There has never been any claim made that Bruce Pascoe is a historian, Steele correctly identifies him as a generalists. Pascoe is more enthusiastic about Aboriginal farming than I am. Although in his book 'Dark Emu' (recommended reading for several people here) he makes a number of valid points, and does offer evidence in the form of European accounts of Aboriginal husbandry. To what extent, and for what period, did indigenous people engage in some forms of basic "farming", is hard to say. There is no question in my mind that Aboriginal people were predominantly hunter/gathers, but not totally as Pascoe correctly asserts.

The reason people like Bolt and others want to denigrate Pascoe's work, and Pascoe himself, is not because it may not be true, but because it may give Aboriginal people more authority and legitimacy over the land than these types want to admit to. That is why they want to make it a right/left debate, rather that a historical or general argument.

Pascoe's hotly contested conjectures are being taught as unquestioned history in schools, and that's why it's become a right/left thing Paul1405. Otherwise it would all be a harmless bit of fun, like Pascoe appropriating aboriginality and gaining indigenous awards.

The propagation of Pascoe's conjectures, without question, suits the left's agenda, which is to form a basis for handing sovereignty of Australia to its pre-colonial race of inhabitants because they existed on this vast continent, but not the right's agenda that opposes sovereignty while supporting native-title and land-rights provisions ceding huge tracts of the continent to aborigines.

This is barely a revelation.

Paul,

"There has never been any claim made that Bruce Pascoe is a historian,..."

Come off it!!

Just Google "Pascoe the historian" or similar and up comes opinions that he is an historian.

Further to reading "Dark Emu", frankly I couldn't get into it, having read millions of words written by undergraduates I found his style boring and can only think that the award was on political grounds.

Sorry chaps, but thats my honest opinion of Pascoe's work, boring, ill written, repetitious and fanciful.

Dear Is Mise,

You write; "Sorry chaps, but thats(sic) my honest opinion of Pascoe's work, boring, ill written, repetitious and fanciful."

Well that is a walk back from earlier claims and is a naked attempt to insulate yourself to a degree from having to cough up concrete examples isn't it.

Ah well, progress of a kind I suppose.

Steele,

As I wrote earlier, I'll read the book in its entirety (force myself in fact) when I get the chance to buy a copy in the OpShop or a remainders sale.
I won't use/deface a library book as I like to highlight relevant portions and write notes in the text, margins etc., by the time I've reviewed a book it's not fit for general reading.

Don't get sic (sic).

Dear Lucifrase,

These are not “hotly contested conjectures” except by more or less a few far right morons with agendas.

People like Bolt is an example. He wrote;

“his book claims Aborigines were not what historians have said — primitive hunter-gatherers — but sophisticated farmers in towns of up to 1000 people. “

The figure of 1000 people doesn't even exist in the book which Bolt proudly states he has never read.

Have you read it?

Dear Is Mise,

You write;

“when I get the chance to buy a copy in the OpShop or a remainders sale.”

Well you might be waiting a while. I purchased two for Christmas presents and paid the same price I did a year ago. It is hugely successful with 3 reprint runs in 2014, 2 in 2015, 7 in 2016, 3 in 2017 and 2 in 2018 when I purchased mine. I suspect there has been a few since.

As to “(sic)” I was making the point that someone claiming that someone else's work is poorly written should make an effort to make sure their own is up to scratch.