# Australian students supposedly to learn "Balanced" history **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 1, 2010, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832 "2010-03-01T05:39:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/61 "2010-03-03T01:33:28Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > [nitpick] > Not sure what parts you are from but I think the term you are looking for is “Moved”. i.e. the proposition or motion needs to be moved and seconded before it can be debated[/nitpick] Nope - in our part of the world you would use mooted. Which pretty much fits with the [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/62 "2010-03-03T01:50:51Z")
> [@](#): > > But I very clearly remember the critically acclaimed Walkabout and Rabbit Proof Fence, which were focused on encounters between whites and Aborigines. Unfortunately Rabbit Proof Fence is historically inaccurate anti-colonial propaganda. > [@](#): > > Based on a true story, the movie tells of Molly, Daisy and Gracie and their remarkable 2000km trek home following the rabbit fence. It remains the most vivid and poignant example yet of what has come to be known as the Stolen Generations. > > The problem is, this big-screen version of their journey, which is now a staple of school curriculums across the country, does not include all the details of the original story. > > Windschuttle has researched the experiences of sisters Molly Craig, 14, Daisy Kadibill, 8, and their cousin Gracie Fields, 10, for his book. > > According to the historian, Molly and Gracie were removed from their families on the Jigalong Depot more than 75 years ago because of their “sexual activity with white men working in the area”. > > The West Australian chief protector responsible for their removal, Auber Octavius Neville, had not been trying to “breed out the colour” by marrying off half-caste Aboriginal girls to whites as depicted in the film, Windschuttle said. > > His claim was born of a review of state archives, where he found a letter to A.O. Neville in December 1930 by a Mrs Chellow, from Murra Munda Station near Jigalong, in which Molly and Gracie were accused of “running wild with the whites”. > > “Running wild’ was said to be a contemporary euphemism for promiscuity, which meant the girls were having sex with the white males in the area,” Windschuttle writes in the preface of his new work. > > He told The Australian yesterday: "They didn’t say these girls were sc–ing boys, they said they were running wild . . . anyone from that era knows the meaning of the term. > > “That is the big lie of the film. Neville did not use child removal in order to breed out the race.” > > Windschuttle maintains that the Aborigines Act in Australia at the time of Neville’s tenure was not racist and was motivated by a genuine desire for child protection. > > He also notes that half-caste indigenous children were removed as they had been ostracised from their own full-blood communities, and also to train them for work in white society. > > “Girls, 12 or 13, having sex with whites was a common thing and (Neville) was appalled,” Windschuttle said. > > "All Australians would react in the same way and say we’ve got to get those children out of there. [http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/rabbit-proof-fence-grossly-inaccurate-keith-windschuttle/story-e6frfmvr-1225809985321](http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/rabbit-proof-fence-grossly-inaccurate-keith-windschuttle/story-e6frfmvr-1225809985321) ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/63 "2010-03-03T03:29:52Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Nobody with any sense denies that modern technologically advanced culture is greatly superior in terms of technological advancement to traditional cultures. That’s so obvious as to be tautological. But it’s silly to view that technological superiority in terms of some kind of overall “competition” between different cultures. > > Insisting that Western technological superiority = Western superiority _per se_ just comes across as racist bigotry. That’s just silly, innit? The gratuitous “racist” card tossed in along with the bigotry as a bonus word. Apparently you’ve lumped every single superior item as a “technological advancement” and then decided that, except for that, well we’re sorta equal. From the time you get out of bed in the morning until the time you nap off–and now that I think about it, while you are sleeping–every blessed thing you partake of reflects said “technologicalal advancement.” Since the OP just wants to know if we need to worry about teaching “balanced history” and we both apparently agree on that, I’ll let 'er go there. But this ridiculous notion that somehow one “culture” (i.e. sum total achievements of a given group) cannot be demonstrably superior to another is egalitarian pablum for the weak of spine. The proof of the pudding is when the less adequate culture by and large votes with its own feet for the winning culture or technological achievements produced out of that culture. Expressing an opinion that a given culture or civilization is superior to