The Chutzpah of Professor Eric Willmot AM
‘Dad had no time for ‘bullshit,’ and was unimpressed by wealth, rank or celebrity. Being the creator of his own destiny, he had no respect for ‘the establishment’ or anyone who came from it. He liked people who had character and an interesting story to tell.’
Dad was born in Queensland in 1936, at a time when Australia was rough, unpredictable and exciting. He suited that kind of world. He was a true romantic and a dreamer, forever chasing the next adventure.
His maternal grandmother was a great story-teller. She shared with him tales and wisdom that he carried throughout his life. She also shared with him the secrets of his Indigenous heritage that many of his family chose to forget.
Like Pemulwuy, Eric Willmot was an extraordinary man, who lived an extraordinary life.
—Haidi Willmot, daughter of Eric Willmot
(Source: Booktopia, Eric Willmot: The Fantastic Voyager in Booktopia Guest Blogger , November 16, 2021) [our emphasis]
In the early 1980s, a dynamic Aboriginal man appeared on the academic scene in Australia as he progressed though a number of universities and Aboriginal cultural institutions.
Eric Willmot was his name, and he also became quite famous as an Aboriginal inventor after he won the Australian 1981 Inventor of the Year Award for his revolutionary new transmission system.
Figure 1 - The late Professor Eric Willmot AM (1936-2019) was hailed as a leading Aboriginal scholar, engineer, administrator and author. (Source)
In 1984, Willmot was feted by the ABC as an excellent example of an Aboriginal man who was making a big contribution to Australia as an inventor. The ABC even compared him to the Aboriginal inventor, David Unaipon.
As the ABC told its viewers in the video below:
“Like the white man, Eric Willmot would like Aborigines to be proud of their own achievers.”
(As a way perhaps to remind the public that it is in our interests to listen to the ‘voices’ of Aboriginal people, the ABC reposted this 40-year-old story from the archives in June 2022, on the ABC website in the lead up the Voice referendum).
Willmot’s achievements continued during the 1980s. After his Inventor of the Year Award in 1981, many other the accolades followed:
Figure 4 - Awards given to Aboriginal man, Eric Willmot (Source)
The ABC were heavily invested in promoting his success by granting him the honour and prestige of being a Boyer Lecturer in 1986, where they described him as a, ‘prominent member of the Aboriginal community.’
Figure 5 - ABC publicity archived on the Australian Parliamentary Information website (Source)
Perhaps Willmot’s greatest triumph was the publication in 1987 of his historical novel, Pemulwey, The Rainbow Warrior.
The book’s success resulted in further academic recognition:
“Dr Eric Willmot AM was for many years an authority on the life and times of Pemulwuy.
He wrote the novel, Pemulwuy: The Rainbow Warrior, which was a landmark publication, a best seller, and has been included in secondary and tertiary education curricula across Australia” - (Source).
This is the story of one of Australia's first true heroes, Pemulwuy. A proud and feared Aboriginal warrior, Pemulwuy leads an uncompromising twelve-year war against British colonial oppression and makes the supreme sacrifice in order to guide his people to safety.
Many histories of Australia start with the First Fleet and the hard times the colonists had with the climate and unruly convicts.
Very few mention what really happened, or the blood that was spilled in the wars rarely spoken of. Pemulwuy, a Bidjigal man, unites the neighbouring peoples, runaway convicts, bushrangers and an escaped African known as Black Caesar, in a guerilla war that pushes the invading English to the brink.
This novel was conceived out of Pemulwuy's legend and the historical events between 1788 and 1802.
It is a story that all Australians should know. - (Booktopia)
Willmot received accolades for his book from many prominent Australians - from ‘real’ Aboriginal commentators, such as Stan Grant,
“This is more than a novel, more than a story, it is the Big Bang: where the idea of Australia starts.” - Stan Grant
to a ‘fake’ Aboriginal activist like Roberta [Bobbi] Sykes, as well as the famous author, Thomas Keneally, political activist Charles Perkins [to whom Willmot dedicated his book], and actor and film-maker Jack Thompson. Australia’s main newspapers also provided good reviews (see below).
Figure 6 - Author and ‘Aboriginal’ man Eric Willmot (right) at his book launch in 1987 for Pemulwuy: The Rainbow Warrior. (Source)
Figure 7 - Commendations from the back cover of Eric Willmot’s book, Pemulwuy, The Rainbow Warrior
Figure 8 - Commendations from inside of Eric Willmot’s book, Pemulwuy
At the height of his fame in 1987, what could possibly go wrong for Professor Dr Eric Willmot AM?
On 18 October 1987, on a very busy page 4 of the Brisbane Sunday Mail, next to the Kresta blind advertisement, a short report from a Canberra reporter, Michael Harvey, appeared with the headline, ‘Black Blood’ row over family claim.
Figure 9 - Brisbane Sunday Mail, 18 Oct 1987, p4
Figure 10 - Newspaper article questioning the Aboriginal “heritage of a famous Australian”, Eric Willmot. Source: Brisbane Sunday Mail, 18 Oct 1987, p4
As related in the article, Eric’s sister, Mary Appeldorff (nee Willmot) had contacted the newspaper and provided information, including a statement from their mother, Mrs Pauline Willmot, that “there is no Aboriginal blood in their family.”
A couple of weeks later, another of Eric’s sisters, Christine Davis (nee Willmot), joined the ‘row’ and wrote to the same newspaper supporting the family’s claims that Eric was not Aboriginal (see Figure 11 below - “Family Puzzle” letter).
Figure 11 - Letters to the Editor, 1 November 1987 - “Family Puzzle” by Eric’s sister, Christines Davis (nee Willmot). On the same day a letter of support for Eric’s position was published as, “A Nasty Family Row”, by Neville G Perkins, nephew to Charles Perkins, the Aboriginal activist and Commonwealth public servant. Source: Brisbane Sunday Mail, 1/11/1987, p24)
According to his siblings and his mother, Eric Willmot was ”just making it all up”, that he was Aboriginal.
If the family’s claim was true - that there was no Aboriginal blood in the family, no Aboriginal ancestry - then Eric had fooled a lot of important people.
Did his book promoters - Stan Grant, Roberta [Bobbi] Sykes, Thomas Keneally, Charles Perkins, and Jack Thompson - ever ask themselves, is Eric really Aboriginal?
Did the The National Press Club do any diligence on his ancestry prior to booking him to speak in 1983 on National Aborigines Day?
