Dear readers ... on this topic, I recommend Geoffrey Melleuish's well-balanced article in today's Australian (30/1).

"Is Prime Minister Howard correct?"

No, he isn't.

Thanks
Petal

Is John Howard correct..

Yes

To understand where we are going we must understand where we have been.

And we keep trying to tell Mr Howard where we have been but he doesn't want to listen. We have to learn about where MR HOWARD says we have been. None of this "black armband" stuff.

And when was the last time the PM stepped into a classroom and actually observed what was going on?

Poor Kevin. Isnt it completely obvious that we whiteys invaded this continent. It was part of the same process of European colonialism and imperialism whereby we (whiteys) stole the lands and resources of much of rest of the world.

Of course we cant undo that process but we can and need to find the maturity to admit that that is what happened.

Howard & co are all to ready to wrap our national "identity" up in jingoistic interpretations of the Anzac "tradition" and we are all supposed to feel good and postive about it. Why cant we therefore be mature enough to accept the dark side of our heritage.It is still lurking there in the shadows and its ghosts or time spirits DO affect/infect the collective body politic.

Interpretations of HIS-story are always subjective. Certains events happened for sure but what were the inevitablle multiple contexts within which any and every event occurred?
And even more important, the multiple future contexts, events and processes that were inevitably triggerd by any historical event. Especially the inevitable unforseen consequences. For instance the Bushies seemed to imagine that Iraq would be easy. Look at all the unforseen consequences generated. And what about ALL the invisible karmas/patterns/momentums both individual and collective?
And besides which we are really like little stick figures running around on the tip of the iceberg of the great momentums and patterns of cultural and history pretending that we are in charge. When in truth we are hardly aware of any of the mass of the iceberg of historical momentum beneath our shoes. Much of what it is happening in the world at the moment has its roots in all kinds of historical karmas or patterns both individual and collective

A present time example of the inherently subjective nature of historical interpretation are the many narratives/histories being generated by the current American invasion of Iraq and the so called war on terror. And it is completely obvious that the official HIS-story as told by Bush/Howard/Blair is full of lies all of which are on the public record.

This is an important issue, but how can we have an enlightening discussion without taking sides and just reinforcing the feeling that we are at war with one another? I was a History teacher in the 60's to the 80's and I am aware of the trends that Kevin Donnelly is speaking of. I share some of his criticisms of the trends of the time but I want also to affirm the thoughtful contribution of those whom he is inclined to dismiss too lightly. Smacking down those trends and accusing their proponents is hardly likely to encourage honest exploration of the way forward. If we get caught up in taking sides, we will miss the chance to make some genuoine steps forward which respect all who want to make a contribution. I guess I'm simply wanting to argue for people with conviction to be willing to see that none of us has the whole picture and to constantly listen for the voice of the other who may have something to add to our insights. Can we model a way of curriculum development which reflects the sort of co-operative society that I suspect most teachers really desire?

Ledingham

We learn two things about Kev from this piece. One his motives are religious based. And two he is happy to describe a complex issue into a simply one so he can blame someone else for the problem.
The real problem here is their are a bunch of conservatives trying to stop a revolution in Australia and indeed much of the world. this is just one front in the battle between progressive and conservative forces.....
or is it simply that kids have to learn so much now and come out of high school job ready that subjects like history and geography have changed.

Come up with alternatives Kev it’s easy to poke holes in things and make vague statements.

I tend to agree ledingham.
There is a middle course between history as propaganda & history as national mourning. We could teach all the history, as you suggest, from all sides. That means we teach the good AND bad in this country. The good it has accomplished AND the harm it has done.
But, you're right, any conclusion about history MUST be considered tentative. I would also add that students need to be taught to read the primary texts critically, examining the assumptions of the writers not to condemn but to understand.

I agree with Ledingham. To begin with we should recognise that we are all subjective in our interpretation of the facts. For instance I disagree with Kevin Donnelly's interpretation of recent election results as implying that Australians have rejected the 'black armband' view of history. They may have, but I doubt if it was a consideration in most voters' choice of political party. There is even a problem with the 'facts' we choose to identify and the importance we bestow upon them. We can see this every day in the media.