another has nothing to do with racism and only the utter indefensibility of your position creates the need to drag out that smelly old petard. Indeed, one of the strengths of Western culture, at least, has been the willingness to swipe what they can from every other culture, “darkie”-sourced or not. Perhaps you are one of those folks who feels like the science project from the mentally challenged child is still an “A” because hey, we are all equal. In my construct we are all of equal moral worth but there is an actual objective standard by which we can readily judge quality. Let the chips fall where they may, but no amount of rosy-colored false egalitarianism makes a crappy science project equal, or puts [DEL]primitive[/DEL] success-deferred cultures on par with modern ones. A balanced history of Australia–however it’s skewed–represents no real risk to students because they’ll be able to figure out on their own which culture is worth having if you have a choice. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/64 "2010-03-03T03:41:26Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > The fact that all the “big” (ie widely publicised) Australian films of the last 10 years have been very, very strongly black armband is indicative of the liberal sensibilities of the arty crowd. That may be so, but it doesn’t affect my point, which is simply that such films tend to increase the comparative importance of Aborigines in non-Australians’ perception of Australia. > [@Blake](#): > > So you want to compare individual, non-aboriginal painters active on the last 20 years to the output of all the artists of an entire race over 40, 000 years? […] > > You now want to compare the vaguest possible knowledge of the entire artistic, religious and cultural output of an entire race over 40,000 years (you do know that this is what the dreaming is, right?) to highly specific knowledge of the names of individual philosophers of the past, well 40 years realistically. No, I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m certainly not arguing that vague awareness of certain general aspects of Aboriginal culture is **equivalent** to specific knowledge about individual artists or scholars. I’m just pointing out that the vague awareness of many non-Australians concerning some Aboriginal cultural themes is **disproportionately greater** than their awareness of non-Aboriginal Australian culture. And that tends to increase the comparative importance of Aborigines in non-Australians’ perception of Australia. > [@Blake](#): > > I think that attempting blatantly invalid comparisons is pointless. Sure, but I wasn’t doing that. I was just noting that the widespread association of Australia with Aborigines in the minds of non-Australians, and widespread vague awareness among non-Australians of certain Aboriginal cultural themes, tend to increase the comparative importance of Aborigines in non-Australians’ perception of Australia. > [@Chen019](#): > > Unfortunately Rabbit Proof Fence is historically inaccurate anti-colonial propaganda. That may be so, but it doesn’t affect my point, which is simply that such films tend to increase the comparative importance of Aborigines in non-Australians’ perception of Australia. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/65 "2010-03-03T04:03:11Z")
> [@Chief Pedant](#): > > Apparently you’ve lumped every single superior item as a “technological advancement” and then decided that, except for that, well we’re sorta equal. Nope. _You’re_ the one who’s obsessed with evaluating the “superiority” versus “equality” of “competing” cultures. Personally, I think it’s just as silly to declare that two cultures are intrinsically and unqualifiedly “equal”, or even “sorta equal”, as it is to declare that one of them is intrinsically and unqualifiedly “superior”. That’s because _ **comparison only makes sense in terms of a specific metric.** _ You have to explicitly identify some aspect(s) that you’re quantifying in order to decide which (if any) competitor outranks the other(s) with respect to the aspect(s) under consideration. It’s meaningless to talk about comparing two cultures _when you don’t specify what metric you’re using to compare them_. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > Expressing an opinion that a given culture or civilization is superior to another has nothing to do with racism and only the utter indefensibility of your position creates the need to drag out that smelly old petard. Expressing an opinion that a given culture or civilization is (intrinsically and unqualifiedly) superior to another often has a hell of a lot to do with racism. The reason such opinions tend to seem smelly isn’t because of anything I’m saying about them, but because of the fact that they’re so commonly uttered by racists. Now, it’s certainly true that merely expressing such an opinion, despite the fact that it’s meaningless in the absence of a stated basis for comparison, doesn’t **necessarily** mean that the person expressing the opinion is racist. But there’s no point in denying that such unqualified generalizations do come across as racist. