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.

Ah the History Wars, black armband vs white armband.

Bleh.

To both sides I say stop trying to impose your propaganda and instead teach the kids how to critically examine history and current events. The far left needs to recognise that not everything the west has done has been evil, and the far right needs to pull its head out and recognise that yes, the west has done some despicable things.

Black and white only exists in people's minds, the reality is so much more grey.

Paul

No matter how wantonly you interpret what I said, I don't endorse propaganda or counter-propaganda (what's the difference?) in education. Nor am I happy to accept uncritically a superficial judgment about the quality of books used in schools from either left or right wing perspectives.

You say: 'Whatever the merits of the Aust Gov’t primer, it is a document from a political party.' Wrong! It's a Government document not a political party document - although a reading of it would give you the impression that the Government doesn't understand the distinction.

When you state: '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', you betray an ignorance of historical research and reporting, not mention book production. (Although I do remember a bookseller who sold books by weighing them on a set of scales.)

You say: '...some of the quotes would not bear ANY kind of scrutiny'. So you'd have no objection if I quote you as writing: 'There is...doubt that the left has captured the teaching and study of the...sciences. I certainly can attest to that fact, having studied...Sciences at two universities where...thought was orthodox.'

I've managed to completely distort your ideas by simply omitting three words in your text but quoting the rest of what you wrote. Mr Terpstra may well have done the same. He simply doesn't tell us how he chose the books and the quotes he selected from them.

Understanding context is crucial - as is the bias that people bring with them to reading. For example, you have managed to distort what I said into claiming that I made the 'obscene' argument that 'left wing bias' is needed 'to counter gov’t propaganda'. I said nothing of the sort.

At least we agree on one thing, Paul: 'Children need to be made aware that there are many points of view in history and that they each have different motivations.'

I took one of my children out of a social science course in high school and enrolled them in a maths course instead. My reasons were similar to what this author suggests, left wing bias throughout the course.

Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler.

In the last century more people died under Marxist regimes than died during WW1 and WW2 combined.

Queen Elizabeth I invested heavily in the slave trade to earn money to fight wars with Spain and France.

Germain Greer has described the male gender as being “surplus to requirements”

And so on, but none of it was being mentioned in any of the text my child brought home from school.

Terpstra's count of Native American numbers and his implication that the casualties of European conquest of the Americas cannot have numbered in the millions is misleading. The population before European contact does not limit the number of victims of genocide: native Americans are still being born today, and the most recent explicitly genocidal massacres I know of (never mind the casualties from centuries of disposession-related poverty) were in the 1980s in Guatemala.

The Smithsonian's handbook studies the natives of what is now territorially the USA and Canada; the population estimates are for the time of the foundation of Virginia and the New England colonies in the 17th century and make no mention of the casualties of war and plague in what is now Latin America, nor even in North America before that time.

The densest populations of indigenous Americans prior to European conquest were in urbane Peru, Mexico and the Mississippi Valley. While Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors did not attack the Mississippians, Old World diseases reached them before any of them had the honour of seeing a European in person. Civilisation in the Mississippi collapsed from depopulation without a gunshot, a century before the first British colonies were founded to the east. No literate witnesses recorded this civilisation before its collapse. We know next to nothing about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture

The introduction of disease by 16th-century European adventurers was neither deliberate nor avoidable, and therefore was not in itself an act of genocide, but it did not merely decimate the Native American civilisations. In some places over 90% of the people died from introduced diseases within a few short and horrible years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples

On the other hand, the casual brutality of the conquistadors and other, later colonists is recorded frankly in their own diaries. Those few Hispaniolans who did not succumb to disease succumbed to enslavement or slaughter by Spaniards within a couple of decades, a total ethnic cleansing. Though they were not responsible for the greatest part of the destruction they wrought, their personal testimony doesn't indicate that they would have felt any remorse for it.

Too true Ben - history could use a good scientific re-write, based on cui bono this time.

Where would we oldies be without the resources of the internet? Turns out I was living in a fractured fairytale all along - and every page of history that I revisit is infested with silverfish.

The silverfish are the beneficiaries of the popular historical narrative. They even lent a claw in the writing of it - and still do.

The best way to cover up the silverfish is to invoke the old left - right boondoggle. Turn attention away from personal gain and direct it towards the indefineable zealotries of a multitude of isms and schisms. Then sew it all together into a patchwork for which there is no correct way up.

That's a pretty good quilt you stitched sir - but it gives no warmth.

Typical right wing trip build a strawman and blow it down. Ben has much the same mindset that Japanese history book writers have. They gloss over the bad parts of their history too, their books say WW2 was a war of defence against the west.

The number of references to 'right wing'..... wow.. is this an indication that we should equate 'right wing' with truth...and 'left wing' with suttle bias, lies, propaganda and the smoothing over of inhuman outrages that beset us ?

The reference to the Heinemann book... is noteworthy, because it highlights a major problem with the sugar coating of Islam.. by left wing propagandists who see value in the 'Islamic vote' or support.

