HOW WIKIPEDIA PROTECTS BRUCE PASCOE'S UNTRUTHS

Bruce Pascoe's book Dark Emu is an error-riddled (to put it mildly) fantasy which claims, against all evidence, that Aborigines were not hunter-gatherers but "farmers" living in "houses" in "towns" of "1000 people". But check what happened when Peter O'Brien tried to amend Pascoe's gushing entry in Wikipedia to mention criticisms of his work.

Want an example of how Wikipedia is another social media giant now busy censoring conservatives - and the truth?

 

 

 

Bruce Pascoe's error-riddled  book Dark Emu gets rave coverage in an entry in Wikipedia:

cites evidence of pre-colonial agriculture, engineering and building construction by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples...  challenges the traditional views about pre-colonial Australia.. Pascoe's friend, writer Gregory Day, thinks that the success of the book lies in its ability to connect with "whitefellas"... The book received critical acclaim, winning two NSW Premier's Literary Awards... positive reviews in other media...  sold more than 100,000 copies... storytelling gift...  admired Dark Emu's achievement ... the book's strengths...  delighted at the book's success ... accolades...

Bizarrely, there is no mention at all of the controversy over this book - that its central thesis is a fantasy. That there is zero evidence for Pascoe's claim that  many Aborigines were not hunter-gatherers but "farmers" living in "houses" in "towns" of "1000 people".  That the evidence  Pascoe gives to back up this absurd argument is actually invented, exaggerated, miis how sinterpreted or non-existent.

Here is how Pascoe's publisher sums up his argument on the back cover of his book, which I assume is with Pascoe's approval:

Pascoe puts forward a compelling argument for a reconsideration of the hunter-gatherer label for pre-colonial Aboriginal Australians. The evidence insists that Aboriginal people right across the continent were using domesticated plants, sowing, harvesting, irrigating and storing – behaviours inconsistent with the hunter-gatherer tag.

As Australia's leading historian, Geoffrey Blainey, put it:

I think I have read, in the last 50 years, every book written by an early European explorer of Australia. They do not support Pascoe in any way..

As explorer William Wentworth, an eyewitness, reported in 1819, in total contradiction of Pascoe's fantasy of Aborigines as yeomen farmers in big towns:

The aborigines of this country ... have neither houses nor clothing; they are entirely unacquainted with the arts of agriculture; and even the arms which the several tribes have, to protect themselves from the aggressions of their neighbours, and the hunting and fishing implements with which they administer to their support, are of the rudest contrivance and workmanship. 

As ANU academic Dr Ian Keen   sadly concedes in Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture,  published in  Anthropological Forum:

Many critiques of Dark Emu have come from the political right. They include the writings and broadcasts of Andrew Bolt; articles in, and a book published by Quadrant magazine, whose editor Keith Windschuttle engaged extensively in the ‘history wars’; and the Dark Emu Exposed (Anon. 2020) as well as the Quadrant online (quadrant.org.au) websites (sic). Unfortunately, in my judgement these critiques of Pascoe’s treatment of his historical sources are largely correct. The forthcoming book by the anthropologist and linguist Peter Sutton and the archaeologist Keryn Walshe, brings a high standard of scholarship in scrutinising Pascoe’s claims, and adopts a non-political stance.

Yes, "unfortunately", I and others of the "Right" are correct. In that "unfortunately" I think we detect a reason why so many other historians and journalists fail to call out Pascoe, the "Aboriginal" historian. Better to protect a fantasy of the Left than admit the truths of the "Right".

But some Leftists fight even harder against the stark-staring facts than others. 

Like Wikipedia.

Its entry on Dark Emu  mentions nothing about the controversy above - the claims, well-researched, that Pascoe's book makes a completely false argument, based of completely dodgy sources.

The only criticisms its moderators have allowed are two mild ones from Pascoe's supporters.  (No conservatives are allowed or even acknowledged.)

Here's the first:

 Gammage, whose work was built upon in Dark Emu, praised Pascoe’s storytelling gift of weaving a narrative that challenges many readers' preconceptions, and says that he is a big fan of the book because of its impact, but added that Pascoe sometimes romanticises pre-contact Indigenous society, and says that his claims that Stone Age Indigenous people invented democracy and baking may be "push[ing] these things too far".

I'd have thought that having Pascoe make such preposterous claims that Stone Age Indigenous people invented democracy and baking might make a healthily sceptical reader wonder what else Pascoe was making up.

Here's the only other criticism Wikipedia allowed - one that actually implied Pascoe's central claims were actually true and supported by academics en masse:

The main criticism [sic]  of the book by academics has been of Pascoe's claim that since 1880 there has been an academic suppression of alternative historical accounts about Aboriginal peoples' housing, farming and cultivation practices. 

