The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Bruce Pascoe’s ‘Dark Emu’’ debunked

Bruce Pascoe’s ‘Dark Emu’’ debunked

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 31
  12. 32
  13. 33
  14. All
Is Mise,

Are you seriously asking me where Pascoe's
records are for his Aboriginality?

Write and ask him yourself.

All I can tell you is that as it stands, Bruce Pascoe is
undoubtedly Aboriginal.

1) He identifies as Indigenous.
2) Maintains that he has in his possession documents
that confer he is of Aboriginal descent.
3) And that he is acknowledged and vouched for by
senior Yuin lore men.

By those measures Bruce Pascoe satisfies the criteria
of the official government definition of Aboriginality.

I have nothing further to add.
You could do your own research.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 14 June 2021 3:14:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

What about the dinky-die Aborigines who do
recognise Bruce Pascoe as being Aboriginal?

People like Ken Wyatt, Marcia Langton, and
quite a few others?
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 14 June 2021 3:18:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Of course I’m not asking you, I full well know that. Pascoe’s ancestral records are in the various State BD&M records.
Anyone can get certified true copies and a number of people have done so.

Pascoe seems to be the only person who doesn’t want to see them.

Thanks for the heads up on The Colonial Kangaroo Hunt, a laugh a minute in what I read of it; great illustrations though.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 14 June 2021 4:51:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm tired of hearing rubbish about the level of trade in pre-European Australia being significant. It is plain to anyone who can think that trade of the nomadic* aboriginal tribes was very limited. Why?

Well that's because they never invented the wheel nor were any of the native animals useful as beasts of burden, so every thing that they owned had to be carried. This severely limits what you can own. Consider the modern soldier and the weight of his kit as an example of what it is possible for someone to carry over long distances- for them it tops out at about 50kg. And that's for the fittest (as in an SAS soldier's level of fitness) with the advantage of modern ergonomic backpacks made of advanced materials.

Now obviously you can't trade much if you don't own much. Compare that to modern society where most individuals own hundreds or thousands of items which amounts to *TONS* of stuff. We can own so much because we have a very well developed legal concept of ownership that is protected by the force of the government and we don't have to personally carry it all wherever we go.

But it doesn't end there. Our modern extremely complex society (when compared to pre-European Australian societies) is composed of many diverse groupings of people, and groupings of groupings of people, and groupings of groupings of groupings of people, etc. All these groups can own stuff (eg: groups such as business partnerships, companies, clubs, charities, religious organizations, government organizations, etc.). And all this stuff can be traded.

-- continued below ---
Posted by thinkabit, Monday, 14 June 2021 5:15:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
-- from above --

But wait there's more! Compared to the original aborigines we have developed very advanced concepts. Such as our our number systems, monetary systems and the advanced concept of ownership of non-tangibles such as inventions and other intellectual property (stories, designs, software, etc.). Because this ownership is well defined and understood, it allows us to trade these things: we're not limited to just trading physical items or interpersonal services like the aboriginals did. Indeed, today we can even trade something as intangible as a bet, but not just bets: we can trade a bet that is about a bet that is about a bet. And in the financial world these "bets about a bet" are called derivatives and we trade them to the tune of billions and billions and billions of dollars a day!

*: note that this argument about carrying what you own applies to nomadic aboriginal tribes- which covers large swathes of Australia (especially the desert/semi-arid areas). Some tribes did have semi-settled/permanent lifestyles but compared to modern lifestyles they didn't own much and consequently didn't trade much.
Posted by thinkabit, Monday, 14 June 2021 5:16:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I (Is Mise) do have a copy of the book (of course you do), I have tried to read it but it is so boring that I always give up."

That's understandable Issy, the book tends to appeal to those of use with more than a third grade intellect. Besides, there are no pics, like in your Micky Mouse comics. I can see why you wouldn't want to "read" it.

No comment on all that knuckle dragging rubbish posted on the SSAA website? What sort of a Galah would reads that garbage. Its all been debunked by experts.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 14 June 2021 5:28:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 31
  12. 32
  13. 33
  14. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy