Our history is on life support. Don't pull the plug.
In New Zealand, historical scholarship is being undermined in another way: death by a thousand cuts, which can be as devastating as all-out war.
Long-term underfunding has combined with recent cutbacks to reduce both job opportunities and research infrastructure for historians. History departments in universities are being cut back. At Manatū Taonga, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, four senior historian positions —those who have produced and maintained identity-affirming projects such as our national dictionary of biography – are now being made redundant.
Archives New Zealand, where government records are made available for historical research, has seen job cuts, reduced opening hours, and the closure of a successful records digitisation programme. Funding for historical research has also become harder to find, especially since the Government ended the Marsden Fund's support for the humanities.
Historians in government departments and universities work for the people of New Zealand. Thanks to past investment by governments of both the left and the right, big national resources such as Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, and NZ History are free to the public.
As well as showing the past is crammed with diversity and talent in unexpected places, such open-access resources subvert the paywalls of private publishing and family-history companies. To let these publicly funded and enormously popular sites 'wither and die' through lack of ongoing support is not only a huge loss of accessible and accurate information about our history, but also a shameful waste of past investment.
More than a generalised attack on the humanities, the destruction of our historical infrastructure is a specific attack on those whose jobs it has been to chronicle and make sense of the past at a time when the world has become more volatile than it has been for decades.
We are also living in an age of unprecedented technological change in which generative AI is moving swiftly into education, intellectual production, and creative industries. History can help us to understand these changes and to keep our bearings as the world is transformed around us.
It is perhaps not surprising that attacks on history should be happening now. Very simply, historical understanding is an antidote to the poison of extremism that is seeping into political systems around the world. It is a threat to those who seek to stoke division and undermine democratic rights.
Historians know that our liberal democratic system of government, underpinned by human rights, is fragile, hard won, and not very old. It is not a 'natural state' of things or the end point of some evolutionary trajectory. We know the ways in which power can be wielded to punish peoples, destroy cultures, and erode freedoms.
Equally, the study of history provides inspiration for solutions to the ills of the world, from dictatorships to the housing crisis to individuals' feelings of being untethered from belonging. It demonstrates that even the most inhumane of systems can be defeated, that slavery can be ended, that the subjugation of women can be opposed, that colonised peoples can win self-government.
By explaining the historical forces that have shaped communities and identities, historical scholarship can also help us to better understand those with whom we share our country and our world.
We all have a stake in ensuring there is adequate investment in historical research, writing, and education, whether it be in universities, government agencies, schools, museums, or local communities. If the study of history is allowed to die, our society and political culture will be the poorer for it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Trump sets a low bar for high-stakes summit and avoids key issues for Kyiv
He added, 'I may leave and say good luck, and that'll be the end.' Trump's own description of his goals for the negotiation, the most high-stakes international meeting yet in his second term, were telling — as much for what he omitted as for what he included. And that is what worries both the Ukrainians and Washington's European allies, who have committed to keep arming Ukraine no matter the outcome in Anchorage. What wasn't mentioned Ceasefire Zelenskyy, who has not been invited to join the talks in Alaska, has said that any agreement must start with a some kind of truce or ceasefire so that negotiations were not being conducted amid continued air attacks and territorial grabs. Trump has not stipulated that a truce must come first. Guarantees During his hour-long news conference, he never once mentioned security guarantees for Ukraine, intended to assure that Putin does not exploit a break in the fighting or new territorial gains as his moment to regroup, rearm and resume his effort to seize the whole country. Support Nor did Trump commit to making sure that Ukraine has the arms, intelligence and co-operation it needs to defend its territory and deter Russia from future attacks. His Vice-President, JD Vance, a longtime critic of American aid to Ukraine, was quite explicit during an appearance on Fox News. 