >> having a successful, open, democratic multicultural society."
>> >>
>> >> - fasgnadh
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "When Fasnag talks multiculturalism -> people living in Australia have
>> >> come from different cultures, and live different lives that could be
>> >> categorised into groups if you chose to do so.
>> >>
>> >> When I talk multiculturalism -> the formal policy at a governmental
>> >> level"
>> >>
>> >> - Rev. Headjob, liar and thief
>> >> demonstrating the deliberate confusion.
>> >> Message-ID:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------
>> >>
>> >> The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;
>> >>
>> >> http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The true-blue Homestead;
>> >>
>> >> http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The true-blue Hall Of Fame;
>> >>
>> >> http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The Tuckerbox;
>> >>
>> >> http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----------
>> > # Is history only a matter of opinion? or is it factual?
>> > There can be many selective or interpretative views of history, but
>> > only
>> > one
>> > set of facts actually match the events. It is the determining of what
>> > happened which can be a problem, but it is possible.
>> > The Objective view of History contrasts with the Subjective, which
> claims
>> > that all is subjective and relative. Did The Holocaust happen? There
> can
>> > only be one answer, according to the objective viewpoint - either it
> did,
>> > or
>> > it didn't.
>> > Then there is the Evaluation of History; which is not the same as
>> > being
>> > Subjective, but does involve such element. Having determined the
>> > Facts,
>> > what Value do we put on them? Was White Settlement of Australia a good
> or
>> > bad thing? This can be assessed in various ways - but the facts can be
>> > taught, while evaluation can be left to the individual to determine.
>> > Same with teaching Science, whose facts are more easily determined
>> > than
>> > History. True, scientists in the past had their view of empirical data
>> > coloured by their religious or other viewpoint, but this doesn't mean
> that
>> > the science itself is subjective or relative - though we must make
>> > allowance
>> > for historical context.
>> > Facts are facts, and we must face them. Let's clarify the issues
>> > involved. Words such as post-modernism, outcomes-based education, and
>> > culturally-determined, might sound impressive - but are they merely
>> > intellectual garbage?
>> > Thern there's Futurology, the most important science of the modern
>> > age.
>> > Is Global Warming occurring, and is it part of a natural cycle, or is
>> > it
>> > man-made? Again, facts are needed: meteorological data can determine
>> > if
>> > recent events are unique or part of a recurring pattern. Why should
> such
>> > pattern recur at a time when humans are at a peak of their
>> > technological
>> > and
>> > exploitative power? And how can we determine what is really natural -
>> > unless we first eliminate the Human Factor? Don't bother to try? Or
> wait
>> > until it may be too late to do so? Again what is Objective, as
>> > compared
>> > with Subjective, and how to distinguish one from the other?
>> >
>>
>> But why did The Holocaust happen, what were it's effects, will it happen
>> again?
>> If the fact of it's existence is established beyond doubt then these
>> questions are the hardest to answer, and shouldn't be left to the
> individual
>> to evaluate, at least not if we want students to be informed and indeed
>> taught.
>> The interpretation and evaluation of historical events is best done by
> those
>> with a detailed knowledge and background in the subject, ie, historians,
> and
>> while their asssessments will always be subjective we must of necessity
> rely
>> on their judgement to educate our students.
>> There has been a trend towards trivialising academics in recent times and
>> the now ubiquitous term PC has done little to further their cause but
> surely
>> these same academics that we seem ready to discount and deride are by far
>> the best qualified to educate and inform.
>>
> # Once the fact of the Holocaust is established, then causal factors which
> led to it can also be determined; these too are facts, or should be.
> None of this need involve evaluation by third parties, some of whom may
> have particular (if unannounced) agendas.
> I'm all for a variety of viewpoints being discussed, but against the
> imposition of any one - letting any student come to his/her own
> conclusion,
> provided it can be justified.
> History can be at its most distorted within any Religion, as it is here
> where emotions and special pleading occur. The promoters and adherents of
> a
> religion have a vested interest in a particular view of history, and
> anything which conflicts with it tends to be suppressed, explained away,
> or
> distorted to fit. Which is why the Jews can make much of the Holocaust,
> while, eg., Iran can say it never happened.
> When I was at school, the exploration of Australia by white settlers was
> part of our history lesson; the facts of Sturt, Eyre, Burke and Wills,
> etc,
> and the routes they took, were detailed. None of this necessarily
> involved
> any praise or condemnation - it just happened. Likewise, some of the
> beliefs and practices of our Aborigines were mentioned. Thus can history
> be
> taught, factually, and without any jingoism on the one hand, nor "black
> armband" PC on the other.
> History is, or should be, the recording of facts - of what actually
> occurred at any particular time, as accurately as possible. If such past
> events are supported by evidence, then refutation and distortion are less
> likely. A Protestant view is as distorted as a Catholic view; but if the
> truth is told, then neither side can claim moral superiority, as there is
> good and bad in all of us. Same with Moslem and Jew.
> Any historian who sets out with the aim of presenting a one-sided view is
> a traitor to his/her profession. Seek the truth, or leave it alone.

I couldn't agree more.
But in this case we are talking about the teaching of history in Australian
schools so we aren't necessarily dealing with distortions resulting from
religious views although in the case of some schools this may be true.
I have difficulty when politics interferes in the process as I believe this
can lead to greater distortions than the particular bias of a teacher, which
is bound to occur.
The terms PC and black armband are red herrings introduced into the debate
so as to slant it in a particular way to suit a prevailing mood.
Surely a black armband is appropriate when reviewing some of the least
savoury parts of our history but in the current climate the term is used as
a justification to either ignore or downplay these events.
The teaching of history in our schools should be left to qualified
professionals and politicians should get out of the way.
Would you take a $400,000 Ferrari to a plumber for repairs?
Of course not, so why allow politicians to decide how and what your children
will be taught.

Archived from group: aus>politics