Former Prime Minister John Howard calls the Gillard Government's new history curriculum "bizarre." In a piece in the Australian of 28 September 2012 titled "BIZARRE HISTORY CURRICULUM STUDIES KYLIE NOT CAPITALISM" the former PM writes:

>>An illustration of the bizarre is to be found in the Year 10 curriculum. In it, students are required to do what is called an in-depth study of one of three aspects of globalisation from 1945 to today: the options are popular culture, environmental movements or mass migration movements>>

(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/bizarre-history-curriculum-studies-kylie-not-capitalism/story-e6frgd0x-1226482887138)

The thrust of the former PM's attack is that the new curriculum has a left wing bias and certainly this is true. As Howard points out such landmark events as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of China are either absent or minimised. For some strange reason Chinese history stops at 1976.

Howard's solution is to provide a counter-balancing conservative agenda to the curriculum.

With respect to the former PM I think he is missing the point as much as the obviously blinkered left wing academics who compiled the curriculum. There is more to history than left versus right. Here are some overarching topics that I think could be included as options for in-depth study as aspects of globalisation:

--The rise of Asia

--The rise of China and India as great powers

--The internet

--The globalisation of technology

--The role of religion in international affairs

--Demographic trends – especially the dramatic fall in human fertility in most parts of the world

--The globalisation of finance and the global financial crisis

--The global surge in income inequality – a phenomenon in almost all countries

--Energy

--Food and water

Are the left wing academics who drew up the new syllabus even aware of these topics?

I would be interested to hear from OLO about the sort of topics they feel could be included as options.

Steven we have been infiltrated by the Fabians...they lurk in every corner of the public service and academia.

One of my daughters recently graduated from 6 years tertiary study. She is a product of a household that embraces social democracy, excepting when the freedoms of the majority are restricted so as to accommodate a group in society that encompasses a single digit percentage of the whole.

In a conversation with her last week where I was drawn to point out her skewed reasoning on a subject, she responded by telling me that I was right and she had noticed that her whole way of reasoning was skewed towards socialist ethos. She then went on to say that the uni admin and the academics were socialist bent and that the whole education environment guided your reasoning and ridiculed any dissenters by peer and admin pressure.

The Fabians were named after Fabius Maximus, a Roman general who won through stealth and not open aggression; he placed fifth columns to control an outcome.

I sonofglion think the Fabians, they do exist, are the equal of the extreme right.
Both to be feared and in the end both not representative of the majority.
However this country is part socialist, and even the less than extreme right would not change it.
I have, for most of my life, thought we need to be accountable for that socialism, needy not greedy should get it.
History yet to be written, will both reward Howard for his ability's as a politician, and question his attitude to those who had less.

Personally I think the most significant development since 1945 has been the globalisation of science and technology. For most of the second millennium most science was conducted by men, not women, who traced their ancestry to Europe. As recently as 1950 most scientific research was produced by men in labs in Europe and North America.

Of course there were exceptions. Japan was a significant player by 1950. There were great women scientists such as Emmy Noether. The Muslim scientist, Alhazen, was a pioneer in optics.

But most of the work was being done by men from Europe.

This is changing rapidly. Everyone knows about the rise of China; but how many people know that Turkey increased its R & D spend sixfold since 1995?

However it is not merely that scientific enquiry has become a global endeavour; it is that increasingly scientists are collaborating across national boundaries. Today 35% of all published scientific work involves scientists located in two or more countries. In 2006 only 16% of publications by US based scientists involved colleagues in other countries. Today over a third do.

What has made this possible is the internet and cheap telecommunications. Scientists can cooperate in real time. Scientists in, say, Delhi, can use facilities in Singapore. I know of one collaboration in plant genetics that involves scientists from India, Israel and Italy. It's not completely alliterative; the collaboration includes scientists from Brazil and Germany. They are able to talk to each other as if their labs were next door to each other.

What a change from the 1940s when the biologists Max Delbruck in the US and Salvador Luria in Italy had to communicate by airmail letter! It made real collaboration in the sense of bouncing ideas off each other much more difficult.