Just two points will suffice to illustrate how insulting and disgusting it is that such a text should EVER be used to brainwash the minds of young Australians.

““Before Islam … Women could be married against their will."

“Before Islam … Women were not as important as men.”

Surah 65:4 refers to the divorce of PRE-MENSTRUAL female children.

According to Syed Abu Ala Maududi, an influential Islamic scholar, the mention of an 'iddah'.. waiting period of 3 months(to see if they are pregnant) in that verse has only ONE meaning... the men were having sex with these child wives.

So...this raises not only the question of Paedophilia in the fancy dress costume of 'marriage' but also, the issue of 'without their permission'....

How can anyone expect that a child of 7 can give informed consent to her being married off ? Of course she cant.. she might be able to mouth the words.. to please mum and dad... but mature..informed consent ? not a chance !

Then there is the issue of Institutionalized domestic violence.
Surah 4:34 clearly allows WIFE BEATING... but did the Heinemann text mention this ?

Did it mention that Muslim men are allowed to sexually abuse female captive slaves ? Surah 23:5-6

All I can say is that we reap what we sow.... as the Jungle Doctor story goes..The old Grandfather telling his naive little grandson who found an abandoned baby Leopard and brought it home... "Little Leopards grow into big Leopards..and big Leopards kill"

Its about time we realized that radicals will try to radicalise moderates...

UNDERCOVER MOSQUE.. investigation into 'moderate and tolerant' Major mosques in London.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque

I agree with the author that political correctness has gone made in this country, and I think it is important that history be told in the right context without the guilt. However America,Canada,New Zealand and Australia all continue to honour their so called settler origins, whilst refusing to acknowledge that their invasion on our land was illegal under Aboriginal and European law at the time.

Aboriginal groups in all four countries were not the noble savage's portrayed by the do gooders prior to invasion, we stole each others women and then forced them into marriges not of their choice. But its also true that christians supported the anti slavery movement, but then they also founded it as a business and supported it through Rome whilst making huge profits from it for hundres of years.

As for Howard's racist refusal to apologise to Aboriginal "children" saying that the current generation should not have to pay for the mistakes of the past. What about his insistence on Japan apologising for its troops behaviour during WW2, so why is he asking the current generation of Japanese for an appology.

Why should we the current generation of taxpayers keep being asked to support older generation for something they did years ago, we didn't ask them to so isn't it the same issue

I am all for the truth so let stop all this political nonsence and call a spade a spade, Aboriginal people were illegally invaded by a hostle force, who have unlawfully occupied our land and resources. The so called christian country forgot the comandment "Thou shalt not steal" or Kill and took our land and murdered men,women and children.

All agressive acts against Aborigines intentional or not resulting in death were the direct result of the ilegal invasion of this land. White middle class women are not disadvantaged and should not get any special treatment in employment. Finally, you are either Aboriginal or not and there is no such thing as a traditional Aboriginal person.

Ladies, Gentlemen and others....

Why would we find such texts surprising?

Wasn't it Michel Foucault who opined that it is the victors who write the history? (maybe someone earlier - perhaps a more erudite contributor than me can provide a source).

Or, at a more sinister level, George Orwell wrote: "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."

The latter is more in keeping with the sort of historical revsionism we see in a large part of the mass media today...

... or is it just keep 'em stupid (with "bread and circuses") so we can control 'em.

Food for thought....

I see a few anti-conservative socialists expelling their venom whilst they sit around enjoying the fruits of capitalism.

Any history which yields more to Germaine Greer than John Howard can have little to commend it.

As for “victors justice” dearest Margaret, a lady who saw the world through clear lenses and not those coloured by a reddish hue, "The Nuremburg trials were attacked at the time as 'victor's justice'. And this is precisely what they were - and were intended to be."

Better the “victors justice” of the allies than those of the Nazis or for that matter later the potentates of the USSR.

Those who think Ronald Reagan was a barely worth a mention she said

(On Who Got Credit For Ending The Cold War) "The role of Ronald Reagan had been deliberately diminished; the role of the Europeans, who, with the exception of Helmet Kohl, were often keen to undermine America when it mattered, had been sanitized; and the role of Mr. Gorbachev, who had failed spectacularly in his declared objective of saving communism and the Soviet Union, had been absurdly misunderstood."

So the leaving the recording of history to the demented and stigmatized view of the lefties would be as incorrect as leaving it to Hitler or Stalin.
The difference, I would note is, under our “capitalist democratic” model of government, which with others prevailed in the cold war, allows those of the left to indulge themselves in historic fantasy.

Ultimately, the authoritive “historic truth”, will only be produced when written by those who can distinguish left-wing fantasy from right wing reality.

Another whack-a-mozzie hijack, Boaz?

Shame on you.

>>Just two points will suffice to illustrate how insulting and disgusting it is that such a text should EVER be used to brainwash the minds of young Australians. “Before Islam … Women could be married against their will." “Before Islam … Women were not as important as men.” Surah 65:4 refers to...<<

I guess any old excuse will do for you to take the opportunity to give us that tired old rant of Boaz-selected-and-selectedly-interpreted Surahs, that are included only to support this particular hobby-horse of yours, which is to accuse Muslims of being rampant paedophiles.

One paragraph from one book amongst a wide range of literature that is available on the Victorian curriculum - take a look at this list, and try to put that paragraph into some perspective:

http://dozer.infodiv.unimelb.edu.au/subjectresources/subject/34/all/yr7tbs.htm

As for...

>>Surah 4:34 clearly allows WIFE BEATING...<<

...I'm not entirely sure whether you included this in an approving or a disapproving way, given that you are a self-confessed daughter-beater. Can you perhaps provide a similar verse from the Bible, Boaz, that you yourself use to justify beating young girls?

Now that would be worth reading.

Oh, I forgot to mention.

I'm sure it must have been an oversight, but you omitted one small detail from your link to the Wikipedia article on the Undercover Mosque programme

>>Its about time we realized that radicals will try to radicalise moderates... UNDERCOVER MOSQUE.. investigation into 'moderate and tolerant' Major mosques in London.<<

The article states: "The documentary presents film footage gathered from 12 months of secret investigation into mosques throughout Britain.".

But the following sentence reads: "However, a police investigation found that the programme makers had spliced together extracts from 56 hours of video and the speakers' comments were taken out of context."

I know that it must be tough on you Boaz, conducting a 24/7/365 mission to blacken the name of Islam and insult its many adherents.

But it is not a good look, when the examples that you put forward clearly demonstrate your own predilection for adjusting reality to present only those angles that reflect your unique agenda.

Well blind freddy would recognise that Ben-Peter Terpstra isn't a historian or understands histiography.

He is a "freelance writer" which is code for out of work hack.

THe libs must be getting desparate to publish this hysterical tripe ,
send him to the stocks along with the editor, this garbage is an insult, and reduces the debate to a little lower than a kindergarten squabble.

Ho Hum-;

"The West gave the entire world both of these wars."

NO! multiculturalism and immigration gave the world both of these wars.

Germany was multicultural at the time of world war one and it was when the German Kaiser paid a visit to the Serbian sector as a gesture of goodwill and he was assasinated that World War one broke out. The German army was sent to the Serbian area of Germany immediately afterwards. The Serbs who had migrated originally from Russia to Germany called on their old Russian tribe for help against the German army and they got it. Russia came in on their side and war broke out between the Russians and the Germans. It had a snowball effect for reasons that are too long to go into here and other countries including England ended up becoming involved.

World War 2 was sparked by the same multiculturalism in Germany
about 41years later when the Jews who had failed to intergrate because of their religion and were numbering in the millions caused the Germans to fear that they were losing control of their country.
It wasnt anti-semitism it was ethnic cleansing of the Jewish tribe by the Germans who wanted them cleansed off German territory. The kids are being told that it was anti-semitism in the schools. Again, another example of how the schools get it wrong.

Oh obviously! Everyone can see that women are just so much more free under the world's muslim regimes than they are in the West.

What planet do the people who write these things in the school curriculum come from?. Lets start seeing things the way they really are people and not the way you would like them to be in your fantasy version of the world.

Plillip Adams was caught out by media watch for falsely claiming an interview with Helen Demadenko David or whatever she now calls herself. I consider myself a historian and I have just completed a webpage for the descendants of the much maligned Bentleys who owned the Eureka Hotel, burnt down before the Eureka Stockade in 1854.

The real story is an indictment on successive Victorian governments. The Bentley Hotel lands were stolen after the Stockade in 1859 by JB Humffray and the Bentley heirs are claiming compensation for the theft of their land by the Victorian government. Appeals are in progres to the Privy Council and with the Human Rights Commission.

James Bentley is much maligned in Australian history texts as the "murderer" of James Scobie, but he was only ever convicted of "manslaughter" after two trials, (double jeopardy abused) the second trial was initiated largely by Peter Lalor who was no democrat and he is usually praised in history texts.

It may have all been a setup to allow other sly grog sellers to trade! The Bentley family have provided me with many original documents that show Catherine Bentley actually owned the Eureka Hotel, not James and that she was never compensated for the taking of her lands. James was declared insane after the Eureka was destroyed and later killed himself. His ancestors continue a struggle for recognition of the true history and financial compensation.

The Bentley Eureka Saga

http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/History/Bentley.html#skipnav

Other Heretic Press Australian History pages.History Index
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/History/index.html
Catholics at the Eureka Stockade
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/History/Catholics.html
150th Anniversary of the Eureka Stockade
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/History/150.html
Some of the Characters at the Stockade
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/History/eureka.html

regards

Tim Anderson
The Webmaster
http://www.hereticpress.com

Sharkfin

I hate to disappoint you but the man assassinated in Serbia was the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand. He was a member of the Hapsburg royal family (monarchs of the Austro-Hungarian empire) and heir to the throne.

