Australian Politics Forum - Dark Emu debunked

Valkie

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16142
Central Coast
Gender: male

Re: Dark Emu debunked
Reply #210 - Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:43am

Lies, fiction and fabrication still being taught.

No wonder our kids a slipping further and further behind

Quote:

Gillard’s education legacy a disaster

DESPITE nearly $60 billion of your money spent on them every year, our students’ academic performance against their peers from other countries has been plummeting for years based on standardised tests.

As well, the marks required to enter teaching degrees are way lower than the marks required to enter almost all other professional degrees. Then there’s the politically correct insistence, brought in by Julia Gillard when education minister, that every single subject, from French to physics to PE, be taught from an Indigenous, Asian or sustainability perspective – under the national curriculum – which shows what the educational establishment really thinks about our Judaeo-Christian ethic and the way our country has developed.

And despite being exposed this week as largely fabricated, Bruce Pascoe’s book Dark Emu looks likely to remain a fixture in classrooms and school libraries across the country.

Liberal and National NSW MPs last week voted down Mark Latham’s bill to remove it from schools, even though a new academic study says that it’s “poorly researched”, “distorts and exaggerates many old sources”, “contains a large number of factual errors”, and “selects evidence to suit the author’s opinions and ignores large bodies of information that do not”.

How is it that our schools are full of politically correct fiction masquerading as fact even after a decade of supposedly conservative government in NSW and eight years in Canberra? Essentially ministers are too timid or too ignorant to do their job.

So here’s something that should give some power back to parents and grandparents and won’t cost the taxpayer anything. Let’s mandate that every school publish on its website all its reading lists plus course materials too.

It’s all documented anyway, so why shouldn’t we be able to see it?

Back to top

I HAVE A DREAM
A WONDERFUL, PEACEFUL, BEAUTIFUL DREAM.
A DREAM OF A WORLD THAT HAS NEVER KNOWN ISLAM
A DREAM OF A WORLD FREE FROM THE HORRORS OF ISLAM.

SUCH A WONDERFUL DREAM
O HOW I WISH IT WERE TRU

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59393
Here
Gender: male

Re: Dark Emu debunked
Reply #211 - Jun 27^th, 2021 at 7:50pm

Frank wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 3:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 3:00pm:

still nothing that argues against Pascoe's quoting of the journals of the early explorers/settlers where they describe encountering fields of native foods.

In page after page, Sutton and Walshe accuse Pascoe of a “lack of true scholarship”, ignoring Aboriginal voices, dragging respect for traditional Aboriginal culture back into the Eurocentric world of the colonial era, and “trimming” colonial observations to fit his argument. They write that while Dark Emu “purports to be factual” it is “littered with unsourced material, is poorly researched, distorts and exaggerates many points, selectively emphasises evidence to suit those opinions, and ignores large bodies of information that do not support the author’s opinions”.

“It is actually not, properly considered, a work of scholarship,” they write. “Its success as a narrative has been achieved in spite of its failure as an account of fact.”

Pascoe has removed significant passages from publications that contradict his major objectives. This boosts his contention that all along Aboriginal people were farmers and/or aquaculturalists.

One example concerns Pascoe’s quoting of the journal entries of the explorer Charles Sturt. Sutton writes:

Sturt is quoted [by Pascoe] on his party’s discovery of a large well and ‘village’ of 19 huts somewhere north of Lake Torrens in South Australia.

Pascoe’s edit of Sturt’s original 1849 text breathes oxygen into Dark Emu’s polemical edge. It’s misleading at best. For Sturt’s diary reveals Aboriginal people didn’t live in “houses” in any single site all year round.

Such accounts destabilise Pascoe’s argument, reinforced by ethnographic, colonial, and archaeological records.

