The Sun-Herald

Q: 'How couls a colony now recognised by all world nations to be an Independent Sovereign Nation retain exactly the same legal & political system it enjoyed as a colony without any change whatsoever to the basis for law'?
Q: 'Why is'nt the truth of how and when Australia achieved Independent Sovereign Nationhood Status in 1919 following the end of WW1 taught in our schools and universities'?

• by Mr Mel Bartlett on September 20, 2008 at 06:39 PM

Some of the lowest ebb of human decency should also be taught.
The behaviour of the Government towards the Tampa, the abandonment of the SIEV-X and so to allow the drowning of 353 people, the way people were banged up in refugee camps for years without proper legal rights are recent examples, but there are others.
These are mistakes that should not be repeated and must be explicitly learned, if repetition is to be avoided.
There are bunch of others in which we have blamed Indonesia conveniently for failures of our own policy or behaviour. I am indebted to a friend and colleague for the following examples:
* the killing by Indonesian forces of six Australian journalists in East Timor,
* the "Act Free of Choice" that led to the permanent Indonesian occupation of West Papua,
* the illegal occupation of East Timor at the time when the Whitlam government was being subverted,
* the agreement between the Australian and the Indonesian governments giving Australia control of most of the oilfield between Australia and East Timor,
* the connivance of the AFP with Indonesian police to have Australian drug smugglers captured in Indonesia, where they face the death penalty, rather than in Australia.
Once again, these are recent examples, but there are others which need some elucidation. They are mistakes that should not be repeated.

• by Toby Fiander on September 21, 2008 at 09:20 AM

The development of the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides movements in Australia and their contribution to social values would be fine inclusions in history curriculum.

• by Trevor HALL on September 21, 2008 at 10:54 AM

Our ancestors, the ordinary men and women who survived to breed generations of other ordinary Australians, have much to show our children. With the recent surge of interest in family history and genealogy, students could trace their own family trees in school using the internet. They would discover the everyday details of life as the early settlers and convicts experienced it, making history, geography, technology and economics come alive for them in a most relevant way!

• by Annie Stanton on September 21, 2008 at 12:19 PM

When John W Howard rabitted on about history and values, I sort-of understood what he was on about, though I think he got it badly wrong.
He and I (half a decade later) learnt history at Primary School as part of what we called Social Studies. It was history with themes. There were explorers and all the rest, but one recurring theme was the quest for a just society.
With about 6 years of tertiary history under my belt, I realise that this is a simplistic way of treating history. But it helped us make sense of facts. Henry VIII's marital problems became a piece in a jigsaw of struggle which included Wat Tyler 150 years earlier and Wilberforce and the reform movements 300 years later. The Civil War and the Glorious Revolution were parts of the same fabric, not disconnected events. The real John Howard and Elizabeth Fry (prison reformers) belonged with Dr Barnardo and George M�eller (orphanages) through their common reformist Christian links.
At High School, History was taught as a separate subject and, with this Primary School background, we could still find themes, even if the subject was no longer taught that way.
And then came Australian History. Gold, Gallipoli and Great Depression. What was the story? We crossed the mountains and settled, we fought for Britain, and we went broke.
Most of us dropped out of History. We were the Snowy Mountains Scheme generation, and bending moments and power loads were the stuff of the real world.
Sometime around the beginning of the Wyndham Scheme, or maybe when Gough Whitlam came in, someone realised that most people knew little about Australian History.
So all the stuff we used to learn seems to have been retired, but Australian History got expanded with a bit more about our mistreatment of Aborigines and the fact that World War I also involved the Western Front. And it seems to have been taught as boringly as our few crumbs were a decade earlier.
It was all good stuff, stuff we should know. But the sweep of history got lost.
I asked some 20-somethings about Prison Reform, about the growing Puritan sense that Church and State should be separated, about Garden Cities, about Florence Nightingale, but they were open-mouthed.
Some of them knew more about the Roman Empire than about these much closer aspects of their own history, because Ancient History is apparently flavour of the decade.
I don't think the other John Howard got it right. We can't go back to the late 1950s. But we can put the country we live in into a context, and explain how we came to be who we are. And the kinds of values which schools can instil - the importance of a just and fair society, the rightness of standing up against injustice when it occurs, the value of being a critical observer = those things will be learnt and will help make Australia a place where Tampa could not occur, and where the outrage against refugee camps would have closed them within their first three months.

