KEY POINTS:
Here is an earlier selection of Your Views:
Karl (Massey)
Greg's final point is interesting. He asks who, anywhere else in the world, would care about New Zealand history? The answer is, a lot of people - especially those who visit us. It would be a shame for us to lose our identity and our own sense of belonging because we completely ditched our own history. Just because I am a fan of Tudor-Stuart history at Year 13 does not mean that I oppose NZ history. I think it is vitally important that we do learn about our history - butT it must be taught in a balanced way. The Treaty is our founding document, and we must learn to understand it. We must know about what pre-European NZ was about, and what changes occurred in the colonial period. We must know about how our society developed, the struggles and conflicts which we endured, and the ways in which we have played (and continue to play) a significant role in our region and the world. We must know all this to develop as a nation, but this does not mean to the exclusion of everything else. We are a Western nation, and an English-inspired nation, and so we must also learn the history of our Western cultural origins. Learning no NZ History would be even worse than learning just NZ History.
Becks (ChCh)
Well, when I was at high school (7th former in 2002) the 7th form history class got to choose between the Tudors and NZ History. No one chose NZ history as they considered it boring, while the Tudors was considered much more colourful and eventful. I guess thats how they though, I didn't study history myself, but from what my sister told me thats how it is. NZ History should be taught in earlier years, when kids have no option but to learn of the history of their country.
Iowa, USA
New Zealand history can't be that boring surely? Perhaps if we spice things up abit and throw out the old institutional text books we could expand on our history. Bring out all those little tidbits people had no idea about.
Do they teach that in WWI and WWII the govt. offered either land or $5000 to men if they would fight. That's how many farmers obtained their land. They offered the same to Maori and never paid up in WW1. WWII took some persuading, but they finally agreed, and guess what? They never paid up again! Did you know that? I think before we point the finger at other countries we need to be very sure of our own place in history across the board!
Susan (Auckland)
What a lot of people don't realise is that our history has a lot more to it than the Treaty and Maori/Pakeha relations. This deception tends to be what stops people who have the choice from studying it. NZ History, being short, allows us to go into a lot more depth about social, economic and political events, motivations and perspectives. And it often goes into the realm of European (including English), Polynesian and Australian history because of our extensive heritage. Ultimately, we need to remember that history, regardless of the topic, is always biased, no matter what angle you look at it from. What they teach in school/university is about learning how to compare these angles and form your own judgements. It is also about studying the methods of how history is recorded and presented. History is meant to always question the "truth" about the past.
Sonia2
The fact that several of the posters here seem to somehow think that teaching NZ history will involve "the evil white man" is a clear indication that not enough is known about NZ history by our general population. Firstly, NZ history is not just about the Treaty, a heck of a lot happened before and after the fact. New Zealand, in fact has a very proud history of race relations, especially compared with other colonised nations. Of course there were negatives for both parties, but there were also many benefits. I first learnt comprehensive NZ history in seventh form and it certainly was not bias at all. The beauty of studying history is that there are no clear right or wrong answers, it is all about looking at different interpretations and opinions of events that have taken place in the past and how they shape the present and the future. It is narrow minded to think that our history is somehow not as important as other countries history, this opinion is largely due to the downplaying of NZ history.
Karl (Massey)
Exactly right Brad - we are a small nation, but we are also very proud. It is a shame that we do not have more of a focus on such things as Gallipoli, Sir Charles Upham, Pharlap, the All Blacks, pavlova, Sir Edmund Hillary, etc - as long as we also have a global or international context in which to teach them. There is nothing which would actually prevent these things from being taught, apart from the fact that there is so much money, and so many resources, being pumped into Treaty education that this has become the default setting for most NZ history which is taught at lower levels in the curriculum (ie in social studies). If history was compulsory from Year 7 through to Year 11 or 12 at the least, rather than social studies to Year 10, then we would get the type of historical education that is so important in creating the informed, responsible, and critically aware citizens our country urgently needs - not this rather bizarre 'civics' option being proposed by the Bradford! It is still up to individual departments to choose what they study. Theoretically, you can get away with one topic only for the entire year, but many of us choose to do at least two in order to ensure balance. We teach the Tudor-Stuart topic in my school, and the students who opt to take history generally tend to enjoy it and learn a lot about the development of NZ's parliamentary process and society etc from this study. However, we spend one third of our Year 13 course teaching about New Zealand in the nineteenth century - specifically, analysing the Treaty, examining the reasons for different points of view, and then studying the NZ wars period and allowing the students to undertake an in-depth study into one of the campaigns. Our Year 13 students have been through 12 years of schooling, and have supposedly learnt about the Treaty and 19th Century NZ in the past, yet almost all still do not have even a basic grasp of the ideas despite this education. We find we almost have to start from scratch in Year 13 to ensure we can teach effectively. To answer the critics, yes we do teach NZ history, but because most students never take history, they never learn it.