Pascoe records Mitchell’s astonishment on coming upon a large, deserted village during his Australia Felix expedition, which he estimated housed “over 1000” people. This, says Sutton, is “pure fiction”. “All Mitchell says is that his party ‘noticed some of their huts’; there is no mention of anyone counting anything.” Pascoe then quotes a member of Mitchell’s party, Granville Stapylton, as saying that the buildings “were of very large dimensions, one capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction”. But he omits Stapylton’s speculation that this was “the work of a white man”, probably the runaway convict William Buckley, who lived with the Wathaurong people for three decades.

Pascoe cites no Aboriginal sources and there are no Aboriginal lingustic features to support his claims. People practicing agriculture have words for the activity. No Aboriginal language has such linguistic features.

Quote:

Pascoe then quotes a member of Mitchell’s party, Granville Stapylton, as saying that the buildings “were of very large dimensions, one capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction”. But he omits Stapylton’s speculation that this was “the work of a white man”, probably the runaway convict William Buckley, who lived with the Wathaurong people for three decades.

???

Does this make a point that is relevant ?

I would think that irrespective of who done the actual building that 19 large built structures accommodating up to 40 people each would ask the question about the need for this capacity and purpose the construction time, the need for extended accommodation etc ? It does suggest well over 100 people living in a stable environment for not a short period.

The very point used to make the emu look less credible askes significant questions that do not damage the Emu's conclusions.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96736

Re: Dark Emu debunked
Reply #212 - Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:43pm

Gnads wrote on Jun 25^th, 2021 at 9:01am:

Karnal wrote on Jun 24^th, 2021 at 11:29pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jun 24^th, 2021 at 10:58am:

Well - look at the insanity that passes for discussion here - if you so much as criticise Dark Emu or similar you are a racist White Supremacist who attacks poor oppressed Kooners and, by inference, every other ethnic group ...

Look at the way your Wogs and Mussos and dopey unthinking sheilas all side with Abos in their 'Cause' - and thus with all these other Fifth Column dissident groups - all operating on the assumption that the enemy of their chosen enemy - the Old White Men and The Patriarchy - is the friend of themselves.... when nothing could be further from the truth, and what they are all doing is supporting the most oppressive and patriarchal societal structures in this world.

You can teach monkeys to fly - you can't teach a fool beyond what he/she will accept.

Oh? Are you saying you're not a racist white supremacist?

Please explain.

And what are you?

Just a glib Patong Arse Bandit?

a simple yes or no will suffice.

You really don't want to say, do you?

1. Grappler
2. Matty
3. Poor old Agatha

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96736

Re: Dark Emu debunked
Reply #213 - Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:46pm

Dnarever wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 7:50pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 3:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 3:00pm:

still nothing that argues against Pascoe's quoting of the journals of the early explorers/settlers where they describe encountering fields of native foods.

In page after page, Sutton and Walshe accuse Pascoe of a “lack of true scholarship”, ignoring Aboriginal voices, dragging respect for traditional Aboriginal culture back into the Eurocentric world of the colonial era, and “trimming” colonial observations to fit his argument. They write that while Dark Emu “purports to be factual” it is “littered with unsourced material, is poorly researched, distorts and exaggerates many points, selectively emphasises evidence to suit those opinions, and ignores large bodies of information that do not support the author’s opinions”.

“It is actually not, properly considered, a work of scholarship,” they write. “Its success as a narrative has been achieved in spite of its failure as an account of fact.”

Pascoe has removed significant passages from publications that contradict his major objectives. This boosts his contention that all along Aboriginal people were farmers and/or aquaculturalists.

One example concerns Pascoe’s quoting of the journal entries of the explorer Charles Sturt. Sutton writes:

Sturt is quoted [by Pascoe] on his party’s discovery of a large well and ‘village’ of 19 huts somewhere north of Lake Torrens in South Australia.

Pascoe’s edit of Sturt’s original 1849 text breathes oxygen into Dark Emu’s polemical edge. It’s misleading at best. For Sturt’s diary reveals Aboriginal people didn’t live in “houses” in any single site all year round.

Such accounts destabilise Pascoe’s argument, reinforced by ethnographic, colonial, and archaeological records.