Not only are more and more top ranking minds addressing scientific issues but the ability to collaborate across great distances is multiplying the effectiveness of those minds.

The future for science, with all that implies, has never looked better.

I'd like to encourage contributors to this thread to think beyond the increasingly sterile "Left versus Right" paradigm and take a look at global developments since 1945.

Which of these could reasonably be themes that are suitable for high school level projects? To me the ones mentioned in the article in The Australian look appallingly narrow and unimaginative.

sonofgloin - I can totally agree with what she said an example is on the site on the main page go to "The Domain" there is a teacher posting on their under "En Passant with John Passant" usually posts a lot one regular of his is "Saturdays’ socialist speak out"
This person teacher own children, if you read his blogs he is totally off his rocker.
I was called racist and a few other choice names now he won't post any of my comments. So much for free speech.
Follow him for a few days and you will understand what she says.

Correction
" This person teacher our children at university "

Steven >>Which of these could reasonably be themes that are suitable for high school level projects? To me the ones mentioned in the article in The Australian look appallingly narrow and unimaginative.<<

When you look at the three vaunted areas of study in the Australian article, popular culture, environmental movements and mass migration it is not particularly surprising to find that they address human impact and novelty cerebral distractions.

This is in line with UN mandates that put the responsibility of human impact onto the consumer rather than the manufacturers or processors and the government body given authority over the activity. I have no doubt that the guidelines for the subjects will guide the students towards currently politically correct conclusions.

Steven, if they ran with syllabus you presented, the sponges of brain that adolescents and young adults possess may begin cross referencing and realize that they really have no real control of their or their nation’s destiny. The Syllabus of globalization as you proffered is too encompasing, it gives them a holistic view. The UN wants them focussed on their own habits. Just another brick in the wall comes to mind.

What a shambles we have made of the primary and high school syllabuses. In the 1970’s we had more tertiary students doing subjects that required higher math than we do right now. The population has grown by a third in the past 40 years and we have fewer students doing subjects that are essential to the prosperity growth and strength of the country.

Academia is manipulated by the same thing that manipulates us all, money, and all money comes from the global monetary system. In exactly the same way they pulled manufacturing from under us, they are dumbing us down, making us reliant on others skills pool.

Perhaps firstly we need to ask the question: WHY DO WE STUDY HISTORY?

Some of the reasons I have heard banded about have been:
1) As an aid to reasoning/arguing between different propositions.
2) To provide some background/foundation with regards to our institutions/values

However, it seems to me that the learning/teaching of history gives us nothing that we might not better learn through other avenues.

So why don’t we do something really iconoclastic and revolutionary ( a word much loved by our history teachers) and dump history
altogether --or if we must, give an elementary grounding in history in primary school but dump it from secondary school.

And in its place insert:
1) Lateral thinking classes
2) Science/technology classes

Much of what passes for the teaching of history nowadays is just teachers and authors --the vast majority of whom, just coincidentally, seem to lean the same way -- imprinting their own narrow agendas on impressionable minors.

The point of learning history is to understand how Australia, and more broadly the world, came to be how it is. Much of this is not pretty or any where near politically correct, but to understand ourselves we need to know it.

The new curriculum focuses on much that is largely irrelevant.