A few years ago a friend was taking some anthropology classes at university. The lecturer spent some time telling the students how cannibalism was a myth which had been invented by evil white men to tarnish the reputation of black people.
As a child, I had met an old patrol officer in New Guinea who had been present at a cannibal feast so I knew the lecturer was lying.
Beyond that through general reading I know that cannibalism of various sorts has been practised by most races of man at some time or other. There are written records for instance in the Tain, describing antique irishmen eating hearts to obtain their vanquished enemies courage, and everyone knows about the rugby team that crashlanded in the Andes not long ago.
What amazes me is that an academic can teach outright lies and not be punished in any way.
The same thing happens in history.
As a society we need to sack these liars and make sure they are never hired again.

"Ignored, as demonstrated by recent elections, is that the Australian people have passed judgment on the history wars and the black armband view, so prevalent during the Keating years, has been rejected."

So Kevin is saying that the election was won on the basis of what goes on in history classes. I can't say I recall the big "we'll change history classes forever" election campaign.
This basically says "We won! Ha ha! Everything we say and do is right, because we won!" Truly infantile logic.

Yeah Sams, I just picked up on that as the big whopper in this article. John Howard's election campaign had nothing to do with high school history. It is not even a federal issue!

And now that I think about it, Labor is in power at the state level. So if even if true, it' actually false. It's a double whopper.

I tend to agree with Ledingham's post above (30jan05).

There is absolutely no doubt that post modern, apologist nonsense has dominated history classrooms far more than 'conservative history' in the past two decades. Is it any wonder that students get confused with the post modern line that 'nothing our parents knew was correct and there are no answers to what we don't know'?

History has suffered because of the ideologically driven campaign waged by the left. Instead of an objective, discussion based approach to history the left has force fed students a dictatorial and apologist diatribe. This has forced students to believe more in the warm and fuzzy history of old. In effect the lefts historical campaign has back fired because students are sick of hearing only about Australia's bad news.

I cannot understand why the 'ANZAC legend' or Banjo Patterson for example have to be denegrated in order to broach subjects like indigenous history or feminism. To me parallels can be drawn with left wing educationalists ditching phonetics in reading classes or geography becoming more about map reading than global awareness. The left has shown through such 'educational improvements' that they are more inclined to force feeding their views than actually improving education in general.

History should be a collection of facts open to interpretation by all, not a collection of ideologies, not propoganda, and definately not cover ups.

Teaching history and telling the truth depends on which side of the fence you are on, due to those people being subjective from the information provider to the publisher to the teacher.

Howard say sorry, it is much easier to say sorry on behalf of others than for your wrongs. I mean, if we cant have the backbone to say sorry for putting an entire race over a barrel, we are not the Australian nation we think we are.

And we were not founded, we were pinched, like most other countries but i would rather the english than others at that time.

Facts only makes history history, not belief encoaching.

I am perhaps one of the few people on this forum actually young enough to remember their history classes. But thinking about it now, I really can't remember any 'white people are evil, black people are great' style teaching. We definitely were not taught that colonisation was invasion. But we were taught that it was probably illegal (terra nullius etc). We were not taught that white people enslaved and tortured black people. But we were taught that a lot of Aboriginal people were killed by white people, see the fate of the Tasmanian Aborigines.

But you know what? I do agree with Dr. Donnelly that there are problems with the teaching of history. It seems that history as taught in high school is everything that happened more than 50 years ago. As a result events that much more directly impact on our lives are never discussed. My history classes ended in World War II. All the amazing events that followed, the Cold War, the Sexual Revolution, the Vietnam War, the Fall of Communism etc. etc. are nowhere to be seen in classrooms. My greatest personal disappointment is that I know nothing about the Aboriginal Civil Rights Movement. How did Aboriginals go from not being counted as people, to getting the vote and other rights? Sadly, thanks to American TV, I know far more about that country, than I do about my own.

I wonder if Kevin ever reflects on the fact that his "common sense" version of what education is and what it should be doesn't seem to match the vision of the vast majority of teachers, principals and education academics in this country.

Rather than hiding behind the somewhat juvenile assertion that anyone who disagrees with him must be a left wing lunatic, surely it is time for Dr Donnelly to actually engage with some of us who have devoted their working lives to the education of young people and the teachers who teach them.

While I don't doubt that having been Chief of Staff to a Howard government minister is an excellent qualification for sustained attack of the educational vision of everyone from the teachers at the local primary school to the Australian Council of Deans of Education, most Australians aren't fooled, and know that it takes more than a career as a public servant and a PhD from LaTrobe to make you an authority on education.

