The Prime Minister wants us to learn better history and be more polite. I think that's quite rude! Mr Howard is calling for a "root and branch renewal of the teaching of Australian history in schools."

John Howard says we need a history with no "fragmented stew of theme and issues."

When Lateline’s Maxine McKew asked the Prime Minister who had brought the problem of history education to his attention, Mr Howard had nothing to say.

Mr Howard was asked if it was the history teachers, schools, students or parents who had asked him to look into the matter. No one had. Lesson one in polite manners is to only speak when spoken to. I thought the Prime Minister was advocating politeness.

No one has complained, but the problem "is everywhere apparent," according to Mr Howard.

"We don't understand enough about our history." What the Prime Minister really means, is that we don't have the understanding that he would like us to have.

Mr Howard says our history has been spoiled by a "postmodern culture of relativism where any objective record of achievement is questioned or repudiated."

The Prime Minister is right, postmodernism and relativism don't accept the existence of just one "objective record".

In other words, according to one history, Australia was settled and according to another version it was occupied.

If we move away from what the Prime Minister calls the "fragmented stew of themes and issues," and adopt a "narrative style" of history that focuses on "pivotal date," students will spend all their time memorising dates and places with no depth, meaning or context.

I studied history as a student in Iran under the notorious 'chronological' history approach. I never formed a comprehensive and meaningful understanding of my country's history, but I can tell you when Cyrus the Great came to power and when he died — but so what?

Gerard Henderson — who supports John Howard's position — came to the rescue and tried to clarify the Prime Minister's argument which has been short on details.

In his Herald comment piece, he said: "A problem with history is that it is invariably taught by historians."

That's exactly why the relativists and postmodernists advocate "histories" and not "The History".

Any history is biased. That is necessarily an inherent quality of any history. Isolated dates and events taught in chronological order won't give students any insight if they come without context and a knowledge of the historian's bias.

editor@sydneyobserver.com