Steven writes..
"I'd like to encourage contributors to this thread to think beyond the increasingly sterile "Left versus Right" paradigm and take a look at global developments since 1945."
I do not think the simplistic terms left and right apply, certainly not today in Australian politics if they ever did. I much prefer the notion of one being "conservative" on issues or "progressive". Support for a particular political party in itself does not make one conservative or progressive although the overall thrust of that party may be seen as being the one way or the other. The Liberal Party can be seen in general terms as being conservative, that is not to say all Liberal Party members or supporters are conservative on all issues.
For a long period after WWII the only difference in main stream Australian politics was The Labor Party supported a socialist objective in broad terms whilst The Liberal Party supported the free market approach. On social justice issues there was little difference between the two parties. There was little desire in the general community for 'change', this seen years of Menzies conservatism. As Labor never achieved government during this period its impossible to say what changes in society they would have implemented, if any.
After a brief flirtation with Labor under Whitlam, which did show a progressive spake on many social justice issues, Australia returned to conservatism. Labor abandoned the notion of socialism in favor of populism under Hawke and Keating and a concentration on economic issues with little regard to social justice. The Howard years were again dominated by the economy and then Rudd and Gillard carried on in much the same vain, always talking economics and nothing much else.
It still remains very difficult to implement change in Australian society, although I thing many are questioning far more than they once did, and this in itself will lead to long term change.

History is studied to know what was done in the past that caused adverse events to happen later.
The trouble is the Australian Government has failed to study the multicultural experiments in England and there adverse effects on that country. Major city riots and bombings crime rates out of control, Muslims trying to introduce there laws,whole classes of people on welfare.
What are we seeing in Australia gang violence, riots, crimes by Lebanese and African gangs, Muslims sex offenders claiming the Taliban tortured them that is why they sexually assault young children. We have 85% being here more than 5 years and are still on welfare. Very large families all supported by the taxpayer.
You failed to see Howard"s lesson on boats now we have over 20,000 welfare for lifers and that number growing daily.

Juliar and Rudd you get a big " F " for your failure.

It still remains very difficult to implement change in Australian society
Paul 1045,
What ? We've just gone through the most dramatic changes & you say this ? Don't you look out your window or go out onto the streets ? Are you totally oblivious to the changes happening right now ? Wake up for Crying out loud.

Does no one want to take up the challenge of suggesting additional globalisation topics for history curriculum?

The whole thing should focus on - problem solving - suggested assignments.
1) How to get rid of useless politicians?
2) How to get rid of corrupt politicians?
3) How to take away politicians indexed for life pension?

"We've just gone through the most dramatic changes" individual what are these dramatic changes you are referring to? If you believe the rantings of a poster like Phillip S:
"gang violence, riots, crimes by Lebanese and African gangs, Muslims sex offenders claiming the Taliban tortured them that is why they sexually assault young children. We have 85% being here more than 5 years and are still on welfare. Very large families all supported by the taxpayer."
Then indeed the sky is falling.

Paul1405,
Obviously you're neither an Australian nor are you patriotic otherwise you would have acknowledged the take-over that's in progress right now. If that's not a dramatic enough change then I don't know what is.

Paul1405 - The sky is not falling using your analogy it is just getting closer to the ground due to the Government failures.

Quote "rantings" Sorry to disillusion you they are FACTS, something you may not like to hear but never the less FACTS.

Please feel free to misinterpret comments in the future.

"the take-over that's in progress right now." individual other than the rantings of Phil S. do you have any evidence to back up your claim. who is taking over?
"Obviously you're neither an Australian nor are you patriotic" mate 5th generation Australian, If one has to goose-step around the country in uniform waving some silly flag to be patriotic then I may not be all that patriotic, what does one have to do to be patriotic? In your eyes.

what does one have to do to be patriotic?
Paul 1045,
Not being so blind & ignorant would be a reasonable start ! 5th gen yeah ? Tell us another one. I know of migrant Australians who have the future of this country more at heart than you ever will.

Paul1405 - It was noted that you came back with the same comment but did not dispute anything.
Now if I had stated 1 fact you possible would have come back and said that is not much it does not matter.
But when I post a number of facts it is classed as "ranting" I believe that puts me in a "no win situation", not that I am trying to win but just state my comments as to the damage the Gillard Government is doing to this country.

Congratulations you are fast joining the ranks of the posters whose comments are best ignored.

Phil, True I did not think there was any point replying to your racially motivated comments. This type of comment is alarmist rantings "gang violence, riots, crimes by Lebanese and African gangs, Muslims sex offenders etc" You are trying to vilify all Muslim people by highlighting the failing of the minority. Like all other communities, the Muslim community in Australia have members who are a problem. The underlying hatred of a minority is self evident in these comments. Cloak your hated nationalism and then call yourself a patriotic Australian. I find this most UN-Australian.