• by Peter Green on September 21, 2008 at 04:31 PM

I totally agree with Mr. Cool. I finished my studies in High School in 1999 and all the monotonous hours of learning boring Australian history sometimes makes me sound like an idiot when i go overseas and not know anything about their country, industry etc. Yes its very important to know your own history before the rest of the world but keep it simple etc. What the diggers ate, the fashion of Australian women at the turn of the century etc is not important, its the contributions that individuals and governments have made. I dont think i learnt anything about the Whitlam years, just the names of our previous PMs.

• by A.Shroff on September 21, 2008 at 06:27 PM

I am a university student studying history. I hate Australian History, I feel that its pretty much party politics for 100 odd years. Upon commencing tertiary education I found an abundance of Australian influence overseas. We have such a culture of comradeship shown in the wars, and not just the World Wars. There needs to be more focus on Australian involvement in the wars, and not just Gallipoli. The Western Front during WWI and the Battles of Kokoda are almost completely ignored according to the NSW school history syllabus. And then there is Vietnam, The Gulf and East Timor. We need to draw the kids in again. We live in a globalised world, why not teach them about Australia's position in the world?

• by History Student on September 21, 2008 at 06:49 PM

Our history is anything but boring. I recently discovered that my Sorbian great-great grandmother was widowed at 27 with five children and battled on to keep the farm going with two sons fighting on the Western Front. I think we need to impress on future young Australians that multiculturalism isn't a 70s construct, but has always existed in Australia. I certainly feel that my life has been enriched knowing that I've come from peoples who were not all Anglo-Saxon. It has also honed my research skills and problem-solving abilities tracing my family history.

• by enid on September 21, 2008 at 08:29 PM

hmmm.. how do we best craft our children's minds to make this country everything I want it to be?

• by John Galt on September 21, 2008 at 09:50 PM

I appreciate what Greg Leighton says. I did a short stint of tertiary History lecturing some years ago, but I know that was very different from what school teachers have to face. His explanation clarifies many of the issues.
One thing that many of these comments lacks -- and it was partly in response to this that I made my earlier comments -- is a sense of the overview. Yes, we should understand everything from dogs to Scouts and beyond. But we need to see a much larger picture. What role do these things have in what we have become? How did Scouts and Guides relate to Boys and Girls Brigades and CEBs, for example -- in terms of making the world we now live in?
I pity school teachers trying to teach history, and the struggles they face with meddling politicians. The fact is that we all have our own interests which we would want emphasised, and either have to integrate these with the broader range of what history is about, or else find some place where our particular interest is the main focus, such as the Canine Historical Society or some similar organisation.

• by Peter Green on September 21, 2008 at 11:35 PM

I did very little history at school, and a long time ago. Australian history was a series of boring accounts of who did what, usually copied from the blackboard, with no ideas or analysis. World history was the kings of England and their dates.
I agree with Mr. Cool. Include the history of Asia (particularly before, say, 1200) and the Middle East (particularly 1200-1800). It would make local history more interesting because students could get a sense of the commonalities and differences and the rise and fall of societies and empires.
It might encourage students to learn languages as well.

• by jenica on September 22, 2008 at 06:37 AM

How about:- The mass murder of hundreds of thousands of refugees and civilians, in direct breach of the Geneva Convention, committed by the Allies (of which Australia was a part) toward the end of World War II. This is often left out of Australian history books.

