Introduction.(Editorial)

The articles presented in JAS 91 were chosen because they stimulate a rethinking of Australian history, the interpretation of which so often legitimises the present by adopting a particular reading of the past. This interpretation creates an optimistic image of Australian history and identity as the inevitable and preferred outcome of what went before. Moreover, the image focuses on achievements and events that have been interpreted (or constructed) as key defining moments: Australian identity as the result of, and defined by, progressive historical experiences and achievements.

The optimistic interpretation of Australian history has much in common with the philosophy of many nineteenth-century historians who believed in the natural progress of Western societies, culminating in parliamentary democracy, constitutional government and, in more modern terms, less state control. Inevitably, the optimistic interpretation has largely ignored negative historical events and conflicting dual narratives. It is hardly surprising, then, that much of the current rethinking of Australia's history centres on the consideration of multiple accounts of the past. In the first paper of this issue, Helen McDonald suggests that a 'misguided interpretation of the child's best interest' provided the motives for child removal practices in colonial Australia. Similar concerns are addressed by Pam Smith, who argues that a reliance on written accounts of colonial history has resulted in an interpretation that largely ignores the oral accounts given by Indigenous Australians. The denial of these dual narratives, she contends, is central to the so-called history wars sparked by Reynolds and Windschuttle. Drew Cottle and Angela Keys consider more recent history in their analysis of the impact of the Cold War on Australian ethnic communities, and the repression of Chinese immigrants following the 1949 establishment of the People's Republic of China. Their account describes how anti-communist sentiment, the Japanese invasion of China and the subsequent Pacific War roused the Chinese community in Australia and prompted initiatives which improved the appalling conditions in which many migrants worked.

The history wars are fundamental to articles by Jim Jose, Paul Ashton and Paula Hamilton, who further the contention that the interpretation of Australian history cannot be confined to a single account. Jose draws upon the ideologies of the 1960s to argue that the history wars are, in fact, about finding a 'worldview' rather than 'particular points of historical memory', and describes the reinterpretation of 'the Sixties' by those sceptical of its ideals. In their search for an understanding of what Australian history means to Australians, Ashton and Hamilton suggest that John Howard's view of Australian history greatly simplifies complex historical understandings. Indeed, the relationship between 'interpretation' and 'facts', they argue, has to be addressed before the teaching of Australian history can be redefined. The dominant leadership style of John Howard concerns James Walter, who investigates the tensions that result from the presence of a 'strong leader' typology in a democratic system of government. Of particular interest is the interpretation of process and responsibility.

Peter Putnis offers an engaging account of the nineteenth-century British transoceanic steamship press, which was integral to the communication of news between England, colonial India and colonial Australia. The steamship press revolutionised communication and trade and, in doing so, facilitated the mass circulation of specific interpretations of key events. The impact of these interpretations, together with technological advances such as the telegraph, has been little researched. Another little-researched area is voiced by Janice Newton, who discusses Australia's relationship with the dunny from the perspective of oral historiography and symbolic egalitarianism. Newton makes ...