Download - Nietzschean Perspectives on a National History Curriculum: What should we do with Gallipoli?

Robert Parkes Heather Sharp

University of Newcastle

NIETZSCHEAN PERSPECTIVES ON A NATIONAL HISTORY

CURRICULUM:

WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH GALLIPOLI?

ABBOTT & GALLIPOLI: OR MORE PAYNE FOR HISTORY CURRICULUM?

SHOULD WE LET THE RIGHTHAVE THEIR WAR?

Over-emphasis on war / military history; pro-ANZAC interpretation (Lake & Reynolds, 2010).

Australian military history bigger than just Gallipoli (Reed, 2004).

THE CRITIQUE OF GALLIPOLI

Use of textbooks a signature pedagogy in history education?

Implicated in the construction of national attitude and identity (Crawford, 2007, 2009).

Diffi cult to get beyond nationalistic perspectives (Elmersjö, 2013).

Shifting focus to how textbooks are actually used in the classroom alongside content analysis (Repoussi & Tutiaux-Guillon, 2010).

TEXTBOOKS AND/AS CURRICULUM

Textbook Content Analysis

Non-WWIOther WWIGallipoliANZAC Other

Military planning/political reasons.

Turkish perspective (but, actually it is not a Turkish perspective at all, it’s about what Australian soldiers [presumably] thought about the Turks).

Soldiers’ experiences.

Battles of Suvla Bay, Lone Pine and The Nek, Evacuation.

RETROACTIVE



Military planning/political reasons.

Australian soldier experiences.

Failure of campaign

NELSON



Military planning/political reasons that led to the Gallipoli landing.

Contesting the Gallipoli ‘facts’ about military action.

Soldiers’ experiences.

Focus on the battles at Lone Pine and the Nek.

MACMILLIAN



Australia’s involvement and the failure and withdrawal at Gallipoli.

CAMBRIDGE


Non-WWIWWI OtherGallipoliANZAC Other

Context of Gallipoli campaign before moving into a focus on Australia’s involvement.

Conditions and soldiers’ experiences.

A comparison is done between John Simpson Kirkpatrick and Major General Sir William Throsby Bridges.

OXFORD

Selective aspects of his work posthumously co-opted by the National Socialist movement in Germany during WWII, via the mediation of his sister and editor, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche.

His disappointment with his one time friend, the nationalistic composer (and favourite of the Führer) Richard Wagner shows, Nietzsche demonstrated caution and concern with history as national mythology.

NIETZSCHE AS CONTROVERSIAL FIGURE IN THE HISTORY OF

NATIONALISM

Monumental - in which past events and deeds were valorized and venerated.

Antiquarian - in which attempts were made to preserve the past as cultural heritage and source of identity.

Critical - in which aspects of the past were challenged from the standpoint of present “truths”.

NIETZSCHE’S THREE FORMS OF HISTORY

“The Aust ra l ians departed…comforted to have stuck i t out so reso lute ly and to have gamely p layed the i r part in such a hopeless cause” (p . 257) . So , desp i te the Ga l l ipo l i campaign be ing complete ly fl awed, the so ld iers are va lor ized for hav ing done an excel lent job and at the same t ime venerated because the campaign, as a who le was a “hopeless cause” (p . 257) , imply ing that no matter what the Aust ra l ian so ld iers d id , they would never have been ab le to ach ieve success , desp i te be ing (as ind icated in ear l ier part o f the narrat ive) “…widely pra ised for the i r sk i l l and tenac i ty as assau l t t roops” (p . 257) .

On 7 December 1915, the Br i t i sh Cabinet ordered a ret reat o f a l l A l l ied t roops f rom Gal l ipo l i . A Br i t i sh war correspondent , E l l i s Ashmead-Bart let t , and a young Austra l ian journa l i s t , Ke i th Murdoch, had at last exposed the terr ib le condi t ions and fl awed mi l i tary campaign ing to the Br i t i sh leaders . (p . 257)

The ANZACs were part o f a far la rger A l l ied force o f Br i t i sh and French, in what has been descr ibed as one o f the mismanaged mi l i tary campaigns in h is tory. (p . 255) .

The Br i t i sh , underest imat ing the Turks ’ capac i ty to defend the i r country , expected to succeed by a nava l bombardment that began in February. By mid March i t had fa i led d ismal ly… (p . 256) .

One of the greatest d isasters in Br i t i sh mi l i tary h is tory ended for the ANZACs on 19 December 1915. The Aust ra l ians departed, shat tered to leave more than 8000 of the i r dead beh ind, but comforted to have stuck i t out so reso lute ly and to have gamely p layed the i r part in such a hopeless cause. (p . 257)

HOW IS GALLIPOLI REPRESENTED?

THE MONUMENTAL

…the ANZACs were widely praised for their skill and tenacity as assault troops. It was not expected that ‘mere colonials’ would perform so courageously under concentrated fi re. (p. 257)

HOW IS GALLIPOLI REPRESENTED?

THE ANTIQUARIAN

The Gall ipoli campaign was also not the fi rst large mil itary encounter in which Austral ian troops had fought…It was said in 1900 that: ‘ from the landing of Austral ian troops on African soil wil l date the true birth of Austral ian nationhood’. (p. 255)… but it returns to the monumental: It was to be the Dardanelles campaign (February 1915 to January 1916) and the Gall ipol i landings of Apri l 1915 that would eventually be viewed in this l ight.” (p. 255).

…on one narrow strip of ground cal led The Nek, which was not much larger than a tennis court, hundreds of members of the 8 t h and 10 t h Austral ian Light Horse regiments were needlessly scarifi ed. This batt le forms the central episode of Peter Weir’s 1981 fi lm, Gall ipol i , but the main offi cer responsible was actually Austral ian, not Brit ish. (p. 257)

Most mil itary historians conclude that Gall ipoli was ‘a s ideshow’ to the main events of the Western Front. They also see it as a tragic waster of human l i fe that was poorly conceived by Lord Kitchener, the Brit ish War Secretary and Winston Churchil l , First Lord of the Admiralty. By the t ime if concluded, for no territorial gain whatsoever, there had been more than 392000 casualt ies. (p. 256)

HOW IS GALLIPOLI REPRESENTED?THE CRITICAL

According to Nietzsche’s scheme, each of these uses of history was subject to abuse (by being used exclusively, or to excess), in which case historical discourse would lead to human subjugation rather than freedom.

His answer was to pit the various forms of history against each other in a complex balancing act.

Multiple narratives and multiple forms of history must be the pre-requisite condition for a history curriculum aimed at equipping people for “life”.

HISTORY FOR LIFE:GETTING BEYOND THE HISTORY

WARS