Such a variety of texts
My school has studied
-The Bacchae
-In Cold Blood
-The Piano (not an exam text)
-Persuasion
-No Sugar
I think I'll be doing No Sugar and In Cold Blood for the exam!
I'll post my FIRST EVER language analysis, I think it will be interesting to see how much our writing can develop over the next couple of months
PLEASE NOTE that in absolutely no way am I posting this as a guide or anything, I know it is incredibly dodgy and shabby, but hopefully others will follow and we can gain some more perspectives
Jack Davis' play 'No Sugar' remains consistently critical of the condescending and dominant white authority figures. Even those who are characterised as holding genuinely good intentions are shown speaking with urgency and control, '[grabbing]' members of the Aboriginal community a physical representation of superiority. As reflected in the passages, Davis does not necessarily intend to condemn these characters who succumb to social norms, but instead he seeks to further reinforce the strength of supremacy which was so firmly embedded in white society.
The contrast between the way in which the Europeans and Aborigines interact within their social circles is a focal point of Davis'. The first passage consists of Sergeant speaking towards Frank in sarcastic colloquial language, using the word 'mate' twice in a disdainful and almost patronising manner. However, Topsy is seen in the second passage using similar colloquial language, but for an entirely different purpose. The word 'fellas' is used in a bid for unity and constructive introduction. The repeated belittling which takes place between various white characters of official authority and those 'below' them is implemented as part of Davis' critique of white culture in comparison to indigenous culture, which leads the audience to find the lifestyle of the Aboriginal community particularly wholesome, as it is not tainted by shallow measures of social hierarchy. This worsens the destruction of Aboriginal principles, a deterioration further degraded by the innocence of the Aboriginal people, seen in the second passage. The repeated stage direction of '[giggling]' is child-like and pure, and increases the disgust amongst the audience in the cold process of colonialisation, a response shared with Davis himself.
Sergeant is characterised as capable of understanding through his supposed generosity in '[giving] a couple [of cigarettes] to Frank.' This act is a physically represented tonal shift, where Sergeant moves from accusing to some level of sympathy. However, this capacity for minimal sorrow on behalf of another individual is shown to be exclusive in other passages of the books, an emotion reserved only for other Europeans, excluding of course, the Aboriginal community. Other (indigenous) characters that approach Sergeant are met with concrete, inflexible hostility, despite their desperate appeals to the emotions of Sergeant. In one scene, Gran 'begins to wail and cry,' a particularly haunting image given her frail age, which is largely avoided by those in authoritative positions 'above' her. The complete lack of regard for the culture and identity of the Aboriginal people is shown to be a gross code of conduct for those holding positions of rank and power. Through this indifference, Davis implies an ignorant perception held by the white community that these individuals possess some kind of intelligence and leadership capacity, while in actual fact their ill-informed prejudice is merely masquerading behind their official authority positions.
From Joe’s initial interest in Mary right through to the end of the play, he remains protective, chivalrous and kind. For instance, upon hearing that the easily detested Mr Neil planned to exploit her, and whipped Mary during her pregnancy, he becomes deeply enraged, as if the act was committed personally against him. His offer to carry ‘the bag of meat,’ a rare commodity, in the second passage is a direct juxtaposition to a stage descriptor in the first passage, which indicates a sign reading ‘Government of Western Australia, Fisheries, Forestry, Wildlife and Aborigines.’ Through this grouping, Davis silently highlights the notion held by Europeans that Aborigines can be grouped with all things non-human, requiring a department which revolves around the protection of animals and natural resources to enable the Aboriginal people a category deemed suitable. The fact that the department even exists contradicts Sergeant’s advice earlier in the very same passage, where he claims that ‘natives [are] best left to themselves.’ The way in which the dehumanisation of the Aboriginal race takes place is a clear contrast to Joe’s gentle and caring approach, capable of true concern and thoughtfulness. The dissimilarity between the two ideas are utilised by Davis to reveal the complete uneducated nature of the unjustified racist preconceptions which so firmly entrenched in the normality of society. The third passage provides another example of the way Davis capitalises on the monumental difference between what Aboriginal life is like in reality, as opposed to the way it is imagined by those who do not understand. Sister’s seemingly innocent act in ‘[giving] David a humbug’ may be well intended, yet the same point of defence could also be made for the highly unlikeable A.O Neville or Mr Neil. The likeness of a master to its dog has become a habitual response to the Indigenous’ failure to comply with attempts of cultural deconstruction, and while Sister’s act lacks purposeful viciousness or disdain, the underlying entitlement to superiority is undeniably present.
The use of both inclusive and exclusive language is used by Davis throughout in an attempt to truly demonstrate the extent to which an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality exists. Sergeant’s statement ‘I got nothin’ against em, but I know exactly what they’re like’ not only categorises each individual Aborigine as one mass group, but his colloquial language remains consistent with the easiness such a statement can roll of the tongue with. The second passage which primarily features Indigenous dialogue, their unity shown through the statement ‘We’re all Millimurras,’ or even the stage direction indicating a phrase is to be said ‘together.’ In some ways, the oppression they face from a large portion of the white community must be suffered together, and perhaps this further strengthens the bond between families. It is interesting that in the final passage Sister includes herself in the passing comment ‘we’ll be singing,’ and it is fair to say that the clear segregation which exists between most white authority figures and the Aboriginal people is not so evident in the case of Sister.
Word Count: 972
Home
Help
Search
Login