Pascoe records Mitchell’s astonishment on coming upon a large, deserted village during his Australia Felix expedition, which he estimated housed “over 1000” people. This, says Sutton, is “pure fiction”. “All Mitchell says is that his party ‘noticed some of their huts’; there is no mention of anyone counting anything.” Pascoe then quotes a member of Mitchell’s party, Granville Stapylton, as saying that the buildings “were of very large dimensions, one capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction”. But he omits Stapylton’s speculation that this was “the work of a white man”, probably the runaway convict William Buckley, who lived with the Wathaurong people for three decades.

Pascoe cites no Aboriginal sources and there are no Aboriginal lingustic features to support his claims. People practicing agriculture have words for the activity. No Aboriginal language has such linguistic features.

Quote:

Pascoe then quotes a member of Mitchell’s party, Granville Stapylton, as saying that the buildings “were of very large dimensions, one capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction”. But he omits Stapylton’s speculation that this was “the work of a white man”, probably the runaway convict William Buckley, who lived with the Wathaurong people for three decades.

???

Does this make a point that is relevant ?

I would think that irrespective of who done the actual building that 19 large built structures accommodating up to 40 people each would ask the question about the need for this capacity and purpose the construction time, the need for extended accommodation etc ? It does suggest well over 100 people living in a stable environment for not a short period.

The very point used to make the emu look less credible askes significant questions that do not damage the Emu's conclusions.

That's a discussion, Dnarever. Expect to be offered a banana.

Back to top

IP Logged

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: Dark Emu debunked
Reply #214 - Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:51pm

Dnarever wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 7:50pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 3:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 3:00pm:

still nothing that argues against Pascoe's quoting of the journals of the early explorers/settlers where they describe encountering fields of native foods.

In page after page, Sutton and Walshe accuse Pascoe of a “lack of true scholarship”, ignoring Aboriginal voices, dragging respect for traditional Aboriginal culture back into the Eurocentric world of the colonial era, and “trimming” colonial observations to fit his argument. They write that while Dark Emu “purports to be factual” it is “littered with unsourced material, is poorly researched, distorts and exaggerates many points, selectively emphasises evidence to suit those opinions, and ignores large bodies of information that do not support the author’s opinions”.

“It is actually not, properly considered, a work of scholarship,” they write. “Its success as a narrative has been achieved in spite of its failure as an account of fact.”

Pascoe has removed significant passages from publications that contradict his major objectives. This boosts his contention that all along Aboriginal people were farmers and/or aquaculturalists.

One example concerns Pascoe’s quoting of the journal entries of the explorer Charles Sturt. Sutton writes:

Sturt is quoted [by Pascoe] on his party’s discovery of a large well and ‘village’ of 19 huts somewhere north of Lake Torrens in South Australia.

Pascoe’s edit of Sturt’s original 1849 text breathes oxygen into Dark Emu’s polemical edge. It’s misleading at best. For Sturt’s diary reveals Aboriginal people didn’t live in “houses” in any single site all year round.

Such accounts destabilise Pascoe’s argument, reinforced by ethnographic, colonial, and archaeological records.

Pascoe records Mitchell’s astonishment on coming upon a large, deserted village during his Australia Felix expedition, which he estimated housed “over 1000” people. This, says Sutton, is “pure fiction”. “All Mitchell says is that his party ‘noticed some of their huts’; there is no mention of anyone counting anything.” Pascoe then quotes a member of Mitchell’s party, Granville Stapylton, as saying that the buildings “were of very large dimensions, one capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction”. But he omits Stapylton’s speculation that this was “the work of a white man”, probably the runaway convict William Buckley, who lived with the Wathaurong people for three decades.

Pascoe cites no Aboriginal sources and there are no Aboriginal lingustic features to support his claims. People practicing agriculture have words for the activity. No Aboriginal language has such linguistic features.

Quote:

Pascoe then quotes a member of Mitchell’s party, Granville Stapylton, as saying that the buildings “were of very large dimensions, one capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction”. But he omits Stapylton’s speculation that this was “the work of a white man”, probably the runaway convict William Buckley, who lived with the Wathaurong people for three decades.

