I see. So mentioning Cook in a history curriculum is OK despite him not having contributed much since Federation because he’s dead. But mentioning aboriginals in a history curriculum isn’t because they haven’t contributed much since Federation, presumably because…ummm…some of them are still alive. Though some aboriginals are dead too. Particularly those who might be mentioned in relation to the earlier history of this country. I don’t get it. Can we mention the Ancient Greeks? They were influential and dead so I guess their lack of contribution post Federation is forgivable. But there are Greeks alive too, so…
I dunno, I’m lost. Enlighten us with your well thought through criteria for inclusions and exclusions in the history curriculum. Or perhaps don’t and just quit while you’re behind.
Of course it depends on the nature of the “100 references” the why, wherefore and how-tos.
I would expect that in any Australian history curriculum there should be some reference to the "lost / stolen (I can never remember the correct term) generation, and the social motivations, also some reference to the causes of alcoholism in the aborigine community - now this may or may not “blame” the evil European overlords.
However the issue would need to be examined, the materials provided may, or may not be accurate - that remains to be seen, but bringing them up in the first place is not neccessarily bad, so long as the treatent is even handed.
Not sure if my point is clear - what I am trying to say is that bringing up the “sins” of the European is not bad in and of itself - so long as their motivations are clearly explored, what they saw as the failings in the community that led to it are explored, and also the reactions and the social situation that led to it at the time.
Perhaps an analogy that I would like to draw would be the Springboks tour of New Zealand at the height of Apartheit - this would make a totally fascinating history lesson, as it would be wrapped up with Muldoonism, the social environment, trade unionism, the rule of law, social beliefs - and it would extend lot further to the Caviliers tour of the 80s and then the pardons issued to the protestors - the forces at work (no matter how you view it) present many opportunities for learning.
Sorry for the jumble - I don’t think my point is very clear, except to say that just because there are “many references” or there is “undue weightage” in and of itself makes the curriuculum bad - you would need to wait and see how it is taught, and what themes are explored before making that judgement.
You don’t see value in exploring why, and how, the Aborigine ended up the way they have?
I have never studied history, but my belief was that its not the facts that were important, but understanding the forces at work - I would think the social forces at work leading to the current Aboriginal situation would make for “great learning”?
When we did social studies I can certainly remember that we did talk a little about the Vote franchise, the Maori concept of land ownership, etc etc that put the land wars into a different light, and also about why many thought it was “unfair”. From what I recall, it was not presented as right or wrong, but rather - these were the forces at work. I think this gives a better understanding of the world around us…
Your first three points would result in 100 references to aborigines, easily.
As I said earlier, this whole thing is a bunch of politicians fencing at one another in ritual combat over nothing. You don’t even know that your preferred curriculum isn’t by and large co-extensive with the new curriculum.
And what is even more amusing is that your entire curriculum wouldn’t even mention the Magna Carta, and quite possibly not the Westminster system.
That’d make great learning but there’s no way, IMHO, that it could be taught without either taking the “Aborigines are useless and deserved it” or “Whitey stole the proud Native People’s Lands!” extreme to the approach.
That’d be covered under “Federation” (which would discuss the Constitution) and
“The Australia Act of 1986” (which was when Australia become completely independent of the UK).
Um…Steinways can stand on their own in the contest (with an impartial alien judge) over which is more advanced between pianos and didgeridoos…medicine was just a bonus point to help you out.
Kimstu, it’s not possible to call out your bluff when we can hide our private lives in the anonymity of being online, but lemme take a wild guess here and say the vote from Kimstu’s private life is Western Culture and Inventions: 1000; Aboriginal Culture and Inventions: 1.
Shampoo, showers, tampons, plastics, the Internet, electricity, medical care, mathematics, reading, library…aw; I’m just piling on, aren’t I?
How about three of these, :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: for starters, for the notion that anyone would take your implication seriously that you think the way to measure two cultures is with a witty reply instead of looking at the way your own warm feet voted in your centrally heated house?