'We're done with the funding of the Ukraine war business,' he said, insisting that the only way American arms would make it into Ukrainian hands would be if European allies bought and transferred them. A sense of haste Trump's comments came as the White House scrambled to make arrangements for one of the most hastily assembled summits of recent times. Usually, such sessions are preceded by detailed advance negotiations, with prearranged agreements and communiqués. Trump seemed to suggest that he was walking into this discussion with none of those, though European officials say they have seen evidence that, at lower levels, Russian and American officials are talking. Adding to the sense of haste, the White House has still not said where, exactly, the meeting will be held, how long it is expected to last or whether at the end Trump will preside over a meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy, two avowed enemies. Influencing Trump The risk now, as even some of Trump's Republican allies have conceded, is that Putin will see an opportunity to flatter Trump, play for time, and perhaps win him over to the Russian leader's own interpretation of events. Recent history suggests that Trump is inclined to accept Putin's version of reality. This year he suggested that Ukraine was responsible for the invasion of its own territory, and he refused to join America's traditional Western allies in voting for a United Nations resolution condemning Russia's aggression. Earlier this week, Zelenskyy worried aloud that Trump could be easily 'deceived'. For that reason, European and Nato officials — who mollified Trump at the alliance's summit in the Netherlands in June by pledging to spend 3.5% of their gross domestic product on defence over the next decade — are now carefully trying to hedge him in. They arranged a video call for tomorrow with Trump, aware that they will not be in the room in Alaska, so their power is limited to persuading him beforehand and risking his wrath by dissenting later. One of the most explicit warnings to Trump came from the Secretary-General of Nato, Mark Rutte, a former Netherlands Prime Minister who has invested heavily in developing a relationship with the President and devised the Nato summit to minimise the chances he would disrupt it. His bet paid off, and Trump sang the alliance's praises, rather than declare that it was 'obsolete', as he did in his first term. Rutte's guardrails But this week, Rutte was clearly drawing some guardrails for the coming negotiation. 'Next Friday will be important because it will be about testing Putin, how serious he is on bringing this terrible war to an end,' Rutte said on ABC. 'When it comes to full-scale negotiations, and let's hope that Friday will be an important step in that process', territory will be only one issue, he said. 'It will be, of course, about security guarantees, but also about the absolute need to acknowledge that Ukraine decides on its own future, that Ukraine has to be a sovereign nation, deciding on its own geopolitical future — of course having no limitations to its own military troop levels,' Rutte said. 'And for Nato, to have no limitations on our presence on the eastern flank.' The dealmaker Trump said none of that in his comments in the White House briefing room yesterday. But he made it clear that striking an agreement was the key. 'I make deals,' he said. Trump has made no secret of his desire to win a Nobel Peace Prize, and has claimed that he was the driving force in recent ceasefires or peace accords in disputes between India and Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Armenia, and other regional conflicts. 'What's the definition of a good deal?' Trump asked reporters. 'I'll tell you after I hear what the deal is, because there could be many definitions.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: David E. Sanger Photograph by: David Guttenfelder ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
US arms sales surge while NZ increases defence spending
Three new US-NZ forums have recently been set up. File photo. Photo: 123rf The United States has been drawing up of a list of "priority partners" for arms transfers. RNZ has asked the government if New Zealand is on that list. The list is part of a big new US push this year to streamline defence sales. This aimed to "simultaneously strengthen the security capabilities of our allies and invigorate our own defence industrial base", US President Donald Trump said. He has signed executive orders and his administration is advancing six new laws and initiatives to free up arms trading. Three new US-NZ forums have been set up and have met, while two powerful US arms-related Congressional delegations have also visited this year. New Zealand has recently joined three frameworks that have the primary aim to expand the US military-industrial base in the Indo-Pacific. Political debate has swirled around the issue, with former PM Helen Clark on Tuesday accusing the government of "cuddling right back up again to Washington DC" over its stand on Gaza, and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon denying the coalition's position has anything to do with the US . The lines are clearer on the military side - official papers show 60 percent of the $6 billion in arms the NZ Defence Force has on order is from the US; and New Zealand has been keen to register its "recent uptick in military activities in the Indo-Pacific" with its partners. The papers also show a US-NZ meeting in April about "potential opportunities for procurement from the US". Arms sales world-wide are surging as governments respond to US pressure - and the Gaza and Ukraine wars - to increase defence spending. America's two systems of sales registered increases of 45 percent and 27 percent, for a combined half a trillion dollars of sales last year. The largest single items included $32b for fighter-jets for Israel. But