HSC Stuff > HSC Extension History
History Extension Debating Thread (ie. how to develop your "voice")
prickles:
--- Quote from: sudodds on May 16, 2018, 02:30:53 pm ---I'd love for this thread to be brought back! I still believe discussion is 100% the most useful thing you can do in history extension. The original intention was for it to be more student driven, do you have anything you want to discuss? :)
--- End quote ---
Not really. I just love this thread, it is absolutely my favourite one to read. When I have a spare 10 minutes I often read it just to get some more perspectives than my own narrow ones. I'm very shy and don't like disagreeing with people at all (I don't know why I do Ext History then) so just really love re-reading the thread and would love to see more of it :D
owidjaja:
Here's an interesting subject I think is discussion worthy:
Captain James Cook is probably one of the most controversial figures in Australian history. Yet the Budget just revealed that they will be spending $48.7 million over the four years to commemorate the 250th anniversary of Captain Cook landing in Botany Bay.
Considering how the Statue Wars started last year with a graffitied word 'genocide' on Cook's statue, do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not? If you don't, do you think the government should be investing money commemorating Australian historical figures in the first place or do you think commemoration is important?
Hopefully, this kicks the debate thread back into action :)
sudodds:
--- Quote from: prickles on May 16, 2018, 05:38:26 pm ---Not really. I just love this thread, it is absolutely my favourite one to read. When I have a spare 10 minutes I often read it just to get some more perspectives than my own narrow ones. I'm very shy and don't like disagreeing with people at all (I don't know why I do Ext History then) so just really love re-reading the thread and would love to see more of it :D
--- End quote ---
So glad you enjoy the thread!! I really encourage you to give it ago, reading is great, but you can't just read in the exam :) this thread is a great way for you to practice your own ideas! No need to be shy, nobody will judge you or your opinions, or for disagreeing with their own as that is the whole point of this thread :) Even if you don't personally disagree, try and work out why someone might disagree! :)
--- Quote from: owidjaja on May 16, 2018, 05:47:29 pm ---Here's an interesting subject I think is discussion worthy:
Captain James Cook is probably one of the most controversial figures in Australian history. Yet the Budget just revealed that they will be spending $48.7 million over the four years to commemorate the 250th anniversary of Captain Cook landing in Botany Bay.
Considering how the Statue Wars started last year with a graffitied word 'genocide' on Cook's statue, do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not? If you don't, do you think the government should be investing money commemorating Australian historical figures in the first place or do you think commemoration is important?
Hopefully, this kicks the debate thread back into action :)
--- End quote ---
What's your opinion? :)
owidjaja:
--- Quote from: sudodds on May 16, 2018, 06:16:46 pm ---What's your opinion? :)
--- End quote ---
I kinda view this move as a way for the government to promote nationalism, i.e. the Three Cheers view. Personally, I'd rather see the money be funded in other areas, such as helping returned soldiers re-settle into society, or improve Aboriginal welfare (there was an article that I saw about how one of the reasons why drug abuse is so prominent amongst the Aboriginal community is because it's relatively cheap). Considering how they want to 'educate the new generation of Australians on the world-changing voyage of Captain Cook’s Endeavour,' shouldn't they be changing the curriculum to a more nuanced version of history? Coming from personal experiences and reflecting on my experiences in junior school history, I would say approximately 90% of the history curriculum is focusing on the Anzacs and the First Fleet. We get a vague understanding on how the Aboriginals suffered, but not in the greatest detail.
I think this falls back to the debate whether oral history should be considered as a legitimate form of evidence. Keith Windschuttle would disagree, but personally, I think exploring a person's memory is as valuable as a document. You need to take note of the medium in order for you to have an enhanced understanding of the past. I think my interview with historian Dr Jeremiah McCall makes a great point about different forms of evidence: 'When you write a paper, it’s not the past... Your paper is a new medium where you’re representing the past, parts you have selected and interpreted.' Considering how Aboriginal culture has a heavy emphasis on oral tradition, his disregard of oral history, to me, is kinda ethnocentric- you can't expect every single person to know how to read and write, especially in the past where education was only reserved for the European, rich men.
Anyways, here are some of my ideas presented through word vomit lol- would love to hear what other people think :)
doritopope:
Hello all,
Regarding the finding of Cook's statue, personally i feel that the money would be used to improve the education system's presentation of Australian history allowing for a broader and potentially more accurate representation to future generations. However, governments are inherently influenced by political and social agendas, and with the Cook statue, i personally think that it was done to, as owidjaja stated, 'promote nationalism'. More importantly, it has the potential to unite Australians under this one figure who is regarded as important and respected (generally speaking) as an Australian icon by people regardless of their political opinions whereas the government is seen through a more partisan lens. So while Cook may not be the first to discover Australia and while the construction of this statue glorifies the wrong people, i can see why the government would dunk so much money into it. That said, i do think it should have been diverted into other areas but it wouldn't be as showy or have the same social effect as a $49 million statue.
Regarding the recognition of oral history, i think it does need to be used more broadly in history. Though i did study the Reynolds v Windschuttle debate in class, the majority of my experience with this issue came through my major work which focused on Early 20th century Africa. Similar to the Aboriginal Australians and their tradition, many native African cultures lacked any written communication, couple that with the lack of formal educational opportunities during that period for native Africans and you have yourself a lack of histories/sources which explore that unique and important perspective.
Building upon the statement by Owidjaja about the exploration of memory in history, i find that oral or more personal accounts of the past tend to be infused with emotion which is really insightful if you're trying to understand what people went through. i went on a school excursion to a Jewish museum where we were given a lecture by a historian studying the Holocaust. I apologise for not being able to recall her name but she talked about an account by a Polish Holocaust survivor and how the Nazis executed members of the survivor's town on a freezing winters day. Through some more research, a newspaper was found from the area where the execution took place and it revealed that it was one of the hottest summer days that town had for a few years. So while oral accounts, particularly ones which come from someone who had been personally affected by the event, may not be historically accurate, it does help in providing insight into this period of their lives and the event from a personal perspective.
So thats my two cents on this topic. Hopefully it provides a different perspective, feel free to argue or build upon it!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version