And hey, enjoy that three-dog night with the didgiredoos softly honking in the bankground. But I rather suspect after a few weeks of bad food out in the bush that Western Culture and a decent symphony gonna taste and feel pretty good. Superior, even.
Still, I admire your tireless crusade to remind us we’re all equal and have all doped out equally excellent cultures and civilizations. Good on ya, mate.
I should have said “wouldn’t even have to mention”. A very, very in depth coverage of Federation and the Australia Act might mention the Magna Carta by way of deep background but there is so little relationship between our Constitution and the Magna Carta that it would be completely unnecessary. So you don’t know that the new curriculum doesn’t cover precisely the topics you think it should. The whole issue, and your OP, is a reflexive conservative knee jerk based on no evidence.
If anyone’s interested, the actual draft curriculum is here:
They make you work for it a bit, you have to register, and they want you to watch a fifteen minute video clip before you get into it :rolleyes:
First impressions:
It’s clearly very thoughtfully planned to try to deveolp an interest in history from the first years onwards, by relating it to students’ personal experiences. They start with the local community and move outwards year by year. I think they may have gone a bit overboard on the “relevant to personal experinces” stakes - there’s only two years (7 and 8) where Australia isn’t front and centre in most of the curriculum. But I’m not a history teacher, so I’ll reserve judgement.
It’s thematic, rather than specific. So the opposition’s gripings about “it doesn’t mention the Magna Carta” seem kind of pointless - it’s just not that sort of document. It does have a unit on “An overview of how Australia’s form of government compared with other nations and the different stories of their path to nationhood” (grade 5) and “The character of the British Empire, Australia’s place in it, links to Empire and the significance of Australia’s British heritage” (grade 6) which is where the Magna Carta and the Westminster system would go, if anywhere, but in general it talks about general areas of study, rather than delving into specific names, dates and places
As far as I can see, all Martini’s elements above are addressed somewhere or other.
It’s pretty far removed from the “great men of history” model - much more slanted towards social history. Which personally I think is fine, but I can see this aspect of it causing the most controversy. Expect other gripes such as the strong concentration on civil rights/“human rights and freedoms” in Year 10, and the fact that pretty much the whole of Year 4 is early Australian History from an Aboriginal perspective (pretty much the whole of Year 5 is early Australian History from a Colonial perspective, but I expect that to be much less controversial)
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]
After having a close look at the actual document/s (it’s hard to tell, since it’s quite web based) there is a lot to criticise, but excessive focus on aboriginal history isn’t up there in the key controversies. It’s the usual Australian thing about ANY teaching of history news story being reported as a race issue.
The only bit I’d personally criticise from that point of view is that one of the "depth study " modules in grade 7 gives a choice of India, China or Australasia ancient history. How these are remotely comparable, given that Australia was essentially pre-historical (in the sense of very limited recorded history) until 200 years ago, and tribal (meaning that any particular political, individual or social phenomenum was limited in scope) whereas India and China had vast technological civilisations, is anyone’s guess. I’d be surprised too if most teachers don’t pick Australiasia, thereby essentially repeating the grade 3 modules at a higher level, rather than broadening student’s understanding of history.
I like the way, incidentally, the curriculum broadens in scope - at kindergarten, history is about family, in grade p - 2 it is about local area, and then it traces Australia and moves on to the world and thematic history.
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. To many non-Australians, Aboriginal culture and its interactions with white Australian culture is a large part of what makes Australia interesting as a foreign country, and it’s played a large role in the art and culture even of white Australians.
For example, I don’t think I could name an Australian movie specifically about white Australians (hmmm, does Crocodile Dundee count? And I do vaguely remember that big recent movie, but I had to go google it to learn that it was actually named Australia). But I very clearly remember the critically acclaimed Walkabout and Rabbit Proof Fence, which were focused on encounters between whites and Aborigines.
Likewise, many non-Australians who have never heard of any Australian painter in any contemporary school of painting have heard of Aboriginal art and know that it’s been displayed in Western museums and influenced Western modernist art. People who couldn’t name a contemporary Australian academic philosopher or theologian to save their lives have heard of the concept of the Dreamtime and know that it’s referenced in a lot of modern Western literature.
