How to have a Respectful Conversation - and Agree to Disagree
In March 2020, two Australians engaged in a conversation on one of our Dark Emu Exposed Youtube Comments pages.
What caught our eye was the respectfulness of a deeply engaging conversation between two people who were pretty much in complete disagreement about the need for Bruce Pascoe to prove his bona fides.
We post here the March 2020 conversation of ‘Isabelle Andrew’ and ‘Col Name’ (text altered only marginally to improve punctuation and readability) as a fine example of an on-line debate, that unfortunately we do not see enough of in this modern world of ‘Cancel Culture’.
Isabelle : This Bolt reporter, is leeching racism. Every word he says is just riddled with hate. No Aboriginal has to prove to anyone other than themselves. That they are Aboriginal. As long as his mob approves and recognizes him as Indigenous, that's all that matters. There are many reasons of why his family tree may not show his Indigenous heritage, due to the shame of the heritage, by white people. No-one should be "questioning" someone's heritage.
Col: The issue of his aboriginality is important for 2 reasons.
Firstly, if he has received, or is receiving, government money or benefits because of his claimed aboriginality, then it is entirely proper that he should be asked to show evidence for his claimed aboriginality, just as surely as if you or I received money or benefits by claiming to be aboriginal.
Secondly, it is important because it tells us something about his general credibility and honesty. The claim that he is part aboriginal is HIS claim, and that being so, he has an obligation to back up that claim with evidence. He has failed to produce such evidence, in which case he should have the decency to stop claiming he is part aboriginal. I apply exactly the same standards to Pascoe as I would to anyone else. And he comes across to me as being evasive at best.
I respectfully suggest that you look carefully at what Bolt actually says, and forget about whether you like him or his style personally. For myself, I find Bolt to be in many ways a smug and irritating person but, be that as it may, I cannot factually fault what Bolt says on this subject. Facts are such stubborn things.
I have taken the trouble to read Mitchell's journals, and Bolt is perfectly correct. Pascoe misrepresents what the explorer Mitchell actually wrote. A competent historian will quote verbatim from the original source, but Pascoe does not do that at all. Instead, he presents us with HIS INTERPRETATION of what Mitchell wrote, which turns out to be quite different to what Mitchell actually wrote. Bolt makes this very point, and provides concrete examples of what Mitchell actually wrote, and what Pascoe claims he wrote, but I can only assume that you did not read this, or that you did not want to know. On the factual evidence, Pascoe is a shonk. That is not a racist statement, and nor is there any hate involved. Just cold, stubborn facts.
Isabelle : If he has applied for grants or benefits, he will have to provide evidence of Aboriginality anyway. That's the only people he needs to prove or show these documents to, the government.
Other than that, if his books have a bibliography with valid and solid sources then that is all. He doesn't have to prove he is Aboriginal to make his book valid, I am not even speaking mostly about his book, or validity. I am speaking about people always wanting proof from us Indigenous people. Like I said, our Aboriginality is our own, to receive certain grants or scholarships that are specifically for Indigenous peoples, then yes we have to provide evidence otherwise we won't get it. And usually they keep those documents as government evidence of Aboriginality. No one has to prove to the media or anyone else.
We don't ask others who are writing books on their culture to actually prove their culture, so that shouldn't be any different. There is only 1 reason for proof and that is for the grant. Other than that, no Indigenous person owes anyone the evidence just because they don't believe us. It's not their business. If he has backed up scholarly sources like most historians do then, he shouldn't have to give documentation of Aboriginality just for the media’s ease.
Also, I'm not really bothered by what Bolt says on his book or his evidence. It still doesn't give him the right to question his Aboriginality. He also doesn't have the right to pry into someone's family tree to purposefully question someone's claim of Aboriginality. There are many reasons why he might not look Indigenous, or why his family tree doesn't state that his relatives are Indigenous. That's what my problem is. That this reporter can just go in and be so dismissive and harmful with his intentions and words. It's hard enough being accepted as Indigenous when you look white. We don't need more people questioning us. They don't have the right. The only people I prove my Aboriginality to is the organization's I apply to for scholarships. And the government. No one else needs proof
Col : Thank you for your thoughtful reply, which has helped me understand where you are coming from. If I read between the lines correctly, then you are yourself part Aboriginal, and would be upset if others on this forum started questioning your Aboriginality and asking for proof.