The Austro-Hungarians declared war on the Serbs. Counter mobilisations of various nations set off pre arranged collective defence pacts. The whole of Europe was at war in a very short space of time. Nothing to do with Multiculturalism.

Hitler sparked off WWII by invading neighbour Poland after previously taking the Sudetenland, Austria and Alsace Lorraine. Hitler main goal was ‘Lebensraum’ which is translated as living space. His goal was to unite the Germanic peoples in a single all powerful European superstate, with all the primary resources and land to support it.

Britain intervened, not to save the Jews, but because it had a defence pact with Poland and because the British were beginning to realise that Hitler wasn’t going to be stopped by appeasement or negotiation.

As for your pitiful attempt to pretend that Hitler was not an anti-semite, ARE YOU MAD?

Hitler didn’t want the Jews deported to other countries. He wanted a final solution to the so-called ‘Jewish Problem’. Just take a quick peak at Mein Kampf.

“ Mein Kampf makes clear Hitler's racist worldview, dividing up humans based on ancestry. Hitler states that German "Aryans" are at the top of the hierarchy and that Jews and Gypsies are consigned to the bottom of the order. Hitler goes on to say that the Jews were conspiring to keep this "master race" from rightfully ruling the world by diluting its racial and cultural purity and by convincing the Aryans to believe in equality rather than superiority and inferiority. He described the struggle for world domination as an ongoing racial, cultural and political battle between Aryans and non-Aryans”

Hitler wrote “that if only 12,000 – 15,000 Jews were gassed, then the sacrifice of millions of soldiers would not have been in vain”

So WWII, also had nothing to do with Multiculturalism.

Sharkfin seems to blame all the worlds problems on multi-culturalism.
Is he somehow pretending that we should go back to or create some kind of mono-cultural utopia?

When and where did such a utopia exist?

Im sure the people in Africa,the USA, Australia, New zealand, India and Asia altogether would have preferred that the whiteys with their "superior" culture and their MAXIM guns and "jesus", to have stayed at home.

The fact of the matter is that the world has been multi-cultural for a very long time, and even more so in October 2007. We have no choice but to live with and to cultivate the necessary virtues and tolerance to make it work.

It seems to me that both World War I was a crisis in the collective psyche of Europe ALTOGETHER. A crisis which triggered off vast sub-terranean forces of fear, anger, and frustration into the dreadful SCAPEGOATING slaughter of WWI.
The assasination of the Duke was just a spark that set the (waiting to happen) explosion off.

So too with WW2.

Meanwhile I came a superb example of the typical politically correct sanitised white-washed version of his-story so beloved of those on the "right" side of the culture wars. Please check out THE GREAT FORGETTING by Eunice Wong.

1. http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20071005_the_great_forgetting

Meanwhile it was not so long ago that the Australian "aborigines" were considered to be sub-human. Their collective affairs came under the laws of the FAUNA and FLORA act.

Ho Hum I read your two links, and was impressed with two examples of exactly what Tempstra was discussing. That they do not present a balanced view point isn't in contention as it does not attempt to, the issue is that the information is exaggerated at almost every turn.

In the interests of free speech, I have no problem with the authors of these articles publishing these polemics on the net, but if I found them dished up to students as factual texts, I would be disgusted.

Western culture has its flaws, but before one gets all dewy eyed about how the poor innocents were ravaged by the terrible whiteys here is a story to put it into perspective.

In the early 1800s one of Chaka’s strongmen Msilikasi split away from the Zulu tribe with about 20-30% of the nation. Chaka incensed sent a huge army to bring him down and punish his followers.

Knowing that an army marches on its stomach, Msilikasi had his army move in a broad band across the country side pillaging everything and burning or killing all people and livestock they could not take with them. This scorched earth tactic worked as Chaka’s army was forced to turn back. The estimated cost of this to the previous unsuspecting nations in the path was about 500 000. Msilikasi finally settled and founded a city now called Bulawayo or the place of killing.

The level of brutality in Africa was only briefy interupted by colonisation and continues happily in Dafur, Somalia, Eritrea, Ruwanda, Burundi, The DRC, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Angola, Zimbabwe, etc, etc, etc.

The Incas and Native Americans, etc, were also not known for their cuddly nature, but I don't have enough space to detail it all.

Would someone please enlighten me....do 'Heinemann texts' really exist and does any text make those absurd claims about the status of women before the advent of Islam.

The comments certainly don't pertain to the staus of women in the Roman Republic.

I'm also wondering from the context whether implicitly it is claimed that the status of women was improved by the advent of Islam.

In Terpstra’s thesis he talks about us belittling America, as if we should be acting mentally like us soldiers in WW2, with - Yours is Not to Reason Why.

It seems today in ruling circles, that anyone left of centre is not to be trusted, making younger children and certain adults wondering whether to be left-wing is criminal and right-wing is good as on the right side.

If this is a contest, the commentaries could be a little on the right side, or rather the rightist side, which could sound pretty good for John Howard refusing to apologise to the Aborigines.

