A tale of two books - Book 1

Stu Pocknee

10 Feb 2023

writing , general , Dark Emu , indigenous affairs

Book 1: Dark Emu by Bruce Pascoe
Book 2: Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate by Peter Sutton and Keryn Walshe

"Dark Emu"

I was this many years old when I discovered the book "Dark Emu" by Bruce Pascoe.

First published in 2014, it is a work that challenges the conventional narrative of pre-colonial Australia. It argues that Aboriginals were not nomadic hunters and gatherers, but sophisticated farmers and builders. Numerous historical sources, including the journals and diaries of early European explorers, are cited to support the remarkable thesis.

Pascoe argues that the conventional historical narrative has been based on a misunderstanding of the early European explorers' observations and a tendency to dismiss Indigenous knowledge and expertise. He claims extensive systems of agriculture, aquaculture, and construction existed in pre-colonial Australia, thereby challenging the idea that Indigenous people lived a "primitive" lifestyle and were passive in their relationship with the land.

"Dark Emu" has been widely acclaimed for its groundbreaking research and for bringing to light a hidden history of Australia's Indigenous people. The book has received multiple prizes and has been a best-seller in Australia. It has sold over 250,000 copies.

Dark Emu is a profound challenge to conventional thinking about Aboriginal life on this continent. [Bruce Pascoe] details the Aboriginal economy and analyses the historical data showing that our societies were not simple hunter-gatherer economies but sophisticated, with farming and irrigation practices. This is the most important book on Australia and should be read by every Australian. – Marcia Langton, The Australian

As someone interested in history, agriculture, and Australia this book is right up my alley. Yet I only found it by accident, while researching my post on the Uluru Statement From The Heart (USFTH).

One of the controversies around the USFTH is the issue of defining Australian indigeneity. Suffice to say, the name of Bruce Pascoe tends to feature prominently in related commentary¹ ² ³.

It's a short hop on the interwebs from the topic of Bruce's heritage, to terms like hoax ⁴ ⁵ and controversy ⁶ in relation to his most famous book.

Obviously I could not resist borrowing it from the local library.

I wish I could have read it before being exposed to its critics. I would have liked to have known my unbiased and independent reaction to it. Would I too have been played for a sucker?

After reading about half of it, I swapped to skim mode and rapidly closed it out. I had seen enough. Life is short, and I only have so much tolerance for bullshit 💩.

"Dark Emu" is a sort of masterclass in the abuse of the methods of scholarly discourse. It is written in the style of many academic texts, making exhaustive use of quoted sources, excerpts, and references. It includes an endnotes section and an extensive bibliography. They are all just theatre. If I can misquote Andrew Lang I would say "[Pascoe] uses [them] as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination."⁷ They are there, not to guide and inform the author or reader, but to wrap the authors preconceptions in a veneer of historic and academic credibility.

I don't have to document the amateurish factual errors, the misrepresentations of sources, the ludicrous extrapolations, or the omissions of relevant bodies of work etc. Book 2 in this series of posts does an excellent job of that.

"Dark Emu" offends me for two reasons.

It's misrepresentation of the pre-colonial indigenous culture of this nation is insulting to all the people of this nation. What will be the impact when his readership realize they've been misled? Will they be so ready to accept and embrace the next genuine work that is created in support of our First Nations Peoples, or will they be cynically close-minded?
The abuse of trust inherent in masquerading this book as a serious work of scholarship (either by Pascoe or his supporters) is deplorable. We live in a world already beset by kneejerk skepticism of academics and subject experts. The "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" ⁸ crowd need no more grist for their mill.

Three things interest me about this book.

1. The man himself

What were Bruce Pascoe's motivations in writing this book? What makes him tick? I'd love to hear a psychologist's opinion. Is he driven by the need for recognition or belonging? Coming late to his supposed heritage, is there a desire to prove his worth by contributing in (what he sees as) a positive way?

He seems serenely unconcerned about the criticism of his book. His attitude, as I understand it, is "Isn't it lovely that I have inspired new interest in indigenous culture...".⁹ It is as if, after you replace stolen items, the thief expects gratitude because you now have new ones.

Pascoe is shrewd. I can see in him something of the old-time carny. He’s a spruiker in a travelling medicine show. He is a conjurer. Pascoe invites people to disbelieve their eyes. The white man vanishes and behold, the black man appears. It doesn’t work on Aboriginal people; we’ve seen it before. He seeks – and receives in some quarters – a black imprimatur. But he knows he has nothing new to reveal to us. This is an illusion for a white audience. Crucially, the conjurer is not a conman. Pascoe is not deceiving his audience. Far from it. They believe because they want to believe.
-- Stan Grant ¹⁰ (emphasis added)

This is one of the most damning descriptions of Pascoe I have seen. Yet Grant delivers it in praise of Pascoe. His astoundingly illogical conclusion is that Pascoe's deceptions are not lies as long as his audience wants to believe his lies. Despite Grant's claim to "have seen it before" he seems to become an unwitting accomplice to the con.

2. His paying audience

Why has this book been so successful?

Having spent my career in the agricultural industry I can confidently say that farming is not a topic that readily excites the popular imagination. Even less so historical agriculture. The marginalization of rural industries in our increasingly urban society might have actually helped this book. Fewer than ever Australians are now well equipped to innately understand farming, its resource and cultural requirements, and the signature effects it scribes into a landscape. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have a hard time seeing any of my farming friends being susceptible to Bruce's fairy tales.

Another factor might be the innately controversial nature of the subject. That always sells. But even a popular niche is still only a niche.

Much is made of Pascoe's "engaging and accessible" writing style. I don't see it myself. There is an off-putting slyness to his composition. He builds a case using his (questionable) evidence, but is not content to allow you to follow the dots. Like an overbearing salesman, he must always hover close by, ready to shepherd and interpret to ensure the correct conclusions are drawn ¹¹.

It seems most logical to me that "Dark Emu"'s popularity stems from a growing interest in Indigenous history and culture. Understanding and celebrating the rich cultural heritage of Indigenous Australians has become fashionable amongst the high minded and good willed ¹². This is the blithely gullible "They believe because they want to believe" audience Stan Grant refers to above. Through good management or good luck, Pascoe has caught this wave.

3. Book 2

"Dark Emu" is a book that will literally make you dumber for having read it. And yet, I personally can thank it for one thing: it led me to the second book in this two part series.