‘Thank you, Bruce’, ‘Thank you, David’: your letters on Dark Emu

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.