The glaring flaw in this article is that the author does not explain why it's not "partisan" for the left-wing dominated academia, drenched in Marxist fables and Keynesian myths, and statist to their marrow, to control the school curriculum, but all of a sudden it become partisan when anyone else tries to impart a different perspective. As if all the minds of all the children of Australia in every generation are the private property of the socialists and fascists and statists to mould as they please.

He also fails to distinguish between the nation and the state, the people in general, versus the tiny elite minority claiming a monopoly of the use of coercive power. To the extent that he has a valid point - that the curriculum can only ever be a political instrument of indoctrination - he establishes and argument for abolishing the national curriculum, not conserving it.

"Policy-makers have always utilised the national history curriculum as an instrument to construct a collective national identity that ensures the continuation of the system by instilling future citizens with certain social and cultural values."

There lies evil.

Attempting to impose a collective national identity on young souls, or any other identity for that matter, is the crime.

The rest are minor details. Whether the narrative sides with this or that party, or both perhaps, is not much of a comfort.

We are already beset by a host of identities, layer upon layer of falsehood, each taking us further and further away from the truth of who we really are. A responsible school should assist its students to de-identify with things, rather than burden them with further identifications.

Jardine K. Jardine has already pointed out the missing aspect of the article. History is now taught from a "progressive" perspective, which includes viewing almost every act of the British "invasion" and subsequent settlement as evil incarnate.

History requires a middle ground perspective between the "black armband" version and the glorification of British settlement.

The other important point is that how do you teach history without inducing into students some idea of national culture and the values contained therein? I know teachers and students ought to be as impartial as possible, but knowing where we come from contributes a great deal to understanding who we are. It's a timeless question. How do you teach the student (and teacher) to ignore their ancestry? At present the two perspective are - despise your ancestry (the "progressive" black armband view) or glorify it (the far right view). Both are value laden, not value free.

I just noticed Tim Pascoe is doing a Masters in International Law and International Relations. Well, I'd say it's a given he's an international socialist who desires to devise laws on a global scale and erode national sovereignty.

Dear Aristocrat,

<<The other important point is that how do you teach history without inducing into students some idea of national culture and the values contained therein?>>

Very true. Certainly good values are to be taught, but the credit should be given to the values themselves rather than to the culture which happened to carry them.

<<I know teachers and students ought to be as impartial as possible, but knowing where we come from contributes a great deal to understanding who we are.>>

If even teachers do not understand who they are, how then would the students? We have not come from anywhere - it's only our bodies which did, out of a womb. That has nothing whatsoever to do with who we are.

<<It's a timeless question. How do you teach the student (and teacher) to ignore their ancestry?>>

Indeed, how is that possible when even teachers believe that they have an ancestry, completely confusing between themselves, their bodies and the culture they have inherited, all being three different things.

<<At present the two perspective are - despise your ancestry (the "progressive" black armband view) or glorify it (the far right view). Both are value laden, not value free.>>

The answer is in the understanding that this ancestry is not YOUR ancestry. Once the teacher understands that they are not their body, that while the body has an ancestry, themselves they do not, then and only then are they able to teach their students to be impartial and objective, neither despising nor glorifying the plain facts.

History is an art, it's not a science and it's all about teaching values as opposed to facts, there's no practical difference between "Left" and "Right" ideology anyway since all the players have the same core values.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You appear to have some religious mind/body split permeating your argument. This is irrelevant and only confuses the issue.

Fact: The British settled Australia in 1788 and we have inherited many of their customs. This is fact. Whether you think this was a positive or negative is the next step in the debate and where morals and values enter the equation.

We are embodied by the values and morals that permeate a society. How do you stand outside of a moral position? Any criticism of one moral position is viewed through the lens of another moral position. This mind/body split argument you have going may have worked in Medieval Europe, but today it's seen as a bit of a joke.

Dear Aristocrat,

I was not suggesting a split between the body and the mind: just as you are not your body, so also are you not your mind.

So long as one does not understand the obvious difference between themselves and their body, including between themselves and their mind, how could one possibly be impartial?

In order to be objective and impartial, you must step away from the situation. So long as you believe that you are involved in the situation, your ego will not allow you to be impartial. You can step away from your body, you can step away from your mind, but how can you step away from yourself?

Once you get that you are not involved, that yourself has nothing to do with it, then you can observe and analyse the situation stoically: "oh yes, the British settled Australia in 1788, and oh yes, my mind contains many inherited customs of theirs, now what do I wish to do with them? keep or discard?".

Not only do we suffer from identifying with our body and mind, but the school-systems attempts to also add an identification with a nation. This is nothing but criminal.

<<We are embodied by the values and morals that permeate a society.>>

It is our minds that contain those values and morals - but you are not your mind.

<<How do you stand outside of a moral position? Any criticism of one moral position is viewed through the lens of another moral position.>>

It is the nature of the mind to accommodate those opposites, constantly thrashing against each other. Know thyself as free. Let the mind be your servant, not your master.

What confuses the issue is the identification or entanglement with one's body and mind, both subject to history, thus you unnecessarily entangle yourself with history. Loosen that knot, then it's all simple, then you just choose freely which customs to preserve and which to discard and either way is fine.

History is an art, it's not a science and it's all about teaching values as opposed to facts
JOM,
History is being invented on the run. It is governed by funding. Well, since the big Goaf anyway.

Ah, well.

I guess that, after brainwashing generations of Australian schoolchildren to believe that being blown to bits on a beach in Turkey is to embody the highest pinnacle of what it means to be Australian, I guess brainwashing more generations of schoolchildren to believe that neoliberalism saved the world can’t be that much worse.

When I was a kid history was a series of dates to be learnt by rote, of who begat who & when of English royalty, plus a few battle dates. I still know who got that arrow in his eye & where & when for gods sake.

But then, as with so many times in my life, I got lucky, along with the rest of the kids in a NSW country town high school. We got a new history master, who had been a squadron leader in the pathfinders in bomber command. This was early 50s, & most of that history had yet to be written.

Here was a man who had made history & we were learning the real stuff. If we played our cards right, we could get him on the formation & development of the pathfinders. This from a man who had seen hundreds of his mates die defending a way of life.

He made the rest of history come alive too. We actually stopped hating history.

My father had been there too, in PNG as ground crew, but never mentioned it.

Nice to see that Killarney really appreciates those who suffered & died on that beach in Turkey, or stopped the Japs in the mud & slime of Kokoda, so people like her could exist.

I guess if there had been many like her back then, the boys might have befriended the Japs, & invited them down to clean the place up a bit

Yet again, the progressives cry foul when the other team gets the ball.

Contorting the minds of children is fine by them, as long as its their agenda doing the twisting.

You can teach whatever you want in class.
That won't create "values" in any child's mind.

They learn "values" from real life (primarily family relationships), not textbooks.

I had to laugh at Tim Pascoe's statement that "Policy-makers have always utilised the national history curriculum as an instrument to construct a collective national identity...."

They used to Tim. But here in Australia and in other western countries, the people shaping the national curriculum have been doing their best to destroy a collective national identity in favour of some amorphous "multicultural" identity where separate religious, ethnic and racial groups are encouraged to celebrate their cultural uniqueness and revel in their social separatism from the mainstream.

Unless you think that Lebanising and Balkanising your own country into mutually hostile tribal groups is a wonderful way to create a peaceful country then that should be a concern to you. And from the sniffy tone of your article one gets the impression that destroying the social cohesion of your own country on some Quixotic quest to create a utopian society is exactly what you dream about.

When you consider the vigorous survival of the convict culture that began in 1788, it makes you wonder what real effect these elites have. For recent arrivals, this culture can be summarised as follows:

1. The government is the enemy of the people.

2. No taxation, with or without representation, with any deficiency in government finances being made up from the sale of politicians' assets.

3. The main problem with elections is that no matter whom you vote for, a politician is always elected.

4. Always vote NO in referendums.

This culture permeates society, from the attitude to tax avoidance to the policy of voting for one party in the reps and another in the Senate. It is profoundly suspicious and contemptuous of intellectuals. It is also the foundation of our liberties.

Another delightful expression of this culture is the upsurge in religion that occurs on the day before each election. (The electoral Act provides that in the event that you fail to vote in an election, and are sent a request for the "true reason" that you failed to do so, and you reply that you did so because it was against your religion, that this reply must be accepted as conclusive, and no further action will be taken).

Perhaps the most memorable expression of this culture that I have experienced occurred in Broken Hill in 1992, when Keating was PM and Hewson Opposition leader. When a miner was asked how he would vote in a referendum on a republic, he answered:

"I would have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating without having to elect Hewson"