SR,

How many times does it take to get through your thick skull that it was treated as an academic paper. Just read Foxy's links it was on the basis of this that he was appointed to academic positions at Melbourne Uni.

This book was also described as a work of nonfiction when it clearly was fictional.

Foxy,
You forgot to mention that he unjustifiably claims to be an Aboriginal

Now if I was to identify as such would you believe me?

Is Mise,

I would believe you - if you met the 3 criterias that are
required, as Bruce Pascoe does.

Back in 2019, SR was telling the late Loudmouth...
"You claim; "And he fabricates quotes from those early observers' notebooks. They did not write what he says they did."
Absolute crock of dog's vomit. Name one single instance of him fabricating anything in his book Dark Emu.
Have you read the thing either? Or are you another mindless parrot?
Just one single fabrication, that's all."

Now that myriad fabrications have been revealed, SR suddenly decides that its OK for Pascoe to make it up because his book wasn't an academic work.

It must be nice to have opinions that are so flexible that they can fit whatever is needed in the moment.

"If this is the standard of 'debunking' in the rest of the critique then Pascoe has little to be worried about."

Well its pretty clear that poor old SR just doesn't understand the issue here. Pascoe was trying to prove that aboriginals lived in permanent settlements. That's why he deleted the last part of Sturt's observation. It shows that this wasn't a permanent settlement. Pascoe was 'adjusting' quotes to suit his agenda. A search for the truth it wasn't.

But then those who fell for Pascoe's rubbish weren't interested in a search for the truth either.

Just a bit more on Sturt and those 'huts'.

If you read Sturt (well not you SR, but someone interested in the truth) you see him talking a bit about these 'huts'. But they weren't huts as we currently understand the term, more like what we'd call, these days, lean-to's - a couple of branches as uprights and bark attached for a bit of shelter. Sturt talks about how inadequate they were against any sort of inclement weather. Indeed he marvels that the natives remained in these constructions in the rain when they provided almost no protection from the rain.

Sutton talks about the problems with language and how the early Europeans, not having a term for the aboriginal 'dwellings' and tools, gave them names which rather over-stated their efficacy. So he calls lean-too's huts and then this is manipulated by those of a certain type to imply a permanent structure.

Sturt calling these lean-to's 'huts' gives us an overstated impression as to just how primitive they really were.

As I've stated, I was urging, back in 2019, anyone interested in the truth rather than Pascoe's fabrications, to read Sturt. There are any number of original sources that reveal the true nature of pre-European aboriginal 'culture', but I think Sturt is the best. It seems Sutton/Walshe agree.

Unfortunately, the search for truth is no longer a primary concern for many. The debate is about current politics, not the facts of the past. For too many, the facts of the past must be 'massaged' to suit the needs of the present.

Orwell nailed it...“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

Foxy,
“He considers himself of Aboriginal ancestry, he has
records to prove it, and he is accepted by his
community as being Aboriginal.”

Fair enough, pity that he hasn’t shewn anyone, just maybe he cannot