Crikey readers had much to say in response to David Hardaker’s deep dive into Bruce Pascoe and the Dark Emu fallout. Some were disappointed in what the exploration had — or hadn’t — revealed, others welcomed the questions, and many took the opportunity to share their appreciation for the necessary conversations Pascoe has started.
Julanne Sweeney writes: Thank you Crikey and David Hardaker for opening up this necessary discussion in the hands of a fair minded journalist rather than extremists on the “Fox after dark” team. There is much to be digested in statements by Michael Mansell and Stan Grant and The Guardian’s reprint of Mark McInnes’ response. All respectful with no malice. As I believe is the rationale of Peter Sutton and Keryn Walshe. Sutton has an unquestionable life of close research with Aboriginal people. I have not read the book but did read carefully on June 16 the long article in The Age on the book. And I sensed then the furore that would follow.
Where is the voice of academic Bill Gammage whose Biggest Estate on Earth appeared to inspire Dark Emu? (Ironic test of authenticity…) As I write, I ‘m thinking it is healthy for the future to be straightening out facts from feelings as we lucky Australians learn to appreciate more about the genius of the traditional owners of our island which is now exploited and mismanaged.
Simon Tatz writes: Truth telling. It seems so obvious but it isn’t. What is curious to a bystander is the way the “debate” around Dark Emu is being framed and positioned. It reminds me of another contentious subject — religion. There is very little truth to much of human history; the three major religions are not based on any definable or agreed-on truth, so uncovering Australia’s pre-invasion history will obviously be fraught with contention, conjecture and speculation based on expert interpretation.
Perhaps I have misinterpreted Crikey‘s articles on Mr Pascoe and Dark Emu, for they read to me like a stance has been taken; that one person’s interpretation is wrong and needs to be exposed. Maybe, like a misguided Biblical reader, I have wrongly inferred from the text that the “industry” that’s grown from Dark Emu calls into question the very source material. I concede that my version of the Crikey articles indicate to me a certain satisfaction in debunking, somewhere between “tall-poppy syndrome” and academic effrontery; and an element of shoot the messenger — the author’s Aboriginality being questioned as if to say, “If he’ll fudge his identity, it stands to reason he’ll take the same approach to research.”
It’s not for me to pontificate on the veracity Dark Emu — I found the book highly readable, interesting, thought-provoking and challenging. The “debate” in Crikey hasn’t been enlightening; in truth it seems a lot of people have done exactly the same as Mr Pascoe — provided their interpretations and analysis and stated them as the single source of truth.
Susie Dunn writes: In discussing this book one thing seems to me to not have been understood. Most white Australians have virtually no personal knowledge of Aboriginal Australians or their history. “Dark Emu” has stimulated their interest. For the bulk of Australians the fact is that Bruce Pascoe’s book, by quoting from white records and therefore through the prism of white thinking of the time, has opened a pathway from total ignorance towards a new mindset.
Clive Bond writes: Yes, Dark Emu and its author should be exposed. More importantly, expose the academics that have promoted this nonsense. How on earth did Pascoe become a professor?
This can then invite expanding and unfolding into the multitude of chapters of First Nations history of this land. No other book, however detailed, appears to have achieved that. The new debate has, of course, inevitably drawn in academics who see themselves as special commentators, but they jump a few steps ahead in their ranking.
At the end of the day it is the Aboriginal peoples themselves who we all should listen to when they choose to speak. Bruce Pascoe has stimulated people to want to listen.
Nicole Lindsay writes: Disappointing. I’ve read Dark Emu. It never purports to be scholarship. It asks questions. It asks for more scholarship. I’ve read many of these primary sources too and wondered why we don’t know about them and what they mean.
Jane Paterson writes: I enjoyed the book. I find the furore puzzling. Why can’t we have disagreements without tearing the opposition to pieces? One truth doesn’t necessarily stamp out the all the truth. Thank you Bruce Pascoe for opening up wider possibilities.
