Essential reading for all Australians in my opinion. Should be part of the curriculum here. This is a very eye opening book and one of the best things I read last year.
Unintentional rhyme.
CamelCamelCamel.
Wow, I haven’t seen that kind of critique on Dark Emu before.
I attended a conference about the engagement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students earlier this year (I’m a teacher), and the Aboriginal elder recommended this book. I’m not disputing your claim that people aren’t happy with the book, but it definitely isn’t universally ridiculed by any means.
Interesting to see such different viewpoints on it I guess.
It is highly ridiculed, but the left wing media don't show the other (true) side of the story.
Highly ridiculed by the right wing media of course.
@slipperypete: There's a whole website devoted to the controversy around this book. https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/
@KahluaKhan: You've got to be kidding.
Never knew there were so many racists on ozbargain.
The research is from primary sources. There's nothing controversial about that.
The controversy is from people who want to perpetuate the uncivilised savage narrative.
@athna: Which part is racist? Sticking up for Aboriginal history or calling someone out as a fraud ?
@Danstar: instead of responding to the content of the book and the techniques that were discussed, its the silencing and witch hunt of a person who provides a historical account of Australia which doesnt align with the false narrative perpetuated by people like you and Bolt
false narrative
So 200+ years of history is totally wrong because of one random guy (literally) wrote a book ?
The research is from primary sources. There's nothing controversial about that.
At best he has misinterpreted some of these primary sources, at worst he is being willfully deceptive.
The big problem with any of this is that as soon as you question this work you're labelled a racist. There's no way to have a civilised and rational debate.
Hmm.
The value I got from the book was largely because of the agricultural content, farming methods, irrigation, etc.
I found all of that that incredibly interesting. It was a part of Aboriginal culture that I hate essentially zero knowledge of.
mr_me450's comment is pretty apt in my opinion. By all means criticise elements of the book, but there is a lot of good stuff in there too.
@Danstar: So you think the book incites hate on white people? That's a very broad stroke statement you've made.
@bushywookiee: If you've seen the "author" being interviewed before, I'm going to assume you would agree with me.
@athna: What are his expert sources?
There is much more evidence of what we already know, yet you are totally disregarding all of that and taking this book as gospel
@bushywookiee: It paints colonisation in a worse light. The book credits the Aboriginals with far more advancement (civilisation and technology wise, I'm not commenting on culture) than can be supported from any previous sources. It borrows heavily from similar cultures, most frequently crediting advancements made by polynesians to the Aboriginals despite the advancements coming post migration of the people and there being no evidence in Australia to support it. The idea being that whites found a thriving civilisation which they then destroyed, as opposed to the settlers found sporadic tribes who migrated frequently and could largely assume most the land was uninhabited (and therefore no issue with settling it).
Your opinion had some merit up until you mentioned "left/right wing".
@jettim76: I'm just waiting on some Andrew Bolt article to be linked as the true source of information.
@Danstar: Attacking the ABC as biased, and promoting Andrew Bolt and the Herald-Sun as providing facts rather than opinions … LOL
@Danstar: You've made unproven allegations of:
1. Aboriginal elders being paid to endorse the book
2. Incitement of hatred of white people in the book
You've questioned the Aboriginality of the author (a favourite supression/diversion tactic of white nationalists like Andrew Bolt) and you've claimed that the book is false and your evidence of all of this is that you read the columns of Andrew Bolt.
I would ask you to reflect on why it upsets you so much to learn that there were aspects to Aboriginal culture (documented in primary sources by settlers) that were more advanced than previously thought.
@jezzster: It's just plain simple right wing conservative logic. Someone like this will never look at what is written, rather look at ways to attack it
@jezzster: Where's your evidence? A book written by someone who claims to be an aboriginal who literally has no real evidence or proof of his claims ?
@Danstar: He's had his Aboriginality confirmed by 4 senior members of the Yuin nation, although he dropped his claim to have Tasmanian Aboriginal heritage. There's literally an index in the book that points to the sources which included Charles Sturt’s and Mitchell’s journals.
There are questions as to whether some parts of the book were embellished, but to complain that a book you haven't read is completely false because you read a few Andrew Bolt columns is laughable.
@jezzster: If you actually listen to those Aboriginal leaders who have "confirmed" his Aboriginality you find they say things like "we accept the Aboriginality of anyone who claims to be one". They haven't checked, they've just accepted what he said to be true. And he can't point to who those Aboriginals in his family tree were. He just claims they were a dark family secret. On the other hand those people who have looked find everyone without exception in his family tree was born in England or the children of other people who were all born in England. There simply aren't any gaps for any Aboriginals in his family tree to bring any Aboriginality whatsoever into it.
And when it comes to the early white explorers he claims as sources, if you actually look at what they said you find that in every case he is either misrepresenting what they said, or taking things they said and grossly embellishing them to fit his fiction.
The widely accepted definition of Indigenous heritage in Australia comprises three parts: self-identification, evidence of descent and community recognition.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/bruce-pascoe-says-aboriginal…
So you've described two parts of the definition? What's the sources for your quotes by the way?