???

Does this make a point that is relevant ?

I would think that irrespective of who done the actual building that 19 large built structures accommodating up to 40 people each would ask the question about the need for this capacity and purpose the construction time, the need for extended accommodation etc ? It does suggest well over 100 people living in a stable environment for not a short period.

The very point used to make the emu look less credible askes significant questions that do not damage the Emu's conclusions.

You don't think the fact the huts were built by a white man is relevant? Can any point possibly be relevant in your estimation?

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59393
Here
Gender: male

Re: Dark Emu debunked
Reply #215 - Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:56pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 7:50pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 3:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 3:00pm:

still nothing that argues against Pascoe's quoting of the journals of the early explorers/settlers where they describe encountering fields of native foods.

In page after page, Sutton and Walshe accuse Pascoe of a “lack of true scholarship”, ignoring Aboriginal voices, dragging respect for traditional Aboriginal culture back into the Eurocentric world of the colonial era, and “trimming” colonial observations to fit his argument. They write that while Dark Emu “purports to be factual” it is “littered with unsourced material, is poorly researched, distorts and exaggerates many points, selectively emphasises evidence to suit those opinions, and ignores large bodies of information that do not support the author’s opinions”.

“It is actually not, properly considered, a work of scholarship,” they write. “Its success as a narrative has been achieved in spite of its failure as an account of fact.”

Pascoe has removed significant passages from publications that contradict his major objectives. This boosts his contention that all along Aboriginal people were farmers and/or aquaculturalists.

One example concerns Pascoe’s quoting of the journal entries of the explorer Charles Sturt. Sutton writes:

Sturt is quoted [by Pascoe] on his party’s discovery of a large well and ‘village’ of 19 huts somewhere north of Lake Torrens in South Australia.

Pascoe’s edit of Sturt’s original 1849 text breathes oxygen into Dark Emu’s polemical edge. It’s misleading at best. For Sturt’s diary reveals Aboriginal people didn’t live in “houses” in any single site all year round.

Such accounts destabilise Pascoe’s argument, reinforced by ethnographic, colonial, and archaeological records.

Pascoe records Mitchell’s astonishment on coming upon a large, deserted village during his Australia Felix expedition, which he estimated housed “over 1000” people. This, says Sutton, is “pure fiction”. “All Mitchell says is that his party ‘noticed some of their huts’; there is no mention of anyone counting anything.” Pascoe then quotes a member of Mitchell’s party, Granville Stapylton, as saying that the buildings “were of very large dimensions, one capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction”. But he omits Stapylton’s speculation that this was “the work of a white man”, probably the runaway convict William Buckley, who lived with the Wathaurong people for three decades.

Pascoe cites no Aboriginal sources and there are no Aboriginal lingustic features to support his claims. People practicing agriculture have words for the activity. No Aboriginal language has such linguistic features.

Quote:

Pascoe then quotes a member of Mitchell’s party, Granville Stapylton, as saying that the buildings “were of very large dimensions, one capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction”. But he omits Stapylton’s speculation that this was “the work of a white man”, probably the runaway convict William Buckley, who lived with the Wathaurong people for three decades.

???

Does this make a point that is relevant ?

I would think that irrespective of who done the actual building that 19 large built structures accommodating up to 40 people each would ask the question about the need for this capacity and purpose the construction time, the need for extended accommodation etc ? It does suggest well over 100 people living in a stable environment for not a short period.

The very point used to make the emu look less credible askes significant questions that do not damage the Emu's conclusions.

You don't think the fact the huts were built by a white man is relevant? Can any point possibly be relevant in your estimation?

Quote:

You don't think the fact the huts were built by a white man is relevant?

