Re the Bruce Pascoe/ "Dark Emu" fight between Andrew Bolt and Leftists attacking Bolt's attack:
* Andrew Bolt can, obviously, be a terribly sloppy and careless (not to mention stupid) polemicist, and being (more or less) on his side on any issue should give anyone sensible pause for concern.
* That said, those on the liberal Left are clearing responding reflexively against him in defence of a book that is seen as supportive of aboriginal rights;
* I have tried finding detailed reviews of Pascoe's book from when it first came out, but they are few and far between, and as far as I can tell, nearly all by people who are not experts in this field but are broadly sympathetic to the aim of improving cultural perceptions of the aboriginal inhabitants at the time of colonisation. Even so, there does seem an admission in them that Pascoe's claim might not be "fully proved", or such like, while still praising the enterprise overall. Certainly, this has been enough to enable the book to be endorsed by the soft Left within the education departments of most States.
* I am suspicious that there are academics out there who would be very critical of some of Pascoe's interpretations of historical reports, but they are probably reluctant to "stir the pot" and find it far more convenient and politically correct within the circles they work to remain silent on the matter.
* My impression, which I almost hate to admit, is that the Bolt take on the matter is likely more correct than those who think the book a brilliant work of valid revisionism. I think it is very likely that it is really a political book based on scant evidence that hasn't been discussed much before only because it is quite properly considered scant and unreliable evidence by real academics who are choosing to remain silent.
That's my current take on it all, anyway.
3 comments:
I haven't read the book but I'm very suspicious about the claims. Many will not be prepared to challenge the claims in the book because in these days to criticize indigenous peoples in any way is to invite a barrage of accusations that you are a racist etc etc.
"I haven't read the book but I'm very suspicious about the claims."
Yes, me too.
The thing is, I have not been able to find any detailed academic historian commentary about the book, which is odd for a book which educationalists have selected for use in schools. If you search The Conversation website for example, the book gets mentioned a lot, but sometimes by arts people, or scientists just talking about constellations; but no detailed comment on its bigger claims that I can see.
It seems to me to be a case of non specialist educationalists getting over excited by a book that presses the right PC revisionist buttons, and not caring to check its bigger claims with academia.
This is one thing Quadrant used to be good for, allowing a forum for moderate academics to air their criticisms of the enthusiasms for the left, but Quadrant's a bit too fringe now and Windschuttle is a bit too culture war loving. And, of course, the academic left has become a little more set in its ways since the days of McGuinness.
Post a Comment