It also gives the okay for colonialism, showing it was wrong to give freedom back to India after WW2, and to all the countries still mucked up with Westernised borders - nearly a million slaughtered in Rwanda.

As it also gives the okay for Israel’s 200 ready and powered nukes, per favour of the US, to let her have say over the Middle East, might be a real bugger-up for a long peace in the future, especially if Cheney has any say in it.

Tepstra’s message had me a little worried for a while, especially as I’ve had experience of academic historians getting carried away.

But really looking back through history, reckon those who have got carried away the most, are truly the Americans, who seem still determined to make the Middle East the most troublesome spot copying the Brits first by planting thousands of troops in Saudi-Arabia upsetting bin-Laden, annoying Iran no end with planting in the Shah, then backing Saddam against Iran, with Iran winning after eight bloodthirsty years, which America has never forgotten.

But now with America still determined to carry out her long range plan for her own 21st century as if she owns it, and also adding on the US thirst for ME oil, makes one still glad to be a so-called Left Wing Loonie, even though one still remains an agrarian unionist as in the days of Black Jack McKewan, and having grown up in the Great Depression.

Cheers - BB, WA

This is a big kettle of fish the writer has opened up with his railing all done under the banner of "political correctness for students." In the same article he throws in Howard and "a little businessman like, say, Rupert Murdoch." A strange choice, these leading lights that students should look up to?
The writer throws up all this sleight of hand, but disingeniously, forgets to mention the positions he rails about are right wing positions. Some are extreme right wing positions.
"Women were treated as possessions.” "Women had no personal rights." What rights do they have in the workplace under Howards new IR laws?
"Women could be married against their will."
"Women could be forced to dance naked.”
"Baby girls were regularly buried alive.”
… "Women were uneducated.” But hasn't Howard declared war on education at all levels? The oppression of woman is always bound up with the society and social relations therein. One aspect of many reasons, today, has been primarily for exploiting and more readily manipulating woman as a commodity to be brought and sold. Once again, Howards workchoices are primarilly about boosting exploitation for woman and men. "Women were not as important as men.”Which raises the question of genuine equality. But this society is riven by deliberate divisions carefully crafted so that a ruling class can rule over a working class. Including the fostering of gender politics men against women.
Of course, when it comes to the killing of women and men in Iraq - a mass killing of world-historic proportions we have a deafening silence by the writer. Latest estimates being 1.2 million by the British polling organization ORB. As well, as the millions that have been turned into refugees.
Students too are a source of cheap labor implemented by the right wing. The writer of the article serves up a large dose of political reaction instead of political correctness.
…

Just read this fellas 'wisdom'.....

Same old, same old.

Written from a Right Wing perspective, all that is Left is bad.

Written from a Left Wing perspective, all that is Right is bad.

...............given that we are currently gripped by Right Wing Governments (AND 'Oppositions'), the latter view has far more validity!

Bushbred.

Rwanda wasn’t stuffed up by westernised borders. The Tutsi and the Hutu are both part of the Kinya-rwanda. They speak the same language and have the same cultural and religious background.

The problem was the Belgian colonialists who, through the pseudoscience of the time, elevated the Tutsis because of their more Caucasian appearance.

The Rwandan Genocide can be laid squarely at the feet of the UN, who had forces ON THE GROUND, prior to the massacre. There was plenty of intelligence available which suggested that a large scale ethnic cleansing was being planned. Yet the UN did nothing. Clinton likewise did nothing and it is to his eternal shame.

As for Israel having a say over the whole Middle East, what evidence do you put forward for this assertion? Israel has threatened no-one with nukes? Indeed they have hardly even admitted having them.

The current push against Iran is American policy, not proxy for Israeli strategic benefit. Whilst their interests might well align on this issue, there is little doubt Bush has been actively pursuing policies to reduce the Iranian threat in the Middle East for American benefit.

If you recall BushBred the Saudi regime invited US troops into the country when they were being menaced by Saddam. Without American troops the Saudis could well have lost a significant portion of their country. Virtually every nation in the UN supported the coalition during the Gulf War. The US fought beside Arab armies from of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, And now you are trying to rewrite this episode as an Oil grab. The new left is rewriting history to better fit their dearly held beliefs

Whoever is right in this debate, there can be little doubt that children are being taught versions of history which are not even remotely universally agreed upon. In fact society is fairly closely split on either side of this divide. Surely it would be far better to teach children both views and then let them decide for themselves.

Paul L

Kaiser–Archduke So? How does that change the point I made that World War 1 was not caused by the West but was set off by the assassination of the Leader of one tribe by another tribe in a multicultural society. The Serbs called on their old tribe from Russia for help and they got it . This meant that the Austro- Hungarians and Russia were then at war.

I was watching one documentary on it that said that one of the neigbouring countries was pulled into the war because of their fear of what would happen if the Russians took control of the Austro Hungarian region. I cant remember if it was France or which now but that’s how it happened. And of course other countries including England were drawn in because of their different allegiances and self interests.