Peter Best writes: How unedifying this pile-on to Bruce Pascoe is. He’s an enthusiast for the First Nations cause, has possibly misinterpreted some evidence, been excessively thrilled with other evidence as he sets out to counteract 240 years of smug white fella bullshit. There are undoubtedly academics who never bought the lies we were told about the “primitive” earlier residents of the country, but for millions of my generation the “Aborigines” were a people who’d never “advanced”, had never made the trains run on time, had never invented or done anything useful, were invisible unless they were drunk in the street.
I knew nothing about the hundreds of languages, of the management of the land, of the ingenuity of fish traps, of the incredible survival through massive climate upheavals. The fact that they weren’t as greedy as the rest of us was considered to demonstrate their unfitness for modern life. My word it does. They should be proud of that. By all means correct the mistakes, but don’t behave as if Pascoe has somehow betrayed all of us.
He’s done something marvellous by giving us a counter-argument, an alternative “myth” if you will. It’s something we desperately needed. Thank you, Bruce.
Let us know your thoughts on these and other stories by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say section.
Sorry Crikey. You’ve really pushed me to my limits this week. In the middle of a pandemic this is the conversation you think we need to be having?
Wall-to-wall unrelenting coverage of the pendemic and everything connected to it for over 18 months now in just about every media outlet including Crikey, burying almost every other issue, and no sign of a let up: you’re begging for more. A few articles this week in Crikey looking at the phenomenal rise to influence of Dark Emu and its author: you’re at the end of your rope.
Each to their own.
I found Dark Emu to be one of the most interesting and exciting books I have ever read. In this one book I learned more about Aboriginal Australia than I had in all the many decades since I came to Australia. One thing I did find particularly interesting was that so much of the information was drawn from the writings of those we call the first settlers, who were describing what they found as they moved through the country. There may well be some inaccuracies in the text – I am not qualified to judge – but I suspect that they may fall into insignificance compared to what we have been taught about ‘white’ history.
While Bruce seems a sensitive and caring commentator I don’t agree with his assertion that Aborigines were farmers.
Evidence of temporary ‘villages’ and some growing of food may well be true of some fertile high rainfall areas in Victoria.
But without irrigation, the semi-desert areas occupied by most aboriginal people are not ‘farmable’ without irrigation tillage and harvesting system technologies. Their technologies and lifestyle were the opposite of this and were successful because of their portability – light basic hand tools that could be carried long distances on foot.
I have lived and travelled extensively in the Pilbara region of WA where only pastoral enterprises are conducted, but for which water bores and and pumping technologies are required.
Native ‘soft spinifex’ grass seed was harvested opportunistically by the aboriginal inhabitants (many of whose descendants still live in the region) after good seasons when the seed heads looked a bit like fields of wheat. Indeed the seed smells and tastes like wheat. I collected this and many other native seeds for land rehabilitation. They stripped the spinifex and other edible seeds such as acacias by hand and ground it with smooth rocks to make coarse flour with which they made damper. The shiny patches of flat sheet rock and the grinding stones can still be found. They would burn this grassland in patches during the dry season to stimulate growth in the following wet season.
While this was indeed land management and opportunistic harvesting it was not farming. It would only have occurred about 1% of the time when the family groups moved through these areas in good seasons.
Whether or not Professor Pascoe’s conclusions are 100% correct, he has presented the pre-1788 indigenous peoples as organised farmers who had the sense to take only what was necessary or to store excess for leaner times. His work has obviously seeded enquiry and a new respect for former custodians of the land. We foreigners have much to learn from the First Nation people if we could stop arguing long enough to listen.
It has given me the courage to finally write a book about the Indigenous peoples connection with extraterrestrial life and the relationships that existed prior to 1788. As long as I keep it interesting, truth is irrelevant so I shall worry not about the gaps in what I have heard, but just letting others read and decide what truth they choose to believe. Thank you Bruce and thank you Crikey!
The remains of a bakery in Victoria are 20,000 years older than any other found so far anywhere in the world. Trying to estimate or judge what people were doing here then is futile without understanding the changes of climate, fauna and flora, sea level etc. Anyone for a bunyip croissant? Look at Egypt, which only 2,000 years ago was the main source of wheat for Rome. The second biggest amphitheatre the Romans built is at el Djem in Tunisia, now surrounded by sand dunes. Things change, fast.