You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!

The manipulation of Western youth.

Historians slam new national modern history curriculum

* Laurie Nowell
* From: Sunday Herald Sun
* May 23, 2010 12:00AM

HISTORIANS say the new national modern history curriculum for schools reads like a Marxist manifesto that ignores popular aspects of our past and neglects Australia's role in world politics and war.

The course, designed for years 11 and 12, is heavily focused on revolutionary struggles, colonial oppression and women's struggle for equality.

It neglects Australia's British roots and institutions and its military history, with no mention of Gallipoli, Tobruk or Kokoda, the experts say.

The draft lists World War I as a potential case study in "investigating modern history".

It lists "controversies surrounding ... memorial sites and commemorative events" as an area of study but does not mention Gallipoli or the battle of Fromelle.

In a topic headed "Australia 1880-1945", the draft lists "the formation of organised labour", "White Australia" and "wartime government controls, including conscription, control of the labour force, rationing, censorship and propaganda".

But it does not mention the settlement of Australia or the deeds of the first AIF in World War I.

The draft history course was released this week for public discussion, divided into five units: The nation state and national identity; Recognition and equality; International tensions and conflicts; Revolutions; and, Australia and Asia.

Historian Andrew Garvie said the course agenda should be altered to give a more balanced view of history.

"This appears to be a very trendy, right-on curriculum. It looks heavily influenced by a Marxist view of history - there's lots about about revolution and struggles against oppression," Mr Garvie said.

"But it lacks an appreciation of Australia's place in the world.

"There seems to be very little about our military history or our links with Britain. Gallipoli and Kokoda appear to be just footnotes to the whole thing."

He said the course also seemed to be organised as a "slice of life" approach to history.

"It seems to me students will be given bits of history to study. They may not gain an appreciation of the whole of an era or century," Mr Garvie said.

Education consultant Russell Boyle said the history curriculum was too selective.

"The ancient history curriculum spans the period from pre-history to 500BC, while the period of investigation in the draft modern history curriculum is from the late 18th century through to the end of the 20th century," Mr Boyle said.

"There is much in the period in between that would deepen students' understanding of the events and issues that have shaped humanity and our contemporary world."

Here is a typical example of the sort of rubbish being pushed on young people in the west so they no longer feel proud of the achievements of western civilisation.
I'm sure it will get fixed in the end though. It always does. Every now and then history needs to be re-written, and obviously in this case it needs to be redone.

But yes, I agree, for those who have to study the materials in the interim, it has to be frustrating.
paul_indo wrote:
Here is a typical example of the sort of rubbish being pushed on young people in the west so they no longer feel proud of the achievements of western civilisation.
1) The article is badly written, quotes only 1 source properly, and is little more than an editorial rant.
2) Andrew Garvie - the quoted 'Historian' - is a pen name for Dr Ian Pringle who is Lecturer in Public Administration at The University of Western Australia (Hannam) so he is not a historian at all.
3) This is a draft proposal issued for comment - which is what it is getting. To say that this is 'typical' of anything in particular is not really borne out by anything other than assertion...

We routinely have the same sort of academic mad season over here. Some underemployed academic launches an attack on the national curriculum and bemoans the fact that students no longer commit the birth and death of every English Monarch to memory.

If you really believe that the school curriculcum is reflecting a general decline in standards then I challenge YOU to sit a modern exam and tell me how easy it was. To be honest I get SICK of people making ill-informed comments about curriculum, exams etc.
'Things were harder when I did the exam' is something I hear almost daily from some slob who never did the exam in the first place.

'We don't teach kids to be proud of their country anymore' is another line I hear far too often.
OK - Take the UK as an example. You want national pride as part of the history syllabus. No problem - the UK did many things first and had the largest empire ever seen. Do I teach the children how we effectively went to war with China in order to force them to allow their population to get hooked on opium? Do I teach about the Indian Armritsar massacre by English troops?
The problem with these nationalistic commentators is that they are very selective about which parts of their countries 'glorious history' they wish taught.
To take the Australian example - the Austrialian near genocide of the Aboriginal population seems pretty important, as things go. Why such a small amount of time on the syllabus?
Related topics
The downfall of american society
PHP Tutorials
Football according to the laws of the Sharํa
Justification for War in Iraq
Who do you think the best live performer is?
F. Nietzsche
Youth Bands
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Jihad coming to Japan?
Support Danish
US & Iran
Upload Limit Increase Request -For Youth Project Site
Saudi women open fire and punch virtue police
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.