Differing Perspectives on Grenville's Perspective

-

    Dolores Herrero’s “Crossing The Secret River: From Victim to Perpetrator, or the Silent/Dark Side of the Australian Settlement” interprets Grenville’s intentions behind The Secret River from a multifaceted perspective, acknowledging many different criticisms and conversations had about the author. The first perspective looks at the article from the vantage point of an attempt at an Australian apology, “the apology in postcolonizing Australia,” “however indirect and insufficient, to Indigenous Australians (89). Herrero claims that Grenville’s popular novel brings out the ‘secret’ from settler colonialism’s violent history, representing the horrid massacre as a necessity. This interpretation does call into question Grenville’s representation of the Aboriginal people, as we exclusively see them through the eyes of the settlers, who are mostly bigoted. Though the intention is that we see these victims through the eyes of the colonizers, the lack of Aboriginal character or voice may weaken the idea of an apology, though that is entirely subjective. I also understand that the difference in language intentionally divides the two groups, but this point still stands.

    The other perspective offered suggests that The Secret River aims for this impossible double apology by “examining her own convict ancestor’s implication in acts of Aboriginal genocide and dispossession, while also acknowledging the strength, courage, and determination that made settlement possible” (90). I do agree that the novel tends to shy away from demonization besides situationally realistic caricatures like Smasher, but this perspective is a difficult one to place. Some may find acknowledging the difficulties and hardships of settlement to be celebrating the exploitation of Aboriginals, but the novel clearly doesn’t aim to do that, either. Overall, I believe that Herrero’s first interpretation of an Australian apology more closely aligns with Grenville’s intent, as a microlecture we watched detailed how the novel was written in response to the demands for reparations for Indigenous Australians.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Welcome!

-
Image
Hey there! Welcome to my blog about the concept of property under colonialism, with a literary interpretation on Kate Grenville's The Secret River.  This blog also features analyses of other texts that interpret the novel or discuss relevant themes. Image Source
Read more

Literary Interpretation on Property, Civilization, and Dehumanization

-
Image
     Civilization is a complicated construct. At the end of the day, that’s all it really is, though– a construct. Even so, we abide by the rules of our societies as absolute for fear of being an outcast or being punished. With entirely different standards, rules, and often moral compasses, how do two different civilizations, especially when they speak different languages, interact? What happens when they initiate a dispute? More specifically, how does one decide complicated exchanges like the possession of property or land, especially when one civilization was there first? Grenville’s The Secret River details this discrepancy and confusion under the all too real colonization of Australian Aboriginal communities by European settlers.      Though we mainly follow the perspective of Thornhill and his family, most of the settler characters show no real care or consideration of Aboriginal property. Before landing, the main mindset is that they deserve to take ...
Read more

John Locke and Land Ownership

-
Image
     In “Rescuing Indigenous Land Ownership: Revising Locke’s Account of Original Appropriation through Cultivation,” S. Stewart Braun analyzes an essential quote from philosopher John Locke, which was used to justify the acquisition of land– especially taking from and relocating indigenous communities. Locke claimed that cultivation is the means by which people can establish ownership over land. Numerous 17th and 18th century politicians used this quote from a reputable philosopher to rationalize settlement. Additionally, European settlers legally claimed indigenous land to be unoccupied despite it clearly being inhabited, due to a lack of visible cultivation. Braun claims that Locke certainly did not believe in a “hierarchical ordering of human persons in order to justify colonial acquisition” and certainly believed in equality.      Instead, Braun offers ways we can use the quote to instead account for the importance of land in our lives, especially ...
Read more

Works Cited

-
Braun, S. Stewart. “Rescuing Indigenous Land Ownership: Revising Locke’s Account of Original Appropriation through Cultivation.” Theoria: A Journal of Social & Political Theory, vol. 61, no. 139, June 2014, pp. 68–89. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.libproxy.scu.edu/10.3167/th.2014.6113904. Hamilton, Jennifer Mae. “‘Labour against Wilderness’ and the Trouble with Property beyond The Secret River.” Green Letters: Studies in Ecocriticism, vol. 20, no. 2, 2016, pp. 140–55. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.libproxy.scu.edu/10.1080/14688417.2016.1166066. Herrero, Dolores. “Crossing The Secret River: From Victim to Perpetrator, or the Silent/Dark Side of the Australian Settlement.” Atlantis: Revista de La Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos, vol. 36, no. 1, June 2014, pp. 87–105. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mlf&AN=2014701697&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Troy, Jakelin. “Language Contact in Ear...
Read more

Historical Language Contact & Tragedy in Forgone Communication

-
Image
     Jakelin Troy’s “Language Contact in Early Colonial New South Wales 1788-1791” details real historical accounts of initial contact between English settlers and Aboriginal Australians at Sydney Cove in Port Jackson, Australia. The First Fleet is led by Governor Arthur Phillip who eventually established the colony of New South Wales. The Aboriginals and the settlers initially tried communicating on friendly terms. Additionally, aiming to establish a common language was of utmost importance for Phillip. Despite their initial affable interactions, the Aboriginals were eventually upset by the colony’s presence as colonists were stealing from Aboriginals and attacking them, all out of Phillip’s control. Very upset by the failure in communications, Phillip doled out heavy punishments to offenders in an attempt to control aggression. As Aboriginals also began retaliating with violence, he feared an all-out war. Due to the urgency of communication, in an act of desperation Phi...
Read more