It is not that it is the need to provide long term accommodation for several hundred people ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Mr Hammer Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 25212 Gender:	Re: Dark Emu debunked Reply #216 - Jun 27^th, 2021 at 9:00pm Dark Emu is about the lives of Indians before 1788. Huts built by white men don't really count now, do they?
Back to top	IP Logged

Belgarion Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5483 Gender:	Re: Dark Emu debunked Reply #217 - Jun 27^th, 2021 at 9:06pm The Pascoe apologists still cannot accept that they have been taken in by a fraud.
Back to top	"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire.....(possibly) IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 48385
Gender: male

Re: Dark Emu debunked
Reply #218 - Jun 27^th, 2021 at 11:33pm

Dnarever wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:56pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 7:50pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 3:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 3:00pm:

still nothing that argues against Pascoe's quoting of the journals of the early explorers/settlers where they describe encountering fields of native foods.

In page after page, Sutton and Walshe accuse Pascoe of a “lack of true scholarship”, ignoring Aboriginal voices, dragging respect for traditional Aboriginal culture back into the Eurocentric world of the colonial era, and “trimming” colonial observations to fit his argument. They write that while Dark Emu “purports to be factual” it is “littered with unsourced material, is poorly researched, distorts and exaggerates many points, selectively emphasises evidence to suit those opinions, and ignores large bodies of information that do not support the author’s opinions”.

“It is actually not, properly considered, a work of scholarship,” they write. “Its success as a narrative has been achieved in spite of its failure as an account of fact.”

Pascoe has removed significant passages from publications that contradict his major objectives. This boosts his contention that all along Aboriginal people were farmers and/or aquaculturalists.

One example concerns Pascoe’s quoting of the journal entries of the explorer Charles Sturt. Sutton writes:

Sturt is quoted [by Pascoe] on his party’s discovery of a large well and ‘village’ of 19 huts somewhere north of Lake Torrens in South Australia.

Pascoe’s edit of Sturt’s original 1849 text breathes oxygen into Dark Emu’s polemical edge. It’s misleading at best. For Sturt’s diary reveals Aboriginal people didn’t live in “houses” in any single site all year round.

Such accounts destabilise Pascoe’s argument, reinforced by ethnographic, colonial, and archaeological records.

Pascoe records Mitchell’s astonishment on coming upon a large, deserted village during his Australia Felix expedition, which he estimated housed “over 1000” people. This, says Sutton, is “pure fiction”. “All Mitchell says is that his party ‘noticed some of their huts’; there is no mention of anyone counting anything.” Pascoe then quotes a member of Mitchell’s party, Granville Stapylton, as saying that the buildings “were of very large dimensions, one capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction”. But he omits Stapylton’s speculation that this was “the work of a white man”, probably the runaway convict William Buckley, who lived with the Wathaurong people for three decades.

Pascoe cites no Aboriginal sources and there are no Aboriginal lingustic features to support his claims. People practicing agriculture have words for the activity. No Aboriginal language has such linguistic features.

Quote:

Pascoe then quotes a member of Mitchell’s party, Granville Stapylton, as saying that the buildings “were of very large dimensions, one capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction”. But he omits Stapylton’s speculation that this was “the work of a white man”, probably the runaway convict William Buckley, who lived with the Wathaurong people for three decades.

???

Does this make a point that is relevant ?

I would think that irrespective of who done the actual building that 19 large built structures accommodating up to 40 people each would ask the question about the need for this capacity and purpose the construction time, the need for extended accommodation etc ? It does suggest well over 100 people living in a stable environment for not a short period.

The very point used to make the emu look less credible askes significant questions that do not damage the Emu's conclusions.

You don't think the fact the huts were built by a white man is relevant? Can any point possibly be relevant in your estimation?

Quote:

You don't think the fact the huts were built by a white man is relevant?

It is not that it is the need to provide long term accommodation for several hundred people ?

If you could make sense we would all rejoice. Until then we are agast at your incoherence.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85489
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Dark Emu debunked
Reply #219 - Jun 28^th, 2021 at 7:43am

Dnarever wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:56pm:

Quote:

You don't think the fact the huts were built by a white man is relevant?

