Black armband view of history ignores important truths

The constant pressure from activists to negate the result of the voice referendum is undermining the tolerance and good fellowship most Australians have towards each other (“Yoorrook inquiry is pushing politics, not truthful history”, 3/7). The settlement story needs to be understood in full: there was tragedy on both sides, but this is not acknowledged by those agitating for the “black armband” version of those difficult early days. While Indigenous descendants mourn the fate of their forebears, descendants of those early settlers also mourn the fate of their kin. We cannot reverse history. We can only build on and be proud of what has been subsequently achieved for the betterment of all Australians.

Noelle Oke, Albury, NSW

It is fraught to judge historical events from the comfort of our own time and place; many practices considered unacceptable today were the norms of the past. At the time of British settlement, for example, eight-year-old boys were working in underground coalmines for up to 12 hours a day. Many perished. It is clearly abhorrent but serves as context for the societal mores of the period. As The Australian’s editorial identifies, British governments were not indifferent to the rights of Indigenous Australians (“Yoorrook report oversteps the mark”, 3/7). It is well documented that governor Arthur Phillip on the east coast and governor James Stirling on the west did their best to balance the interests of new arrivals with those of the original inhabitants. Notwithstanding, no one ought to be surprised that the black armband of history is being accentuated by the Victorian government. The danger is that if it adopts the more radical recommendations of the report it will serve as a precedent for the rest of the nation.

Kim Keogh, Claremont, WA

The Yoorrook report certainly oversteps the mark, as The Australian’s editorial argues. It ignores the reality of the unpleasant side of human history that all populations around the world have at some stage experienced conflict and dispossession, and many of our settlers have found Australia a great country to find refuge, rebuild their lives and ­contribute as citizens.

Peter Balan, St Peters, SA

Alex McDermott puts a compelling case that Australia needs to reclaim our full civic story. It is apparent that civics education in Australia is more about minority groups than common shared experiences, leading to a knowledge collapse in the critical foundations of our democracy.

We need to learn more about our constitutional structure, head of state role, referendums, and pivotal historical events in the ­development of our democracy. Australians sadly seem to know more about the US constitution than the Australian Constitution.

This culture of ignorance erodes the foundation of our democracy. The woeful success of constitutional reform in Australia evidences this lack of civics education. Civics education about our Constitution and the different levels of our government and their responsibilities must be front and centre of our education. Our future depends on it.

David Muir, Indooroopilly, Qld

Alex McDermott’s account of the Yoorrook inquiry raises an important question: what is the statute of limitations on grievance? If not 200-odd years, then what? 500 years? A millennia? If truth-telling is about bringing to light historical iniquities, then the simple fact is that every one of us can easily go back far enough through our ancestral annals and find an injustice, whether a false conviction, a theft, a murder, a betrayal or a slander.

To what extent, however, does that determine our fortunes or ­opportunities today? Anthony Dillon has previously noted that we are not victims of the past, but our view of the past. It is foolhardy for citizens today to believe that had not Arthur Phillip and his fleet of 11 ships arrived in Botany Bay, this island continent would have stayed an idyllic paradise or somehow undiscovered and uncolonised by other competing nations such as the French, Spanish or the Dutch. George III’s instructions to Phillip was to “open an Intercourse with the Natives and to conciliate their affections, enjoining all Our Subjects to live in amity and kindness with them … Shewing them every kind of Civility and Regard”.

Does this type of royal decree really encapsulate an edict of an invasion?

Peter Waterhouse, Craigieburn, Vic