The National Press Club had introduced him to the audience, which included a number of parliamentarians, as,
“Eric Willmot, Principal of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, spoke about the fight for Aboriginal land rights and the feelings of his people towards the bicentenary…”
Many other institutions recognised Willmot as being Aboriginal, and awarded him various employment positions and prizes, including the University of Canberra, University of New England, University of Newcastle and the Committee for the 1988 Australian Bicentennial, where Willmot sat on the Board as the “Aboriginal” representative [See Further Reading sections below].
Even the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS, at that time known as the AIAS) employed him as their, “first Indigenous principal … from 1981 to 1984.” (Wikipedia).
Despite the family’s public concerns, it appears that no organisation or politician at the time raised any serious challenge to his claim of being Aboriginal.
Indeed, if AIAS/AIATSIS employed him as an Aborigine, then he must have been one, right?
Well no.
We can now reveal that the Willmot family was correct. Our genealogist(s) at Dark Emu Exposed have independently determined that there appears to be no Aboriginal ancestry in their family. We base our findings on an examination of the publicly available genealogical records.
The Ancestry of the Late Eric Willmot
Research by our genealogist(s) at Dark Emu Exposed has confirmed that all of the late Eric Willmot’s ancestors came originally from England, Ireland, Scotland or Germany.
There are no apparent ancestors of Aboriginal descent in his alleged Family Tree (see Figure 12).
Figure 12 - Alleged Family Tree of the Late Eric Paul Willmot, who claimed he was Aboriginal. (File download as pdf.file here and jpeg file here)
Disclaimer: This genealogical work has been undertaken in good faith and is based on the publicly available records. However, it cannot account for events which may result in Aboriginal ancestry entering into the family line such as via a private or unrecorded adoption of an Aboriginal child into the family, or a relationship out of wedlock between a family member and an Aboriginal person that produced a child of Aboriginal descent who was then incorporated into the family without record, or with a record that did not disclose the Aboriginality of that child.
The records show that Eric Paul Willmot’s ancestors were typical working- and middle-class Australians of Anglo-Irish-Scottish descent, with a bit of German.
Some of his ancestors came to Australia in the period, 1850 to the 1870s, as assisted or free immigrants. Others arrived earlier, in the 1830s, as convicts or free immigrants.
No evidence was found that any of these ancestors took an Aboriginal husband or wife at anytime.
Some ‘said-to-be’ family photographs of Willmot’s father, and some of his grandparents and grandparents, are shown below, as supplied by family members. A number of these were taken at Cribb Island, Qld, which Eric Willmot falsely claimed as his birthplace [see Figure 15A below].
So How Did It All Start? - What Made Eric Willmot Think, Believe, or Act as if, He Was Aboriginal?
By the 1980s, Eric Willmot was a “full-blown” self-identifying Aboriginal man, much to the surprise of his immediate family (based on correspondence from the time that family members have shared with Dark Emu Exposed (see family correspondences below).
His ‘trans-racialisation’ seems to have occurred during the mid-to-late 1970s. We can only speculate as to the reasons why, but information from his daughter from his second marriage, Haidi Willmot, may be instructional.
In 2021, Brio Books, Booktopia’s publishing arm, released a new edition of Eric Willmot’s historical novel, Pemulwuy to the next generation of Australian readers.
In honour of the new edition, they invited Eric’s daughter, Haidi Willmot, to share her perspective on Eric’s incredible life by writing a short biography of his family life [see her also here in NZ reading from her father’s book].
Haidi wrote,
‘My late father, Eric Willmot, is the author of Pemulwuy: The Rainbow Warrior. He wrote the novel [in 1987] to break a ‘conspiracy of silence’ about the British invasion of Australia. He was determined to reveal the hidden truth of armed resistance to British settlement, to tell the story of one of Australia’s first heroes, and in doing so return to generations of Australians ‘a heritage as important, as tragic and as heroic as any other nation on earth.’
Haidi continued,
‘Dad was born in Queensland in 1936, at a time when Australia was rough, unpredictable and exciting. He suited that kind of world. He was a true romantic and a dreamer, forever chasing the next adventure.
His maternal grandmother was a great story-teller [Annie Ethel Creevey b1876 - d1956 ]. She shared with him tales and wisdom that he carried throughout his life. She also shared with him the secrets of his Indigenous heritage that many of his family chose to forget …
Dad decided to study for his matriculation, which later took him on to university. He then settled in Newcastle, became a maths and science teacher, and married his first wife, with whom he had four children.
Young, restless and ever the explorer, in the early 1970s Dad took off to the wilds of New Guinea. There he taught at Lae High School, and had a side gig as an armed escort to remote sites in the Highlands. There he also fell in love with my mother, who he saved from a crocodile while she was sunbaking at the mouth of the Markham river….
It is in PNG that Dad comes into focus for me. It was there that he developed a deep and abiding passion for the Pacific islands. Vanuatu became my family’s heart place, the place we returned to every year. My fondest and most vivid memory is of Dad in Vanuatu; trade winds gently blowing, a glass of scotch in his hand, looking into the middle distance …
Eventually Dad and Mum returned to Australia where he took up senior leadership positions in academia and civil service. During this time he was very active on Indigenous education, working vigorously to increase the number of Indigenous university graduates and teachers. Work for which he received an AM…
In the 1990s Dad retired from public service and reinvented himself once again. This time he returned to his roots in maths and science.’ - Source Booktopia 2021
Regular readers to our Dark Emu Exposed website might be starting to see some ‘red flags’ being raised here regarding Eric Willmot’s ‘self-identification’ as an Aboriginal.
For example, why are there no photographs of Eric with the Aboriginal members of his family or his ‘mob’ or community? [we’ve searched extensively on the internet and can’t find any].
The photo of Eric and his second wife in PNG (above left) show him to be very dark skinned [suntanned?]. Did someone say to him, or did he think, “you look Aboriginal, Eric. Have you got some Aboriginal in your family”?
Like most of the ‘fake’ Aboriginal men and women we have exposed, they all seem to rely on variations of the ‘story’ that, “my grandmother told me the ‘family was painted with the tar brush”, “we thought great-grandma was Maori, but she really was Aboriginal”, or “grandma told me the family secret that we were Aboriginal, but we lost the papers and/or the family never talked about it openly until I started researching”, etc.
Some excuses are even closer to home such as SA’s Attorney General, Kyam Maher who claims “his mum told him” , or Professor Kerrie Doyle, who claims her “dad (who turned out to be only her step-dad) told her”.
A surprising observation is the connection that Papua New Guinea appears to have in creating fake Australian Aborigines.