• by Diana on September 22, 2008 at 08:33 AM

I've perceived from every last one of the posts above, that we all agree (to some extent) on the current situation of stagnation in the teaching of Australian history... yet, as Greg Leighton indicates, there doesn't seem to be very much difference in the History course structure compared to many, many years ago - similar hours and course content; so why is it so many of us seem to know more Aussie history than we were obviously presented with at school?
Because we were motivated enough to find out is why, and even more importantly, impressed enough to make it stick in our grey matter.
The role of our teachers in infecting the young Australians in their care with the enthusiasm for this land and it's past, present and future is a most important one... Teachers are around kids more than their parents are; and as such, are as powerful a role model as you'll find.
It'd be terribly disappointing if lethargy amongst teaching ranks and it's associated reticence to "stretch the rules without breaking them" - i.e. the totally un-Australian desire to do nothing at all that might help those in your charge if there's a chance of possible negativity from those supposedly in 'authority'; led to the total entrenchment of a History syllabus that treats our history and achievements like dingo dung...
As a former teacher who watched the emphasis within the teaching profession go from "education is our only concern", to "keep your nose clean (unless sniffing the right butt), promote the buggery out of yourself as being God's gift to education and advance quickly through the ranks", I'm far from surprised that our educational system and the delivery of so many subjects is in this present malaise.
Get some enthusiastic teachers back into the system and it might just be that kids will become more enthusiastic about their whole education... even outside of class!

• by Steve Crisdale on September 22, 2008 at 09:14 AM

I find it really disturbing that we treat the last 200 years as all that matters. Children learning in Australian schools are from many different backgrounds; Aboriginal Australians included. It seems quite egotistical and just plain wrong to tell them that what happened prior to 1788 is not part of our history or not worth our focus.
Aboriginal Australian history is part of our story as a nation and applies to all of us. Not only those who were here before European settlement in Australia.

• by David on September 22, 2008 at 09:49 AM

I was lucky to spend a couple of years being taught by the St Joseph Nuns in primary school, we were taught a great deal of Australian history including Convicts, the Kelly family,Australian Poets including Henry Lawson (including his Mother Louisa and Banjo Paterson, just by studying these two poets you learn a lot about Australian history.
I didn't know about the blocking of the convict ship at Circular Quay but will now do some research on it.

• by Molly Reid on September 22, 2008 at 10:05 AM

It'd be nice if kids could be taught properly about our Aboriginal history - 22 years ago my year 9 class were the first people in my state high school to learn anything about aboriginal history and that was 2 whole weeks covering ooh, 40,000 odd years while we then spent the next wto years coving the 200 odd years of while settlement. What a fricking joke. I didn't even realise until uni (through Al Grassby's book 6 Australian Battlefields) that aboriginal people fought bravely to defend their way of life against the invaders.
A bit more about working class history as well would be useful - not many people realise that Australia was the hardest hit western country during the depression and just what that meant. Or the origins of why the industrial revolution in Britain lead to so many convicts coming out here - that stuff is fascinating, the whole social revolution that went on.
Looking at how bigotry has changed over the decades is both interesting and useful too - in my grandfathers geneartion it was the Catholics with their evil pope who kept to themselves, didn't fit in, made no moves to assimilate or integrate with the rest of society - sound familiar? History can be interesting, absorbing and relevant to today, but hte curriculum needs to be there for this to happen.

• by Annie on September 22, 2008 at 10:08 AM

OK, so no one may care as I am an American, and read smh from time to time to see what is going on in Oz (thanks Wiggles!) I know I will get shot down, but I think one of the most important struggles Australia has is to identify itself as a world continent, not just a British Empire possession. I know it is a very delicate subject, but it needs to happen. Own your identity, Australia. I know it is more than the Tasmanian Devil, Olivia Newton John, Ayers Rock, and a barbecue. Please give future Aussie men and women the truth about the great country you have. And give them pride in being an Australian!

• by American on September 22, 2008 at 11:44 AM

I think that Australian history is overexposed to school students. learning about Aboriginal policies in history and geography again and again over our high school years is dead boring.

• by Isabella on September 22, 2008 at 12:57 PM

I agree with Mr Cool. We should study australian history, but not ad nauseum. We can overestimate our nation's importance in the education of children, whilst underestimating the importance of far more important factors in the development of the people we are today. I point to the enlightenment (very broad, I am aware), the restoration, Adam Smith, religion, Ireland, the industrial revolution.
Then we can talk Henry Parkes. Who really is a legend... and for the record, I studied Burke and Wills (they died for no good reason) and not Parkes.
How dumb. pull up your pants, Australia.

