Peter Ross wrote:
Australia is geographically part of Asia, not Europe. A knowledge of the "local" history is a good thing, although I would also strongly recommend a breadth of global history as a good background.
I find this talk about "part of Asia" slightly suspicious.
First: It's wrong. Australia is a continent, Asia is another one.
By that argument Indonesia is not part of Asia, so we should still be learning Indonesia as part of "Australian" history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent)
Secondly: The country is these days mainly populated by people of European ancestry. Most of it's culture has longstanding connection with the European continent and the United Kingdom. We still have political ties towards there, including a Queen in London.
Cf. Greenland: Though physiographically a part of the continent of North America, Greenland has been politically and culturally associated with Europe (specifically Norway and later Denmark) for more than a millennium. I'll buy into your second argument, that there are cultural reasons to study european history. The current economic climate would encourage me to keep at least Chinese history on the syllabus, though.
So, I am in favour of English literature, whether it is Shakespeare or Patrick White. Writing is starting in primary school, and SMS or blogging do not need years of secondary school education.
My objection to English literature upthread was not about people reading the stuff, but about being asked to write essays where your final mark is porportional to how much bullshit you spew about what the author was trying to say, and how closely your assertions match the personal biases of the teacher. Maybe I just had abnormally incompetent English teachers.