Is it just a co-incidence that Eric Willmot returned from PNG in the mid 1970s claiming to be Aboriginal [see below], or that Kerrie Doyle claims to have been born on mission in the NT as a Wininninni Aboriginal woman, but was actually born in Tari in the highlands of PNG, or that Kyam Maher was also born in PNG, and even that ‘Aboriginal’ man, Bruce Pascoe, visited West Papua in 1995/6 [Irian Jaya] and wrote a book ‘that examines historic and contemporary relations between Indigenous Australians and West Papuans’ (Listen here from 08:30).
Another ‘red flag’ is evidenced by the support that Willmot received from other ‘fakes’ as well as powerful, political players within the Aboriginal Industry. Modern Aboriginal politics is all about power and building coalitions and recruiting foot-soldiers and sycophants to the ‘anti-colonialism and Aboriginal political self-determination cause’ [“the cause”].
The price that the ‘fakes’ need to pay for protection is to write papers and books, make films and be quoted in the media on, topics that support the re-writing of our Australian history to support “the cause”.
In Willmot’s case, his daughter describes how Eric viewed his part in promoting “the cause” - his desire to:
“break a conspiracy of silence’ about the British invasion of Australia. He was determined to reveal the hidden truth of armed resistance to British settlement, to tell the story of one of Australia’s first heroes”.
That is why, we speculate, Willmot chose (or was he asked in a way that he couldn’t refuse?) to write about, of all things, Pemuwuy as a resistance fighter - it was price Willmot had to pay for protection, even though as an inventor and maths and science teacher, colonial history or novel writing was not his area of expertise.
Thus, it may not be surprising to some to find that the ‘fake’ Aboriginal woman, Roberta ‘Bobbi’ Sykes endorsed Willmot’s book; nor was it perhaps surprising to find that Charles Perkins, the former Commonwealth Aboriginal powerbroker and leading advocate of Aboriginal self-determination, had endorsed Willmot’s book in glowing terms.
And how co-incidental is it that Charles Perkins’ nephew, Neville G Perkins, wrote to the newspaper at the same time to support Eric’s Aboriginality, against claims made by his family? (See Letter to the Editor in Figure 11 above)
As evidence to support our suppositions above, consider what the late Professor Colin Tatz tells us in his book, Human Rights and Human Wrongs - A life Confronting Racism, (Monash Uni Publishing, 2015), when a strange man arrived at the University of New England in Armidale, NSW.
Figures 13A+B - Colin Tatz, Human Rights and Human Wrongs - A life Confronting Racism, Monash Uni Publishing, 2015, p214-5.
So Tatz sets the date of Eric Willmot’s public adoption of his ‘Aboriginality’, and his desire to serve “his people”, at a professional level at about 1974-5.
Further into his book, Tatz shines a light on how ‘fakes’ end up infiltrating our institutions, with the help of what we are calling ‘facilitators.’ In this case, we suggest Eric Willmot’s rapid rise through the AIAS, the forerunner of the AIASTIS, appeared to be facilitated by the political Aboriginal powerbroker, Charles Perkins.
Tatz also describes how organisations and institutions are part of the problem : “Council advertised the position - hopeful of an Aboriginal candidate”.
Instead of appointing the best Australian person for the position based on merit, the council ‘facilitated’ the beginnings of the entrenchment of ‘race-biases’, which we now find in the employment policies within many of our institution’s today.
Council, by being “hopeful for an Aboriginal candidate”, were thus vulnerable to exploitation by a fake such as Eric Willmot. They wanted to believe he was Aboriginal - indeed they needed him to be Aboriginal - so they could ‘tick-the-box’ that they were increasing their “quota” of Aboriginal employees.
This is even more evident today, where some institutions proudly and publicly proclaim that one’s identity and cultural attributes are becoming more important than one’s merit for any particular position [for example in Qld].
Figures 14A,B+C - Excerpts from Colin Tatz, Human Rights and Human Wrongs - A life Confronting Racism, Monash Uni Publishing, 2015, p268-70.
If we are to believe what Colin Tatz has written [see Further Reading below] Eric Willmot is flying one of the classic ‘red flags’ of a fake - his insistence that he is Aboriginal and that “only Aborigines could be guardians of their own culture’ - the chutzpah is staggering.
So what about Colin Tatz himself? Did he have any suspicions that this ‘rather mysterious, bearded man’ was not Aboriginal as he claimed?
Perhaps not at first when Eric initially sought membership of the AIAS in 1978, as related by Tatz below.
But as the 1980s progressed, Tatz wrote that he was aware of Willmot’s family complaints to the newpapers (Figures 10&11 above).
In addition, Tatz admitted that there were, “at least two people who have told me that Eric confessed to them that he wasn’t Aboriginal.”
But then unbelievably, in terms of his naivety, hypocrisy and cowardness to state the obvious, Tatz wrote that he had,
“… aways insisted that an Aboriginal person is one who says he or she is one, that self-identity is the only sane and moral way to approach these matters. This case [of Eric] of course, has many more dimensions to it.” (ibid., p15, Figure 15B below)
No it doesnt.
Eric Willmot was a fake and fraud, and he himself knew deep down that he had no Aboriginal descent.
And not only did the ‘system’ allow him to get away with it, it actively promoted his non-existent Aboriginality for its own political and cynical purposes, with no regard to the harm that this fraud might cause to the broader Willmot family, ‘real’ Aboriginal people, or the integrity of our institutions and the public’s confidence in them.
Figures 15A+B - Excerpts from Colin Tatz, Human Rights and Human Wrongs - A life Confronting Racism, Monash Uni Publishing, 2015, p270-1. [See Note 1 below on Les Hiatt]
Did Anyone Challenge Eric Willmot, and the Institutions Supporting Him, Regarding His Claim of Aboriginality?
Eric Willmot’s family - parents and siblings - were greatly concerned about Eric’s false claim that the family had Aboriginal ancestry.
We at Dark Emu Exposed have been informed by a family member that it all came to a head when Eric was appointed as the “Aboriginal” representative to the Board of the 1988 Australian Bicentennial Authority. This was too much for some family members, as recorded in a written letter that we have received, some relevant excerpts we include here:
Figures 16A+B - Excerpt from a recent letter from a Willmot family member to Dark Emu Exposed detailing this aspect of the Eric Willmot Affair. [Ed.note: the meeting referred to in Figure 16A between the 1988 Bicentennial Committee and Albert James & Mary Willmot actually occurred in a Brisbane hotel room between the Committee’s Chairman Jim Kirk and Albert James & Mary Willmot]
This story does have some independent corroboration, for, on the 9th of October 1987, the Chairman of the Bicentennial Authority wrote to the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, advising him of the progress of the Authority. In his report, the Chairman Jim Kirk AC, advised that some changes to the members of the Board had occurred.
