Over at Bolta’s, Andrew discusses an Op-Ed by New York Times columnist Frank Rich that accuses the McCain Campaign of pumping up “Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies”. Now, Bolta does a fair job of refuting these claims and then slips the quick ball on the inside to Michelle Malkin who storms through the middle and deals with the real Germany circa 1930’s campaign. Kae in the other hand is discussing the new Australian history curriculum over at Bloodnut Blog. How are these two issues related? In using the Weimar Republic to evoke an image of rampant hate fuelled rallies, Rich is demonstrating a poor understanding of what the Weimar Republic actually was and therefore invalidates his own point.
The Weimar Republic was the democratically elected government of post-war Germany. One of the new Republic’s first acts was to sign the Versailles Treaty, which accepted responsibility for the First World War, which led to the disarmament of Germany, and the acceptance of responsibility for the massive war reparations demanded by the allies. This led to the hyper-inflation and massive unemployment that gave the Nazi Party a fertile ground for their own rise to power which, coincidentally, saw the end of the Weimar Republic.
Rich has just used a cool sounding German word to push his point about the McCain/Palin rallies. This historical inaccuracy by a columnist for the New York Times proves how important a real understanding of history really is. History is all about cause and effect. To understand that there needs to be a chronological and fact based approach to teaching history. For students in the free west, that means a detailed and sequential study of the significant events and personalities that led to the society we enjoy today. That also means a significant European and specifically British bias, for the simple reason that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and a host of other nations all owe their political freedoms to the evolution of British democracy and then the rise and fall of the British Empire.
For Australian students, that means studying British history from the fall of the Roman Empire, through the rise of the monarchy, the Magna Carta, the Reformation, the English Civil War, and the rise of the Empire. This leads straight into the American Revolution which created a need for another penal colony, hence New South Wales. At that point Australian history should be focussed on the opening of the Blue Mountains, exploration of the continent, the establishment of the colonies, the Gold Rush, the Shearer’s Strike, and the colonial wars abroad. None of this can be viewed in isolation though. The Royal Navy’s campaign against slavers, the American Civil War, and the Industrial Revolution all impacted on Australia’s development. When looking at the 20th Century, Australian students should study our involvement in both world wars, the Korean War, the Malayan Emergency and Confrontation, the Vietnam War, East Timor and the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. Whilst students should know what Australians did in these major events, they cannot be studied in isolation. International factors drove Australia’s involvement, and so should be studied. That would include the inter-war period in Germany, the Weimar Republic, and the rise of National Socialism.
Hopefully then, no Australian student would confuse the Weimar with whatever it was that Rich was trying to say.
Sunday funnies
3 hours ago
6 comments:
"For Australian students, that means studying British history from the fall of the Roman Empire, through the rise of the monarchy, the Magna Carta, the Reformation, the English Civil War, and the rise of the Empire. This leads straight into the American Revolution which created a need for another penal colony, hence New South Wales. At that point Australian history should be focussed on the opening of the Blue Mountains, exploration of the continent, the establishment of the colonies, the Gold Rush, the Shearer’s Strike, and the colonial wars abroad. None of this can be viewed in isolation though."
Hi Richard, funny you should mention this. I learnt most of this in PRIMARY school. In primary school we learnt all about Australian history from Britain to Aus and after. In high school you did a bit of modern history and a bit of ancient history, and you could specialise in your final year or two.
It seems to have changed now.
They learn "Australia, historically bad, bad, bad. Murdering blacks, blah blah blah." Etcetera.
I think that's the beginning of the end.
And thanks for the link.
Just for the record, I was abyssmal at History. All of it. I just couldn't remember dates to save my life. Tragic, really, because it's all so interesting!
Just for the sake of understanding current events, we should probably be teaching about the Crusades as well. Just to make sure another generation don't miss the point that they were in response to Muslim expansion and aggression into Europe, and that a failure by the West to deal with militant Islam in the Middle Ages means we have to clean up the mess now.
For a really interesting take on Australian history, listen to this podcast from Counterpoint:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2376923.htm
I was fascinated.
By the way, as Kae said, I studied all that stuff in primary school too. High school was for modern history - the Russian Revolution and all that.
Hey, I'm not dictating WHEN these things need to be taught, just that they need to be on the curriculum. Primary School is a good place to start for a basic understanding of the flow of events, but it needs to be refined in High School, and it needs to be a flow. Studying events in isolation without cause and effect leads to relativism.
I also studied Modern History in High School, and covered things like the Russian and Chinese Revolutions. The former as a part of the First World War and the latter as a flow on from the Second World War and key component of the Cold War. Each in their place.
Sorry, Richard, you didn't get it. 40 plus years ago Australian history was covered in primary school, you got a basic grounding in Aus history (without the black armband stuff). This was enough for you to understand where we came from, and launch you into Modern History, where you'd cover history in a bit more depth.
The thing is that History is not compulsory in high school (too many subjects for that), so it needs to be taught, the Australian basics, need to be taught in Primary School.
I don't think they're learning much Aus history in primary school these days.
Frank Rich is actually a theatre critic, and not in the Steyn class.
Cheers
JMH
Post a Comment