On that I agree with you, but Pascoe represents a significantly different situation. He has a high public profile, and has made it his business to speak and write books on Aboriginal topics. And he does so while making public declarations that he is part Aboriginal, and has exploited his claimed Aboriginal status to the utmost to further his books and career.
Given these public declarations, I think he has an obligation to show evidence that he actually is part Aboriginal. If he has the evidence, then why on earth not give it? What has happened here seems fairly clear. Pascoe has always FELT deeply that he was part Aboriginal, and for much of his life he probably believed that he was, or at least very strongly suspected it. There is no doubt that he has always felt very connected to the Aboriginal people. He tried hard to find the Aboriginal lineage that he so deeply wanted. He even placed an advertisement in a Koori newspaper seeking any information that could find the Aboriginal lineage that he so deeply desired, but to no avail.
As matters stand, there is simply no evidence that he has any Aboriginal lineage at all, and it seems most unlikely that he does. So far, I have complete sympathy with him, and no axe to grind. But I do think that he should be honest, and simply state the truth, that there is no evidence that he has any Aboriginal lineage at all. I do not like evasive people, and on this matter, Pascoe has been very evasive indeed, and it is not to his credit.
But there is more. Pascoe has also claimed that he belongs to no less than three Aboriginal tribes, but provides no evidence for this. And to cap it off, the three tribes concerned have all made clear public statements that they do not believe or accept that Pascoe is part of their tribes, which is hardly surprising given that Pascoe cannot provide evidence for any Aboriginal lineage at all.
As I said before, Pascoe is a high-profile person that has publicly claimed that he is part Aboriginal, and that he belongs to three Aboriginal tribes. He therefore has an obligation to provide evidence for those claims, or be man enough to admit that he was mistaken, and that no evidence exists.
Isabelle : I am going to be open minded and not assume that he isn't Aboriginal. As there are many circumstances of why he cannot provide these documents or doesn't want to. Due to the stolen generation, many 100’s and thousands of documents have been destroyed, leaving families to spend their entire life searching for their mob and families. I get where you are coming from.
But regardless of his social status he does not owe anyone the right to see his documents. And it is very hard to be identified with his mobs if he doesn't have evidence. And also, you have to be accepted by the mobs or personally know them to be accepted, which can be difficult. As someone who's mob is in WA and I'm in QLD I would understand this struggle.
Either way, he would have to have documents to prove his lineage to get grants. There are many reasons of why he may not have evidence. But also, he has the right to keep his documents personal. And I still believe it's not right for reporters to pry into someone's lineage in order to dismiss their heritage.
Either way, until he comes out with evidence or not, I'd rather not dismiss his claim for Aboriginality.
Col : We can agree to disagree, but at the least I hope you can understand the REASONS for my views on this, which have nothing to do with race. As I said previously, Pascoe's situation is very different to yours. He benefits financially by claiming to be Aboriginal, by way of his books, talks, TV programs and so on. And the people that pay money for his books and other services do so on the understanding that he is part Aboriginal, based on his claim that he is part Aboriginal.
This is why the issue of whether he is being honest and upfront about his Aboriginality really does matter. Given that people buy his books, etc., partly because they believe his is Aboriginal, then Pascoe is being nothing less than fraudulent to claim that he is Aboriginal, when in fact he has no evidence that he actually is.
I thus cannot escape the conclusion that the man is fraudulent and dishonest. And it is the public that have bought, or may buy, his books and other services that are being defrauded. Note that in this context it is not good enough to wave one's hands and say "maybe he is Aboriginal".
We could say that about ANYBODY, including myself, noting that I personally have a very deep, aboriginal-like love of this land. I'm serious. I spend most my spare time alone in the wilderness. Now let me ask you, if I sold many thousands of books on the topic of aboriginal culture and inventiveness and a deep love of the land, and did so claiming that I was aboriginal, do you think that would be honest and morally acceptable?
Clearly it would not, and Pascoe is in exactly the same situation. His family tree and mine are equally white, with no known Aboriginal lineage in both cases. If one is truly open minded, then one must assume that Pascoe is non-Aboriginal unless and until there is evidence to the contrary, JUST AS YOU WOULD DO RE MYSELF OR ANYONE ELSE. To do anything else is a clear case of being biased.
