oof I hope I'm doing this right. So if it's not too much to ask but could I please get some general feedback on my major work so far.
It is not often that nations learn from the past, even rarer that they draw the correct conclusions from it.” (Henry Kissinger)
With reference to the above statement, evaluate the reasons behind textbook revisionism and their impact on society in the Asia Pacific region from 1970 to 2016.
The purpose of History varies depending on context and when used for education is a powerful tool. Only when used correctly for the benefit of society can its potential be fully recognised. However, History is susceptible to revisionism that alters its role as a beneficial educational tool which can lead to detrimental effects on society. This has been displayed through the recent revisionism of comfort women in Japanese textbooks and Aboriginal people in Australian textbooks. They have been compromised heavily by a political agenda to promote a nation to be proud of however create a society ignorant of the past. Eventually, overtime Australian textbooks have come to adapt to the changing times but Japanese textbooks still remain in the past and adhere to the notion above. This essay will address the reasons behind these textbook revisionisms and their impact on society through the development of each nation’s textbooks.
There is a clear contrast between the common purpose of history versus its use in education. The purpose of historical inquiry is not simply to present facts but to search for an interpretation of the past. It’s widely accepted that an understanding of the past allows greater insight into the present. There are predominantly two purposes of history, the philosophical or scientific, and the civic. From a philosophical or scientific standpoint, the historical truth is regarded as the highest value. It becomes compromised once tailored to the demands of the public. On the other hand, the civic purpose of history is to help a community- a nation, a religious or ethnic group- understand the present in ways that orient that group to the future.. Thus, the representation of history varies depending on its purpose.
Australian history textbooks in the past have not been so favourable to the portrayal of Indigenous Australians. Their representation was determined by the government at the time who exhibited a white Australian view. This view lead to the revisionism of Australian textbooks that removed the presence of any indigenous Australians. “Unlike their conservative counterparts, they (Australian Labour politicians) see education as more a pathway to personal growth within a public school system than as a means of defending the national psyche”. This statement shows that the purpose of history differs for many and thus affects the way its represented. It also shows how history is constructed to suit the purpose of the authors, in this case politicians. Early Australian textbooks were written during the White Australia period and thus predominately it was portrayed that White people were the developers of the nation. This can be seen in the following extract from the preface of A Junior History of Australia by A. L. Meston, published in 1950: The object of this little book is to tell the wonderful story of our own country. Fewer than one hundred and fifty years ago no white man lived in our land. In so short a space of time by the pluck, hard work, and energy of our grandmothers and grandfathers, and of our mothers and fathers, a splendid heritage has been handed down to us. This extract assumes the reader is white. Aboriginal students are overlooked. Similarly, Aboriginal contributions to each and every stage of national development are ignored.
Fast forward, Australian high school history textbooks convey a different tale. They now represent the role of Indigenous Australians in the development of Australia. Research has shown that students who aren’t represented in textbooks perform worse academically. Thus the representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander allowed students to acknowledge their cultural identity. “To avoid students being subjected to overt or covert in-school propaganda exercises, it is vital that the subject be taught as a non-ideologised, discipline-based, expert-led investigative activity.” As much as we’d like to make history objective there is still some extent of it. When choosing what topics to teach, that in itself is already subjective since certain topics may be believed to be more important than the other despite being presented truthfully with facts. [examples of modern australian history textbooks]. However, Australia has made an improvement throughout the years learning from their mistakes.
Henry Reynolds is an Australian historian whose primary work has focused on the frontier conflict between European settlers in Australia and indigenous Australians. In multiple academic articles Reynolds has explained the high level of violence and conflict involved in the colonisation of Australia, and the Aboriginal resistance to numerous massacres of indigenous people. Critics such as Geoffrey Blainey and Keith Windschuttle label his approach as a "black armband view" of Australian history. However, Reynolds responds by saying “better a black armband than a white blindfold”. His books are based on evidence available in archives and recorded during frontier times, and has been successful in changing initial views during the 20th century about peaceful settlement. He has also however shown that in earlier times (pre 1900) white Australians were well aware of the violence against the Aborigines and believed they were a 'dying race'. His book titled “Why weren’t we told?” accounts for Reynold’s personal journey towards the realisation that he and other Australians alike grew up with a distorted and idealised version of the past. He shatters the myths about ‘ peaceful’ history. For example in chapter 11, Reynolds talks about the thoughts of white Europeans 'invading' as opposed to 'settling' in Australia: 'the idea of invasion is considered as an unsuitable option in contrast to the conventional idea of a peaceful settlement. He additionally addresses the media’s reluctance to utilize the term 'invasion'. This affects the political scene of Australian culture as for example, John Howard constantly denies the thought that Australia was invaded it's setting the Aboriginal individuals and white individuals against one another'. This blatant denial leads to the failure of integrating and reforming many legislations for Indigenous Australians such as land ownership due to the aspect of ‘invasion’ not being recognised as what it was. It discusses the distorted and idealised version of the past that older Australians grew up with and other political issues at the time concerning aboriginal people. Ultimately, it highlights the consequences of continuous denial of Aboriginal people in history.
Another Australian historian is Inga Clendinnen. Her interests lie in understanding how people think and introducing other people to the problems and lessons of history.her article, “Who owns the past?”. She discusses how history should be presented. According to John Howard, history should be presented as an “objective record of achievement”. However, it is not the jobs of Historians to nurture a national identity or do the work of myth according to Clendinnen. Clendinnen discusses the contrast between stories, and facts. She asserts that understanding history involves understanding that there are many stories about the same event and constant facts that the conservatives wish to push cannot convey that. In the end of her article, Clendinnen says; “I would like students at every level to study Australian history because I believe that one of the best ways to “teach values” is to exercise minds by engaging them in investigation of conflicts between competing values and interests, always with a proper regard for clarity and justice of analysis and the relevance of evidence.”
Overall, Australian History textbooks have learned from the past and drawn the correct conclusions from it and still continue to do so. In the past, history textbooks were compromised due to political agendas. Reynold portrays the political agendas at the time and questions who owns the past and is actually able to alter it. He discusses the distorted and idealised version of the past that older Australians grew up with and other political issues at the time concerning aboriginal people. Ultimately, it highlights the consequences of continuous denial of Aboriginal people in history. Iendinnen discusses the contrast between stories, and facts. She asserts that understanding history involves understanding that there are many stories about the same event and constant facts that the conservatives wish to push cannot convey that. If history were to be presented due to political agendas it would leave a lasting impact on Australian society leaving them ignorant of the past and letting mistakes repeat.