That Dark Emu doco

So, I watched the ABC's The Dark Emu Story documentary last night.   I was happy that it gave considerable time to the detailed critique of the book and its "research":

In 2021, an academic rebuttal to Dark Emu was published: Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate by anthropologist Peter Sutton and archeologist Keryn Walshe. Both authors appear in the documentary, arguing Pascoe ignored evidence that did not fit his case while over-emphasising evidence that did. Pascoe and Sutton come head-to-head in the film, debating definitions such as of the word “sophistication”.

“What’s wrong with being unsophisticated?” Sutton asks. “Why do you hold up a battle of sophistication as a kind of a solution to people, filling their racism?”

But, as you might expect, the pro-Pascoe side, including by such high profile figures as Marcia Langton, were given much, much more air time.  (Langton presented as particularly cranky and automatically dismissive of criticism.)

The documentary failed to mention some pertinent things which I am pretty sure would be true, such as  the book has sold so well partly because of uniformly uncritical endorsement by Education departments.

The main thing that the pro-side demonstrated, though, was that aboriginal academia and advocacy has spent the last couple of decades on a PR project to convince Australians that aboriginal society was (is?), as Sutton says, "sophisticated," and essentially the same as European society.  

But to do so, they really are on a post-modern project of co-opting terminology and applying it in a way that weakens meaning almost to the point of uselessness.   The most Pascoe-ian example is "agriculture", which Sutton is very adamant (based on his own work, I believe) is not the way to describe the aboriginal practices and belief as to how to encourage plant growth.   The other examples include the attempt to build excitement about rocks having been moved in a river so as to form fish traps by calling them "engineering".  Or "houses" that were small scale huts with construction techniques that were not, by any stretch of the imagination, complex.   (They chose some pretty tough wood and "surgically" removed it from trees with stone axes - I rolled my eyes.) 

But the big example that Langton kept using was talking about the "complex economies" to describe the fact that some items were traded between tribes - grinding rocks being the main example noted on the show.   

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it.   As Sutton would presumably argue, you don't need to co-opt Western "sophistication" to respect aboriginal society.   It's the fakery in the attempt to do so that actually harms their cause, because (to take one example) people can see with their own eyes that one tribe handing over grinding rocks to another in exchange for something is not "sophisticated" or an "economy" in the same way - or scale - that many other societies have worked over the last few thousand years.   (I originally referred to "Western" economies, but really, the comparison with what was going on in at least parts of virtually any other continent is like chalk and cheese.)