• by Hugh on September 22, 2008 at 01:39 PM

History is fantastic, but I really think that people need to be taught in highschool about political theory and political economy. Learning about Hobbs Machiavelli, Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, the Frankfurt School, Marx, the Conservatives etc. because these people are the ones that formed the modern world.
The problem is people get to university and are confronted with a completely different method of delivery, where although there are different subjects of history, politics, law and economics, they are all interconnected. The lack of highschool subject interdisciplinarianness (word?) is shocking when that is the thing that universities are pushing. Oh and also, why do we learn about science in highschool and not the ethics and philosophy of science?
If australian studies was not so dry and boring (who cares about the home front in WWI?). You need to offer people things to think about. Not just say "australia is the bronzed aussie, australia is the ANZAC myth, australia is on the back of the sheep" because people dont identify with many of those things. I dont, Im a pale skinned urban woman, I dont care about the bush, or war, or anything like that... And australia is made up of many migrants and their families. Do you think serbians care about the ANZAC myth? No they dont, and its exclusionary! bah!

• by Afek on September 22, 2008 at 02:20 PM

Few people have heard of Emma Miller of Brisbane (1839-1917) and yet we should all be grateful for the things she achieved. She was active in many reform movements and was a founding member of the Workers' Political Organisation, later the ALP. She worked for equal pay for women, and was founding president of Women's Equal Franchise Association, working for universal suffrage - one adult, one vote.

• by Gwyneth Crawford on September 22, 2008 at 04:40 PM

Onya, Afek. I could add that 99.94% of the worlds population never heard of Don Bradman either.

• by Icarus on September 22, 2008 at 04:56 PM

Mr Dale: �Traditionally history lessons convinced kids Australia is one of the most boring places on the planet.� Which history lessons, Mr Dale?
Mr Dale you raise some good points. Yet, I wonder if you realise that all of the historical incidents that you listed could not be taught in the current complusory Australian history course in NSW, for example, as they all took place before 1900?
Now, Australian history may not be as bloodthirsty or as thrilling as some episodes during the course of world history yet it is still possible to bring the content to life and make it relevant for the students.
One thing that annoys me about the teaching of Australian history here in NSW is that in recent years politicians have determined much of what and when we teach as opposed to historians and educators. This is frustrating. During the Howard years a jingoistic approach has crept into the teaching of the subject. Some politicians want teachers to be politically correct as we teach the subject. Greg Leighton and others above bring out this point quite well.
I teach Australian history to Years 9 and 10 over a two year period. It is compulsory. I feel that the decision to make Australian history compulsory for students of Years 9 and 10 to be a poor decision. The syllabus content is tedious at times and admittedly it is challenging to engender interest and excitement in that specific content. The compulsory 100 hours of Australian history should be taught either to Years 7 and 8, either in a single 12 month period or over the two years in tandem with the Australian geography course. The Australian history taught should be comprehensive and not limited to the twentieth century.
Following that the Year 9 and 10 students should be allowed to select History as an elective. That elective subject should have a sweeping syllabus that covers world history, ancient through to modern and across all continents, including Australia. History should be an elective for the older students. The subject will attract a core of students interested in History. They can take that interest into senior subjects and then on to the community.
The politicians should leave the structure and content of the syllabus up to the teachers and not peddle their political or ideological agendas via our classrooms.

• by John Larkin on September 22, 2008 at 06:45 PM

I agree with Mr. Cool. I am a History trainee teacher and I have just taught 10 weeks of Year 9 Australian history. I taught the topics of Federation and World War I which concentrated on Gallipoli and the Anzac Legend.
Teachers can try to be creative but no one is a miracle worker. I would like to see those people who say we should focus on Australian history try and make Federation interesting. Although Gallipoli is one of the important aspects of Australia's history and identity and the kids find it much more interesting than Federation it is important that World War I history also focuses upon the European and American experiences. It is very disappointing to hear the groans when you say we are going to study the effect of (insert historical event) on Australia or let's look at Australia's role in (insert historical event). The year 9 and 10 history syllabus is parochial and these kids are living in a global world. Two years of a chronological history of Australia in the 20th Century is too long. Imagine yourself as a 15-16 year old what did you find exciting? Listen to the kids and what they are saying. They do want to learn (even if they say they don't) but it needs to be significant to their own lives not what we think they SHOULD know.