It is not that it is the need to provide long term accommodation for several hundred people ?

Maybe he viewed it as some kind of hotel for passing groups... another White Man's view that had no reference in the Aboriginal language or approach to life. Maybe they looked askance at this feat of construction and simply shrugged and said: "Why?"

Makes sense to a White Man to have a semi-permanent structure and organised layout (LAYOUT - not LAYABOUT!)
available for every time you came by... easier to build big once than build every time... trouble is - many others would use the wood for fires and the stones for cooking stones or fireplaces for a couple of nights.. I mean... look what happened to the Golden Pyramids of Narromine... pulled down by Whartey to make pig pens and build fireplaces in homesteads and the gold cladding sold off for a few fripperies and demijohns of rum .....

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Valkie

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16142
Central Coast
Gender: male

Re: Dark Emu debunked
Reply #220 - Jun 28^th, 2021 at 8:59am

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jun 28^th, 2021 at 7:43am:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:56pm:

Quote:

You don't think the fact the huts were built by a white man is relevant?

It is not that it is the need to provide long term accommodation for several hundred people ?

Maybe he viewed it as some kind of hotel for passing groups... another White Man's view that had no reference in the Aboriginal language or approach to life. Maybe they looked askance at this feat of construction and simply shrugged and said: "Why?"

Makes sense to a White Man to have a semi-permanent structure and organised layout (LAYOUT - not LAYABOUT!)
available for every time you came by... easier to build big once than build every time... trouble is - many others would use the wood for fires and the stones for cooking stones or fireplaces for a couple of nights.. I mean... look what happened to the Golden Pyramids of Narromine... pulled down by Whartey to make pig pens and build fireplaces in homesteads and the gold cladding sold off for a few fripperies and demijohns of rum .....

Even unto this day, abbos never congregate in large numbers.

Except for footy matches and protests.

Back to top

I HAVE A DREAM
A WONDERFUL, PEACEFUL, BEAUTIFUL DREAM.
A DREAM OF A WORLD THAT HAS NEVER KNOWN ISLAM
A DREAM OF A WORLD FREE FROM THE HORRORS OF ISLAM.

SUCH A WONDERFUL DREAM
O HOW I WISH IT WERE TRU

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96736

Re: Dark Emu debunked
Reply #221 - Jun 28^th, 2021 at 11:13am

Frank wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 11:33pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:56pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 7:50pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 3:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 3:00pm:

still nothing that argues against Pascoe's quoting of the journals of the early explorers/settlers where they describe encountering fields of native foods.

In page after page, Sutton and Walshe accuse Pascoe of a “lack of true scholarship”, ignoring Aboriginal voices, dragging respect for traditional Aboriginal culture back into the Eurocentric world of the colonial era, and “trimming” colonial observations to fit his argument. They write that while Dark Emu “purports to be factual” it is “littered with unsourced material, is poorly researched, distorts and exaggerates many points, selectively emphasises evidence to suit those opinions, and ignores large bodies of information that do not support the author’s opinions”.

“It is actually not, properly considered, a work of scholarship,” they write. “Its success as a narrative has been achieved in spite of its failure as an account of fact.”

Pascoe has removed significant passages from publications that contradict his major objectives. This boosts his contention that all along Aboriginal people were farmers and/or aquaculturalists.

One example concerns Pascoe’s quoting of the journal entries of the explorer Charles Sturt. Sutton writes:

Sturt is quoted [by Pascoe] on his party’s discovery of a large well and ‘village’ of 19 huts somewhere north of Lake Torrens in South Australia.

Pascoe’s edit of Sturt’s original 1849 text breathes oxygen into Dark Emu’s polemical edge. It’s misleading at best. For Sturt’s diary reveals Aboriginal people didn’t live in “houses” in any single site all year round.

Such accounts destabilise Pascoe’s argument, reinforced by ethnographic, colonial, and archaeological records.

