2017-10-15
Rob Delves
The Greens Social Justice pillar inclines us to challenge colonial era statues and the choice of January 26th as Australias National Day. However, when Green-leaning local councils and people like Stan Grant cautiously frame that challenge, they are hit with an avalanche of passionate abuse and ridicule. One example among many: Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, along with other politicians and commentator Andrew Bolt, have labelled any calls to alter monuments “Stalinist”. Presumably they were untroubled – probably enthusiastic ‒ about the toppling of the Berlin Wall and the statue of Saddam Hussein. And when January 26th is challenged, Turnbull and his ministers make no attempt to engage in debate on the issue ‒ instead they respond with bitter attacks on the local councils, including threats to disallow them from performing citizenship ceremonies.
It reminds me of the famous lines from Yeats 1919 poem The Second Coming:
'The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity
How can we progress the discussion beyond passionate intensity/animosity and seek common ground? What arguments and values should we bring to communicating our ideas about these important and closely related issues?
Id like to propose that The Greens approach to these issues should incorporate two of the most important aims of education: firstly, learning how to question and think critically and secondly, learning how to get along well with all sorts of people. As a teacher, I want my students to value these two qualities and to become highly skilled in them.
They are essential qualities that people should apply to these current debates. In addition, they are qualities that are central to all subjects or learning areas in schools, History included. Many conservatives, such as John Howard, demand that History teaching should be about gaining detailed knowledge and uncritical respect for our national heroes: James Cook, Arthur Phillip, Lachlan Macquarie, the explorers, the pastoralists, the Anzacs, Bradman, Menzies….
Uncritical love of January 26th and of monuments and statues to the all-white Great and Good follows naturally from this approach to teaching our national history. Websters dictionary defines a monument as 'a lasting evidence, reminder, or example of someone or something notable or great.
In educational terms, Howards approach delivers a thin, boring, second-rate learning experience. It restricts students to the lower-order levels of learning. Using Blooms model, for example, this approach 'sort of achieves the two bottom rungs ‒ Remember and Understand ‒ and goes nowhere near the higher-order goals of Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create. Moreover, it falls way short of what a great History education should be: a critical, evidence-based evaluation of different, contesting interpretations of the past, challenging learners to develop and argue for their own interpretation. And of course, contested history is much more exciting, engaging, emotionally challenging. Learning to love your country is important, but not baby-love: adult-love is achieved by engaging with an Australian past that is painful, multivocal and complex.
In my opinion, the story of what was done with the Explorers Monument in Fremantles Esplanade Park provides a great example of how to resolve these fractious disputes in a way that seeks common ground and enriches our understanding of our history. Heres what happened.
The Explorers Monument was erected in 1913. Its imposing bust of the heroes is stridently belligerent, as is the language describing the events in the plaque below:
“…tribute to the memories of Panter, Harding and Goldwyer, earliest explorers of this terra incognito, attacked at night by treacherous natives, were murdered at Boola Boola near Le Grange Bay on the 13th November 1864.
Also as an appreciative token of remembrance of MAITLAND BROWN, one of the pioneer pastoralists and premier politicians of this state, intrepid leader of the government search and punitive party. Lest We Forget.”
Joe Edgar is a Karrajarri man whose great grandmother survived the punitive killings that followed the deaths of the explorers. In 1994, the Year of Indigenous People, ANU professor of history Bruce Scates worked with Joe on the wording of a second plaque that tells the Karrajarri perspective on the conflict:
“This plaque was erected by people who found the monument before you offensive. The monument describes the events at Le Grange from one perspective only: the viewpoint of the white “settlers”. No mention is made of the right of Aboriginal people to defend the land or of the history of provocation which led to the explorers deaths. The “punitive party” mentioned here ended in the deaths of somewhere around 20 Aboriginal people. The whites were well armed and equipped and none of their party was killed or wounded. This plaque is in memory of the Aboriginal people killed at Le Grange. It also commemorates all other Aboriginal people who died during the invasion of their country.”
The dedication service included Aboriginal music and dance, and ended with Aboriginal people scattering dust from the site of the massacre and two white children laying wreaths of flowers decked in Aboriginal colours.
The story comes complete with moments where 'the worst were full of passionate intensity. In 1990 the head of Maitland Brown was chopped off. In 1995 the Aboriginal plaque was stolen and a new one had to be added. However, in my opinion the story is a successful example of a Greens-style commitment to social justice and to seeking consensus. Its also a great example of teaching contested History.
And what of the second educational goal – learning to live well with many different others? The key skill is empathy: understanding/experiencing how others live and see the world. Empathy is learnt by experience. In the words of Henry Parkes, the father of Federation, the absolute foundation of a successful, democratic, migrant nation is the local state school, open to all, where “children learn side by side.”
Importantly, its also learned through exposure to literature. Great films, plays and especially novels take us inside the lived experience, the thinking, the emotional life of other people. They enable us to experience what the world looks like inside the skins of people from many different backgrounds.
Most of us can probably recall these inspiring words from the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, spoken by Atticus Finch to his daughter after she had struggled to get through a conflict-ridden day at school:
"First of all," he said, "if you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view […] until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."
Learning to apply this “simple trick” to our relationships with Indigenous Australians would change our thinking about monuments and national days.
Id like to conclude by sharing two experiences. Both were with people from other countries giving different perspectives about our choice of January 26th as our national day. Its a reality-check to see how outsiders bring their known relevant experience to understanding our situation.
Earlier this year I was talking to a Canadian friend about the many similarities between our two countries. I asked her if Canadians had ever considered using the date of the arrival of the first British settlers to celebrate Canada Day. She dismissed the suggestion as nuts: “Its unthinkable – it would be a total non-starter in terms of seeking to commemorate an event that would unite the different provinces and to be inclusive of the First Peoples. For us its just common sense that Canada Day should be the date when the provinces joined together to create the new nation – July 1st.” (July 1st, 1867, was the date when several provinces – colonies really – joined to create the Dominion of Canada)
The second experience happened in January 1988 when I was a volunteer in Zimbabwe teaching senior high school students. Theyd heard that Australia was about to celebrate its 200 year 'birthday but also that some people, especially our Aborigines, were opposed to this celebration. They wanted to know whether Id be celebrating.
Id been away from my home country for 15 years, but my memory was that Australians regarded January 26th as a significant day in our history but too divisive to be our national day. I tentatively suggested that I wouldnt be celebrating.
Their reaction took me by surprise: a spontaneous burst of applause! They said they understood perfectly because, if white minority rule still applied, their country would soon be celebrating the centenary of the invasion of their land by Rhodes Pioneer Column – and they would be angry and saddened by such divisive celebrations
They asked if I was proud of my country. Absolutely! It is a privilege to belong to a country that has led the world in introducing the secret ballot, the minimum living wage, the 40 hour week, votes for women, the pension, child benefits and the creation of a harmonious peaceful society for millions of migrants and refugees from all over the world.
They were amazed by this list, but responded with this question: with so many wonderful national achievements that everyone can unite in celebrating, why do you choose such a divisive day as January 26th?
Answer, anyone?
Header photo: Explorers Monument, Fremantle Esplanade