Perhaps there is no physical evidence because of the ongoing destruction of significant archaeological sites? Like Rio Tinto destroying caves in WA, that was reported on this week? Caves that contained evidence that indigenous people lived in the caves through generations rather than nomadic, and fossilized evidence showing tools used for grinding grain into flour. Both of these things are things Bruce Pascoe has talked about in Dark Emu.
nah. couldnt possibly be related.
There's no need for scare quotes around the word "book". The controversy isn't whether it is a book or not, but rather the content of the book.
Should be in the “fiction” section.
There will always be people who argue either way on absolutely any issue, including historical events. To anyone who discounts the value of this book purely because it has a few detractors, you are doing the valuable discussions it generates a disservice. The book is designed to get reactions, to get people talking about things we often sweep under the rug of Australian discourse, and that’s the value of it. The very fact it gets people talking about these issues is why it has such value to modern Australia and how we move forward.
thanks…wish we could all look at it like this. Everything today seems to be blinkered attack and disprove if it doesn't fit our view point
Nobody discounts it "purely because it has a few detractors", they discount it because it's entirely fictitious, not based on any evidence, and written by someone pretending to be of ancestry which he is not.
The book is literally built around firsthand sources of white explorers (e.g. quotes from their diaries) and confirmed archaeological evidence.
And people who have gone through those documents in the national archives have attested to the accuracy of the book to the diary notes
Do you work for the publisher? I'm not about to buy nor read his book just to prove you wrong. The elders of the tribes he claims to belong to have effectively said, "he's a nice enough bloke, and we're chuffed that he wants to be Aboriginal - but he's not". That's fact.
@dcash: If you haven't read the book, you can't really comment on the content. You must, by default, be relying on someone else's interpretation / relaying of the content, and their bias (whether intentional or not)?
@GG57: He has been known to many (including myself) long before he published his book of lies. I've listened to what he has to say in documentaries and interviews, so unless his spoken word doesn't match his written one, I believe I can comment, and your assumption is therefore wrong. But nice try, anyway.
The list of sources in the back of the book, including references to journals of early Australian explorers, interviews with Aboriginal elders and documented research from multiple academic sources would seem to disprove your theory that it is 'entirely fictitious'. Pascoe's ancestry has also been confirmed by four different sources at last count.
Pascoe's ancestry has also been confirmed by four different sources at last count.
Be elders who literally just said "yeh we believe him/accept him as an Aboriginal"
And it's been denounced by dozens more. What's your point?
I really enjoyed this book. It is contentious but don't let the early commentators put you off by quoting the 15% of Amazon readers who didn't find it credible.
Do you believe this guys claims?
How can some random guy, 200+ years late, come up with theories like this out of the blue? Absolutely no factual historical evidence of anything he has claims. Including from any aboriginal in any recent times?
It actually damages aboriginal past heritage and culture.
Dan unless you are a 200 year old indigenous australian I get the sneaking suspicion that you aren't a great source of information on the subject yourself, by your own rules.
So…the records he cites - all primary sources from people who were there at the time - don't actually exist? The well-known historical figures who created those records are actually made up? They didn't actually write the words he quotes? Which is it?
(profanity) hell mate making it out like you actually care about protecting aboriginal heritage and culture - meanwhile your comments and 'sources' work to perpetuate racist attitudes towards Aboriginal people and culture.
perpetuate racist attitudes towards Aboriginal people and culture.
Where have I done that ?
Oh Dark Emu, this should be good.
Breakfast popcorn at the ready.
Not everyone agrees with this as a history, or the author's heritage - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXLx_9MpV80
The issue is the reaction is to attack his heritage (which he claims is wonky) as a way of nullifying the book's contents.
Demonstrating my point perfectly.
who's written that blog? seems to be anonymous.
@gazer: From the comments it appears to be a 'team'
australianhistory972829073
November 25, 2019 at 5:10 pm
Don’t be so racist Roy. This is not an aberration, it is a group of people who dislike liars, questioning a white man for pretending to be a black man. A white man who competes against the Aboriginal people, taking prizes and cash awards intended for Indigenous writers. Pascoe has no Tasmanian Aboriginal blood. He also knows that. We have also discovered that he has no Yuin blood either, at least that’s what the Yuin mob have told us. He claims Queensland links too, but we have heard from some of them that they don’t know him either. His paperwork shows him to have completely English heritage, unless one or two of his grannies had flings with Aboriginal men. Who is the disgusting white trash? Pascoe, or the white members of our research team? What about our team members who also have Aboriginal blood, and family? I suppose they are coconuts?
This book suffers from the classic case of wanting something to be true then setting off in search of anything that could be construed as backing up your theory while ignoring anything that doesn't, even if it is from the same source.
If you enjoy this kind of book might I recommend 1421: The Year China Discovered the World. In which Gavin Menzies tells the tale of the time China amassed a huge fleet of giant ships (true) and circumnavigated the world (Menzies reaching).
Or just watch any Mike Moore "documentary".
That book is referenced in Dark Emu. I only just finished listening to Dark Emu yesterday.