Notably, he advised the PM that it was intended, “to replace Professor Eric Willmot as the Aboriginal representative” on the Board (see page 2 in Figure 17B below).
One would speculate that Willmot would not have given up such a prestigious position willingly, unless our family informant is correct - after Eric’s brother and sister (Albert and Mary) confronted the Chairman with the evidence, and Eric wrote his letter of resignation, he was formally removed from the Board.
Figure 17A+B - Chairman’s Letter from Australian Bicentennial Authority Report for - 1986-87 (7th) Source: Pages 1-2
Our informant also confirmed that the family had written to the “Courier Mail in Brisbane” [& Sunday Mail], which we were also able to independently corroborate (See our sourcing of newspapers in Figures 9 to 11 above).
Figures 18 - Excerpt from a recent letter from a Willmot family member to Dark Emu Exposed detailing an aspect of the Eric Willmot Affair.
After his resignation(s), the family may have thought that Eric would have realised that, morally and ethically, his career from now on lay in a field where he did not need to falsely claim that he was “Aboriginal”.
But is was not to be. It appears that Eric Willmot wanted to continue what the family described as, “distressing” and “disgusting” behaviour, by still falsely claiming that he was ‘Aboriginal’.
In a letter dated 5 Feb 2001, seen by Dark Emu Exposed , Eric’s brother, Albert James Willmot wrote to Australian Democrat Senator Aden Ridgeway with the family’s further concerns and seeking help:
Dear Aden
My name is Jim Willmot, I am the brother of Eric Willmot, whose name, I am sure you know, is synonymous with Aboriginality in this country … we have met on one or two occasions in Wauchope [in association with the Bunyah Local Aboriginal Land Council in Wauchope].
The purpose of this letter is to try to bring some justice to bear concerning the claims Eric has made over the last 25 years. Eric has no traceable Aboriginality in the true records of this country…
The claim Eric has made relate to recent events and I believe that there is overwhelming evidence to show that he has clearly and deliberately set out to unlawfully claim his background as an Aborigine to further his own career and ends.
In the eighties, we, his "white "family tried to get the Hawke Government to investigate his claims, but the political doors were quite firmly closed in our face.
Prior to this, in the Whitlam era, Eric's father, now deceased, tried also to have his claims investigated. He too, received no assistance. The political climate at the time did not want an Aboriginal scandal on its books.
The reason that I have brought this to your attention at this time is because it was brought to my attention that the 1999 edition of the publication " From Ochres to Eel Traps" is now a text in our schools.
This publication on pages 27-28 in the section Aboriginal Inventors includes text as such. This is incorrect but more distressingly in the reference to Eric as one of the Stolen Generation, made by Jenny Humphrey. The fact that Eric's lies are now being taught and are entering this official record is most distressing.
I believe the point has now been reached when Eric must make a Public Retraction and that the Commonwealth Police should be requested to start an investigation into his claims and affairs as regards possible fraud.
Eric's mother, Pauline Willmot (nee Bell) is now 90 years old and we wish to have this matter dealt with before her death.
Any member of his true family would be happy to submit to DNA testing to prove the validity of our claims.
Throughout the period of Eric's claims we have made it clear that we have nothing but the greatest respect for the Aboriginal people of this country and especially for those genuine Aboriginals, such as yourself who has risen to prominence and I am sure your personal knowledge of Deanna and myself attest to this.
The whole Willmot family has been severely distressed over many years as Eric's story unfolded, for we believe he has deliberately and systematically set about to changing history and public record to support his claims and we feel disgusted that he has been allowed to continue to deceive successive governments, Aboriginal leaders and a whole nation of people unchecked, and may even suggest, helped by various political and Aboriginal leaders of that time. Eric once boasted to me that Hitler had it right, if you tell a lie big enough and often enough someone will listen.
Aden, I trust that you have the moral fibre and belief in your own people, both black and white, to now investigate this matter.
We have extensive records.
I also have taken the step of forwarding a copy of this letter to Senator Meg Lees, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.
I await your reply and am ready to meet with you at any time. I regret the stress that such an investigation will bring to many people but I cannot sit by and see the historical records being barsyardised. [sic]
Regards in all sincerity,
James Willmot.
Beresfield NSW 2320
Apparently, nothing came of this effort by the family, as neither Senator Ridgeway, nor Senator Lees, were able/willing to help the family any further.
So Why Does it Matter? - Who Cares if Eric Was a Fake As long as he Helped Aboriginal People?
Well, it actually does matter - a lot.
The deception that Professor Eric Willmot, and his supporters and facilitators, carried out over the past 50 years is a direct challenge to the high integrity, governance, ethics and morality that the Australian working peoples have been trying to achieve over the past 250 years with their Australian Project.
The problem with ‘fakes’ is that they are compromised and living day-to-day with a career ending secret - a lie of their own making - about who they really are. This leaves them vulnerable to actors who might want to ‘blackmail’ them into supporting “the cause.”
It also raises questions about their honesty - if they can’t even tell the truth about who they are, how can parents and students trust what they are teaching in our schools and universities and what they write in their textbooks? And how can the public trust the integrity of the institutions which have employed them, obviously without the necessary due diligence?
In a much broader sense, we find evidence that these ‘fakes’ are often at the forefront of promoting discord and racism within our society by their '“re-interpretation”, and even fabrication, of our history so as to give Aboriginal people a sense that Australia’s history was a lot worse to its Indigenous peoples than it really was.
Dr Bruce Gilley, Professor of Political Science at Portland State University (USA) in a recent interview has summed up this problem succinctly:
“…To me … the real racism is these white academics who tell brown and black people what they are, and are not, allowed to think about their own histories and what they should, and should not, think about those histories.”
Before readers think that we here at Dark Emu Exposed are nothing more than what Professor Marcia Langton has described us as being, “a nefarious Trump like cult [and] old stock-traders that are losing money sitting around in their underpants [on their keyboards] in their mother's basements” [watch here from 3:05 to 04:05], consider the following evidence in defence of our claim that the ‘fakes’ are destroying truth and the educational futures of our children.
