Are we turning Australian history into Australian mythology?

Crikey readers are torn over a proposed school curriculum that aims to include greater levels of diversity (is it honesty, or “woke” ideology?), and also have their say on Katie Hopkins getting the boot from both Big Brother and the country.

On the ‘the khakification’ of Australia’s leadership

Margaret Donald writes: Thank you, Kishor. But of course it has been happening for years. Note our governors-general since (I think) Tony Abbott. It’s extremely frightening. And what is with the ads for getting vaccinated when it remains the case that those who wish to cannot? (Standard: blame the victim, not the perpetrator — here it’s blame the public and not the government.) Lots of smoke and mirrors (costing huge amounts) to remove the heat from where it really belongs.

Colin McCormac writes: The problem with the military (I’m an ex-sergeant) is that it is expected to be obeyed. No matter how stupid the order, you never question it; you just jump and obey. Military leaders are trained to attack or defend in war. That’s their job. They are not used to dealing with civilians or running civilian organisations. It’s totally wrong to put them in the positions that should be held by trained public servants.

On the rejection of Katie Hopkins

Jeanne Gorman writes: Reading the views of Katie Hopkins, I reacted at first by thinking: the quicker we get her out of the country, the better. Then I thought it was a good idea to expose the public to the horror of her views. I found it hard to believe that anyone who held such ideas existed today. Perhaps exposing her would stimulate valid discussion and argument, and result in like-minded people questioning their prejudices (hopefully not as extreme) and achieve a diminution of such views.

Julanne Sweeney writes: How many other readers are as disgusted as I am that a leading Australian TV channel planned to make a profit to load into Australian homes on free-to-air TV a woman known for her spite and hatred of values we hold dear in Australia? I’ve just looked up Big Brother and learnt the show has a 0.8 demo rating and is watched by millions. How dare the owners of any channel bring these vile attitudes into our country? I’m not blaming the actual woman for trying to make money out of her extremist views. I am condemning the channel partly owned by a significant Australian with a major role in running our national war memorial. What values are being promoted in his Big Brother project?

Eve Stinton writes: Guy Rundle warns against cancel culture, skimming over the fact that Katie Hopkins had her visa cancelled and was deported solely because of her disgraceful behaviour while in quarantine. She placed quarantine workers and the entire nation at risk by refusing to wear a mask and encouraging others to rebel against measures intended to save lives during a global pandemic. It’s ridiculous to point at “lefties” for this event, or to wave the deportation around as some kind of censorship or closing of our minds to “free speech”. The woman was a public health hazard.

Lizz Kopecny writes: Guy Rundle’s article about Katie Hopkins was a thought-provoking item, mainly because I had not yet heard of this “celebrity”. Maybe I’m being naive here but not knowing her view on various aspects of society I had no issue at all with her repatriation to the UK. I figured that any person who decided to promote their perspective on government responses to epidemics to the point of pacifist-but-edgy physical resistance might well face sanctions. It’s open to debate whether breaching quarantine rules is pacifist, but benefit of the doubt applies. So I am unclear on how her socio-politico-cultural views really contributed to her deportation any more than they would for anyone else who says in public that they intend to break the law.

On school curriculum and the right

Antony Ransome writes: The conservatives want to continue framing Australia’s history around noble colonial administrations and settlers, but history, though often about ideology, is also about facts, objectivity and a differentiated approach. There is now no doubt about the existence of cases of violent dispossession and murder. Teaching which includes these issues is not the same as teaching a negative vision of Australia.

Christine Currey writes: Minister Tudge’s failure of understanding of the purpose of history-teaching in schools and the nature of history itself is alarming. His view is that the purpose of history-teaching is to encourage a love of country and the honouring of a part of the beliefs and culture which formed that country. He also appears to believe that Australian history begins and ends with Geoffrey Blainey. He doesn’t seem to appreciate that a great deal of progress has been made in historical research in Australia since Blainey, and that contemporaries of Blainey such as Manning Clark wrote our national history from a somewhat different perspective. The body of scholarship we call history, like the events it chronicles, moves on. Minister Tudge seems stuck in the 1970s. If the Tudge-Credlin-Hanson view of the purpose for history teaching in schools were to prevail, then clearly the name of the subject should be changed from “history” to “mythology”.

Dennis A Langshaw writes: The national curriculum does not need to be turning children against their country. At no point should our children be an experiment for any radical belief that places Australia in any negative light. This is certainly a recipe for disaster. How can we say on Anzac Day “Lest we forget” and in the same voice wipe out our past because of any individual’s opinion?

Geoff Ramsbotham writes: It’s pretty simple: just teach the truth, and nothing but the truth, and the individual will have what they need.

Sally Layson writes: The proposed humanities and social sciences curriculum from ACARA directs teachers to gloss over content that recognises the importance of when and how Australia’s main democratic beliefs of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law were introduced into Australia. Instead, the new curriculum prominently directs study towards presenting one-sided accounts of history and fails to foster respect and support for quintessential Australian values and democratic beliefs. Important lessons on our pillars of democracy and how we got here have been drowned in copious amount of additional content. The future of our parliamentary democracy and the rule of law is at risk under this new curriculum.

On the ABC board’s hiring practices

Liz Hanna writes: Well, why are we not at all surprised? This is well in keeping with their determined, dedicated and persistent mantra of dismantling the ABC — for fear of independent critique to their incompetence, deceit, flagrant lies and mass scale corruption. They appear to believe that the ABC is theirs to do with as they please, much akin to believing that the tax we pay is their personal piggy bank.

Don Joiner writes: I have listened to and watched the ABC since I came to Australia in 1952. In recent years I have noticed a major change in its news services. Before readers read the news, we get a newsreader’s interpretation of the news, with strong personal comments that fit in with that person’s political views. The ABC board has failed to correct this bias and taken no action to present us with a balanced and independent news service. It has gone from the best news service to one it is painful to watch. I think the chairperson should be sacked as well as the current board, and a completely new board established.