There There
As a story focused on Native Americans, past settler colonialism and its present effects are seen throughout the book. Some are more obvious, like the protests at Alcatraz regarding Native land or the characters losing their heritage in an attempt to assimilate. There are also a few more subtle references. For example, when Dene is attempting to get funding for his film, there is a white man applying for a minority-specific scholarship who misuses the title quote and talks about moving to Oakland for its cheapness and opportunity. This is parallel to what Europeans did arriving in the US (take Native resources, misunderstand/appropriate their culture, and take land they see as open and ready for them). This detail shows how, while settler colonialism itself is a thing of the past in the US, its spirit continues in present day.
The Secret River
In The Secret River, settler colonialism is portrayed in a positive light. From the beginning, it is quite literally a lifesaver. Colonialism allows Will the opportunity for a new life, where he grows his family, has enough money for the first time in his life, and becomes the Sydney equivalent of gentry with his own plot of land. The book describes how they are "civilizing" the land and doing the city a favor by expanding their influence and driving back the Aboriginal people. Thus far, the Aboriginals are depicted as mindless and brutal savages preying on the poor innocent farmers who just want to exist peacefully.
Comparing the Two
In terms of the narrator, the two books are complete opposites regarding how they depict settler colonialism. There There shows it in a negative light by emphasizing the past, present, and future damage it does to Native communities while The Secret River depicts it positively by focusing on how it allowed disadvantaged people a chance at a better life. However, both authors had a similar intent. Given the topic and content of the story, it is clear that Orange strongly opposes any form of colonialism, both traditional and modern. Grenville seems to also oppose colonialism, but she uses the opposite method to show this. By using typical racist and imperialist terminology and situations ("savages," dehumanization, lynching, etc.), Grenville shows to the reader that the protagonist is in the wrong. She creates a character that garners sympathy due to his increadibly unfortunate life that gets a new and better life through colonalism, then shows that, despite the benefits it gives to Thornhill, colonialism will never be justified.
I absolutely love how you compared the two novels in terms of how they portray settler colonialism. I actually spoke about the same thing, but I love how you worded it. I completely agree that neither author attempts to support colonialism in any sense through these novels, however their approach at conveying why colonialism is harmful are complete opposites. Personally, I think the way Grenville accomplished conveying the idea that colonialism is harmful while still showing it in a positive light is very creative, but I do have to say that if you are not as culturally or historically aware of the tragedies this caused Natives to experience, it would not be nearly as clear or educational (so far, at least) as "There There" is.
ReplyDeleteYour last point is very important. Could readers come away from The Secret River thinking settler colonialism is great?
DeleteI also like how we see both sides of this complex settler colonialism problem through these two novels. I really like how you wrote about the subtle examples of settler colonialism in regards to Dene Oxendene. Using those dehumanizing words in "The Secret River," allows us to see that Will is part of the problem, imposing himself on land that belongs to the aboriginals. Thank you for highlighting this important point.
ReplyDeleteYour connection of the two texts is fantastic. I too think that both books argue against colonialism but do so in different ways. Orange uses a wide range of perspectives to show the long term effects of colonialism. On the other hand, Grenville uses a single perspective to show how the upper class in Britain essentially forced the lower class to take the land of natives.
ReplyDeleteI think this issue of perspective explains the differences discussed by Bella above in the two texts.
DeleteYou make a lot of really good connections between these two texts. In my blog post, I also thought a lot about whether settler colonialism can be acceptable, or whether it is unjustifiable like you say. It's a tough question for me to answer. While I can imagine some scenarios where settler colonialism might benefit the greater good, the idea of stealing someone else's land also feels very morally questionable.
ReplyDeleteThis whole dilemma is really worth discussing at greater length. I hope we get a chance to do so in class.
DeleteI really appreciate your comparison of the authors of the two texts. They certainly do both seem to be anti-colonialist authors, but it's fascinating how they achieve their similar goals through two opposite approaches, with Grenville's "protagonist" perpetrating colonialism and Orange's main characters experiencing the lasting impact of it. I wonder if, historically, one strategy has generally been more effective than the other at achieving this goal. Of course, such a thing is hard to quantify, but it's still interesting to think about.
ReplyDelete