• by ED on September 22, 2008 at 08:00 PM

We all know that Captain Cook rocked up in 1788. But how many people know that in 1789 just one year later, the French Revolution began? Or that just a few years earlier in 1783 the American war of independence ended? Australia may be an island but it does not exist in a vacuum and I think it is important to frame the events of Australian history within the wider framework of what was happening globally.
In the grand scheme of things however, the details and 'facts' really do not matter. As Mr Westie has touched on, what is really important is that students are taught to think and write critically, analyse sources and be able to see through the inherent bias of all history writing. The ability to critically construct an argument based on evidence and using a theoretical methodology is at the core of the discipline of history.
In response to the question by DD asking: But since there were no written records, what factual material is contained in Aboriginal history before European arrivals? You have to be kidding, right? Are you seriously suggesting that because written sources are absent that we don't know any 'facts' about Aboriginal history pre-1788? Obviously the lack of written sources is an opportunity for students to learn the numerous types of evidence historians use to recover the past and the methodologies they work with.

• by Amy on September 22, 2008 at 09:25 PM

Mr Fiander,
You need to educate yourself. I am tired of ill-informed people like you commenting on the Tampa. The Australian forces involved treated these refugees, who had no right to come to Australia, with dignity despite a great deal of provocation from the muslims on board. The Indonesian military murdered the 6 journalists - this is OLD news - and how dare you blame Australian foreign policy for this!!!! Indonesia invaded another country, but mindless idiots like you, who should be thrown out of the country, will continue to argue that it is our fault. What a load of ......

• by kaw on September 22, 2008 at 09:28 PM

In amongst the predictable axe grinding dross (dogs fercrisakes ?) were a couple of gems much to my surprise. Greg Leighton, John Larkin, and the recent students, thanks for some perceptive comments.
As Imawestie noted there's some huge holes in the ways it's taught and the interest in history engendered.
There's sod all real time to cover history ancient and modern in the time allocated, it's got to be about creating an understanding of the wider fabric, and those interested will then fill in the gaps.
It's quixotic to try and ensure everyone knows everything about 'every-when' (to coin a word).
There's a not terribly complicated solution to the practical constraints of time and boredom- ditch the Anglo-centric focus on the "explorers". Who cares when Burke and Wills carked it or when Blaxland Wentworth and whatsizname crossed the blue mountains.
The same goes though for the 700th go around on the same superficial views on aboriginal history - if you can't add anything to what was taught in primary school then stop there.
Teach about the wars of black resistance and the massacres, but also set the framework for why (culturally) this happened (can I hear JWH choking right about now). Teach about the white perception of where they fit into the world and how that changed over time (white oz policy, colonialism, why WW1 soldiers fought under the union jack etc). Teach about the conflict between Irish and English forcibly transplanted to a new country and then how it changed with the changed rules (some context to Ned Kelly !!).
The problem of course is that people of various political stripes will then complain that by teaching the politics of the context you're "indoctrinating" politically and etc and of course we're back to the history wars.
Poor bl**dy teachers can't win !!

• by JL on September 22, 2008 at 10:21 PM

As a deeply cynical person I agree with the few comments here that the focus should not be just on the 'facts' but on judging the interpretation being presented of those facts. I did 3 unit history by correspondence (a very long time ago) and my teacher taught me how to read history books or evaluate primary sources with a questioning mind that took the political, religious, gender or other biases of the writer into account. It was an excellent grounding for life and has made me much more effective at establishing the reality behind the tripe I am feed. During the lead up to the Iraq War I often wished that some of the journalists, columnists and politicians who were either mislead or were doing the misleading had benefited from a few days with my history teacher.

• by Cat on September 23, 2008 at 08:12 AM

Aw gee, Amy! And this a history blog! You had some valid points but you almost lost me with your very first sentence: "We all know that Captain Cook rocked up in 1788." No, actually. Most of us know that Captain Cook rocked up in 1770. It was Captain Arthur Phillip and the First Fleet who arrived in 1788. Indeed some of us know that Captain Cook was most unfortunately dead well before that year.

• by Kate (the one with brave Year 9 history teacher in 1981 - not the later Kate) on September 23, 2008 at 06:52 PM