As one who in his retirement has spent much time in study owing to having had to leave school very early during the Depression, one has gained the impression that the main thing that John Howard has learned from history especially while in politics is to practice the steady gaze, stiff upper lip and so on, very typical of a 19th century Btitish stateman. Indeed, his political abilities, which include clever rhetoric and evasiveness, go close to being second to none.

However, part of this superior statesman-like manner is the way he can change his tune and be so humble with American leaders, especially George W Bush, with whom he acts the colonial stateman to a T, when present with a higher authority.

Furthermore, never has Howard questioned the way the US has conducted itself in the Middle-East, making many political philosophers believe he must have a poor understanding of the actions of both Britain and America in the Middle East since WW2, much of it related to a hegemonic grab for oil and strategem.

Finally, the way John Howard has obediently obeyed and accepted what many social scientists term both in politics and economics a tragic reawakening of 19th century colonialism, made worse by the fears, that oppressed peoples, the new indigenuous, may ultimately procure what we all fear so much, a nuclear device that can fit in a suitcase.

Certainly the problem will not be fixed by taking over more countries like we fear about Iran, but by learning from history, which the Howard agenda, knowing Howard's record, would surely not be about learning from the past.

Although many people would find joyous excitement coursing through their veins after reading this article, simply because of its high academic calibre, I am flabbergasted by the ridiculous approach of this almost immature journalist. Whilst obviously well read and apparently quite clear on his knowledge of Australian and European history, he has somehow manages to turn what started off as an interesting article into an overly drawn out waffle that mentions more prestigious names than I can count on both hands and uses more words uncommonly understood than I can count on both hands and both feet. So to be honest, I did not find this article comprehensible in the slightest; however, my apparently feeble mind did manage to pick up some sort of a propositional argument being made at the beginning of the piece. He makes a suggestion that John Howard wants a balance between the aboriginal and post-colonisation history taught at schools. Well, obviously, this fellow isn’t as smart as he claims to be, I would have though this would be obvious. Howard has always admired Menzies, and in case some of you have forgotten, God Save The Queen was played before the screenings of films during the Menzies era, Howard will most certainly support a monarchy, and will not stand for sympathy being felt towards the Indigenous people purely because the history they have been taught is completely subjective to the views of the teacher. This little point, I found, as also brought up in the article. Funny that a journalist, someone who projects their opinions to the world, should comment on the inability of history teachers to rise above personal prejudices when teaching. So, what a waste of time, I’ve read a pointless waffle of an article, and written an even more pointless waffle about it (without all the name dropping), the worlds a funny place.