I would have thought that questioning a point of view would have been integral to any study of history. Postmodernism is about acknowledging that there is no one history but a whole raft of histories. And the Who that writes the history determines what goes into that history. Is Kevin Donnelly seriously suggesting that the Howard/Windschuttle/ Donnelly view of history is not coloured by their own ideology? Is he seriously suggesting that theirs is an objective study of history? Everyone, Howard, Windschuttle, Reynolds all bring their own biases to bear in their study of history. To see how history has changed in my lifetime I grew studying a history in which Aboriginal people had been written out of the story completely. The study of history demands that we examine and test each of these histories. Postmodernism is a tool for doing just that. The problem with the Donnelly thesis is that there appears to be only one history: his. The problem with his thesis is that rather than history, his might more appropriately be termed mythology built around the bronzed Anzac, mateship and the flag. The problem with myths is that they often don't stand up to the rigour of historical scrutiny.

Barney

I think children should be taught very little history. The less the better. We don't live in the past and it seems we never learn from it either. Let it be a subject of choice for adults.

There is totally no evidence that children benfit from it as a subject.

Of course a little so that they can join the dots, but that should be it.

Some of you people who live here in Australia and bag Anzac Day where our dads and grandads fought for your lousey freedom ought to just go else where to live because your the shameful. Of course kids should learn about their history.
They should be taught to respect our flag and even sing Go Save the queen would not hurt them. They need to learn to be proud and respect something because there sure isnt much respect going round from the parents.

"students are also taught that “knowledge is always tentative”, that they should “deconstruct dominant views of society”, “critique the socially constructed element of text” and “how privilege and marginalisation are created and sustained in society”.

Forget the ideal of seeking truth and developing a disinterested understanding of the world.."

Don't you think deconstructing dominant views could be seeking the truth, Kev, or are dominant views always correct? Why are you feeling so threatened? Truth is what it's all about, but maybe your truth isn't as disinterested as you would like to think.

The essential problem is that many historians have become self-conscious storytellers rather than truth-tellers. A new profession is being created... the mythistorian. See an account of this development here:

http://humbugonline.blogspot.com/2005/12/junk-history-iii-mythistorian-reviews.html

Barney:

I completely agree that history should be examined, half truths put under the microscope and myths 'busted'. However all post modernism has done is create a climate of uncertainty in which students of all ages are more fearful of having an educated opinion than they were before. I have no problem with post modern historians until they attempt to belittle and 'drive out' the legitimate views of others.

I studied history for 10 years (year 8 to 5th year university) and am still studying in a post graduate forum now. I found many people who shared my passion for history and encouraged meaningful debate. Those historians worth their salt did not/ do not persecute and dismiss the positions of others. However I also came across many a 'chip on the shoulder leftist academic' that could not accept with any grace a non post modern position.

Nicole:

The views of the left are failing young students both in private and public schools. Just the other day a twelve year old child from an advantaged background named Africa as a 'country'. Bemusement followed as it was explained Africa had been colonised and had later become a multitude of small countries. She then struggled to get through her magazine because she was never taught to sound out a word phonetically. From what I've seen and heard hers is not an isolated case. So many young Australians are pushed into uni and dissuaded from gaining a trade by leftist academics who push the 'everyone must be university educated' line. Surely it's time to educate according to litteracy levels rather than ideological utopias?

I am absolutely supportive of individual teachers. However the time has come where the salaries of teachers should match that of professional people and a performance based review should follow. Of the top 15% of graduates from my school not one person chose a career in education- this has to be rectified and it can only be done by salary increases.

HISTORY and CULTURE

The best lesson we could ever teach our children, is honesty.
Honesty in history will show our own, warts and all. It will clearly demonstrate a number of important issues.

1/ We are not perfect
2/ Our history is not without examples of intrigue, greed, deceit and error.
3/ Our history also includes aspects of greatness and nobility and progress.
4/ Indigenous people have suffered terribly as a result of the prevailing world view and due to greed.

5/ None of the above are unique to our own history, but are common to all human society.

When I think of the Treaty of Waitangi, and its 'dual language/dual version' deception, over one single word, translated 'weaker' in the Maori version, so the chiefs would agree to ceed soverienty when they thought they were inviting 'protection' is a classic example.

Even then, the greed of white capitalists in Sydney, one in particular, who then encouraged widespread white settlement of NZ in direct defiance of the Treaty, and the passive and/or active support for this by powers to be on the white side, is a blight that will never leave the NZ historical landscape nor the minds of Maoris.