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > there is an actual objective standard by which we can readily judge quality Sure, there are lots of actual objective standards by which we can readily judge quality. For example, we can use technological complexity as a standard to judge that a piano is higher-quality than a didgeridoo. Or we can use measured effectiveness in controlled studies as a standard to judge that some particular modern medical treatment is higher-quality than some corresponding treatment in traditional medicine. In these cases, I can easily make valid judgements of quality, because in each case I have a meaningful metric of comparison that I’ve clearly specified. If you’re claiming to be able to judge overall quality of a culture as an undifferentiated whole according to an objective standard, then you need to clearly specify what your standard is. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/66 "2010-03-03T04:40:15Z")
> [@Martini Enfield](#): > > Kimstu, it’s been my extensive experience overseas that most Americans know nothing about Australia (and quite frequently can’t find it on a map) and most other foreigners know far less than your average Australian about Aboriginal culture. That may well be so, but it doesn’t affect my point, which is simply that the worldwide dissemination of some Aboriginal cultural themes (however incompletely, vaguely or inaccurately) tends to increase the comparative importance of Aborigines in non-Australians’ perception of Australia. > [@Martini Enfield](#): > > I’ve never said that the British Empire was only about cups of tea and gin slings on the verandah, cricket on the weekends, and kittens for everyone. But the fact of the matter is that it was all a very long time ago and almost no-one alive today had anything to do with it :dubious: The fact that a particular event or series of events occurred “a very long time ago” may be a reason not to constantly harp on it in ordinary conversation, but it doesn’t really seem like a valid argument against studying it in a **history** curriculum. Studying things that happened a very long time ago is a large part of what history’s about. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/67 "2010-03-03T04:59:22Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That may well be so, but it doesn’t affect my point, which is simply that the worldwide dissemination of some Aboriginal cultural themes (however incompletely, vaguely or inaccurately) tends to increase the comparative importance of Aborigines in non-Australians’ perception of Australia. I’d almost be willing to bet money that the most that your average non-Australian (and non-SDMB member) could tell you about the Aborigines is “They’re the black people that live in Australia and paint themselves, right?”. And you _might_ get something about Digeridoos, if you’re _really_ lucky. That _Simpsons_ episode ages back summed up how most people seem to see Australia: A desert country full of people with funny accents who drink a lot of beer and are celebrating their third decade of having electricity. > [@](#): > > :dubious: The fact that a particular event or series of events occurred “a very long time ago” may be a reason not to constantly harp on it in ordinary conversation, but it doesn’t really seem like a valid argument against studying it in a **history** curriculum. Studying things that happened a very long time ago is a large part of what history’s about. There’s “Studying” (_The British killed many Tasmanians in the early 1800s. This is why they did that [non-biased contextual discussion of less-enlightened views on race and civilisation in the late 18th/early 19th century]_) and there’s “Touchy-Feely Revisionism” (_The awful British murdered all the Tasmanians in the early 1800s because they were racist warmongers. How do you think the Tasmanians felt about this? How would you feel if you were a Tasmanian in the early 1800s? Write how mean the British were in the space below."_) I’m in favour of the former (as I’ve said, I’ve never pretended the British Empire was perfect or never did anything crappy to anyone ever), but I’m not in favour of the (admittedly hyperbolic) latter. The simple fact of the matter is that “feeling bad” about something that happened 200 years ago won’t fix or change anything today. That doesn’t mean unpleasant historical events should be avoided, but nor should we still be pointing fingers 200 years later, either. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/68 "2010-03-03T05:18:56Z")
