PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ...

PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ... PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ...

eprints.usq.edu.au
from eprints.usq.edu.au More from this publisher
11.02.2013 Views

A1.5.1 April 23, 1993: Geoffrey Blainey’s ‘The Black Armband view of history’ speech. Blainey used his speech at the Latham Memorial Lecture (April 23, 1993) to assert his view that there was an overemphasis on the negative aspects of Australia’s past at the expense of celebratory milestones. Two key phrases set up as binaries to create a polarisation between historical perspectives held by historians and non-historians alike can be attributed to Blainey’s speech. The ‘Three Cheers view’ and the ‘Black Armband view’ of Australian history have been instrumental in establishing two separate and distinct perspectives of what versions of Australian history should be published. Blainey was motivated to begin this national debate on versions of Australian history, by his disappointment that the celebratory grand narratives of Australia’s past achievements were being ignored. In part, he spoke of this Black armband view of history as follows: In recent years it has assailed the generally optimistic view of Australian history. The black armbands were quietly worn in official circles in 1988, the bicentennial year. Until late in that year Mr Hawke rarely gave a speech that awarded much praise to Australia’s history. Even notable Labor leaders from the past – Fisher, Hughes, Scullin, Curtin and Chifley – if listening in their graves in 1988, would have heard virtually no mention of their name and their contributions to the nation they faithfully served. Indeed the Hawke Government excised the earlier office slogan, ‘The Australian Achievement’, replacing it with ‘Living Together’ – a slogan that belongs less to national affairs than to personal affairs... ...Manning Clark, who was almost the official historian in 1988, had done much to spread the gloomy view and also the compassionate view with his powerful prose and his Old Testament phrases. (Blainey, 1993, n.p.) Statements, such as the following excerpt from a speech to the members of the Canberra press gallery from then-Treasurer, later Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating at Canberra on December 7, 1990 is a clear demonstration of the perspective Blainey was explicitly criticising. Now Curtin was our wartime leader, and a trier, but we’ve never had that kind of leadership. And it’s no good people saying, ‘But there’s 230 million people in the US.’ There weren’t 230 million people when Thomas Jefferson was sitting in a house 456

he designed for himself in a paddock in the back of Virginia writing the words: ‘Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. There weren’t 230 million when they were getting the ethos of the country together; when they were getting their great architectural heritage together; when they were rooting their values in the soil. They had leadership, and that’s what politics is about. Now we are leading this country, and I don’t think any of us thinks that we’re up to the Lincolns or the Roosevelts or the Washingtons. There [start p. 126] are no soldier-statesmen lurking about this city but, the fact is, we’re doing our best. (2005, p. 126-127, emphasis added) This view of lack of strong leadership is also held by others, and still asserted in more recent times. See, for example, an extract from John Carroll’s Deakin Lecture Australia’s equanimity is a mystery delivered on 12 May 2001 at Capitol Theatre, Melbourne. Where Carroll differs from Keating, is that he is not necessarily using it as a criticism of Australian citizens’ political decisions, more as part of a wider observation of Australian culture and way of life. Carroll asserts: This country is refusing the great leader archetype – from Moses to Abraham Lincoln –invited the people themselves to preside. The choice was not for lack of candidates of stature, starting with the political visionary in whose honour these lectures are named. (Carroll, 2004, p. 57) A1.5.2 February 1994: Wayne Goss, Queensland school curriculum and invasion. The Queensland curriculum attracted widespread media attention and public interest when it was reported that a Social Studies draft curriculum document endorsed by the state Labor government, contained the word “invasion” to describe the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788. Wayne Goss, then Premier of Queensland, responded to the emerging furor by demanding that the word be removed. Of this issue, Goss stated, “I think just about all Australians would not regard what happened in 1788 as an invasion” (as cited in A. Clark, 2002b, p. 5). Over the next month, major newspapers, broadsheet and tabloid, carried this issue along with opinion pieces, editorials and letters to the editor either strongly supporting or vehemently attacking the view of the 1788 arrival being termed as an “invasion” (for an in-depth coverage of the polarisation of views expressed over this issue, see Anna Clark’s Teaching the Nation, 2006). 457

he designed for himself in a paddock in the back <strong>of</strong> Virginia writing the words: ‘Life,<br />

liberty and the pursuit <strong>of</strong> happiness’. There weren’t 230 million when they were<br />

getting the ethos <strong>of</strong> the country together; when they were getting their great<br />

architectural heritage together; when they were rooting their values in the soil. They<br />

had leadership, and that’s what politics is about. Now we are leading this country,<br />

and I don’t think any <strong>of</strong> us thinks that we’re up to the Lincolns or the Roosevelts or<br />

the Washingtons. There [start p. 126] are no soldier-statesmen lurking about this city<br />

but, the fact is, we’re doing our best. (2005, p. 126-127, emphasis added)<br />

This view <strong>of</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> strong leadership is also held by others, and still asserted in more recent<br />

times. See, for example, an extract from John Carroll’s Deakin Lecture Australia’s<br />

equanimity is a mystery delivered on 12 May 2001 at Capitol Theatre, Melbourne. Where<br />

Carroll differs from Keating, is that he is not necessarily using it as a criticism <strong>of</strong> Australian<br />

citizens’ political decisions, more as part <strong>of</strong> a wider observation <strong>of</strong> Australian culture and<br />

way <strong>of</strong> life. Carroll asserts:<br />

This country is refusing the great leader archetype – from Moses to Abraham Lincoln<br />

–invited the people themselves to preside. The choice was not for lack <strong>of</strong> candidates<br />

<strong>of</strong> stature, starting with the political visionary in whose honour these lectures are<br />

named. (Carroll, 2004, p. 57)<br />

A1.5.2 February 1994: Wayne Goss, Queensland school curriculum and invasion.<br />

The Queensland curriculum attracted widespread media attention and public interest when it<br />

was reported that a Social Studies draft curriculum document endorsed by the state Labor<br />

government, contained the word “invasion” to describe the arrival <strong>of</strong> the First Fleet in 1788.<br />

Wayne Goss, then Premier <strong>of</strong> Queensland, responded to the emerging furor by demanding<br />

that the word be removed. Of this issue, Goss stated, “I think just about all Australians would<br />

not regard what happened in 1788 as an invasion” (as cited in A. Clark, 2002b, p. 5). Over<br />

the next month, major newspapers, broadsheet and tabloid, carried this issue along with<br />

opinion pieces, editorials and letters to the editor either strongly supporting or vehemently<br />

attacking the view <strong>of</strong> the 1788 arrival being termed as an “invasion” (for an in-depth<br />

coverage <strong>of</strong> the polarisation <strong>of</strong> views expressed over this issue, see Anna Clark’s Teaching<br />

the Nation, 2006).<br />

457

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!