We in Australia have our own 'blights' which include unpaid wages for indigenous people, (with interest) held back by the government.

That is one 'blight' that CAN be rectified and should be at the earliest opportunity.

The 'stolen' generation is an issue where I am not so clear cut. I know that in many cases mixed children were removed with their best interests at heart, due to probable non acceptance by the indigenous relatives. But at the same time, others were removed purely for assimilationst reasons. Some things 'can' be fixed, others only regretted.(and forgiveness sought)

Donnelly crowed "Current approaches to history ask students to uncritically celebrate multiculturalism and cultural diversity without recognising that much of Australia’s economic, political and legal stability relies on a Eurocentric tradition steeped in the Judeo/Christian ethic".

My last social history class comprised of students from all over the world, Anglo and ethnic Australians.

My job was to present them with information and perspectives about Australian social history.

I tried ringing and inviting Keith Windshuttle to be a guest lecturer. He was unavailable. Instead I presented his views as objectively as I could.

Hence, the student tutorials needed no guidance. There was excited and critical discussion all round. Some of them were in favour of Windshuttle's thesis, others against - and if you had tried to predict who would advanced particular perspectives based on their ethnicity, you would have been surprised how wrong you got it.

As good teachers of history and social sciences will attest the world over – teaching is more than content delivery. And so stimulus should not just come from one book, one idea, and one ideological trope.

My point is this. We as teachers can only present the historical information before the students. They are not empty vessels waiting to be filled; they have their own faculties and reasoning.

Creating the social and political environment where all students feel they can have input and learn is the craft of teaching, not a craft of a historian - and this is what gives you a clue into how out of touch Kevin Donnelly is, not just with teaching, but the world around him.

What Donelly wants is a therapeutic history for white (Anglo-Saxon) Australians. And what’s wrong with that you ask? Well most students would be bored stiff if this is all we taught. Remember, they already live in a multicultural, multilingual, world

Dear all

Why is Donnelly so popular with OLO editors. Just 2 days after he spouted in the Australian.

Perhaps OLO is really just a diguised spin machine for the "right". At least Michael Duffy matter-of factly answered that his Monday afternnon Counterpoint ABC program is about giving air time to the "right". His excuse is that there are plenty of "left" views on the ABC already. Hence balance is not needed in his own slot.

Has Graham Young said anything about his socalled "even handedness"?

As has been revealed previously, Donnelly was a hired gun. Wonder what he is aiming at now. To follow Brunton and Albrechtsen to the ABC Board? Or perhaps the more immediate slot vacated by Baulding?

cheers

Chek

cheers

chek

Hello Chek, This article was first published in The Australian on January 28. I'm caught between wondering if there is favouritism or that opinion pieces are simply being syphoned off (because of copyright deals) with the Murdoch press.

One hand I could agree with your assertion of bias, but on another I would also argue that it gives us an opportunity to engage (debunk?) the ideas of neocon dinosaurs like Donnelly. A quantitative/ qualitative assessment of the articles published here would provide a clearer picture of ‘balance’ in OLO editorial choice.

I agree with your appraisal of Duffy and ABC. I sometimes wonder if his guests (many them are often just ideas people) get embarrassed with his eagerness to label them ‘conservative’ (right wing?) when he introduces them. To me his program (Counterpoint) is often the best free to air political satire that ABC broadcasts. Defensive nihilism always is. Remember that skit by the pythons “is your name Bruce?’

wre:

Since you appear to enjoy credentialising, I also studied History from High School until completing an Honours Degree and a Masters Degree, both in History. I then went on to teach it in secondary schools for ten years and am now completing my PhD.

As you share my background in History, you can probably tell me what's wrong with making generalisations about a society based on one experience with a twelve year you know and some other "from what I've seen and heard" evidence.

Furthermore, the "everyone must be university educated" line which we are currently seeing played out in Australia is not the work of leftist academics, but rather the fallout from the appalling commodification of education which we have seen happen at the hands of the neo-conservative government of the past 10 years. The 'enterprise university' is flourishing in Australia thanks to Honest John and yes, it does have a negative flow-on effect.

Finally, your suggestion that it's time to educate according to litteracy (sic.) levels seems to negate your earlier argument that indicated that literacy has been hampered by new approaches to teaching reading (based, of course, on your 12 year old friend). Or was your point there that a 12 year old from an "advantaged background" couldn't possibly struggle with literacy?