Pascoe records Mitchell’s astonishment on coming upon a large, deserted village during his Australia Felix expedition, which he estimated housed “over 1000” people. This, says Sutton, is “pure fiction”. “All Mitchell says is that his party ‘noticed some of their huts’; there is no mention of anyone counting anything.” Pascoe then quotes a member of Mitchell’s party, Granville Stapylton, as saying that the buildings “were of very large dimensions, one capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction”. But he omits Stapylton’s speculation that this was “the work of a white man”, probably the runaway convict William Buckley, who lived with the Wathaurong people for three decades.

Pascoe cites no Aboriginal sources and there are no Aboriginal lingustic features to support his claims. People practicing agriculture have words for the activity. No Aboriginal language has such linguistic features.

Quote:

Pascoe then quotes a member of Mitchell’s party, Granville Stapylton, as saying that the buildings “were of very large dimensions, one capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction”. But he omits Stapylton’s speculation that this was “the work of a white man”, probably the runaway convict William Buckley, who lived with the Wathaurong people for three decades.

???

Does this make a point that is relevant ?

I would think that irrespective of who done the actual building that 19 large built structures accommodating up to 40 people each would ask the question about the need for this capacity and purpose the construction time, the need for extended accommodation etc ? It does suggest well over 100 people living in a stable environment for not a short period.

The very point used to make the emu look less credible askes significant questions that do not damage the Emu's conclusions.

You don't think the fact the huts were built by a white man is relevant? Can any point possibly be relevant in your estimation?

Quote:

You don't think the fact the huts were built by a white man is relevant?

It is not that it is the need to provide long term accommodation for several hundred people ?

If you could make sense we would all rejoice. Until then we are agast at your incoherence.

The old boy's aghast, Dnarever. He may even offer you a banana.

It may not happen overnight, dear, but it will happen, no?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96736

Re: Dark Emu debunked
Reply #222 - Jun 28^th, 2021 at 11:15am

Valkie wrote on Jun 28^th, 2021 at 8:59am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jun 28^th, 2021 at 7:43am:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:56pm:

Quote:

You don't think the fact the huts were built by a white man is relevant?

It is not that it is the need to provide long term accommodation for several hundred people ?

Maybe he viewed it as some kind of hotel for passing groups... another White Man's view that had no reference in the Aboriginal language or approach to life. Maybe they looked askance at this feat of construction and simply shrugged and said: "Why?"

Makes sense to a White Man to have a semi-permanent structure and organised layout (LAYOUT - not LAYABOUT!)
available for every time you came by... easier to build big once than build every time... trouble is - many others would use the wood for fires and the stones for cooking stones or fireplaces for a couple of nights.. I mean... look what happened to the Golden Pyramids of Narromine... pulled down by Whartey to make pig pens and build fireplaces in homesteads and the gold cladding sold off for a few fripperies and demijohns of rum .....

Even unto this day, abbos never congregate in large numbers.

Except for footy matches and protests.

You forgot funerals, Matty.

The dead are not a race, no?

Back to top

IP Logged

Valkie

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16142
Central Coast
Gender: male

Re: Dark Emu debunked
Reply #223 - Jun 28^th, 2021 at 3:42pm

Frank wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 11:33pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:56pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 8:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 7:50pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 3:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 3:00pm:

still nothing that argues against Pascoe's quoting of the journals of the early explorers/settlers where they describe encountering fields of native foods.

In page after page, Sutton and Walshe accuse Pascoe of a “lack of true scholarship”, ignoring Aboriginal voices, dragging respect for traditional Aboriginal culture back into the Eurocentric world of the colonial era, and “trimming” colonial observations to fit his argument. They write that while Dark Emu “purports to be factual” it is “littered with unsourced material, is poorly researched, distorts and exaggerates many points, selectively emphasises evidence to suit those opinions, and ignores large bodies of information that do not support the author’s opinions”.

“It is actually not, properly considered, a work of scholarship,” they write. “Its success as a narrative has been achieved in spite of its failure as an account of fact.”