For example, here is the totally fake ‘Winninninni’ woman, Professor Kerrie Doyle, singing with clap-sticks a song which she describes as,
“…this song is an ancient song, that Pemulwuy sung to the British people … Pemulwuy was one of the culture heroes and warriors from Sydney at the time of colonisation. Now, we have actually a recording of Pemulwuy singing it, and he's really good…it's really a man's song and I'm allowed to sing it…” - [ read and listen here]
Just let that sink in for a moment - a Professor (and Dean) at what is purportedly a modern, Western, science-based university in Australia is teaching her Aboriginal students that she has a recording of Pemulwuy, who died in 1802 more than 50 years prior to the invention of sound recording, singing a man’s song that, despite being a woman, she says she is allowed to sing. [This sound clip was taken and sent to us by an Aboriginal student in Professor Doyle’s class who was understandably horrified at the ‘bulls**t’ the ‘Aboriginal professor was teaching]
The same can be said for the totally fake ‘Wiradjuri’ Aboriginal man, Professor Dennis Foley (ANU, Griffith University, Federation University) and his made up fiction/‘non-fiction’ book, What the Colonists Never Knew.
Professor Foley is currently a Professorial Research Fellow at the National Centre for Reconciliation, Truth, and Justice at the Federation University. Unbelievable.
Similarly for the ‘fake’ Aboriginal man Professor Bruce Pascoe, whose book Dark Emu has been widely condemned by sensible scholars, commentators and many Aboriginal people, as being false history. Professor Pascoe is supported by many who we label as ‘facilitators’ - either mistakenly or purposely - for their support of a ‘fake’ such as Pascoe whose book supports “the cause” of anti-colonialism, decolonisation and Aboriginal political self-determination.
And we should not forget one of the most skilful [and wilfull?] ‘fakes’ of all, RAAF Wing-Commander, Professor Lisa Jackson Pulver AM who, as she tells her gullible or incredulous students as the case may be, that she is,
“… proudly standing here as a child of the world, fiercely Aboriginal and don't anyone forget it !” [watch here from 02:10].
Over time, the above fakes via their writings and lectures start to become ‘facilitators’ of the false notion that the British did not create the sovereignty of Australia by a relatively peaceful ‘discovery and occupancy’ process, but rather “stole” Aboriginal sovereignty by a series of so-called “frontier wars” in which no “treaties” were signed for Aboriginal lands.
To the indoctrinated, the delusional chant, “Aboriginal land was never ceded. Always was, always will be Aboriginal land”, is a statement of fact.
In support for this argument of ours, readers just need to consider how much more frequently Australians are being asked to consider this issue, with frequent news stories about commerating the so-called “frontier wars” at the National War Memorial.
Thus, is it just co-incidental that Pemulwuy, an obscure Aboriginal man who hardly rated a mention in Australia’s historiography, has been chosen to be elevated to prominence as,
“… one of Australia's first true heroes, Pemulwuy - a proud and feared Aboriginal warrior, [who] leads an uncompromising twelve-year war against British colonial oppression and makes the supreme sacrifice in order to guide his people to safety…[after] a guerilla war that pushes the invading English to the brink…” (Booktopia)?
This elevation of Pemulwuy into the pantheon of Aboriginal “resistance freedom fighters” was not by the work of a professional historian, but by Eric Willmot, a maths and science teacher, apparently “anointed” and “facilitated” by Aboriginal power broker Charles Perkins, to whom Willmot dedicated his ‘historical novel’ on Pemulwuy.
To think that it is possible that Willmot’s ‘historical novel’ might be used as a ‘psuedo-history textbook’ on the life and times of Pemulwuy and the early history of the penal colony at Sydney is truely frightening and disheartening.
Even a cursory check of what Eric Willmot has to say about the history of Pemulwuy reveals inaccuracies and fabrications, as evidenced in the following short film critique that Dark Emu Exposed produced.
Readers will also see in the above description of Pemulwuy, portraying him as an anti-colonial revolutionary, a “guerilla and resistance fighter” for his “nation” against the invading British nation, an attempt to reinforce amongst the public that the settlement of Australia was achieved by a defined “war” in which the “land was stolen.”
A conspiracy theorist with some inside knowledge might connect the dots and observe how Charles Perkin’s daughter Rachel Perkins has gone on to be a member of AIATSIS herself, and a promoter of “the cause” of decolonisation and Aboriginal political self-determination.
She is “re-articulating Australian history and culture from Indigenous perspectives” with her documentary films - the First Australians (2008) and the Australian [Frontier] Wars (2022). Both of these films seek to “re-articulate” the colonial settlement of Australia as a “war” between Aboriginal and British “nations”, replete with “freedom fighters”, “guerilla” fighting tactics, Aboriginal “civilian” massacres and extra judicial killings.
Hence, her recent appearance at the National Press Club with the historian of the so-called “frontier wars”, Henry Reynolds, to promote more widely, their thesis that colonial Australia was settled by “war”, rather than by the reality of a relatively peaceful settlement process, compared to other parts of the world.
Another powerful personality within the Aboriginal activist cause is University of Melbourne’s Professor Marcia Langton. She has frequently gone on the public record in apparent attempts to facilitate the acceptance of ‘fakes’ such as Bruce Pascoe [see here] and more recently Professor Lisa Jackson Pulver [see at 03:14].
It is surprising that an academic of Professor Langton’s standing should publicly support the “Aboriginality” of these two so-called “Aboriginal” academics given that they have not been able to provide publicly any real documentary evidence that they satisfy the Commonwealth’s 3-part rule for Aboriginality.
This simple requirement to comply with the 3-part rule is readily adhered to by many ordinary Aboriginal people as required, yet these two highly qualified academics appear to be above the need to demonstrate their claims of Aboriginality prior to accepting benefits from the Commonwealth, either directly or indirectly.
The following clip from the ABC/Blackfella film, The Dark Emu Story, neatly sums up the diverse views and debates on ‘fakes’, their ‘facilitators’ and their affect on Australian historiography; and the problems they create with regard to having benefits and recognition in a modern country such as Australia tied to what race you happen to be, or claim to be.
The Identity of Bruce Pascoe - a short excerpt from the ABC/Blackfella film, The Dark Emu Story (c). Copyright exemption sought based on fair use for educational purposes. Full video available on ABC iView : https://iview.abc.net.au/show/dark-emu-story
Notes
Note 1 - The Chutzpah of Eric Willmot
Lester Richard Hiatt (1931–14 February 2008), known as Les Hiatt, was a scholar of Australian Aboriginal societies who promoted Australian Aboriginal studies within both the academic world and within the wider public for almost 50 years.[1] He is now regarded as one of Australia's foremost anthropologists (Wikipedia).