> [@Martini Enfield](#): > > There’s “Studying” […] and there’s “Touchy-Feely Revisionism” […] > I’m in favour of the former (as I’ve said, I’ve never pretended the British Empire was perfect or never did anything crappy to anyone ever), but I’m not in favour of the (admittedly hyperbolic) latter. Well, the way you set up that comparison, I don’t see how anybody could disagree with you. However, it’s a comparison based on your own invented hyperbole, not on any actual data about the content of the revised history curriculum, which we still don’t seem to have much actual data on. > [@Martini Enfield](#): > > The simple fact of the matter is that “feeling bad” about something that happened 200 years ago won’t fix or change anything today. That doesn’t mean unpleasant historical events should be avoided, but nor should we still be pointing fingers 200 years later, either. Fair enough, but it’s not clear where you’re drawing the line between “not avoiding” and “pointing fingers”. For instance, do you think [Wikipedia’s description of the aftermath of the Tasmanian Cape Grim massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Grim_massacre) falls into the category of “historical study” or “touchy-feely revisionism”, as you define them? > [@](#): > > Disasters continued for the north-west tribe with an ambush in February 1828 by sealers who shot one man dead and abducted seven women to Kangaroo Island. In March another ambush by sealers hiding in a cave caught 14 women swimming back to shore after catching shellfish and muttonbirds. The women were herded together, tied up and taken to Kangaroo Island for sexual servitude and slavery. > > Lieutenant-Governor Arthur declared martial law on November 1, 1828 allowing roving parties to shoot or capture Aborigines for resettlement. > > In 1830 it was estimated there were only 60 Aborigines of the north-west tribe where just 3 years previously the numbers had been estimated at over 500. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/69 "2010-03-03T05:31:10Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, the way you set up that comparison, I don’t see how anybody could disagree with you. This being the SDMB, I’m sure someone will manage to all the same. 😉 > [@](#): > > Fair enough, but it’s not clear where you’re drawing the line between “not avoiding” and “pointing fingers”. For instance, do you think [Wikipedia’s description of the aftermath of the Tasmanian Cape Grim massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Grim_massacre) falls into the category of “historical study” or “touchy-feely revisionism”, as you define them? The whole article itself (as opposed to the small part you quoted) is actually pretty good, IMHO. It explores _why_ the event is thought to have happened, includes some interpretations from Keith Windschuttle (who’s completely right about the musket thing, BTW) and other historians, and manages to present the whole thing in a pretty decent way. Parts of the “Aftermath” section, out of context, do see a bit closer to being “Finger-pointing” (“Disasters continued…” and lists of horrible things done by British settlers with no further explanation or context) rather than a neutral discussion of an historical event, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/70 "2010-03-03T06:53:01Z")
It said the tribe was made up of elders, men, women, and children. It said what remained after those who escaped were gathered up and massacred, so they may have been children, elders and women mostly, and more of an execution than people running about. Obviously Windshuttle may be right, but some of the arguments sound a bit dubious - firing speed or fighting back may not have been much of an issue. Otara ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/71 "2010-03-03T08:51:08Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That may be so, but it doesn’t affect my point, which is simply that such films tend to increase the comparative importance of Aborigines in non-Australians’ perception of Australia. A point which nobody has been arguing. So it seems to be a ottal strawman. Your original point of course was that it increased Aboriginals’ importance to post-Federation Australian history and made it essential for Australians to know in order not to appear ignorant. Both of those points are clearly untrue. > [@](#): > > I’m just pointing out that the vague awareness of many non-Australians concerning some Aboriginal cultural themes is **disproportionately greater** than their awareness of non-Aboriginal Australian culture. I’m having trouble even understanding what you mean by that. I’m sure that 90% of non-Australians could recognise the names of 10 non-Aboriginal Australians, they could recognise 10 non-Aboriginal artworks, they could could recognise 10 non\_aboriginal pieces of music etc produced over a period of 200 years by ~40 million people. In contrast 90% could \*not \* recognise even a single Aboriginal achievement in the same fields produced over 40, 000 years by ~10000000 individuals. So in what way is the recognition of Aboriginal culture disproportionately greater? It seems self-evidence that it is in fact infinitely lesser both relatively and absolutely. You keep saying that your sole point was about perception, yet that was not your stated point at all. Your stated intent was to refute M.E’s assertion that “[Aborigines] haven’t contributed much to Australian society since Federation”. Can you please explain how foreigner’s perceptions of Aborigines have any bearing at all on Aboriginal contribution in the past 110 years? If your sole point is that some foreigners may have some vague inkling that Aborigines exist then nobody would dispute that. However, if you still wish to argue that Aborigines have made a significant contribution to Australia’s development on the past 110 years or that foreigners know disproportionately more about Aboriginal culture than non-Aboriginal then I’m going to call you on it. Those statements are clearly not true. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/72 "2010-03-03T12:59:18Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I’m sure that 90% of non-Australians could recognise the names of 10 non-Aboriginal Australians, they could recognise 10 non-Aboriginal artworks, they could could recognise 10 non\_aboriginal pieces of music etc produced over a period of 200 years by ~40 million people. I’m pretty sure that’s not the case. In fact, I’d bet on it. If I went outside now and accosted a random person, I bet the only Ozzies they could name would be Shane Warne and “that dead Crocodile Hunter guy”, and maybe one or two other cricketers or rugby players. Even Paul Hogan is forgotten. As for Australian artists - I love art, I consider myself reasonably educated in art, and I couldn’t name a modern White Aussie artist. The only Australian artist I can name is Shaun Tan, and he’s Chinese. I can hum _Waltzing Matilda_, and I know the themes to _Neighbours and Bananas in Pyjamas_, do those count? Oh, wait, there’s the collected works of _Midnight Oil_ and _Men at Work_, I suppose you win on music. But what I want to know is, How can you defend Australia as the only “true” democracy in the Southern Hemisphere, please? ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/73 "2010-03-03T13:06:58Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Unfortunately Rabbit Proof Fence is historically inaccurate anti-colonial propaganda. > > [http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/rabbit-proof-fence-grossly-inaccurate-keith-windschuttle/story-e6frfmvr-1225809985321](http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/rabbit-proof-fence-grossly-inaccurate-keith-windschuttle/story-e6frfmvr-1225809985321) White guys are having sex with 12-13 year old girls, they remove these young girls from their family, and we’re supposed to think that punishing the girls was the heroic thing to do? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/74 "2010-03-03T17:34:06Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Your original point of course was that it increased Aboriginals’ importance to post-Federation Australian history and made it essential for Australians to know in order not to appear ignorant. Both of those points are clearly untrue. Neither one is what I said. I certainly don’t think that just because Aborigines are overrepresented in many non-Australians’ popular perceptions of Australia, the historical importance of Aborigines **within** Australia is thereby somehow magically increased. > [@Blake](#): > > So in what way is the recognition of Aboriginal culture disproportionately greater? It seems self-evidence that it is in fact infinitely lesser both relatively and absolutely. Sorry if I was unclear, let’s try again: Many non-Australians’ awareness of Aboriginal culture, compared to their awareness of non-Aboriginal Australian culture, is disproportionately greater than the actual importance of Aboriginal culture within Australian culture would suggest. In symbolic notation: (Foreign awareness of Aborigines)/(Foreign awareness of non-Aboriginal Australia) \> (Actual impact of Aboriginal culture on Australia)/(Australian culture as a whole) > [@Blake](#): > > Your stated intent was to refute M.E’s assertion that “[Aborigines] haven’t contributed much to Australian society since Federation”. No, that was not my stated intent, and perhaps this incorrect impression is why you’ve misunderstood what I’ve been saying. In fact, I **specifically said at the start of my original reply to that comment** that I **wasn’t** attempting to contradict or refute it: > [@Kimstu](#): > > I can’t speak to what and how much Aborigines have contributed to Australian society within Australia, but I think it needs to be borne in mind that they have definitely contributed to the image and prominence of Australia in the rest of the world. Emphasis added. As I clearly explained, I was commenting on a side issue relevant to **Martini Enfield** ’s statement rather than on that statement itself. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/75 "2010-03-03T22:42:17Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > If you’re claiming to be able to judge overall quality of a culture as an undifferentiated whole according to an objective standard, then you need to clearly specify what your standard is. Just so we don’t go to far afield, I’m assuming the term “culture” in the context of the OP’s issue is the whole nine yards of the invaders: their undifferentiated whole civilization, so to speak. One easily-applied standard is to see which culture tends to overtake the other when put in juxtaposition. A second standard is success on a broader scale across the globe. A third standard is whether a culture, when confronted with thought processes from a different culture, decides their prior belief systems were inappropriate. Cannibalism and clitoridectomies