Paul1405 - I was waiting for someone to throw out the racist card when they can't reply with anything to dispute what has been stated.

That is getting to be a popular defense when someone has no defense, just call the other person a racist.

It may work with a few people that are as like minded as themselves but the majority see through that tactic. (time to come up with something else)

Phil you concentrate on the small minority of Muslim people who come to Australia as asylum seekers you then apply simplistic negative categorization to cover all Muslims in Australia ie the sex offender group, the gang group, trying to imply the minority are the reality of the majority. Never pointing to any positives that the majority may impart to the broader community. Trying to justify racial prejudices as necessary to protect the majority, all the time trying to alienate Muslim people in the eyes of others by stereotyping them into these simplistic categories.
Never seeing yourself as a racist, yet continually targeting a minority by playing the race card. The defense of the racists is "How dare you call me a racists, I am merely trying to protect our way of life from these intruders!"

Paul1405 - Please read comments before replying, what I did was draw a parallel between what happened in England as a multicultural experiment that did not work and what has happened in Australia in the past and now.
Quote "you concentrate on the small minority of Muslim people" Hitler started out with a small group, most things start out small then escalate from there sometimes out of control.
Please get another card the racists on does not work.
Sorry for the late reply, I fell asleep reading your diatribe.

Ah! A subject that was close to my heart whilst my 3 children were going to school. I insisted that they did history. It was shockingly taught in the middle and the end of the Howard years. It was disgraceful. Eg: son did an assignment on "Gallipoli", because don't we just all love that bit of history and get all teary eyed, waffle about Australian mateship and whatnot. Having had the good fortune of a non-Australian education, thus know more about general Australian history than the average Aussie, I asked son: Which war are we talking about, why was there a war and what were Aussies doing in this war and where is Gallipoli? He got a great mark, but couldn't answer the above questions. He didn't get a lesson in history, but how to do an assignment.

How anybody can participate confidently in the political process of their own nation without a good grounding in history, both local and global history, is beyond me. That goes for voters and the elected representatives.

We send our elected officials of to sign all sorts of documents that ratify international agreements with limited concept of possible consequences. Both good and bad. For Australia and other nations.

There will not be many Australians who know the why, when or what of say the WTO. Yet many glibly talk about a 'global economy'.

So, our 'debates' on asylum seekers, immigration, mining royalties, trade, interest rates, defence, to name but a few, are all done in a vacuum with personlized slanging matches between Left and Right that create some news headlines and 'witty' or vitriolic soundbites relevant only for point scoring that add nothing to our future.

Phil said
"Hitler started out with a small group, most things start out small then escalate from there sometimes out of control."
Phil I must agree with you, the extreme hate faction, who stereotype a minority as being 'criminal' etc with nothing positive, are often able to whip up hysteria and create a wanted reaction from the majority. With Hitler it was Jews. Unfortunately there are those in Australia who want to do a 'Hitler' on Muslim people.
I'm not Muslim although I have friends and neighbors who are. Regardless of what some (Muslim) people do, and regardless of the fact those people happen to be Muslim does nothing to change my attitude to my friends and neighbors.
Do you know any Muslim people, if so, what is your attitude towards them?

Paul and Steven, the Phils and Individuals of Australia demonstrate quite eloquently what happens when citizens have no grasp of global issues and history. Their kind of infantile rantings are the result of poor education. They have no concept how their uneducated easily whipped up to hysteria kind are the tinder of all the conflagrations this world has seen. They are the willing sheep of vested interests. Be it a fanatic Muslim leader, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Hutu leader or an anti abortionist evangelist to name but a few examples.

These kind of people have never learned to think for themselves, have never learned to question whomever they've put up as an authority. Never learned to reflect. They're the easily led, because anybody who may have something different to say makes things scary and uncertain.