Further Reading 1
The Chutzpah of Eric Willmot - He could talk himself into any job for an Aborigine
At the University of New England
Figure 19 - University of New England
Figure 20 - University of New England
2. At the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet for his Member of the Order of Australia
Figure 21 - List of Australian Orders - Eric Willmot AM in 1984 (Source)
3. At the University of Canberra as an “Indigenous Inventor” and “Aboriginal Scholar”
4. At the University of Newcastle
Figure 25 - (Source:)
Description for above University of Newcastle description
This photo appeared in the News, Volume 12, Number 20, November 10 to 24, 1986. The text was: "BEYOND SCHOOL: increasing the opportunities for Aboriginal people in post-secondary education.
The Aboriginal Education Conference held at the University on October 23 and 24 brought together over 100 Aboriginal Delegates, a majority of them Aboriginal, people mainly from throughout New South Wales and the Hunter Valley. Many of them were students, teachers and lectures from schools, TAFE, universities and colleges of advanced education who came to hear a number of distinguished Aboriginal educationists from other states discuss ways in which they are increasing opportunities for Aboriginal people to enter tertiary education and providing support for Aboriginal students.
Speakers included this year's Boyer lecturer, Professor Eric Willmot, Head of the School of Education at the James Cook University, who argued the case for providing some exclusively Aboriginal schools while improving the quality of education for Aboriginal students in state schools.
… Eve Fesl, a linguist and Director of the Aboriginal Research Centre at Monash University, emphasised the urgent need for Aboriginal graduates. "White people are at the top of the power structure", Mrs Fesl said "and unless Aboriginal professional people can attain some of these top position, white people will be making decisions about Aboriginal lives for the rest of our lives and for the generations to come”
She stressed the need for Aboriginal teachers as well as training programmes in Aboriginal culture and history for all teachers. "We can have the best programmes in the world, but if the teachers are racist, the kids will drop out anyhow".
Aboriginal lawyers are also need. "We are now having to pay white lawyers and then having to try to get across to them what we want on land rights and our feelings on the land.”
There is need too, for Aboriginal political scientist. A National Aboriginal Conference established in accordance with Aboriginal traditional systems may have been far more appropriate than the NAC designed by Europeans. Similarly problems experienced by land councils and co-operatives and decision made by bodies dealing with Aboriginal funding illustrate the importance of training Aboriginal economists, accountants, and business administrators. Aboriginal philosopher, historians and archaeologists are needed to approach their fields from an Aboriginal perspective; likewise Aboriginal psychologists and sociologists who can not only introduce an Aboriginal perspective, but may throw a new light on such issues as why so many white people in Australia have more race hated towards Aborigines than any other group and what makes many white teachers racist in the classroom.
Aboriginal women in Alice Springs have developed plans for an Aboriginal birth centre since a newly-built Alice Springs Hospital is seen as inappropriate to Aboriginal birthing customs. There is a need for Aboriginal doctors and nurses (and architects) with a perception of the different values in Aboriginal society.
Eve Fesl highlighted the problems faced by Aboriginal graduates in what she described as "Aboriginal industry". White Anglo-Saxon males are still the decision-makers. When equity programmes are introduced often women are chosen who uphold the values of the men in power, "door keepers" who will keep out ant bright women who may threaten male values. White "experts" and some Aboriginal people in positions of authority feel threaten by Aboriginal graduates and sometimes work against them.
There is a need to reassure them that tertiary education does not, as it is sometimes claimed, undermine Aboriginality. The Monash Orientation Scheme (MOSA) established be Eve Fesl and outlined by the current Director, Isaac Brown, in fact was designed to reinforce Aboriginality while giving support to Aboriginal students and equipping them with skills.
Isaac Brown described the difficulties faced by Aboriginal students in universities, which he described as "male dominated, conservative, enlist Anglo institutions with a strong middle class bias".
... In developing literacy and improving communication skills, use is made if the increasing number of Aboriginal authors and comparison is made with English authors. Numeracy is developed by building on the knowledge of the community from which the student comes. Mathematics was a part of Aboriginal culture in so far as it was needed.
MOSA starts at that point. Aboriginal students are presented often for the first time with an account of the violence of contact history and the denigration of their culture. This can produce a group of "angry, bitter, frustrated blacks'. (Source:)
Further Reading 2
Eric Willmot - the “inventor of the twentieth century”
Eric Willmot claims in his book, Pemulwuy Rainbow Warrior, that until his 1987 book was published, “Pemulwuy’s name never appeared in any white Australian history”.
Figure 26 - Excerpt from second edition of Eric Willmot’s book, Pemulwuy where he claims that until his 1987 book was published, “Pemulwuy’s name never appeared in any white Australian history”. (Source: Pemulwuy, Rainbow Warrior, 1987, p(x))
In checking this bold claim of Willmot’s, we looked at the indexes of a two general Australian history books, written by ‘whites’ in the decade or two prior Willmot’s book being published, for any mention of the name of Pemulwuy.
Neither, Manning Clark’s, History of Australia Vol I (1962), nor Marjorie Barnard’s, A History of Australia (1962 reprint 1980) contained Pemulwuy in the index or in the body of the text as far as we could see.
Willmot wrote his book in 1987, well before the Age of the Internet and search engines such as Google so he did not have access to research tools such as Google Books Ngram. This tool can provide the researcher with a qualitative measure of the occurrance of a particular word over an historical period [Ngram is an unreliable tool as a quantitative measure].
In the case of the word, “Pemulwuy”, it does appear true that Willmot’s 1987 book may have led to a relative surge in its appearance in the literature, and this may all be due to Willmot. In the decades immediately prior to the 1980s there appears to be no occurance of the word in the literature. This would appear to support Willmot’s claim that,
“Until the the first edition of this book was written. and published in 1987, Pemulwuy’s name never appeared in any white history…”
This is illustrated in the Ngram results in Figure 27 below.
However, as researchers we noted a small ‘blip’ around 1880 in the occurance of the word “Pemulwuy” and consulted our library to investigate.
Figure 27 - The Google Ngram Viewer for the word “Pemulwuy”, an online search engine that charts the frequencies of any set of search strings using a yearly count of n-grams found in printed sources published between 1500 and 2019 (Source Ngram and Wikipedia)
Checking our library we did actually find two Australian history books written by ‘white’ men that referred to Pemulwuy, thereby negating Willmot’s proud claim.
The first book was published in 1882 by the teacher, author, historian and archivist, James Bonwick (1817-1906), First Twenty Years of Australia, (George Robinson, 1882) where Pemulwuy’s name is clearly mentioned (see Figure 29).
Figure 28
Figure 29 - Excerpt from ‘white historian’ James Bonwick’s 1882 book, First Twenty Years of Australia, confirming that Eric Willmot’s claim that, “Pemulwuy’s name never appeared in any white Australian history”, prior to Willmot’s publication of his own book [ironically as a ‘white’ man pretending to be a ‘black.’ (Source: ibid., p181)
The second book, first published in 1883, was by the colonial historian, educationist and civil servant, George William Rusden (1819-1903), History of Australia, which our 1908 edition clearly shows four separate entries for “Pemulwuy” in its index (see Figures 30 and 31).