Hello Rainier

I like your thoughts.

but is someone monitoring the bias or otherwise of OLO. Graham Y in his defence of his article on Green Peace seems to me to be incapable of reasoned debate, and would not know what balance means.

If OLO is really eve-handed and simply putting up articles to encourage debate, why do we not see Gregory M's article two days after Dinnelly's? A far superior article, in terms of balance, constructiveness, and new thought perhaps.

And why not Phillip Adam from time to time?

I remain skeptical, until evidence to the contrary or incompetence is revealed.

cheers

Chek

Chek, you've pinned the tail on the donkey. I am biased and On Line Opinion is a plot to perpetuate my view of the world. It is in fact an Enlightenment project. I'll quote you a par from the Gregory Melluish piece from the Australian that you profess to admire:

"The Enlightenment expressed what is best in Western civilisation by its tolerance, its moderation and its desire to use reason as well as to be sceptical when approaching any set of conclusions. These are the values that are now sorely needed at a time when the world is threatened by the narrow-minded and fierce dogmatism out of which terrorism has emerged."

That is exactly what this site is about - argument, inquiry, civility. Providing a forum for Australians (and the occasional international visitor) to discuss and exchange ideas. A Socratic forum, if you like, where hopefully we all get an opportunity to examine what it really is that we believe. So that's my bias and my "conspiracy".

Why do we frequently publish Kevin Donnelly? Because he frequently sends us material that is worth publishing. Why does he tend to have the field to himself? Because the other side of the argument, despite being approached, tend not to provide us with copy. Perhaps, as they are in charge of the system, they figure it's easier to ignore people like Donnelly and possibly starve him of oxygen.

It's interesting, but most of the complaints we get about balance tend to come from the left, but everytime we then go and do a quick ideological stock-take, we find that, if anything, the journal leans to the left. That troubles me a little, because we set out to produce a journal that is balanced, and I don't think we've got there. We probably never will, but the struggle to achieve that is certainly worthwhile.

I applaud Kevin Donnelly for his article and Graham Young for his recent post.

At school I hated History. It was taught by pupils taking it in turns to read from a text book. There was no amplification of the facts, why things happened, etc. Later in life I worked with a History writer who spelt out the relevant events that happened, when they happened, what official documents say in relation to events, etc. Students were then able to understand the significance of events and relate them to what took place after the event. I now enjoy History.

Unfortunately in the Outcomes Based educational world many commentators view History as a tool to challenge and reconstruct interpretations of events from a cynical, politically correct perspective. Almost as if any events had anything to do with "white men" they must have been shameful. And if people from conservative backgrounds are about they are the worst people of all.

It is a shame Graham, that so many contributors use the forum to denigrate persons who have anything to do with or support the Howard Government. Our democracy dictates that federal governments are elected and a Labor or non-Labor government will be in power. Whether one agrees with policies put in place by governments the people involved are inevitably decent people putting in place what they took to the people and believe are in the nation's best interest. There will be Labor governments in the future. I personally will not agree with many of the policies they implement. I will, however, know that the people in power will, with few exceptions, be decent people. And I will trust the electors to make judgements at election time in the light of their experiences.

I welcome the day when History and other subjects are no longer subject to the influence of Outcomes Based Education and the negative impacts of the "Postmodern". And it will be nice when young people can write well, spell, remember dates, facts and the lessons of History and know their number combinations. Let's hope the day is not too far away.

Nicole:

I don't enjoy 'credentialising' but I figured it was the obligation of a passionate historian to point out that history shouldn't be about 'right and wrong' and nor should it be subjected to the ideological slant of post modernism OR conservatism. In saying that I opined post modern lecturers had done more to damage the objectivity of teaching than any conservative I've come across. In fact judging by the support for Howard at the moment (even with Iraq etc) I think the mainstream Australian public is just as sick of the left as I am.

Thankyou so much for picking up my 'double t' error though-you must be one of the few teachers left in our schools capable of doing so. I noticed you did not dispute my assertion that the education system desperately needs to attract a higher calibre of teacher/ academic. Perhaps you would like the pay rise and relish a performance based appraisal.