Bob from Wellington
Ask any NZer about this country's geography and/or history and be appalled at the lack of knowledge. Dispose of social studies and make geography and history compulsory from Form 1-6.
Greg
I took history all through school and loved it. From the Russian Revolution, Stalin, Mao, conflict in Ireland, WW2, and then English history in 7th form, I felt I was given a very well rounded view on some of the major historical events and periods in recent times. I was so glad our history teacher didn't make us do Maori-Pakeha relations in 7th form. I would have immediately opted out if he had. Why? Because it's boring. How many times do we have to hear about how the evil Pakeha came and screwed the Maori over? And in terms of world affairs, it doesn't even matter. By learning about major worldwide historical events, we take with us knowledge that can be useful no matter where we go around the world. Who anywhere else in the world would care about New Zealand Maori-Pakeha history?
Huia (Gold Coast, Australia)
NZ needs to grow up. History should be taught in a manner that is factual, unbiased and balanced, taught in a way that our kids find interesting. The emphasis should be on NZ history first and not some colonial version of the "empire" which was all we were taught when we were growing up in the fifties and sixties. On the other end of the scale there is a PC mentality that is treatified to the max, totally engineered and its "not working". If you try to ram stuff down peoples throats they eventually get sick of it.
Bruce
The danger of NZ history is that people will finally be taught that all Waitangi Treaty claims were resolved in 1949. Oh, yeah, that got revised by the liberals who decide what is NZ history. As it is, I'll continue to teach my kids about NZs history.
Brad T
Bravo Sonia! I wholeheartedly agree. As a New Zealander of mixed ancestry Maori/Pakeha, I think we do our nation a strong disservice about teaching us our own history. We are a small nation, but we are also very proud. I am saddened by people who use the Treaty as an excuse not to explore or indeed celebrate our roots. What does the treaty have to do with Sir Charles Upham, Pharlap, the All Blacks, pavlova, Sir Edmund Hillary? Being Maori is a part of my heritage of which I am proud and the same goes for my English heritage too. Like 90 per cent of New Zealanders I know naught about the Treaty but what the media tells us of it. But I bet more than 10 per cent of people have more opinions on how unfair and outdated it is. Do you not think this being a part of our history classes would indeed help us to understand it better and will allow us to come to more educated indeed substantiated opinions, rather than heresy?. As I say the Treaty is just a brief stansa in our countries short but vibrant history. We have many things to celebrate that define us as Kiwis whether it be the wartime heroes or our Fernleaf Butter. Both Maori and Pakeha have done good & bad in the past. History allows us to learn of both.
Arron
It would be good if there was a bit more NZ history taught, but the problem is that it will be more than likely used as some sort of guilt trip for the white students, with lefty teachers pushing the loony politically correct nonsense of the Greens, Progressive and Labour. This will entrench the feelings of Maori that the world (read into that white taxpayers) owes them a living, and will stifle attempts to reduce the welfare dependency of Maori. Maori have a long history of being net beneficiaries (emphasise net, I am not talking about individual cases). Until they reverse that trend and contribute to the coffers for a few years they have not lived up to the "partnership" they bleat on about set up under the Treaty. How many partnerships exist where one party (the whites) give all the time and the other party only takes?
Karl (Massey)
To respond to Scott's comment "I and all of my class mates got all the way through school without learning a thing about NZ", I can assume one of three things. Either you are chronologically advantaged, and educated in a time when the NZ focus was not so prevalent, or your teacher did not teach the material as effectively as they should have, or you were so bored at the time that you've blanked it out. Take a look at the current social studies curriculum. You will see that any student who comes out of the current course should have a more than adequate understanding of New Zealand issues - but, at the same time, students will only remember what they want to remember, and what they like and enjoy. Forcing teachers to teach subjects or topics that they are not trained to teach, or which they do not enjoy, has a detrimental impact on the learning environment. None of my colleagues have a degree in social studies, because it does not exist. When teaching a non-history related topic in social studies, I often have to suppress my inner cringe, and I don't doubt that non-historians do the same when teaching the history related topics.
Joseph - Kiwi
I think Auckland history students should have the option to learn Chinese history and Polynesian history as well.
