History is not just a collection of facts arranged in chronological order. It also tells a story and that story is, of course, always interpreted through a cultural filter.

One result of this is that the same set of facts can be understood in different ways, depending upon the point of view of the observer.

So, right now, Donald Trump and his followers have seized upon certain historic facts as proof of the validity of their explanation about why America is, in their terms at least, no longer the world's sole, undisputed super power.

Many US citizens see those same facts in a somewhat different light but they are being howled down as being un-American or enemies of freedom.

There is, to my mind, a certain poetic justice in all this because so many of the anti-Trump forces have previously been so willing to heap derision and contempt upon anyone who did not agree with their particular view about how history had and should continue to develop.

In an Australian context, the decisions about what texts should be read in the NSW English curriculum reflect a very particular view about Australian history, usually called the black arm band view.

As a person who majored in Australian history and has continued to study it for the last 40 years, I know that this is an attempt to redress what some believe is an imbalance in the teaching of our history.

Paradoxically, in their efforts to write Aboriginal people and non-Anglo minorities into our history, the proponents of this version of history have now become every bit as doctrinaire as those they accused of ignoring these groups in the first place.

The result is that our children are being taught as distorted a view of history as I was subjected to whilst being schooled in the wonders of the British Empire.

In a PNG context, where their modern history is short and, predominantly, written by outsiders, there is unsurprisingly a search for a historic narrative that attaches more value to their unique cultures and traditions.

The main danger with this is that PNG historians will fall for the trap of writing up their pre-history as some sort of Arcadian idyll, that was rudely disrupted by nasty German and Australian colonialism.

This is at least as bad a mistake as that made by some Europeans who have chosen to stress things like cannibalism, head hunting, tribal warfare and so on that was a part of many traditional PNG societies.

In his book "1984", George Orwell made the point that he who controls history controls the present. The job of one of the main protagonists in the book was to constantly rewrite history to meet the requirements of the present.

This was and is not a fanciful notion. Orwell knew that Stalinist Russia regularly reimagined the Bolshevik version of history to suit current circumstances. Thus, great heroes of the revolution (like Leon Trotsky) would suddenly be recast as bourgeoisie revisionists shortly before being banished to Siberia or murdered.

Nothing Trump is doing is that much different. We are now grappling with "alternative facts", such as the infamous Bowling Green Massacre which, in fact, never happened but is nevertheless cited as proof of the perils of letting foreigners enter the country unchecked by "severe vetting".

So, I think that Papua New Guineans need to be on their guard lest an opportunistic cabal of politicians write or rewrite the country's history to serve their own purposes.

PNG's new best friend forever, China, has achieved Zen mastery of this art form and so are well placed to tutor others in its use.

Good stuff Bernard.

As someone who has worked with tribalised Aboriginal elders those 'welcome to country' and smoking ceremonies stand out as entirely non-traditional ( i.e. modern inventions - like 'Celtic' music) designed primarily to (1) make a buck and (2) elicit sympathy.

You can see some of that happening to PNG 'traditions'.

Also appalled at the Australian authors missing out on being taught in government schools because they are seen as politically incorrect.

We often complain about ideologically driven agendas in Australian politics Chris, so maybe PNG's lack of it in government isn't a bad thing. Unless of course you count greed as an ideology.

Party politics as practised in Australia adhere to ideologies and that is a big problem.

I guess one of the problems with ideology is its constricting nature on thought - following an ideology makes it very difficult to think outside the square.

PNG's founding fathers had an ideology of sorts; anti-colonialism driven by a Marxist interpretation (Russia was a big proponent of anti-colonialism, especially in Africa, when PNG was coming up to independence). But it was very, very mild and quickly dissipated after 1975.

The only really ideologically based organisations in PNG are the churches. They have considerable influence, usually unhealthy, on PNG politics.

Ideally a country needs secular leaders who are not ideologically driven - people like Justin Trudeau in Canada.

Paul makes an important point elsewhere about Trump - he is basically a longlong. Is his ideology laissez faire economics? Hard to tell. Then again, a lot of nutters have made good leaders.

Paul's other point elsewhere about businessmen not making good politicians is also pertinent, to wit our own esteemed leader. Or for that matter, O'Neill, who is an accountant.

If you are a businessman you are probably like Trump and probably ideologically driven - by greed and laissez faire.

Chris Overland is certainly correct to suggest that a determined few can easily dominate the majority. The Nazis and communists proved that.

But when he tries to draw Donald Trump and PNG in with the likes of Stalin and Mao, he draws a long bow that would be the envy of any Kukukuku.

Paul Oates correctly notes that Nazi thugs were often highly intelligent people. Conversely, the psychiatrist Leo Alexander who was attached to the Nuremberg Trials, found that the most common reason Christians became Nazis was not because of any profound intellectual conviction, but simply because it was the current fashion, which goes to show just how pathetically weak are the convictions of the majority when the chips are down.

But intellectuals were particularly gullible to communist propaganda. Malcolm Muggeridge lamented how his Leftist friends like George Bernard Shaw displayed “toward Stalin an imbecile credulity which an African witch-doctor would have found enviable.”

Marx and Lenin regarded themselves as intellectuals. Italy’s communist “Red Brigades” of the 1970’s drew most of their members from universities, especially from the University of Trento’s sociology department.

Peru’s “Shining Path” communist party, one of the most vicious guerrilla movements of the 1980’s, was led by Abimael Guzman, professor of philosophy, and was staffed mainly by students.

UC Berkeley Law School alumnus Ronald Cruz justified the recent violence at that university by simply branding the speaker as “Fascist”, and the student-run newspaper wrote an opinion piece, “Violence as Self-Defense”. These as the same tactics that Nazi Brown Shirts and communists have long used.

Ideologues are impervious to truth or facts. European Marxist Georg Lukacs, who had seen all the communist violence and failures of the 20th century, still proclaimed in 1968 that even if every empirical prediction of Marxism were invalidated, he would still hold Marxism to be true.

Marxism has survived because of a few dedicated ideologues. But it has survived most strongly in Western universities where it has been dominant for decades now. That, I suggest, is the real story of how a dedicated few can dominate the majority.

Herbert Marcuse promoted “repressive tolerance” being “intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements of the Left.” Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism) now infests all Western universities which are increasingly inimical to free speech, free inquiry and free minds.

George Orwell knew that the purpose of speech restrictions, which he termed Newspeak, was “to make all other modes of thought impossible.”

Decades ago, the US Senate condemned a history syllabus by 99-to-1 for being anti-American; At George Washington University a student can major in history without studying US history, At Marquette Jesuit University, Professor John McAdams was sacked for standing up for a student who was prevented from disagreeing with gay-marriage in a philosophy class.

In Australia the “Black Armband” of history holds sway, so you don’t see books by famous writers like Mary Durack, A.B. Facey, Xavier Herbert, Les Murray, Thomas Keneally or Clive James on the NSW HSC English syllabus. Not one.

Instead we have gender fluidity theories promoted under the banner “Safe Schools” devised by the Marxist Roz Ward. Facebook has variously listed between 51 and 71 gender options.

Now that Trump promises to wind back this madness, activists have promised to make America “ungovernable.” And those who have allowed this madness to ferment over 50 years simply blame, you guessed it, Trump.

It was 17the century writer Balise Pascal (“Pensees”) who wrote that people hate having to admit their own negligence: “He conceives a mortal hatred against that truth which blames him and convinces him of his faults.”

Thanks. Chris, for that.
At the moment I think Trump is inspiring many educated PNG people to want to "stand up for PNG" which I think is good.
I hope this attitude will help them to elect good people to the parliament.