its arms factories cannot keep up - Ukraine has depleted its stockpile of missiles and ammunition so much it ordered a stocktake - while trade barriers are in the way elsewhere. Trump put a Republican lawmaker in charge of a new taskforce for pulling down the barriers in March. "We operate with high lethality and some of the most technologically advanced systems ever created by man," said taskforce chair Ryan Zinke . "And yet, our closest allies get the bureaucratic shaft when they try to meet their defence needs with made-in-America equipment and systems." Zinke consulted international partners before introducing six proposals last month. The first one is the 'Streamlining Foreign Military Sales Act'. New Zealand is consulting on at least three new fronts with the Americans. Officials have had "many discussions" about the issues dating back to at least mid-2023, according to papers released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to AUT Pacific historian Dr Marco de Jong under the Official Information Act. Three new "dialogues" have been set up since mid-2024. One on space, a second on "critical and emerging technologies" - these two overlap with defence - and a third on 'Strategic and Defence Trade'. The latter dialogue took an "important first step" to "streamlining" trade at an inaugural meeting in Washington in December. The US showed "willingness... to engage on barriers", the papers revealed. Most of the papers were blanked out for security reasons, but one question was not: "What is the strategic direction that the US is taking with regard to its export control regime?" A key party is the US Directorate of Defence Trade Controls, although commercial technology is also in the mix. The papers also showed Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) disarmament and counter-proliferation experts taking a "deeper dive" into export controls. Some controls around space technology had recently changed, they said. RNZ is asking for details. Australia already increasingly has "streamlined access into the US" under recent AUKUS-related law changes . President Joe Biden was in charge when the US instigated the three new dialogue groups with New Zealand last year. Trump has reversed many Biden initiatives, but not the Pentagon's increasing push to integrate allies. The overall goal remains the same: "To serve the interests of the American people." Trump put it this way in April , when he signed the executive order to speed up arms sales and technology sharing. The order sets up the priority partners list, a track to "consolidate parallel decision-making" with allies over who gets what US arms, and a way to lower the cost of weapons, including by "improving financing options for partners". The "priority partner" list was due to be finalised around June. The NZ government has previously played down the new US-led defence initiatives it has joined. It called a regional group to boost the US military-industrial reach a "discussion forum", while US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth praised the PIPIR group for directly supporting Trump's "peace through strength" agenda. A senior NZ Defence Force manager who is part of a dialogue group reposted a Pentagon description of PIPIR as "nothing less than the emergence of a mesh based alliance industrial base" last month. The newly released MFAT papers said being invited in by the US showed trust. "New Zealand's status as a trusted partner has been recognised by the US. In late 2022, the US added New Zealand to its National Technology Industrial Base, alongside other FVEY's [Five Eyes intelligence group] members. We have heard from the US, including at senior levels, that as a close and trusted partner there should be few impediments" to more technological cooperation. When RNZ revealed that NZ had joined the National Technology Industrial Base, the government said this was a US decision and it was "not involved". Zinke's barrier-cutting taskforce was set up a month before a US Congressional delegation met the Defence and Foreign Affairs Ministers in Auckland in April 2025. The delegation's leader was Young Kim, who is on Zinke's taskforce. It came to see how the US could strengthen its "economic and security relationships", according to a briefing released to de Jong. The talks would "highlight our excellent collaboration in critical sectors such as space and defence". The US lawmakers - from foreign affairs and defence appropriation committees - also met NZ defence officials who briefed them on Defence Minister Judith Collins' new $12b defence capability plan. "This meeting is a useful opportunity to reinforce this government's approach to defence, and to highlight potential opportunities for procurement from the US. "Rep. Young Kim has recently been named as a member of a new Foreign Arms Sales task force, which aims to make it easier for US allies and partners to procure American equipment," the papers added. Another Congressional delegation that came in February had House Armed Services Committee members on it. It discussed "New Zealand's increased commitments to security in the Indo-Pacific". Another point of intersect is what the militaries want to buy, and how they want to do that. The push is towards low-cost technology, such as drones and simpler guided missiles that can be much more rapidly produced, or on software and hardware being able to be more easily transferred between partners. The US federal defence budget of $1.5 trillion has a strong emphasis on unmanned systems, long-range munitions and rapid production capabilities. On drones, Hegseth last month announced "sweeping" changes to how the Pentagon buys and fields them, partly to make up for the depleted ability to build warships quickly enough. "A hybrid fleet would put more hulls in the water by fielding relatively inexpensive large- and medium-sized unmanned maritime systems instead of more expensive surface combatants," said commentary at the US Naval Institute . The 2025 US budget aligned "funding priorities with the industrial reforms necessary to bring allied technologies to scale", Zinke's taskforce said. Collins has spoken of New Zealand's need to get strike missiles and many more military drones. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