I was using the word Semitism in the sense of religious belief. The Germans didn’t hate the Jews so much because of what they believed in, as much as they feared that the millions of prosperous Jews were becoming too powerful in business and monetary affairs and that eventually they would take control of Germany. You don’t murder 6million people in gas chambers because they believe in pink fairies or something. It’s the non-intregration (tribalism) of these religions and the eventual territorial threat that they pose that leads to their ethnic cleansing.

Mankind like any species in the wild will protect his territory with deadly force if it becomes necessary. It’s the law of nature. Hence the never ending ethnic cleansing. I’m not defending it or denying the awfulness of it. Its just the way it is.

Ho Hum - “Should we go back and create some kind of Mono-cultural utopia.

We should also realize that multi-cultural utopia does not exist either . Now I have heard people quote periods from history when societies lived happily for a couple of generations or more but what they fail to do is look further along the track to the inevitable fighting that eventually broke out maybe a couple of 100years or more further down the track.. They conveniently just select a short period in history. Multicultural ism or the successful intregration of different tribes has often happened when countries have been over run and the males have raped all the woman and so bought the territory under their control by the most brutal means of forced intregration.

All wars are at their core tribal, over control of some territory or resources.
Tribal warfare has raged from without, that is- armies from different countries(tribes) overrunning other countries whilst ethnically cleansing as they go; and it has also raged from within, demands for separatist states etc.

The Turks slaughtered something like 1million muslims, which they don’t speak of or acknowledge today.
The Japanese while expanding into China under their policy of creating a Japanese Asian Empire for the greater good or some such propaganda slaughtered 15million Chinese, if I remember that figure rightly from Wikepedia. Japan was really exploiting Chinese territorial resources for the good of Japan.

Do I think all the problems of the world are caused by multiculturalism. No,but I believe all the wars in the world are inevitably between two tribes or more over territorial control. Multiculturalism is just a fancy way of saying multi tribes. If true intregration takes place (tribal intermarriage) , then multiculturalism could be utopia. If not,then then it sets the scene for more of the bloody tribal warfare and ethnic cleansing that we have already seen in countries such as Rwanda , Serbia,Timor, and wars we have seen across all of history that would fill hundreds if not thousands of pages if they were all listed.

sharkfin

Who was your History teacher? Cute! "World War 1 was not caused by the West but was set off by the assassination of the Leader of one tribe by another tribe in a multicultural society." I dropped my sherry and fell screaming to the floor! Got any more comics like that?

Your RI teacher must have been a hoot too. "You don’t murder 6million people in gas chambers because they believe in pink fairies or something. It’s the non-intregration (tribalism) of these religions and the eventual territorial threat that they pose that leads to their ethnic cleansing." Although I didn't quite follow you on the religion of Turkey, "The Turks slaughtered something like 1million muslims..." you say. Is this tribalism, religious fanaticism or zoology?

Your next set of comics goes for zoologics: "Mankind like any species in the wild will protect his territory with deadly force if it becomes necessary. It’s the law of nature. Hence the never ending ethnic cleansing. I’m not defending it or denying the awfulness of it. Its just the way it is."

Were you thinking of Australia when you told us that "Multicultural ism or the successful intregration of different tribes has often happened when countries have been over run and the males have raped all the woman and so bought the territory under their control by the most brutal means of forced intregration"?

Should we be out there belting the tripe out of everyone who's not like us and we males raping the women? After all, as you say, "It's just the way it is."

Frankgol, the Jews of Germany were among the most assimilated Jews of any time. Until the Nuremberg Laws of 1933 they participated fully in German society and were represented at all socio-economic levels.

It is also quite erroneous to say that 6 million died "in gas chambers". Many were shot, starved and many Jews committed suicide.

Paull, yes, the Belgians in colonial Rwanda were out to make one tribe even more superior to the other, and as taught in university lectures the addition of an interior colonial borderline really helped to cause the shocking genocide that followed.

And talking about the first Gulf War, Paull, if you remember there was a wealth of controversy over it. One American professor talking on our TV was totally obsessed. Guess you would call him another left-wing loonie.

Actually Kuwait itself was originally part of Iraq, and its so precious ports occupied by the British after WW1, and unlawful possession as in the graball colonial days just fell into place as permanent by the West by later installing a puppet Prince.

Paull, after I gained my Post-Grad in the general Social Sciences at Curtin, while taking groups connected with the Uni' of the 3rd Age for 13 years, most of my connections have been with Murdoch.

Certainly I'll be waiting wth bated breath for you to inform me that, yes, Murdoch is the home of Left-Wingers.

Finally, and please don't kid me about the Americans not having oil mostly on their minds, especially with Vice Pres' Cheney a former oil boss, as well as others of the Bush staff like Condy Rice.

From my reading of history, the vast majority of casualties in new world populations came from diseases europeans had immunity to but the native populations did not. This is true of the americas Australia and pacific. As one commentator has put it the america revenge was limited to VD and tobacco.