Pascoe has removed significant passages from publications that contradict his major objectives. This boosts his contention that all along Aboriginal people were farmers and/or aquaculturalists.

One example concerns Pascoe’s quoting of the journal entries of the explorer Charles Sturt. Sutton writes:

Sturt is quoted [by Pascoe] on his party’s discovery of a large well and ‘village’ of 19 huts somewhere north of Lake Torrens in South Australia.

Pascoe’s edit of Sturt’s original 1849 text breathes oxygen into Dark Emu’s polemical edge. It’s misleading at best. For Sturt’s diary reveals Aboriginal people didn’t live in “houses” in any single site all year round.

Such accounts destabilise Pascoe’s argument, reinforced by ethnographic, colonial, and archaeological records.

Pascoe records Mitchell’s astonishment on coming upon a large, deserted village during his Australia Felix expedition, which he estimated housed “over 1000” people. This, says Sutton, is “pure fiction”. “All Mitchell says is that his party ‘noticed some of their huts’; there is no mention of anyone counting anything.” Pascoe then quotes a member of Mitchell’s party, Granville Stapylton, as saying that the buildings “were of very large dimensions, one capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction”. But he omits Stapylton’s speculation that this was “the work of a white man”, probably the runaway convict William Buckley, who lived with the Wathaurong people for three decades.

Pascoe cites no Aboriginal sources and there are no Aboriginal lingustic features to support his claims. People practicing agriculture have words for the activity. No Aboriginal language has such linguistic features.

Quote:

Pascoe then quotes a member of Mitchell’s party, Granville Stapylton, as saying that the buildings “were of very large dimensions, one capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction”. But he omits Stapylton’s speculation that this was “the work of a white man”, probably the runaway convict William Buckley, who lived with the Wathaurong people for three decades.

???

Does this make a point that is relevant ?

I would think that irrespective of who done the actual building that 19 large built structures accommodating up to 40 people each would ask the question about the need for this capacity and purpose the construction time, the need for extended accommodation etc ? It does suggest well over 100 people living in a stable environment for not a short period.

The very point used to make the emu look less credible askes significant questions that do not damage the Emu's conclusions.

You don't think the fact the huts were built by a white man is relevant? Can any point possibly be relevant in your estimation?

Quote:

You don't think the fact the huts were built by a white man is relevant?

It is not that it is the need to provide long term accommodation for several hundred people ?

If you could make sense we would all rejoice. Until then we are agast at your incoherence.

Dont you see.

Abbo claim anything they can.
The abbo flag wasn't designed, made or even conceptualized by any abbo.
The smoking ceremony has been plagiarized from other cultures.
They paint with white mans paint
They use white mans canvas
Hell they even buy the trinkets they sell, from china.

so they will eventually claim that houses built for them are "Kultural bruvva" even though they had no part in it.

They are incapable of doing anything
Except of course that marvel of engineering.......the stick

Back to top

I HAVE A DREAM
A WONDERFUL, PEACEFUL, BEAUTIFUL DREAM.
A DREAM OF A WORLD THAT HAS NEVER KNOWN ISLAM
A DREAM OF A WORLD FREE FROM THE HORRORS OF ISLAM.

SUCH A WONDERFUL DREAM
O HOW I WISH IT WERE TRU

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96736	Re: Dark Emu debunked Reply #224 - Jun 28^th, 2021 at 5:36pm You haven't actually read Fwank's evidence now, have you, dear? It's saying Dark Emu doesn't provide enough Boong evidence. Doesn't sound like you'd be too happy if it did, no?
Back to top	IP Logged

Poll
Question: Is bwyannnnnnnnnn ever going to accept the truth
* This poll has now closed *
Not a chance, too invested 4 (57.1%) Not likely, he will never accept truth 0 (0.0%) Unlikely, too pig headed to back down 2 (28.6%) Only if he has a hint of honesty in him 0 (0.0%) Of course he will, he da man, tut tut 1 (14.3%) Total votes: 7 « Created by: Valkie on: Jun 17^th, 2021 at 6:47pm »