In 1968, W.E.H. Stanner announced that “there is a secret river of blood in Australian history.” A large part of understanding The Secret River as well as There There is recognizing the violence of settler colonialism that has long been concealed, forgotten, and excused.
The Secret River certainly criticizes the British settler’s colonization of Australia and their failure to try to understand and live harmoniously with its Aboriginal inhabitants. Yet what I found interesting is that at times, it also seemed to elicit pity for the white settlers and all they had gone through during their “pioneering” and even their poverty back in London. Will Thornhill initially is represented as a victim of an unjust social structure, but slowly shifts to becoming the perpetrator of another harmful structure in New South Wales. It’s unclear to me whether Grenville is reinforcing the myth of the “pioneer with good intentions”, totally condemning it, or a bit of both.
The personal perspective of the indigenous person is not represented in The Secret River, and the personal perspective of the settler colonizer is not present in There There. In Orange’s novel, Native voices take precedence and a variety of characters get the opportunity to define what settler colonialism means to them. There is no ambiguity regarding the conflicting intentions of the white colonizers, and I felt like a more resolute, negative stance is taken against settler colonialism itself. To me, this difference between the two novels is a positive one.
Reading The Secret River and There There reveals how many of the core beliefs that contribute to settler colonialism have not disappeared. In both novels, Native people are regarded as inferior, difficult to understand, less ‘refined’, intelligent, or moral as white people, and much more. This reality helps portray settler colonialism as a “structure, not an event” as explained in the video lectures and highlights how much progress needs to be made on the road to reconciliation.
Hi Heather! I love all of your insight! I too thought it was a bit interesting that Thornhill is victimized at the beginning and eventually perpetuates the social structure and ladder. It's like there's no way to get rid of this social structure, despite moving to a completely new place with a new environment. Wherever settlers find themselves, they bring their home's social ideas and structures.
ReplyDeleteHi Heather! I agree that it was interesting to see Thornhill victimized in the beginning of the novel while he lived in London. I think it's pretty uncommon to show sympathy for someone who later turns to doing wrong. However, I agree that both novels show the harm caused to Natives by colonizers who bring their culture and ideals with them
ReplyDeleteHi Heather, your question on whether Greville is condemning or reinforcing the "pioneer with good intentions" has interested me as well. I honestly do not know if there is an attainable answer, but for the sake of entertaining the idea, it might be worth it to try to speculate Grenville's process. To me, it seems like she is doing the latter (reinforcing). The way the novel comments on the 'effortless movements' of the Aboriginals throughout some of the scenes in the latest part makes me feel like Grenville is trying to glaze over the harmful structure present with compliments.
ReplyDeleteHey Heather! I liked your quote at the beginning, giving meaning to the title of the book. I also find it interesting to think of what Grenville's stance on the settler's perspective is. I honestly thought I would find it hard to sympathize with them, but at times, Grenville has me rooting for the Thornhill family. Definitely on the whole, I see them in a negative light, but that also makes for an interesting novel (to have the main characters be someone you are rooting against). I wonder if we will be able to piece together a more concrete stance from Grenville by the end of the novel?
ReplyDelete