 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
How can we formulate historical questions that lead to more integrated ways of thinking about issues? Rather than separating regional and global issues from national issues, how can investigations be approached in a way that draws on regional and global perspectives? |
|
|
|
Integrating perspectives is an attempt to overcome bias in viewing situations and drawing conclusions. Bias develops when we take a narrow look at a particular topic. Analysing problems and issues from a range of viewpoints is the main objective in working with perspectives. |
|
|
|
So, how do we gather evidence of the diversity of views held by regional and global groups in relation to developments such as reconciliation? Much of what marginalised groups thought, felt and did – expressed from their particular viewpoints – went unrecorded in the past. This phenomenon became less stark towards the end of the 20th century, but it nonetheless pervades written history – oral history goes some way towards giving more representative interpretations of the past. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The questions we ask are a key to accessing perspectives. Questions initiating an inquiry reflect the outlook (or perspective) on the investigation – signalling the likely direction an investigation will take.
Several inquiry questions in the History syllabus focus on political processes at the end of the century. Crucial to understanding processes is to look at those included and those excluded from these discussions.
Questions that focus on who was involved – and how the representative groups benefited from participation – can illuminate our understandings of the power overseas governments, groups and organisations bring to Australian politics today.
What is meant by self-determination and reconciliation?
Analysing this topic in relation to regional and global perspectives evokes a key question: Who was (and is currently) involved in discussions about reconciliation and self-determination? For example, who is representing indigenous viewpoints, who is providing input on approaches taken in other parts of the world, who is representing the various groups with an interest in reconciliation with indigenous people? Furthering the inquiry we could ask, What are participant groups trying to achieve through their involvement? For example, what are the main arguments and positions of those contributing to discussions, what roles are they performing, what networks and groups are keeping discussions on the agenda. Questions such as those posed here can assist us to gather understandings about the meanings associated with self-determination and reconciliation.
Ultimately, citizenship learning that assists students to work within current social and political systems will focus on the advantages and disadvantages of unfolding reconciliation processes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| Click the icon to listen to various points of views |
| Another approach to integrating regional and global perspectives is to ask people in different parts of the world – internet chat groups is one way – how they view a particular issue. Go to the discussion forum on this site to hear a range of perspectives – including gender, Aboriginal, cultural, socioeconomic – on the meanings and practices associated with heritage. Considering an event such as the Vietnam War from the viewpoint of Australia’s involvement as a nation – without looking at the international involvement or the impact of involvement at the local level – is an example of potential bias in analysing important events in Australian history (Stages 4–5 History syllabus). |
|
|
|
