Crikey

So in the end Howard’s history is history. Or is it? According to reports, the much-awaited new history curriculum which was being promised as something where in the prime minister’s words “you just teach what happened”, will be pretty similar to the way we’ve been teaching history before.

Apparently the history of something called “Australia” for the last 200-odd years will be projected back 60,000 years to the arrival of Aboriginal peoples on a continent they didn’t think of as such. Nine key periods will then be elaborated, with 70 “milestones” on the way - you know, No.12 Timor Sea formed, No. 53 Don takes 99.94 average, that sort of weighting - and events will be taught from a variety of points of view, with nine “perspectives” including Aboriginal, gender, environmental, etc etc.

If that’s true, then the perspectival approach of postmodernism - that there is no one truth - has been retained, and teachers will have sufficient scope to get students to think about what the PM doesn’t want to - ie. that maybe from the Aboriginal perspective, 1788 was a milestone on the road to hell, etc etc.

But the devil will be in the detail. Is it going to be one of those Japanese national textbook type deals where the exact way on which you focus on an event is specified? Or more open? We’ll find out.

It looks like Howard has thrown in the towel on this one. Greg Melleuish, one of the early people drafted in to dodge up approved history, thinks so, according to the Oz:

One of Australia’s leading conservative historians, University of Wollongong scholar Gregory Melleuish, last night described Mr Howard’s course as “the ultimate camel” because it had been shaped by so many committees. Dr Melleuish, who participated in the summit but criticised its outcomes, said: “The problem with this sort of document is that it tells one very little about how things will actually work in the classroom.”

Indeed. How do you stop these lefty teachers getting students to think about something other than progress? Or more generously is he saying that it’s just a confused mishmash which will leave everyone at sea - worse than Bass and Flinders, the well-known soul singing group. No hang on…

Or is this what Howard wants? Confusing superstructure, with hardcore content - WWI was good. Don’t discuss.

We’ll find out.