History should be compulsory. Some Australian history should even be compulsory. But 2 years' worth?
It's hard enough keeping students interested as it is. Imagine, your a teenager, and you have class after class, whitewashed of all critical content to please the conservative censors, of rote learning chronological historical facts.
First aside, here's Mr Lefty lampooning the idiocy of trying to remove critical content from the study of history.
Second aside, here's Pavlov rightly lampooning Julie Bishop for not being an expert on that which she believes all Australians should be forced to learn. Sure her education may have been lacking (all of ours were, apparently) but she's a smart woman, she can read, and she's had several decades to do her civic duty and get on top of all the detail. Those facts, dates, names...
I think there's at least as big a gap in the general population's knowledge of the history of the First and Second World Wars. Or of Ancient History, to which our society and culture are so indebted.
And I can't see how Australian history can remain interesting for 2 years unless you get into the juicy stuff that, inevitably, involves subjectivity and analysis.
What is this? - After writing the previous post I went again to the internet and attempted a second purchase of a copy of the Flore Laurentienne record. It's like Bernard ...
7 hours ago