No reason to be afraid of ‘balanced’ curriculum
AS far as I know, New Zealand history in the schools’ curriculum up until today has only ever been onesided (Letters, 8.6.21).
Why does the idea of a truly balanced historical curriculum make some people think that this is about teaching our kids to not like themselves?
I don’t recall anyone asking for a Maorionly perspective curriculum, although I don’t believe that would be as ‘‘damaging’’ as some might think.
Possibly the best recent example of institutional responsibility in terms of teaching children is the one bright light shone by the German education system upon its World War 2 history and efforts to teach what happened.
‘‘I am proud of my ancestors, and anybody who says different is stereotyping from a racist point of view.’’ What does that even mean? Morgan Nathan
St Clair
Olympic Games
THIS is undoubtedly a futile gesture, but it’s worth a try.
Given the present doubts about the Tokyo Olympic Games and the unconscionable insistence by both organisers and participants that it’ll be OK on the day, this might be a good moment to rethink the event in two bold strokes.
Firstly, cut the disciplines back to mostly individual sports: athletics, swimming, wrestling, perhaps rowing. Team sports, all of which have their international competitions and world championships, have no place in these Games.
Secondly, build a permanent village in Greece, a project which would have the virtue of being relatively inexpensive for all contributing countries — maintenance would obviously be cheaper than building new facilities every four years, not to mention the diminution of politics and corruption.
The current Olympic model is bloated and grotesque and more likely than not a financial threat to a city unlucky enough to win (purchase?) hosting rights. And noone can justify the legal and financial gordian knots that appear to have forced the Japanese Government to risk the health of its own population at this time. Harry Love
North East Valley
Social housing
SO, once again Dunedin ratepayers are being slapped with another stupid council decision by being told that we are to subsidise flats to the tune of $15, I assume per year.
We are now being slapped with a huge rates rise, and then they add this to people who may not be able to afford it.
Pensioners and beneficiaries are going to suffer the hardest. I feel sorry for those people living in these flats — they are just the bare minimum, as I have lived in one myself.
This is not a ratepayers’ initiative; it is a council initiative. Therefore this should fall on the council to rectify this, but not at the ratepayers’ expense.
The sooner we can get a council that thinks about its residents, and a mayor who listens, we might be better off. Bill Swift
Dalmore
[Abridged]