This book also is likely to have contributed to the ‘blip’ in the occurrence of the word “Pemulwuy” in the Ngram in Figure 27.
Figure 30 - Title page of George William Rusden’s 1908 edition of, History of Australia
Figure 31 - Index entries for “Pemulwuy” in George William Rusden’s 1908 edition of History of Australia
Although it has been said that reviews for George William Rusden’s, The History of Australia were “scathing” for its “untrustworthyness”, “inaccuracies” and “predjuces”, it has also been written that Rusden's personal knowledge of events gave strength to his work and that “their breadth of scale” was,
“… a major cultural achievement of the colonial period, particularly notable for his belief that the history of Australasia did not begin with Europeans. He had deep knowledge of and sympathy with the native peoples of Australasia and was, according to D. B. W. Sladen, 'a violent Tory on everything except where natives were concerned … even more violent as an advocate for coloured people.” (ADB)
Rusden’s interest in the history of Aboriginal people is clearly indicated by his relatively detailed description of Pemulwuy’s actions, which he writes as being, “some kind of warfare with those who outlawed him on his native soil.” (see Figure 32)
Some might think that this description supports Willmot’s [and more recent historians and commentators such as Henry Reynolds and Rachel Perkins] position that Pemulwuy was indeed some sort of “resistance” fighter for his people.
But then Rusden goes on to describe Pemulwuy as the “terror of the district” whose “warfare”, and sway over his “companions”, caused Aborigines in Sydney and his own district to regret his actions (see Figure 33).
Figure 32 - Extract of Rusden’s History of Australia, where he discusses Pemulwey’s actions [note also page heading “PEMULWUY” which suggests Rusden considered him a significant Figure in Sydney’s history]. Source: Rusden G.W., History of Australia, 2nd Ed Charles Stuart & Co., 1908, p339.
Figure 33 - Extract of Rusden’s History of Australia, where he discusses Pemulwey’s actions not being supported by all Aborigines. Source: Rusden G.W., History of Australia, 2nd Ed Charles Stuart & Co., 1908, p340.
Thus , once again Australia’s colonial history is actually more nuanced than many modern historians, writers and commentators would have us believe. Pemulwuy was not explicitly some sort resistance warrior fighting on behalf of all Aboriginal people against the British in a so-called frontier war.
Others have rightly pointed out that Pemulwuy would be better described as a, “rebellious sort, a Ned Kelly or Robin Hood figure and a nuisance…” and a reminder that, “not all Aborigines are the same.” [Robert Murray, Figure 34].
Figure 34 - Robert Murray in Don’t Like the Past? Invent a New One, Quadrant Online, 26th January 2020
Further Reading 3
Why Does This All Matter Anyway? - Who Cares What Eric Willmot Wrote About Pemulwuy?
The problem with a “romantic reconstruction of the past” [see Gordon Briscoe below] is that the ‘historically fictional’ portrayal of Pemulwuy in Eric Willmot’s book, will become to be viewed as ‘fact’ by the next generation of our students.
The political opportunists, who are pushing for Aboriginal political self-determination, know the power of indoctrination. They know it can be used to steadily move public sentiment towards an acceptance of the radically revisionist view that the British violently dispossessed all Aboriginal people (as a collective polity), from the land the tribes occupied across all of Australia, in a claimed series of massacres during the so-called “Frontier Wars”.
Figures such as Pemulwuy, supported by books and on-line resources, are used to create new “war heroes” and “resistance fighters.”
Historian Gordon Briscoe [History Workshop Journal , Vol 36, 1993] was aware of this trend as early as 1993 when he produced a comprehensive paper pointing out that his research into the records did not support the idea that, “violence was the motive force behind relations between the British and Aborigines.”
In particular, he recognised Pemulwuy’s violence as being mere “banditry” (ibid., p.140), not some co-ordinated and tactical warfare.
Figure 35 - Gordon Briscoe, History Workshop Journal, Vol 36, Autumn 1993, p136
Figure 36 - Gordon Briscoe, ibid., p135
A quick search of the Historical Records of Australia and NSW finds two proclamations reflecting that the British considered Pemelwuy and other natives as merely criminals associated with, and under the influence of, outlawed convicts who had ‘gone bush.’
Figure 37 - Government Proclamation 23 Nov 1801 indicating that Pemulwuy is in cahoots with two outlawed convicts William Knight and Thomas Thrush. [This is an addition to the Proclamation of 17 Nov 1801(next Figure). Source HRA, S I,Vol III, p467.
Figures 38A & B - Initial Government Proclamation 17 Nov 1801 indicating rewards for capture or killing of outlawed convicts marauding with natives [such as Pemulwuy]. Source: HRNSW, V4, p626-7
Note the names of the accused are the outlawed convicts: W(illiam) K(night), T(homas) T(hrush) and the native T(ugagal).T(ugagal) another name for Pemulwuy [Pemul-why]. (see Keith Vincent Smith, Bennelong, 2001, p81).
To portray Pemulwuy as anything other than an opportunistic and violent bandit, bush-ranger or trouble-maker is misleading.
But that is the ‘orthodox’ view nowadays. Historians such as Henry Reynolds, ‘Aboriginal’ writers such as Eric Willmot and film-makers such as Rachel Perkins have elevated Pemulwuy to be accepted as an “aboriginal warrior” leading a “resistance” movement against colonisation.
Consider how even the National Museum of Australia (NMA) selectively portrays Pemulwuy this way, instead of as a murdering bandit, on their educational website, which contains all the required words and phrases of the anti-colonial vocabulary:
Figure 39 - Source
From the NMA website:
“Background to resistance
…The Eora were the traditional owners… they had a complex system of laws that governed social relations, behaviour and resource use. The European invaders had no appreciation of this …
Disrupting colonisation
Pemulwuy featured significantly in the ongoing resistance to colonisation…
Death of a warrior…”
The National Museum director Mathew Trinca has said,
“Pemulwuy was a hero to Aboriginal people. Pemulwuy’s daring leadership impressed enemies and comrades alike and the story of his concerted campaign of resistance against British colonists should be more widely known.” (Source).
As our institutions steadily get infiltrated with this revisionist history, the myth of Pemulwuy grows - he is now promoted on the ABC’s NITV as a “valiant guerrilla campaign[er] against the British”, and even reportedly had the Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne [at the time] paying tribute to him.
