No. I was really interested in getting an overview of Australian history. The author indicates that he's attempting to be objective and balanced about the tensions between Aborigines and white Australians, but the paternalism is so thick I struggled to get through the first couple of hours and then gave up. For example the author states that establishing large areas of protected land for the indigenous people of Australia never would have worked because inevitably they would have been drawn away by the bright lights of the big city. Really? Really? That's so brutal, I'm not even really sure how to respond to that. There are many, many other examples. I think the author is genuinely trying to be balanced, he's just coming from a perspective that is already so far gone it's not much help.
Starts off okay but then it gets very predictable and a bit over the top. I was engaged for the first half, but then I just couldn't take it any more and had to put it down
The core argument of the book is interesting, but in some places this almost feels like a masters thesis, where the author is just trying to jam in as many facts as possible to support the main argument. As a result the book is repetitive and is downright dull in places.
Even though this was published in 1927, this book is an amazingly current satire of the religious puffery, false piety, and small mindedness of some that still exists today. The narration is pitch perfect.
Report Inappropriate Content