History curriculum

Jack Vowles, professor of comparative politics at Victoria University writes (The Timaru Herald, June 7) of his, and other historians’, concern that, ‘‘The idea of Aotearoa-New Zealand as a multicultural democracy, within which we all work together to resolve our differences, is entirely missing’’ from the proposed new history curriculum.

He further writes that, ‘‘many historians of Aotearoa-New Zealand – although, fortunately, not all – feel constrained from speaking out for fear of triggering a destructive ‘culture war’ over the curriculum’’.

Michael Bassett, arguably New Zealand’s best-known political historian and, for 10 years, a member of the Waitangi Tribunal that deals with claims made by New Zealand’s first settlers, the Ma¯ ori, wrote (January 18, 1921) of New Zealanders’ modern cultural cringe.

‘‘A bizarre craze seems to be sweeping New Zealand right now,’’ he wrote. ‘‘All things derived from Europe, except our creature comforts, must be set aside as we are expected to embrace all things Maori. It’s racism on a grand scale.’’ We’ll soon be expected to call ourselves ‘‘Aotearoans’’ in spite of the fact, as Michael King has written, that Ma¯ ori didn’t have a name for these lands and only came to accept ‘‘Aotearoa’’ in recent times.

Bassett recently sought from the Ministry of Education details of who was designing the curriculum. ‘‘Back came the names of a couple of black arm-band school teachers and a collection of Ma¯ ori radicals’’, he says.

‘‘There were a couple of academics, both Ma¯ ori. No serious Pakeha historian in sight. We can say with certainty that a skewed version of New Zealand history will be devised.’’

Bassett concludes ‘‘too much power has been allowed to slip into the hands of crusaders who for too long seem to have been able to commandeer the resources of others for their own political ends’’.

The Government, it seems, is either powerless to resist or consenting to this undemocratic imbalance. Where, one asks, is the equity in this? Stephen Newman Timaru