This is despite that fact that most of his attacks were against settlers and other Aborigines and not the British military. Pemulwuy’s banditry was not in the main a series of ”warrior” to “soldier” battles. It was not a conventional “war” by its usual definition.
Instead, in most incidents, the British Corp soldiers only turned up to the affray once Pemulway had attacked the settlers or burned their crops. This put Pemulwuy and his group in the category of being bandits - they did surprise attacks against civilians rather than direct battles with British soldiers and military installations. More Ned Kelly fighting for spoils, than Viet Cong fighting for sovereignty.
The same NMA program also tells the viewers that, ”in the end he was sold-out by his own people, sadly.” Hardly the outcome one would expect for a broad-based, Aboriginal political uprising. Many Aboriginal groups just saw Pemulwuy for what he really was - a nuisance bandit that needed to be stopped.
This accords with the records that his Aboriginal compatriot Bennelong apparently hated him and agitated to get the British to kill him.
And why, some of us might wonder, is SBS dubbing Pemulwuy into the Assyrian language and presenting articles on him as a “resistance fighter against colonialism” in Arabic?
Would it be too conspiratorial of us to think that this might be being done to build on “the incredible solidarity” between Aboriginal people and those “resistance fighters” in the Middle East, who claim they are under the yoke of Israeli colonisation?
Is it just co-incidental that the Red Flag, a publication of Socialist Alternative - the revolutionary Marxist group based in Australia - specifically attempts to link colonisation with terror and Western Imperialism? How do Australians with a Middle East heritage feel when they are told that,
“The West [ie Australia as well] has destroyed the lives of millions of people across the region for its own cynical reasons: profit and power.” (second last para).
And why does a prominent writer for Red Flag, Jeff Sparrow, defend Bruce Pascoe, who is clearly an ‘Aboriginal fake’? And why does he contradict Marcia Langton’s claims that 'she was “never a member of the Communist Party” [the inference being that she is/was not a communist or radical anti-capitalist] when he wrote,
“ASIO particularly wanted information on Marcia Langton, now a prominent academic but then a leading Trotskyist.”
- A LIFE IN MIRRORS - Jeff Sparrow and Rjurik Davidson meet Thomas Shepherd, a former ASIO informer, OVERLAND, ISSUE 196 SPRING 2009 here page 5
It becomes very hard for an observant member of the public not to be very suspicious that there are deep links in Australia between Marxism, Aboriginal activism and fake Aborigines and their facilitators, all pushing ahead with “the cause.”
And why are we not surprised to find that another fake, Professor Jaky Troy, the Director of Indigenous Research at the University of Sydney, being referred to in this “tragic Pemulwuy tale” as referred to in the commentary.
This just proves our point - fakes beget fakes, as the facilitators help them march through our institutions with their revisionist histories.
Further Reading 4 - on Colin Tatz
As far as we are aware, Colin Tatz never made claims about his own life-story and his family’s ancestry that were not true.
However, we are aware that there was much critical debate about his work as an academic - much dispute as to how much of his work was true, based on fact, or of good scholarship.
From the small amount of research we have done on some of Tatz’s work in the so-called ‘Aboriginal genocide’ and so-called ’Stolen Generations’ studies area, we think that Tatz has pushed his analyses and claims too far based on the actual evidence that was available.
For those readers that are interested in an example of the reliability, or otherwise, of work by the late Colin Tatz, historian Keith Windschuttle has taken Tatz to task on his treatment of the Aboriginal man, Harold Blair and his Holiday Scheme for Aboriginal children.
Windschuttle claims that Tatz defamed Blair at the Human Rights Commission’s inquiry into the Stolen Generations.
Below is Windschuttle’s detailed critique of Tatz, followed by a response by Tatz from the same book above, where we quoted Tatz’s comments on Eric Willmot.
We will let our readers make up their own minds as to the reliability of Tatz’s writings. However, we do note that Tatz’s book was published in 2015, prior to Willmot’s death in 2019 and, as far as we have been able to determine, Willmot made no complaints, legal or informal, regarding Tatz’s depiction of their shared history together - our point being that what Tatz wrote about Willmot is probably correct.
Keith Windschuttle’s critique of Colin Tatz’s claims against Harold Blair - The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume Three: The Stolen Generations 1881–2008, Macleay Press, (2009) p554-8
And Colin Tatz’s rebuttal here - Human Rights and Human Wrongs - A life Confronting Racism, Monash Uni Publishing, 2015, p170-1.
Further Reading 5
The final words on this whole sorry saga we will give to two insightful commentators.
The first is Stan Grant, whose apt words on Bruce Pascoe we think could just as easily be applied to Eric Willmot:
“Pascoe is shrewd. I can see in him something of the oldtime carny. He’s a spruiker in a travelling medicine show. He is a conjurer. Pascoe invites people to disbelieve their eyes. The white man vanishes and behold, the black man appears…This is an illusion for a white audience. Crucially, the conjurer is not a conman. Pascoe is not deceiving his audience. Far from it. They believe because they want to believe.” - Stan Grant
And the second is Dr Bruce Gilley, Professor of Political Science at Portland State University (USA) who, in a recent interview, has summed up this problem succinctly:
“…To me … the real racism is these white academics who tell brown and black people what they are and are not allowed to think about their own histories and what they should and should not think about those histories.”
Listen to video from 02:05 below.
Further Reading 6 - Why We Shouldn’t Worry Too Much About Marxists
To re-emphasis Dr Bruce Gilley’s important observation,
“…To me … the real racism is these white academics who tell brown and black people what they are and are not allowed to think about their own histories and what they should and should not think about those histories.”
consider the article written in the Socialist Alternative magazine, Redflag, by the ‘white’ Marxist Sarah Garnham, in which she blatantly tells Aboriginal Australians, Warren Mundine and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price how mistaken they are when they express their own agency.
“Saint” Sarah Garnham is clearly happy to, as Dr Gilley suggests, “…tell brown and black people what they are and are not allowed to think about their own histories and what they should and should not think about those histories.”
Although Garnham labels Price as, “one of Australia’s leading white supremacists” and “just the latest in a long line of racists who attack Aboriginal people”, we think it fair to say that 99+% of Australians would disagree with Garnham on these points.
Sarah Garnham is described as “the new face of the [Marxist] movement”, which is a relief. She has the politics of a ranting-child who loves the sound of their own voice [watch here], so there is no need for us to fear too much from the ‘new’ Marxists emanating from the Socialist Alternative and their Redflag.
Sarah Garnham is no embryo of a future power-broker and wrecker like Marcia Langton.