My '12yo girl example' was merely an illustration! I was not basing my opinion that the education of children these days is lacking solely on her thinking Africa was a country. The literacy (one t :) levels have been steadily declining since KEATING introduced a raft of 'feel good' reforms that swapped the basics with flash cards and dress ups. Sure concentrate on English and Maths before history and geography-but at the moment most Kids probably think Iraq is a newly discovered planet because they can't read the papers. And it is the lefts fault-ha ha.

Well done, Graham. If I were you I'd argue that publishing stuff from big Kev, Davo Flint and other well known, um, very nice people from political locations to the east, gives the left an opportunity to wail and rail and say really horrible lefty lies which are less likely to be published in the letters sections of our esteemed, ahem, objective print media.

On Kev's article, I'm a wailing, railing, horrible, lying lefty. Thanks for the belly laugh Kev.

Graham, what a welcome change to your tone. Thank you.

Can you publish your stocktake (and its methodology) which show that the forum leans to the “left”? I may guess then what your criteria might have been for rejecting my articles.

Just saying, not good enough, is at the very least negligent of you, since you claim to follow the Enlightenment values.

You said: ‘That is exactly what this site is about - argument, inquiry, civility. Providing a forum … to discuss and exchange ideas. A Socratic forum, if you like… So that's my bias and my "conspiracy".’

Would civility demand a response other than not good enough?

Would a Socratic forum entertain the arbitrary whims of the convenor? And avoid transparency?

And why do you shy away from my previous post, reproduced hereunder?

“Perhaps for the sake of demonstrating your integrity you should publish every week the articles rejected and those accepted, with brief reasons. Surely not too hard to do for an online enterprise? We will be convinced then of your even-handedness. (You could include a 25 word synopsis, stipulated as a condition of submission.)

It took two weeks to have my second article rejected, only after I enquired about it. It took just 4 days or so for David Flint’s last article to get published after its first appearance in a broadsheet. Even-handedness? “

What I suggested is no more than a routine quality control procedure that would also keep you honest. Remember, power corrupts….?

Graham, my first article, probably classifiable as an ethnic’s view of our national misdemeanor over the Corby trial in Indonesia, was appreciated by quite a few, and elicited 150 comments. Given that, I have found it hard to accept that the quality of my writing could deteriorate as significantly overnight.

By contrast Flint’s article, praising Packer and self-aggrandising, only drew 9 comments, mostly unfavourable to Flint. Still you gave him more space. I’ll bet you a 4X that my article on Howard’s toadying to the Packer myth would receive a much better response.

What would Socrates say, mate?

chek

Chek, I'm afraid I don't have all day to debate the merits of your articles. And I don't think that the forum is an appropriate place to do it. National Forum produces software for programming personal sites. We have also set-up blogs for writers. If you want our help to get your material up on the web, then we'd be happy to discuss that with you.

On the point of the left-leaning nature of OLO, on this morning's postings I'd count Melluish and Moran as being on the right, Hassan and Fewtrell as being on the left, and while Darlene identifies with the left, I don't think her piece has a perspective so I won't classify it. Take the previous day and Daniel Donahoo and James Cumes would identify with the left. I have no ideas about the other three, and their articles don't appear to be ideological. Similar exercises over preceding days come up with similar results. There can't be any hard and fast rule, but I think on balance you'd have to say that OLO leans to the left judged on its contributions and contributors.

I don't think there is an issue with "keeping me honest". It's not as though OLO has a monopoly on publishing on the Internet. If my judgement proves not to be good, then readers have lots of other sites to choose from.

Chek,
As the editor of On Line Opinion I normally keep myself distanced from the Forum in terms of making comments, while still reading as many as I can. However on this occasion I shall step out from behind my invisible online persona to answer some of your criticisms.

I thought you may like to know that when it comes to article selection Graham has a very "hand's-off approach". I am responsible for the journal and select articles for publication based on a number of criteria. This includes timeliness, relevance, balance to other articles we may have published or are about to publish, quality of writing and so on. There are many variables.

Sometimes we get many articles submitted on a topic saying much the same thing, in which case some will not make it through. Other times we may get a badly written article which says something very new and interesting and so it gets published (with some effort on my part to tidy it up). I make a judgment call as I go.

In your case your recent submissions have not been up-to-scratch for one reason or another. I do not always give specific reasons because I like to be diplomatic. I do apologise for any delay in getting back to authors. We are now publishing five op-ed articles each day and apart from our trusty volunteers and tech support there is only me. I try and spot any incoming articles which are particularly time sensitive and to acknowledge authors as quickly as I can.