And to broaden this point still further, I have at times engaged in competitive debate, so would claim to know something about bias and how to avoid it. There is a very well accepted principle that the onus of proof lies with the person that makes the claim. Pascoe has made the claim that he is part Aboriginal, and therefore the onus is on him to provide evidence for that claim, and if he cannot or does not do so then his claim should be dismissed. This principle is completely general.
Isabelle : I understand biases. In my opinion I'm not claiming he is white or Aboriginal. And it's up to him to prove that is he wishes. But I will not call someone fraudulent or anything else unless I see more than enough evidence on the topic. I know he has many Indigenous people backing him up, which I would put my trust in.
This is a difficult topic due to the white washing of Indigenous people. But in my opinion, it is not up to people to determine his claim to Aboriginality. I respect your opinion, but as an Indigenous woman, I know how it feels to be questioned by random people about my heritage. Aboriginal people have a deeper connection with that land. I know you love the wilderness and the land. But I do believe our connection is quite different; I can literally feel it. Like It is running through my body. It's difficult to explain.
Either way, I will not question his heritage until he provides what he wishes to. I respect people’s right to withhold that information. There are many white authors who make money on the misinformation of Aboriginal history and what actually happened. But also, I have studied Indigenous Environmental History in University so I do know that what Pascoe claims in terms of agriculture is somewhat accurate.
Anyway, agree to disagree. I respect that you have done some research and you have formed your opinion. But I also have an opinion about people questioning Indigenous people and their heritage despite if they make money of that claim, or if they have no evidence. We don't know Pascoe’s full background or history, or why he won't provide evidence. And like I said, there are many reasons he might not be able to. Either way I'd rather let this discussion go as I feel it is not going anywhere. Thank you for your time.
Col : It has been an enjoyable discussion. The most likely reason that Pascoe won't show evidence for his claimed Aboriginality is obvious enough - he does not have it. If he had any such evidence then it would be of great benefit to him to provide it, but he does not. But ultimately what is important is simply that he is either unwilling or unable to provide evidence, and in such cases we are all entitled to dismiss his claim.
I'm really sorry, but that is how life works, and rightly so. Imagine that the accused in a court of law says to the judge or jury :- Well I have the evidence that I am innocent, but I choose not to tell you!! As a member of the jury, would you accept that? Of course not. Pascoe is responsible for what he says, and for providing evidence to back up what he says, just like everyone else. I don't believe in placing a sacred god-like status on ANYONE. Pascoe makes money dishonestly by claiming to be aboriginal, and then failing to back up that claim. That is simply a fact.
"I know he has many Indigenous people backing him up, which I would put my trust in." I need to comment on that, because I disagree very strongly. Firstly, the Aboriginal people that actually matter, being the leaders of the tribes to which he claims that he belongs, have clearly stated that they do not accept his claim. Surely you would put some store by that?
So what about the other Indigenous people "backing him up"? Perhaps you refer to the likes of Ken Wyatt, who is on record as saying that Pascoe is his friend, and that therefore "If Bruce tells me that he is indigenous, then he IS indigenous". Really? No, that does not cut it, in fact it adds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the debate, and shows only the sheer ignorance and almost unbelievable bias of Ken Wyatt in this matter.
Again, that is not how life works. Try that on in a court of law. Your honour, I have evidence that what this person says is correct, because I am his friend, and therefore what he says IS correct!!! That is quite literally what Ken Wyatt said, and it is not to his credit. The determination of whether Pascoe is part aboriginal has absolutely nothing to do with whether he has people "backing him up", which just another way of saying that such people have no evidence to give, but support him anyway, in spite of the total lack of evidence. Support of that kind is simply mate-ship-based bias. The only kind of "backing up" that has any value is backing up with evidence, and that has not happened.
"Aboriginal people have a deeper connection with that land. I know you love the wilderness and the land. But I do believe our connection is quite differen; I can literally feel it. Like It is running through my body. It's difficult to explain." I totally respect your love of the land, but you cannot know if my love of the land is less or different. I have found the damage done to our land from the recent fires to be utterly distressing and depressing. I have literally been at times distraught and crying, but I am well aware that the majority of people do not care at the level or depth that I do. It has been an enjoyable discussion.