come to mind (yeah I know; we haven’t quite cured the genital mutilators. But we’re getting there). A fourth standard might be immigrants versus emigrants. Apparently a lot more people who vote with their feet (and who tend toward the higher intellectual strata of their source country) seem to feel like the undifferentiated whole of western cultures are preferable to the motherland. A fifth standard might be the ability to produce a culture which actually creates a better, less primitive, less helpless, less hapless life. In short, a culture which improves the lot of the average human being rather than just taking it on the chin. I do get your general drift…what, after all, is Absolute when we are talking about purely cultural sub-points? I suspect an otherwise difficult-to-articulate answer might crystallize if it was your kid hollering during a clitoridectomy. There’s this broad fancy-dan verbiage around the fascinating cultures, and then there’s the practical reality. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/76 "2010-03-03T22:59:22Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > [SatireWire covered that possibility back in 2002](http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/australia.shtml) I may have injured myself laughing at that. Rage, vengeance, fire-spitting gerbils, blah blah blah. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/77 "2010-03-03T23:05:04Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > One easily-applied standard is to see which culture tends to overtake the other when put in juxtaposition. > > A second standard is success on a broader scale across the globe. > > A third standard is whether a culture, when confronted with thought processes from a different culture, decides their prior belief systems were inappropriate. Cannibalism and clitoridectomies come to mind (yeah I know; we haven’t quite cured the genital mutilators. But we’re getting there). > > A fourth standard might be immigrants versus emigrants. Apparently a lot more people who vote with their feet (and who tend toward the higher intellectual strata of their source country) seem to feel like the undifferentiated whole of western cultures are preferable to the motherland. > > A fifth standard might be the ability to produce a culture which actually creates a better, less primitive, less helpless, less hapless life. In short, a culture which improves the lot of the average human being rather than just taking it on the chin. > > I do get your general drift…what, after all, is Absolute when we are talking about purely cultural sub-points? I suspect an otherwise difficult-to-articulate answer might crystallize if it was your kid hollering during a clitoridectomy. There’s this broad fancy-dan verbiage around the fascinating cultures, and then there’s the practical reality. The first determines power while providing no measure of quality (unless power is your sole metric). The second measures power and opportunity. The third is subject to the rule of the victor writing history without regard to a serious metric. The fourth ignores outside factors that would tend to drive both immigration and emigration–climate change, loss of soil fertility, etc.–that really have no bearing on culture. The fifth requires a subjective determination regarding “better” that begs the question. Clearly, one may, indeed, use any of these metrics to identify “superior” cultures, but not one of them actually provides an objective measure for all cases. They are each simply different ways to arrange a hierarchy in a manner that one chooses. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/78 "2010-03-04T02:14:27Z")
> [@Chief Pedant](#): > > Just so we don’t go to far afield, I’m assuming the term “culture” in the context of the OP’s issue is the whole nine yards of the invaders: their undifferentiated whole civilization, so to speak. Right. I personally think that trying to evaluate one undifferentiated whole civilization with respect to another is so vague and broad as to be pretty much meaningless, but if you’ve got a clearly specified objective standard for making such evaluations, then by all means, have at it. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > One easily-applied standard is to see which culture tends to overtake the other when put in juxtaposition. > > A second standard is success on a broader scale across the globe. Neither of these looks very promising as a “clearly specified objective standard”. How are we defining terms like “tends to overtake” or “success on a broader scale”? And does using “across the globe” as a criterion mean that we automatically rank cultures that have had a worldwide impact (of whatever kind) higher than ones that haven’t? > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > A third standard is whether a culture, when confronted with thought processes from a different culture, decides their prior belief systems were inappropriate. Cannibalism and clitoridectomies come to mind (yeah I know; we haven’t quite cured the genital mutilators. But we’re getting there). You mean, superior cultures are those whose inhabitants are more easily converted to the “thought processes” of different cultures? That doesn’t seem as though it would work out very consistently with your own conclusions about cultural comparison. For example, by this metric we’d have to conclude that Aboriginal culture is superior to Western Christian culture, at least insofar as many Aborigines relinquished their prior belief systems about spirituality in favor of Christianity, whereas very few Christians converted to Aboriginal beliefs. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > A fourth standard might be immigrants versus emigrants. Apparently a lot more people who vote with their feet (and who tend toward the higher intellectual strata of their source country) seem to feel like the undifferentiated whole of western cultures are preferable to the motherland. Well, here at least we’ve got a metric that’s definite and quantifiable. But are we sure that it really constitutes a clear measure of overall quality of culture, or is it affected by lots of other factors as well? For example, there are [more emigrants from India to the Persian Gulf countries than to North America](http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=745#7): are we to conclude from that that the Persian Gulf states have a better culture than the US and Canada (at least, from the perspective of Indian culture)? Or are there other significant issues involving a variety of different goals and motives for different emigration experiences? > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > A fifth standard might be the ability to produce a culture which actually creates a better, less primitive, less helpless, less hapless life. In short, a culture which improves the lot of the average human being rather than just taking it on the chin. But as **tomndebb** noted, this just begs the question by failing to define what we mean by “better” and “improves”. How do we quantify what constitutes “a better life”? Do we evaluate life quality on the basis of something like the [Satisfaction with Life Index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index), according to which, for instance, life in the Seychelles is better than in the US, which in turn is better than Saudi Arabia, which is better than the UK, which is better than Gabon and Ghana, which are better than Japan, and so on and so forth? Again, I think the actual results you’d get out of such a comparison are very inconsistent with the sorts of relative rankings you’ve been arguing for in this thread. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > what, after all, is Absolute when we are talking about purely cultural sub-points? I suspect an otherwise difficult-to-articulate answer might crystallize if it was your kid hollering during a clitoridectomy. This seems like nothing more than an appeal to emotion in order to avoid thinking about complicated issues rationally. There’s no reason why we can’t use, say, rejection of genital mutilation of children as one of our objective standards for comparing cultures. It’s perfectly legitimate to declare that according to that standard, cultures that don’t practice genital mutilation of children are better than ones that do. By that standard, for example, the US is better than many African cultures, while Europe and China are better than the US (although the differences are less pronounced in the second case, since the clitoridectomies common in various African cultures are more mutilative than the prepucectomies common in the US). But we can make such comparisons specifically and rationally, without invoking any vague sweeping generalizations about some abstract cultural Absolute. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/79 "2010-03-04T02:21:10Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > White guys are having sex with 12-13 year old girls, they remove these young girls from their family, and we’re supposed to think that punishing the girls was the heroic thing to do? Today? NO! At the time - maybe? Isn’t this why we study history, so that we can understand why and how things happen? What were the circumstances, events and attitudes that led to particular actions? Do remember, this was what, the 60s that we are talking about - in Australia. That’s not to defend the actions, merely to put them into perspective of the social situation of the times…which is (what I always understood) the study of history was supposed to be about? ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832/80 "2010-03-04T02:23:30Z")
Come on, surely it’s got to be obvious to anyone that isn’t a mother-earth type that the culture with electricity, running water, agriculture, computers, radios, cars, aeroplanes, and medicine is superior to the culture which lives in caves and doesn’t get to eat much when it’s not hunting season. We’re not talking about whether American culture is superior to French culture- we’re talking about “Modern” Western culture being clearly “better” than a culture that is still basically stone age in many, many aspects. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-students-supposedly-to-learn-balanced-history/530832.md?page=5)