I have now read Bruce Pascoe's book

"Dark Emu" and the critique of it by Peter O'Brien, "Bitter Harvest".

For those of you who do not live in Downunder I will again explain that Pascoe is the "Enterprise Professor in Indigenous Agriculture" at the University of Melbourne. He claims to have a Bachelor of Education. He does not appear to have any other qualifications and it seems very unlikely that he actually has the Bachelor of Education he claims to have. No record of it can be found. The University of Melbourne does not offer such a course. The institute he claims he attended, a secondary teachers' college, did not grant degrees.

Pascoe also claims to be "aboriginal". The aboriginal tribes he claims to be descended from do not recognise his claims. Genealogical studies have also failed to find any ancestors who might be even remotely connected with any aboriginal tribes. 

Despite all this Pascoe is employed by the university and appears in the staff directory as "Professor". 

Peter O'Brien is a graduate of the Royal Military College, Duntroon. He has a verifiable BSc and two other diplomas - also verifiable. After twenty years in the army (where he attained the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel) he worked in computing sales and related areas. All these things have been been investigated and found to be accurate. He is not aboriginal and makes no claim to be aboriginal. He has written for "Quadrant" and it is Quadrant which published the critique.

As I say at the beginning, I have now read both Pascoe's book and O'Brien's but it is the first edition of O'Brien's book, not the second, which I have read. That is relevant here.

I was asked what I would do if I was given them as material submitted for the purposes of examination at a university. The person who asked me has a doctorate in science. He is a committed "Yes" person who is campaigning heavily for the upcoming referendum on the "Voice" to parliament. He gave me Pascoe's book to read and told, "It's absolutely marvellous Cat! They knew so much and we have done so much harm." I sought the other book out for myself.

I would fail Pascoe's book outright. I would fail it even if it was presented by a student still at school. It is, to put it bluntly, as dishonest as Pascoe himself appears to be. Anything which does not fit with Pascoe's ridiculous claims (and there is no other word) about indigenous "agriculture" has simply been removed from his "sources". By selectively quoting he attempts to twist the narrative to suit his claims. There are other claims and suggestions made that cannot be drawn from the material he quotes. He also quotes many unnamed sources and fails to provide any information as to where these might be found. Yes, he quotes extensively from sources like the explorer Sturt's diaries but he omits anything that might not support his case. He draws conclusions that simply cannot be drawn and errors of fact in order to support his thesis - that those here before white settlement had a flourishing agricultural culture which has been destroyed by those settlers.

I would return O'Brien's work for revision and it was interesting to discover that the book was indeed revised. The first edition appears to have been chiefly written while O'Brien and his wife were on holiday. O'Brien admits in places that he has been unable to obtain all the primary resources he wished to consult. Even without that he had enough material to show the inadequacy of Pascoe's work. In the first edition O'Brien is also at least being very careful to show what he has and has not been able to verify. He has apparently updated and sourced much more of it in the second edition. I will endeavour to look at it when I can access it.

Interestingly however there are seventy-eight copies of Dark Emu available over the state in our public library system. There are just three of Bitter Harvest. 

This worries me. It would appear people are either asking for or being encouraged to read the former but not the latter. If well educated people (like the man who gave me Dark Emu to read) are being led to believe what Pascoe has written then further harm will be done. The question needs to be asked, "Why is Pascoe being permitted, indeed encouraged, to continue making such claims?"