6 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Trump in element but summit unlikely to end war
"I love deadlines," Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy , said. "I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." United States President Donald Trump sets deadlines for more complicated reasons that purport to be tactical, but he too is addicted to the whooshing sound they make when he breaks them. His latest display of disdain for the deadlines he sets himself began in mid-July, when he gave Russia a 50-day deadline to agree to a ceasefire in its war against Ukraine. A week later, in an apparent fit of temper over President Vladimir Putin's relentless nightly attacks on Ukrainian cities, Trump moved the deadline up by a month, to August 8. Russia's penalty for missing that deadline was allegedly going to be American "secondary tariffs" against other countries that continue to buy Russian oil, notably China, India and Turkey. "I used trade for a lot of things, but it's great for settling wars," Trump boasted — only to discover, not for the first time, that his intended targets were able to push back. Trump declared, again before the actual deadline rolled around, that India's new tariff would be 50%, not 25%, if it did not stop buying heavily discounted Russian oil. Prime Minister Narendra Modi immediately declared that he was ready to "pay a huge price" rather than let the US dictate India's trade policies — and Trump did not even try it on with China or Turkey. So with no leverage in Moscow, his deadline for a Russian ceasefire passed unmentioned. Instead, he sent his favourite emissary, real estate developer Steve Witkoff, to make a new offer: a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Putin in which the two men would make a deal without the Ukrainians, the European Nato countries, or anybody else present. Putin jumped at the chance, as it will be his first face-to-face meeting with a US president since 2021. (He was being boycotted because of his invasion of Ukraine, but this is presumably one of Russia's rewards for agreeing to a "summit".) However, what Trump hopes to get out of it is less obvious. Although Trump is very much in thrall to Vladimir Putin, who he mistakenly believes to be his personal friend, he knows that a full Russian conquest of Ukraine would not look good on his record. His real goal is to win the Nobel Peace Prize in order to end the shame of having seen Barack Obama get one first. For that, he needs a longer-lasting "peace". This need not be a permanent peace settlement that includes an independent Ukraine. Trump really believes in "America First", and Ukraine's long-term fate is of no interest to him. But he must persuade Putin to accept only a partial victory now (and maybe final conquest later) in order to portray himself to the Norwegian Nobel committee as a plausible peacemaker. This explanation sounds so stupid and ridiculous that people have difficulty in taking it seriously, but it does explain why Trump has tried so hard to bully first one side (Ukraine), then the other side (Russia), and now back to Ukraine, into signing that kind of nothing-settled ceasefire. If you still question that analysis, consider the fact that Trump regularly indulges in extended public rants about the sheer injustice of Obama getting a Nobel Peace Prize and leaving him still without one. So when Putin dangles the prospect of a one-on-one summit before Witkoff, of course Trump is tempted, even if it would impose a disadvantageous ceasefire on Ukraine. However, there will probably not be a complete sell-out of Ukraine in Alaska, for two reasons. The first is that Putin, rightly or wrongly, is convinced that he is now winning the war by sheer weight of numbers, and that it is only a matter of time until Ukraine collapses. In that case, why would he now trim his maximal aspirations for the sake of a ceasefire? Those aspirations include Russian sovereignty over Crimea and the four south-eastern regions of Ukraine (including the yet unconquered parts), and permanent neutrality and a much-reduced army for Ukraine. In the long run, Putin aspires to "reunite" all of Ukraine with Russia under one pretext or another, but a decisive military victory might make it possible now. The other reason to assume that the Alaskan summit is unlikely to end the war is the fact that if Trump does completely sell out Ukraine, the Ukrainians will go on fighting anyway. They would be fighting at a worse disadvantage and facing a bigger likelihood of eventual conquest, but they know that wars can have unpredictable outcomes until the next-to-last moment. And whatever happens, Trump will go on setting deadlines and then missing them. Just like he did in the real estate business. • Gwynne Dyer is an independent London journalist.
