Ingan Clendinnen's article makes good sense although her opening claim: 'The “history wars” might be over...' is not supported by the rest of her article. Nor is it supported by the debates that rage on this forum whenever an article appears on multiculturalism or Indigenous issues.

I agree that it will be difficult for the Prime Minister to arrive at his “objective record of achievement”, and then to present it as “Australian history”. Notwithstanding the strident views of some posters on OLO, Clendinnen is right to remind us that "in human affairs there is never a single narrative. There is always one counter-story, and usually several...".

She is right to remind us that history is often fused (and confused) with patriotism. It would be naive to think that our national leaders really believed that running the flag up the pole every day and displaying a (so-called) 'values framework' in schools will make children better citizens, let alone that such tokens would "...leave us better equipped to face the global future and help us build on our long traditions of innovation and technical excellence”.

We know this is window dressing to appease elements of the electorate. The danger is that people in power sometimes come to believe their own propaganda. Mr Howard's real concerns about the teaching of history in schools today are that schools are teaching the "wrong" kind of history. Howard's sanistised "right" history would leave only the "right" sort of heroes and a narrative which "will make us proud of our country, our forebears and ourselves".

The "history wars" are not over. A new front has been opened up with an assault by the Liberals (ironic label) on SBS. When Senator Ronaldson accuses SBS news of bias, what he is realy means is that SBS should be telling us only the "right" sort of news. With the ABC intimidated and the media barons carving up their spoils, it's crucial that all reasonable-minded Australians watch what the politicians are trying to do to to the hearts and minds of our children at school.

"An Objective Record of Achievement" is fine. As long as it is balanced with the COST.

For example, to state:

"Queensland is a prosperous farming state, contributing much to our national economy, through the energetic efforts of many visionary figures." is an objective record.

But it is an incomplete one.

The same statement should have added:

"The cost of achieving this, was the disposession and cruel and misguided social management of thousands of indigenous tribal people"

Then we could use that as a launch pad for honest reflection about how 'greatness' is achieved, and at what cost. We could also use it as a starting point for reconcilatory actions such as ensuring unpaid wages are paid and for recognizing any dangerous developments which might be likely to cause even further alienation of indigenous people.

In some things, nothing can be done to right the wrongs of territorial dispossession, it would be as difficult as uncrambling an egg, but there are things which can be done !

I refer the readers to my discussion on "Cherbourg" in the general discussion area for some perspectives.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=130

Also, to the article on "Towards a United harmonious Australia" in the same section.http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=164

When you start to look at Australian history it's amazing how few strong central stories there are - even made up ones. What kind of nation would want to claim convict origins? Bushrangers? Riots at Ballarat? Harvester is hardly a desirable fashion statement anymore. The Anzac legend raises associations with Vietnam. What are we supposed to hang on to?

Brett and Moran asked Australians, including migrants, what came to mind first when they thought of Australia and most said the landscape. It seems that one way or another we have more in common with indigenous peoples than we think.

So what's wrong with understanding our history as a painful struggle towards common ground - literally?

Perhaps it isn't really about history but, rather that the new majority have not shared in the making of that history. There hasn't been much struggle since the passing of the '50s, and it is sharing hardship and struggling to create a nation that unites individuals. Today people immigrate into jobs, the roads are built, the hospitals and schools are up and running, the hardest job they have is finding their dream house.
What people whinge about today would have the early settlers in a fit of the giggles.

“Now there is the risk of the geographical concentration and the social isolation of people of a different and charismatic faith who share a long and continuing history of injustice at European hands, and this at a time of decreasing job security and shrinking opportunities.”

And that’s the fault of the same idiot, vote-grasping politicians who now think that they can repair the damage they did by demanding that history and Australian values be taught. Bring people here who hate us, then teach them how good we are!

People who do not wish to learn cannot be taught, and that includes 80% of white Australians who are as thick as two short planks when it comes to knowledge of their own country and respect for it.

John Howard, for most of his term as PM, has stood out as something just a little different. But he is now looking as irrelevant as the rest of them when it comes to what is good for Australia

as long as you leave direction of the nation in the hands of politicians, you will be bystanders watching your masters turn the nations assets into their own wealth, power, and prestige.

how much of the nations problems would have been avoided if the decisions that caused these problems were made by national referendum?

cant guess? think about this: we all expect people whose livelihood is involved to be prejudiced in their evaluation of a situation. the livelihood of politicians is involved in every decision made in a country ruled by a few politicians.

the only way to strain out selfinterest is to distribute the decisionmaking process across the electorate.

societies that do this are called 'democracies'. societies that concentrate the decision process are called 'oligarchies'.

unless, that is, academics, media proprietors, and politicians agree to refer to their society as a democracy, as a means of dis-educating the cattle. and that is why you refer to your society as a democracy in the face of all evidence to the contrary.