But nowhere in the Wikipedia entry is there a mention of the real criticism of Pascoe's book.

That surprised Peter O'Brien, the author of that Quadrant book on Dark Emu mentioned by Keen:

It then occurred to me to check if mention of Dr Keen’s paper had incorporated in Wikipedia’s Dark Emu entry, whose editors have censored all efforts by myself and others to make mention of my own book, Bitter Harvest, which exposes Bruce Pascoe and Dark Emu...

 I found that, yes indeed, an attempt had been made by  those behind the excellent Dark Emu Exposed website, to have mention of Dr Keen’s article included. What follows is both a transcript of the ‘discussion’ that ensued and a warning to anyone who might have been tempted to answer Wikipedia’s pleas for donations and public support.

Read it all.

But here are just some of the responses from Wikipedia editors to requests from to  Dark Emu Exposed, O'Brien and other readers to balance their Dark Emu entry by at least mentioning the criticisms of it and the controversy it has caused:

Editor Laterthanyouthink: ...I have yet to see a serious examination or specific criticism about anything that he has written about...

Editor HiLo48: In an area as fraught as this, with blatant irrational attacks by racists, bigots and haters being the main criticisms of the book, all we have here is an abstract [of Keen's paper, since published] a few lines long. That abstract does not explicitly contradict the claims in the book. Like much of the criticism we see of this book on Wikipedia, this sub-section begins with a breach of WP:AGF and, effectively, WP:NPA. It deserves to be ignored, and the perpetrator deserves to be disciplined...

Editor Laterthanyouthink:  The publicly available abstract [of Keen's paper]  does not indicate what position the author has taken (if any), and even after your quote above, there is no specific criticism of the text — just a string of names, and his opinion. We need better than that for Wikipedia. Also, unless I am mis-remembering, are you not banned from editing this topic owing to COI? Let’s await the Sutton book for a meaningful debate. I have no problem with robust criticisms which actually address specific topics in the book, but I don’t see any yet. What Pascoe has done is throw light on past research which shows that many Aboriginal Australians did practise agriculture and aquaculture and in some cases had quite strong domestic economies, and I have yet to see anything which disproves this. ..

Editor HiLo48: As soon as you wrote “the book now appears to be largely discredited”, you lost all credibility...

Editor Laterthanyouthink: It is certainly not true to say that the book has been “largely discredited”. This is not the impression returned by Google... The book has been lauded, and it has been used to raise the awareness of the general public of some history that was largely being ignored. Geography teachers have developed teaching resources around it. 

Editor HiLo48: Keen’s major work on Aboriginal people was done almost half a century ago. We now know a lot more about this subject. Dark Emu is a much more modern view.

Editor HiLo48: Most white people have recognised that Aboriginal society and lifestyles were far more complex than generally believed fifty years ago. If Dr Keen still thinks the same way he did fifty years ago, he is not a very good scholar. 

Editor HiLo48: No [I have not read Keen's paper criticising Dark Emu]. My local library doesn’t have it. It has several copies of Dark Emu, because it’s an excellent book in which I see no flaws.

Editor HiLo48: I see so point in reading Keen’s paper. Dark Emu stands on its own. I find it fascinating when newbies, obviously from the hateful, racist right, pop up here with allegedly good sources, but which nobody else has ever heard of, while the vast majority of the population carries on respecting their target far more. 

Editor HiLo48:  Andrew Bolt has said an awful lot about the book. We include nothing of what he has said, and won’t. 

Editor HiLo48: This article attracts a lot of novice and naïve editors with minimal experience and understanding of how Wikipedia works, many of whom seem to have the single goal of proving that Aboriginal people were primitive savages who deserved to be conquered and have their land stolen. Because of this we need to be constantly vigilant with any negative additions.

Editor HiLo48: ...most of those who have come here to point out “flaws” have done so using the Andrew Bolt approach, and those of us who care about the article’s quality have become rather sick of protecting it from racist and bigoted nonsense. 

Peter O'Brien then posted this short, mild and factually accurate addition to Wikipedia's Dark Emu entry:

The central premise of Dark Emu viz that Aboriginal people were essentially sedentary agriculturalists rather than nomadic hunter/gatherers, was challenged by anthropologist Dr Ian Keen, in a paper entitled “Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture” published in the journal Anthropological Forum in January 2021.

It lasted just 20 minutes before being deleted. O'Brien was then blocked for "disruptive editing".

You see, to Wikipedia, facts are racist. Truth is a lie. History is bigotry. And debate is "disruptive".

If you don't think there is a sickness in the culture of the Left, you have not been paying attention.  Not to the present, and not to the history of every totalitarian movement.