The point of this is that 5 minutes research on the net will establish this so the view that there was wholesaele butchery as the main cause of population decline is either lazy or a deliberate lie

Sharkfin:-
"I believe all the wars in the world are inevitably between two tribes or more over territorial control. "

So what about my mob then? No Romany ever wanted to have territorial control; no Romany ever wanted to claim land for themselves, or control others, or engage in economics or politics.

Yet Hitler was more virulent towards us even than the Jews - and started uh.."ethnic cleansing"..on us before the Jews. He also only went back two generations with Jewish people, but for us it was three. Which would mean that my two children (one of whom, by the way, was presented with a Young Australian of the Year Award) would not be considered fit to live.

It wasn't just Hitler, either:- just about every country in Europe considered us candidates for genocide. In fact the last law against us was only repealed in 1987. So how does your theory explain this?

As to all this "Left-wing/Right-wing crapola?" Geez what is it with this obsession for labelling and stereotyping others? THATS the sort of garbage that leads to genocide and ethnic cleansing.

People have differing views. Period. If one is interested in bringing up children with open minds then as long as one stays involved in their lives and their home and schoolwork; and discusses things with them; and teaches them about research and differing ideologies they will make their own judgements. And if we, their parents, have done our jobs correctly we will respect their judgements.

Btw, - who ever made the "Freelance Journalist=out of work hack" comment? .....Oh, harsh, man, harsh.

Hi Pericles.. just noticed you ripping into me again... on many issues.

My daughter loves me :) end of story.
but.. you asked.. I'll provide "Spare the rod..spoil the child" Prov 13:24 ('rod' in my understanding here means 'dicipline' in general, but does not exclude a real rod, - have fun with that)

On your oft repeated charge of me being 'selective'... well no more selective than the police when they SELECT which charge to apply on the basis of the evidence.

65:4 is A SPECIFIC instruction in regard to divorce. It cannot be clearer than that.

You know.. 10 commandments kind of thing. "Thus...says the Lord"....

But you really demonstrate again.. your shabby disregard for truth and facts by suggesting I claim 'all Muslims are pedophiles'... when you either know jolly well I've not said that.. or.. you are just inventing it for impact.

What I've CLAIMED for the record is.. that "Islam permits Pedophilia" which.. as I understand it means sexual relations with pre-pubescent children.

I backed that claim up.. with a scholarly opinion from one whom much of the Islamic world relies, including the Muslim Students Association of LA California in their web site of hadiths and Quran.
i.e Abul ala Maududi who states in unmistakable terms that the meaning of that verse is that sexual relations were understood to have occurred with thos pre-menstrual girls. Now.. that is pedophilia, but if you like "Child abuse".

This.. I feel it is highly damaging to our society to see the overall values framework in which this little 'gem' dwells.. to be encouraged or sugar coated to our impressionable student youth.

BOAZ_David,

Re your claim that an Islamic scholarly source gave the green light for Muslims to engage in paedophilia or child sexual abuse, I once heard a Christian scholar make the same claim on behalf of Christianity. Then, of course you have (among many others) the notorious Father Gerald Ridsdale (Archbishop, later Cardinal, Pell repeatedly stood by this paedophile until the publicity started to be damaging to Pell). And we won’t forget Governor-General Peter Hollingsworth’s inept handling of child sex abuse allegations while he was Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane.

Ridsdale is now in gaol - on a second series of offences - where he belongs, but his Christian church shielded him for many years.

But you know David, I discount and reject these 'scholars' and professional Christians as aberrant. I do not accept that they speak for their religions as a whole. Even if they did, my intuitive but deeply-held belief is that paedophilia or child sexual abuse is absolutely unacceptable and should always be regarded as wrong on the grounds that it is coercive exploitation of an unequal participant in sexual action.

So don’t point the finger at a whole religion on the basis of a rogue element – but if you do, don’t confine your remarks to one religion. If you are going to claim, as you did, that "Islam permits Pedophilia", you'd also have to say "Christianity permits paedophilia".

I thought for a moment you were ignoring me, Boaz, as is your habit when I ask too many questions.

I don't see it as "ripping into you" though, merely pointing out inconsistencies in your arguments.

You refer to a Surah that - according to you - permits "wife beating", and now provide a Bible quote that - according to you - permits child-beating.

I would like to point out that in today's world, both practices are unacceptable in polite society, and potentially criminal acts.

But at the same time, you protest that your selected quotes from the Qur'an are not intended to indicate that your interpretation applies to all Muslims. How does that work?

>>your shabby disregard for truth and facts by suggesting I claim 'all Muslims are pedophiles'...<<

So, how would you phrase it. Boaz?

Would you say "based on this evidence, some Muslims are paedophiles". Or "It might be that some Muslims are paedophiles?" Or "paedophilia is a common Islamic practice"?