Thanks OP, I'll pick up a copy so I can read it when international travel is back on. Been planning to go to Wakanda!
I have no opinion either way on this book and haven't read it, but can one of the detractors post a serious source for the controversy around it that isn't an Amazon user review or the ahem Bolt Report? Genuinely curious to know if its considered non-credible, outside of the usual shock-jock and basement-dweller crowd.
Also curious to read some of this critique, particularly from the Aboriginal side and more trusted news sources.
There's plenty of it from Sky News.
Im Aboriginal and work in native title. I've had chats about it with some elders and anthropologists and they highly regard it. Some have some small niggles about research (but anthropologists is research nerds).
Or, you know, I could be trying to be 'woke' because I'm trying to impress people on the internet.
@SirFlibbled: I too have spoken to a couple of Aboriginals in my local community and they think this guy is a fraud and his book damages their true history which they are proud of!
Your buddy Murdoch talked about it also.
It is a book that has attracted controversy. Isn't that reason enough to read it, digest the information presented, and make your own determination?
That is why I read so much; it stimulates the brain.
I enjoyed this book immensely (I read the second version with the additional information and references; not sure which version was for sale here).
I have no specific knowledge to support or disprove the contents of the book.
BTW, I (only very) occasionally have a look at the latest assertions from people such as Bolt, Hanson, etc. I do that so that I have an awareness of alternate views.
Comment on the Author (just sharing not taking sides so hold that downvote button) https://australianhistory972829073.wordpress.com/2019/10/23/…
While I agree that it's disingenuous to claim to have aboriginal heritage when you don't, I also think that the point is moot because really, what secret information does he have access to that a non-indigenous person doesn't? And yes, I do realize Bruce also uses it as leverage to his claims.
If what this blogger says is likely true, then what? Does he throw his hands up and exclaim "Aha! He's not aboriginal therefore everything else he writes is bogus!"
It seems like a strange attack angle to try and take down his credibility.
I read the book when it first came out but I have forgotten a lot of it so I might have to pick it up again. I didn't even realize it was controversial! I'm impartial to either side at this point but I will read over the blog entry later also.
Perfectly said.
what secret information does he have access to that a non-indigenous person doesn't? And yes, I do realize Bruce also uses it as leverage to his claims.
Oh wow, this Wordpress blog is…just insane. Just spent 30 mins there because its fascinating. Go to the states tabs and the author has seemingly made up hundreds of deaths (all of white people by natives) with crazy descriptions like "Had native woman and two “boys” on boat. One tomahawked him from behind as he read the bible to the woman." Mental. And then you go to check the source and its almost always a link to the same "letters to the editor column" from 200 years ago with no mention of the incident.
I hope more people read your comment carl….
might want to re-reead Carls post because hes not exactly supportive of your side of the argument mate.
can't see that anyone is willing to be identified as the author or writer of that site…. so necessarily have to read it with a giant cube of salt. anonymous cloaked opinion - how fun is that!
Come on man, that's just Andrew Bolt again. That's twice now. As mentioned, I'd like to see something that avoids the shock jocks and crazies.
Don't worry, I'm not sitting on my ass and asking you to do all the work. I'm searching for something too.
There isn't much on the Internet about this book other than the people who talk it up.
I'm in no way gaining anything from disagreeing with this book, I have heard first hand from aboriginals who think this book is absolute junk!
Cool thanks. Obviously, an anecdotal, third-hand sentence on the internet isn't quite what I was looking for.
@carlscott1982: This was posted below, but it's the most balanced look at this topic I reckon: https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/russell-marks/2020/05/202…
So on one hand, people shouldn't dismiss all of the authors claims 'just because he's not Aboriginal'
but… we should ignore Bolt's claims because he's a 'crazie'?
I'm no Bolt lover but to think you'll ever read anything unbiased in the news these days is pretty crazy itself - everyone has their point they are trying to push.
(Re-read what I wrote above and swap the names to make yourself happy).
It's ALL information… all different pieces of the truth puzzle.
ABC will say some valid things (and add it's own spin) and Bolt will say some valid things (and add his own spin).
You should take it all in, both ABC and Bolt, the truth will be somewhere in there.
(Now watch this perfectly balanced and neutral call to reason post get downvoted).
Only one group of people would down vote this…
Can you guess who?
(Also waits for the down votes from the same group of people)
@Danstar: What. The people above a literally asking for a more balanced source, one that considers both the position that you seem completely entrenched in and the opposing position that other people are completely entrenched in. They’re taking a more objective view of the issue than you - they want to understand both sides of the debate rather than defaulting mindlessly to one end of the spectrum.
Andrew Bolt, are you serious? The only thing I've seen of his was his review on Michaels Moore Planet of the Humans and it was HORRIBLE.
Thanks OP. Had a copy digitally but would be nice to have a 'pass to friends copy' (or three).
There is a reason this is $4
False stories created by a non-aboriginal trying to cash in and pollute Australian history.
There are many aboriginals who are quite outraged by this guy and his "book"
One of the reviews sums it up better than I can