On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Mark Trickett wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 17:26 +1100, Roger wrote:
History is now history of Asia and aborigines, not history of Australia.
That is appropriate. Remember that all the "First Fleet" people, convicts and authorities, were "boat people" invading an already settled and occupied land, just not a European settlement. Except for those of "Aboriginal" ancestry, we are all either boat people or immigrants, or the descendants of such.
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. 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. You cannot understand the culture of the Australian people if you don't have a clue about European history, culture and religion. Confucius does not help you much to understand Nick Cave, the Bible does. Both points do not say, that we have to restrict ourself to this. Aboriginal culture is part of Australia, and we have strains of migration and influence from Asian countries as well. It helps a lot to understand their background if you meet them. The "Asian thing" here at the moment seems to be very economy-driven. And it concentrates on language which may help but I doubt it is the key. As in most cases, it looks good in short term "to do something" but you tend to have the best results if you not only know "a spot" of something, it helps you most if you know much more, including a lot of "useless knowledge" which comes in handy if you share a cup of tea with a Chinese and can talk about a painting on the wall. So, I am in favour of English literature, whether it is Shakespeare or Patrick White. Writing is starting in primary school, and SMS or bloging do not need years of secondary school education. A good school education does not have to teach you all life skills, we did not have mobiles when I went to school, so I learnt not how to use them. It should set you up for life in a sense that it awakens your curiosity, and give you the skills to learn later in life. This should include "practical things" as well. I learnt how to drill and file and using a jigsaw, and I do not see it as a waste even if I rarely do it these days. Forget the "usefulness" of education. Who knows which countries are "hip" in 30 years. Maybe our kids should learn Nigerian languages because 2040 is the year when the major African economies overtake the declining Chinese economy? Thirty years earlier you would have pushed for Japanese instead of Mandarin, and twenty years ago we had the Tigers so Korean would be good. I find it amazing how most try to predict future without learning from the past. Even if only the fact that future is not the interpolation of the last years into the coming ones. Regards Peter