OK, come on now, how would you move from the general to the specific. From "here's a phrase I picked up from a religious text that might possibly indicate that paedophilia was not unknown when this book was written back in the Dark Ages", to a specific denunciation of today's realities?

If you cannot do so - if you cannot draw any inferences from the text you have chosen, and apply them directly to twenty-first century behaviour - than I'm afraid you are simply stirring the pot, aren't you?

Boaz, it's time to fish or cut bait.

Are you accusing Muslims of being paedophiles or are you not? If not, would you please be kind enough to spell this out for us, in a simple sentence.

If you cannot do this, then I'm afraid my accusation stands, and your protests are nothing but hot air.

Which is it to be, Boaz?

johncee1945 “Some are extreme right wing positions…. "Women were treated as possessions.” "Women had no personal rights."

I will answer what is, obviously, the rantings of the intellectually challenged, with a single quotation.

(Refering to the status of women in the western style democracies)

“The battle for women's rights has been largely won.”

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/m_thatcher.htm


I would further observe, much to her credit, the lady who said it was what many would declare “extreme right wing” (but history will record as balanced and practical) oh, and of course, ordered a victorious battle fleet into the South Atlantic to repel the aspirant demands of the “right-wing fascist government” of Argentina to military possession of the Falkland Islands.

Somehow, I doubt you can come close to competing with that level of credentials

Now for an extreme left wing position,

Quotes “While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.” Lenin

Who cynicism in life and leadership allowed him to observe

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

Neither women or men had individual rights under the communist collective system, especially the right to hold private property or, when Stalin needed to pay for his grandiose schemes, the right to feed their children.

Hence, the mass starvations under USSR collectivization of the 1920-1930’s.

Compared to that, supposed criticism of “Howards new IR laws” is misguided.

In the 70’s, as an undergrad believing in equal rights for women (indeed for all), I joined a feminist group. However, I found some of their ideas increasingly ludicrous, and left. A number of feminists emulated the very things they damned about men. Being married with children, and refusing to wear bib’n’brace overalls with men’s singlets, and go bra-less, I was on the outer. However, I did have a good friend, intelligent and reasonable; she had a tattoo on her shoulder of a sickle with testicles dangling from it.

Later, when Keating did a sweet-heart deal with a Catholic Independent member from Tasmania, the condition being that no birth-control teaching nor birth-control methods be sent to third-world countries, not one feminist group spoke out. Keating was their darling. This was a terrible betrayal of what feminism was supposed to represent.

The result was that maternal mortality, obstetric fistula, and still-births rocketed in these countries; especially among child wives.

From the Fistula Foundation.
“Less than 6 in 10 women in developing countries give birth with any trained professional, such as a midwife or a doctor.  In Ethiopia, only 1 in 10 women have a trained attendant.  When complications arise, as they do in approximately 15% of all births, there is no one available to treat the woman, leading to disabling injuries like fistula, and even death.”
http://www.fistulafoundation.org/aboutfistula/faqs.html

An obstetric fistula is a rupture in the birth canal, the result of prolonged labour, leaving girls/women with chronic bowel and bladder incontinence; they are isolated from their villages; even hospitals will turn them away. Invariably the baby is stillborn.

cont ...

A gay friend described the latest feminist workshop. They painted pictures with their menstrual blood - each had brought her own collected in a container. One supposes, a post-menopausal woman could paint from a younger woman’s jar ... surely they don’t practice ageism.

When I was younger, political correctness, would have fallen under courtesy and consideration for another’s feelings; indeed, accepting the other as equal, whatever race, religion, etc ...

Political correctness can be “innocently” offensive. I was outraged at being corrected by a colleague, that I was “vertically challenged”, not “small” as I had stated.

Many deaf do not consider themselves “challenged”; they regard “learning to lip-read/ speak” as learning a different language. To say they are “challenged” is to get a rapid response of many hand-signs - the meaning only all too clear. Indeed, a culture exists among a few, that it is a “sell out” to learn to lip-read/speak.

Political correctness appears to be a sacred sanctum, the adherents of which ignore reality, time and place. I regret to say, “expediency” comes readily to mind, and as for historical facts ..

What's with the "Whitesville sucks" caper, baby?
Ow! That's a bring down, man! A real drag!
What's your story?

Whitesville's the utmost.

Whitesville gave us the Enlightenment. What a gas!

Whitesville gave us Democracy. The living end!

Whitesville gave us the Industrial Revolution. Outta sight!

That's the kind of scene that I dig, baby.

Isaac Newton. In the Groove!

Charles Darwin. Lay your racket on me, Charlie!

Florence Nightingale. She's a blip!

Henry Ford. Get in there!

Joan of Arc. She's too much!

Sigmund Freud. Nutty!

Louis Pasteur. That's a hard spiel!

Mary Shelley. She's a gasser, so help me!

Thomas Jefferson. He's got his boots on!

What a bunch of real gone cats!
Crazy, man. CRAZY!

Whitesville's where it's at.
It's what's happenin'!

It's the ginchiest!

Can ya dig it, Daddy-O?