So I think one reason you might want Australian students to learn about Aboriginal history and culture is that you don’t want them to seem clueless about it when they go abroad for their OE and find that Aborigines seem like a much more important part of Australia to foreigners than they do to you.
No, the point of my “witty reply”, as you are gracious enough to describe it, is precisely that the very notion of “measuring two cultures” as undifferentiated wholes for the purpose of declaring one of them to be objectively “better” than the other is pointless.
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.
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.
“Doing better” is a subjective term. 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, so I’m sorry if the British were mean to the Tasmanians 200 years ago but, but the world has moved on and wringing your hands over it and trying to make everyone feel bad about it isn’t going to achieve anything.
Personally, I feel the British Empire was a net good for the world, but I do realise I’m in a minority there.
As a bonafied part American Indian, when it comes to America, I am way more inclined to the second train of thought than the first.
Yeah, “we” got shafted first, but frack if I’d rather live in a tepee on the open plain and die at 30 something as opposed to the great civilization the white man brought us.
John Redcorn just looked at the damn moon. Whitey walked on it and left some trash behind to boot.
All you are really doing here is reinforcing M.E’s point. Y
You have simply stated that you can’t remember a single Australian film over 10 years old. That is hardly surprising, memories fade with time.
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. As I said, you;re really only reinforcing MEs point.
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? Isn’t that pretty much meaningless?
How about we try some more sensible comparisons that might actually be valid?
How about we see how many people can name a non-Aboriginal Australian painter of the past 20 years, and then see how many can name a single Aboriginal painter of the same period?
How about we see how many can name a single Aboriginal art style/school (you do realise there were hundreds of thousands, right?) of any period, and then see how many can name a non-Aboriginal Australian art school/style?
Of course were we to try such valid comparisons what we find out is two simple facts:
Most non-Australians know about as much about Australia as I know about Norway.
For those tiny few who could answer such questions at all, the non_aboriginal artists and styles rank far more highly then the Aboriginal styles.
This is even more invalid than your last comparison. You now want to compare the vaguest possible knowledge of the entire artistic, religious and cultural output of an entire race over 40, 00 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.
How about we at least attempt a valid comparison?
How about we ask people if they at least vaguely aware of any of the outputs of non-Aboriginal Australian art, culture or religion? For example we might ask if they have ever heard of penicillin or the bionic ear or Mary McKillop or Hillsong or the Sydney Opera house or Steve Irwin. Then we ask if they can do the same for any Aboriginal culture.
Or alternatively we could ask people if they have ever heard specifically of some non-Aboriginal philosophers and artists, for example Clive James or Kylie Minogue or Hugh Jackmann. Then we can ask them whether they have heard of some specific Aboriginal artists and philosophers.
And once again, when we attempt a half-way valid comparison what we find out is that almost nobody outside Australia knows anything at all about Aboriginal culture and philosophy. I’d bet large sums that less than one person in a thousand could even recognise the name of a single Aboriginal artist or philosopher, whereas at least nine out of ten people would recognise five non-aboriginal philosophers and artists by name. I would also bet that less than one person in 10, 000 could actually tell you in even vague terms what the dreaming is. And that at least one in ten could tell you that Australia is a democracy.
So based on any reasonable comparison we reach the same conclusion: Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal individuals have had at best limited impact on Australian history.
I don’t think you quite understand how little non-Australians know about Aboriginal culture. The knowledge required to far, far exceed the knowledge of Aboriginal history and culture given by you so far would be obtained by simply living in Australia and switching on your television for half an hour a week.
Recent movies with massive amounts of publicity? Mere knowledge of the existence of a single (non-Aboriginal) word, with absolutely no understanding oif the meaning? Do you really think anybody living in Australia could possibly be ignorant of such things if they weren’t taught in school?
I’d disagree. I think that attempting blatantly invalid comparisons is pointless.
