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@#$%!