I am very grateful for the tremendous support we have from many people kind enough to send us their submissions. To me it shows that politics and debate is alive and well in Australia.

Cont'd

Cont'd
In terms of my politics I am not sure you could find anyone more open to ideas from the right or left than me. If you have a good argument, well presented and interesting, I will run it. I don't care which side of the political divide you sit.

I always attempt to get opposing or different views on a topic, but as Graham has already pointed out, sometimes we get little interest. I can only offer the opportunity ...

I hope this answers your queries and criticisms.
Susan Prior

GY and Chek, Well it just shows how differently we look at the political pendulum as I would have classified Melluish at centre Left and Hassan as an apologetic wanabe conservative. I suppose it depends where you're standing relative to the pendulum.
Hope you guys can sort this stuff out, you're both bigger than this issue.

Graham,
Thanks for the offer. But OLO is the place I would like to have my thoughts debated.

OLO is unique I thought, a cut above commercial media corporations where private gain is the predominant if not the only criterion for editorial decisions. Hence my suggestion for transparency and the procedure for monitoring it.

OLO could become an institution.

Susan,
Thank you for your post.

However if OLO is what GY says it is, transparency in editorial decision seems an objective worth considering.

Integrity in public life, especially for leaders, is critical to the destiny of a nation. Mao and Yasser A were dismal failures. In the children overboard ruse, everyone from the PM down claimed to have behaved properly. Just that the truth had to be extracted in due course. But two public servants connected with it got promoted afterwards. Looks like the AWB bribes to Saddam H is going the same way.

You may be above reproach. Editors come and go, just as PMs and Presidents. Therefore inoculation against wayward leaders should be mandatory. Transparency has worked sometimes and could go some way at OLO.

By the way, my initiating comment was when I read that GY had urged Howard to sue for defamation (something I’d have thought is way beneath Howard). Since my articles were critical of aspects of his leadership I mused that that might be the reason for rejection. Since then all my postings had to do with observations I could produce to support my contention. Not criticisms per se.

Left or right. You don’t care. Neither do I. It was Graham who assigned me to the left. Hence I usually put those two words in quotes.

You choose opposing views. Great! I think Flint’s was the only one on Packer. Mine would have been quite different. Never mind. You did say, timeliness…. quality of writing and so on. This reminds me of the joke about job descriptions in the public corporation I knew 20 years ago. The last sentence is the most important one: any other duties as may be required.

Cheers

Chek

Chek-whoever you are please shut up. Take it on the chin and get on with contributing instead of 'tantruming'

Kevin,
“Taken to its logical conclusion, such a view allows Japanese textbooks to ignore the rape of Nanking and for the British author, David Irving, to deny that millions were killed in the holocaust.”

Incorrect. The facts must remain – Japan invaded and brutalised Nanking, millions were killed in the holocaust (Irving should be viewed more as a liar than a revisionist).

However, how an individual views these events are reflected in the point of view. For example, you 'deny' the Euro-invasion of Australia at the start of the article. If the Aboriginals had driven Euro’s out, they might call this point in their history a ‘war to drive out the invaders, before entering the world stage’. What would we have called it, I wonder... ?

As to:
“…allows revisionist historians to judge past actions in terms of what is now considered politically correct.”

Again, this is what you do with your examination of history - in your case 'in terms of what suits your world view'

So the Admiralty gave express orders to Governor Philip? And what happened over the subsequent 150 years? You call that co-existence? An invasion is not just the initial contact. An invasion is a long term attack, not the first week, or first month.

As to the ‘big picture view’ versus your ‘grand narrative’. Tell me, what the difference is? And when it comes down to it, who decides what is the correct interpretation – the winners? Impartial outsiders? Or those who can give an account of what actually happened?

History should be about the facts first – then open to interpretation and discussion. Points of view fostered lead to the fostering of understanding and respect. Or do you not wish to respect another’s point of view – historically or religiously?

My nephew and niece have both completed High School, and with regards to history, they are aware of Billy the Kid, and all the other US historical criminals, however, they didn't know who Ned Kelly, or Captain Starlight were.+

Personally I would like to have our children be taught Australian history, not the history of another country, come to think of it, I would like to sit down at night and watch an Australian commercial TV program, or have my young daughter turn to the ABC and watch an Australian cartoon, instead we are force feed yank crap, which will become our history@#$%!