JR
I think a more Pacific history approach is needed. Kids should learn the history of NZ and its neighbours long before English and European history. As for NZ history it needs to be balanced and not the suffering Maori verses the thieving European version that is so currently the flavour with the left wing brigade. All that is doing is teaching hate. Teach of the Maori verses Maori problems that existed prior to European settlement and the positives that European settlement brought - listening to some Maori and lefties today you would think there were none. My father-in-law was a highly decorated Maori soldier in WW2 and I'm certain would not support today's bias education system. His honesty and pride would not allow him to hide behind lies.
Pahl from Manurewa
I did history in high school and really enjoyed it. I feel that they should be teaching likes of Governor Grey and Hobson and how they and all people associated with them and how help shaped our country and a Maori perspective about the important people that they feel shape this country. In these lessons it should also pointed out how Pakeha saw Maori both good and bad and vice versa, Maori opinion on Pakeha, both good and bad. It needs to balanced so that one doesn't stands out more than the other and it may allow students to form their own opinion about NZ.
Andrew Atkin
How about teaching the unedited history of schooling itself? If we did that then any government that promoted a compulsion-status within schooling (which is actually developmental-control - not developmental-gift) would be resigning themselves to political suicide. In turn, we would get the other half of our childhoods back.
Scott
All I can say is thank god for Michael King for popularising New Zealand history. I don't know where some of the other commenters got their facts about being "Treatied out" in Social Studies or having NZ History well covered "elsewhere" but I and all of my class mates got all the way through school without learning a thing about NZ. I knew of the Endeavour from the 50c piece and the Treaty from Waitangi day. If they taught NZ history properly at school, then the next generation of teachers will know enough to teach the next generation better still. Better yet, teach kindergarten and primary school bilingually and then our children can learn both defining cultures of contemporary New Zealand from the inside out. It's been well proven that kids have the capacity to absorb just about everything we can throw at them educationally and being bilingual expands the brain.
Lloyd (Auckland)
I think that's perfectly splendid. Kiwi children can take pride in their great English heritage instead of endless loaded insinuations about the wicked white man. If all the organic groups in society want to opt out and learn their weta history. That's perfectly fine. I just don't want them running the country. I am for eagle history myself. The history of Queen Elizabeth covers the entire range of human affairs in manageable depth for senior school students.
Richard
I agree with Karl. I actually chose not to take history because I was sick of having the Treaty forced upon me, year after year. I actually remember the turning point in not wanting to take history. It was when the whole school had to sit outside for 2 hours and listen to an assembly spoken only in Maori, despite the fact that there would of been only about 30 students out of the 1000 that understood what was being said. So when the chance came up to study history, I'd had enough, and went for subjects where the treaty and such would not be taught.
Kim Ickland
NZ history should be taught first. The teaching of English history is a leftover from being a colony, but now that we have come into our own and have evolved and have plenty of our own history to teach. English history should be a small part of the overall story of our country.
Sonia
I don't believe New Zealand history is very well covered in schools at all. I was amazed at all of the things I learnt about New Zealand in seventh form history, which I had never even heard of before, the New Zealand Wars, The New Zealand Company, the fact that Maori invented trench warfare, the declaration of independence etc. Much of the population is ignorant of New Zealand history. This is evidenced by the number of people who think the Treaty of Waitangi should be scraped/holds no relevance to today - this is completely wrong and is an opinion that is born out of ignorance and bad media/government reporting. Without the Treaty NZ simply would not be what it is today and it is very likely we would all be speaking French. Anyway, our history is what has shaped New Zealand to be what it is today. It should be taught comprehensively in schools from an early age, like history is taught in the USA and UK. It would create a much greater sense of self awareness and nationhood for many New Zealanders and it would be very soothing for race relations.
Karl (Massey)
The key reason for why many schools continue to teach the Tudor Stuart topic is quite simple - many students loathe and despise New Zealand history. It is an unfortunate state of affairs, but that is the way it is. Students go through years of wishy washy, liberal, well meaning Social Studies classes which hammer home the lessons of nineteenth century New Zealand and the Treaty of Waitangi, to children who can barely comprehend themselves let alone the differences between kawanatanga and te tino rangatiratanga. The major issue is not what history is being taught in our schools, but rather that history is completely optional. The main reason people do not understand their history is because the majority of people decide not to take history at all - in part because many have been 'Treatied out' by the social studies curriculum.
Grizelda
My children studied Tudor/Stuart and were captivated by that period. The first female ruler of Britain, the clash between the embryonic COE with Rome, the threat from Mary of Scots, the Armada, Francis Drake, the power of trade and then the emergence of tolerance and the King James bible etc, etc. This is not simply English history, it is a study of politics, war, religion, expansionism, gender and trade. NZ History is very well covered in other years.