This forum advertises itself as a Socratic dialogue not a place for the posting of turpentine induced hysteria.

Typically right wing ranting. Never ever look at what we westerners have done and are doing---always compare us to someone else.

A bit of sophist hair-splitting as regards to which countries had the biggest share in the 10 million slaves.

Did anyone ever notice that Western so "civilization" basically destroyed itself in during World War I, and finished itself off completely in World War II. Ever since then all other possible alternatives have been destroyed too. Most wewre destroyed during the glory (or is that gore) of the colonialism/imperialism.

The Pentagon military industrial-complex is easily the most dominant insitution in the USA, and by extension the rest of the world.Its associated "culture" of death now rules the entire planet via over 700 foreign military bases etc etc. The USA is also responsible for 48% of the worlds armaments trade.

Even if you dont agree with that it was the West gave the entire world both of those wars---oh what a lovely war.

Meanwhile I much prefer this assessment of the Reagan years---which were just a minor prelude to the full scale assault on the USA and world body politic now being waged by the psychopaths in Washington.

1. http://www.psychohistory.com/reagan/rcontent.htm

Plus this reference on the American Holocaust is very very interesting. I read it when it was first published.

His-story Real and True.

2. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/History/American_Holocaust.html

Ben-Peter Terpstra - Congratulations to you on a bold and well-written article. It takes courage to challenge the orthodoxy and you do it in a well-researched and methodical way. History should be an enquiry into truth and children, in particular, should be encouraged to think of both sides of the argument.

Thankfully I had an excellent history teacher who used a text-based historiographical approach to teaching history. We would digest the works of a number of different historians, each with different backgrounds and leanings. She would be at pains to making sure we understood the personal background of the author and also the context in which they were writing to understand the author's perspective. When we studied 20th Century Germany we looked at Pinson (Modern Germany), Kershaw (the Hitler Myth), Joachim Fest, Detlev Puekert (another excellent historian), primary texts, while also tracking back to well into the 18th century to understand the roots of German modern history. She did not like using the prescribed 'text book' because it contained none of these authors, the real historians.

We were all encouraged to own a personal copy of AJP Taylor's The Causes of the Second World War, but only after having read Hugh Trevor Roper's works and understanding the intense personal feud between Taylor and Trevor-Roper [re the fact that Trevor-Roper was given the seat as historian at Oxford over Taylor, and Taylor never got over it].

I now come to very different conclusions about those periods in history, but ones founded by intelligent inquiry. I fear for students who are not similarly exposed to the works of great historians and do not understand the truth-seeking approach that the learning of history requires.

Well done again!

Ben-Peter Terpstra set out to 'analyse' seven classroom history books and claimed he found '99 unsubstantiated claims'. He offers no discussion of his method of anaylsis or the context of his chosen books or the criteria for choosing those seven.

Terpstra cherry-picks a few 'examples' from one text to 'demonstrate' a lack of balance. His examples are cited as bullet-points without context of any sort to allow his readers to assess the merits of his case.

So he castigates the authors of one text for mentioning Bob Brown but not Family First and One Nation or the Nationals. He is appalled that Germaine Greer gets two pages and John Howard only a few paragraphs. Volume and weight are enough for Terpstra, apparently. He makes no comment on the quality of the content.

But we can get Terpstra's sub-text. It's all down to 'selling far-leftwing views'.

I wonder if Terpstra has thought of applying his analytical powers to the Government's own 46-page primer purporting to educate would-be new citizens on Australian history and culture. This publication repeatedly mentions Anzacs and the 'good' wars, but skips over Vietnan and doesn't mention Iraq at all. Tampa and climate change don't figure either. And apparently only a handful of Australian women are worth a mention.

'Texploitation' indeed!

"In Jacaranda Essentials: History 2, there are:

* two pages dedicated to Germaine Greer. On the other side, John Howard is only mentioned in a few paragraphs (here and there), and mainly because he refuses to say “sorry” for the so-called sins of his fathers."

Yes, that's because it's a history text, not a current affairs text. Whilst Greer is still writing, her most significant work was in the 70s when she became "one of the most significant feminist voices of the 20th century".

I'm sure once Howard is no longer PM, he'll manage a page ;-)

"* two pages reserved for Charles Perkins, the “peaceful” aboriginal activist, because he was a “significant individual,”"

Perkins "Freedom Ride" *was* peaceful - although the reaction of racists sometimes was not so. Shall we mention the little incident in 1965 at Moree swimming pool?

"as opposed to a little businessman like, say, Rupert Murdoch. Or Jesus Christ."

Jesus Christ is Australian now? He was in Australia after 1788? Because that's what the book discusses.

Actually is Rupert Murdoch Australian again? It's hard to follow.

"two pages are set aside to shower Bob Brown and his “green politics” with praise. Forget Family First. Ignore One Nation. Take no real notice of the National Party. There is only one important minor party in Australia."

Like it or not, the "green movement" is the most significant political development in the last thirty years. Australia was the location of the world's first green party, the site of an environmental dispute of international concern (Franklin Dam) and the first Green party to hold a balance of power in state legislature. It is sufficiently significant to mention with the detail accorded.

FrankGol,

Whatever the merits of the Aust Gov’t primer, it is a document from a political party.The education of our children is not the place for counter propaganda.

The amount of column space set aside for an individual or topic is almost always in direct relation to the importance the authors place on that person or topic. Your rather weak suggestion that Ben-Peter Terpstra didn’t consider the quality of the discussion in the text is a total nonsense.

As for cherry picking, whilst I agree context is important some of the quotes would not bear ANY kind of scrutiny.

There is little doubt that the left has captured the teaching and study of the social sciences. I certainly can attest to that fact, having studied Social Sciences at two universities where far left thought was orthodox.

Many parents would be surprised by the material their children are being taught at school. Trying to pretend there is no left wing bias in this area is pointless. And the argument that it is needed to counter gov’t propaganda is obscene. Children need to be made aware that there are many points of view in history and that they each have different motivations

Well done Mr Terpstra a very interesting and informative article. Of course the negative left will always look for the bitterness in anything good the West does but hey some people are just sad and negative.