Noah's English 11H Blog

I am torn on excluding the voices of Aboriginal characters in the play adaptation. On one hand, having them speak English does not give the historical reality that colonists thought the Aboriginals were unadvanced and simplistic. Their speaking English connects them too much to the colonists to be historically accurate—a connection the colonists never would have let happen.   However, their silence it dehumanizes them, making them seem less than human. As if they are unintelligent and uncivilized, to the extent that complex verbal communication is impossible. And we know that isn't true—Aboriginal societies had unique and elaborate languages just like European societies. It seems that keeping the Aboriginals silent separates them too much. While it is historically important to show that European colonists viewed the Aboriginals as inferior, that can be done while still portraying that the Aboriginals were advanced civilizations—just different than the European status quo....

Dick represents the first Thornhill to interact with the Aboriginals with no major predisposition to view them negatively. Sal and Will are the most inherently biased because they grew up and lived in London, i.e., a society that actively divides itself into classes, with race and wealth being two major factors. The Aboriginals and their way of life are the antitheses of what European society would consider successful, upper-class, or respectable. And as much as Will and Sal began to meaningfully interact with the Aboriginals, that bias and discrimination usually overpower any humanity they see in the Aboriginals. Willie acts as a middle ground: he carries with him many of the same biases as his parents, just to a less overt extent. However, Dick is the first of Thornhill not to have grown up in London, his life and sense of community have had the Aboriginals in it for a while. To Dick, the Aboriginals are not an outside group or any less human (as Will and Sal see them) instead, they ...

There There offered a narrative on the immorality of settler colonialism and the generational effects on individual Native American people. In There There, colonists are the villain—and rightfully so—because personal accounts depict them as considering Native Americans as fundamentally and inherently inferior. Due to these, Native Americans were less "intelligent," mannered, civilized, and deserving of basic human respect. Colonizers used these as justifications for murdering, stealing from, and desecrating Native American tribes. There There gives insight into the devastating repercussions this treatment has on Native American tribes and individuals today. The Native Americans were clearly the victims of an unjust and immoral settlement.  In contrast, Secret River paints the Thornhills as the victims of a poorly distributed socioeconomic English society. The Thornhills are the disadvantaged bottom of society who deserve a larger piece of the pie. Grenville makes the reader f...

Before meeting Sal in London, Will's socioeconomic standing was low, and his prospect for upward mobility was unpromising. In contrast, Sal came from a much less impoverished family—she did not question whether she would have food and did not have to work at a young age. Therefore, from the get-go, their relationship dynamic necessitated more power to Sal than in other conventional relationships at the time. Sal brought opportunity and more status. This dynamic takes a start shift early into their residence in New South Wales—Sal's reputation no longer brought the family utility. This is where the dynamic shifts: since Sal no longer has familial superiority to Will, he treats her with less respect. Will is seemingly less controlled by the social pressures to respect the hierarchy. Will considers Sal's opinion to a lesser degree: he demands the family settle on land in New South Wales despite Sal's desperation to return to England. Even through Sal's repeated and rel...

Water occurs continuously throughout the first part: in constant rain, frozen lakes, and expansive oceans. Water simultaneously restricts and frees William Thornhill—it serves as his only desperate escape from poverty by becoming a waterman on the River Thames. But, he must first learn how to navigate the river through his apprenticeship with Mr. Middleton. With his new capacity as a waterman, William can pull his family out of absolute poverty. Water was William's economic escape; it offered positive socioeconomic mobility. Nonetheless, even when it seems William has some dominion over his treacherous life through being a waterman, William is still reminded that he lacks absolute control. First, the river freezing over could represent William lacking control over his life. Just like he can no longer sail, he cannot navigate upward through society. He is still an outsider, like how he feels about religion and church. Then, William loses his own boat and must begin working for other...

Growing up in a small-town Catholic household, Church was always said to be a place of giving, support, and inclusion. While I have since digressed from organized religion, I recognize the importance the Church had for some members of the community. The church was a pinnacle of the community that was intended to bring everyone together. While I choose to no longer participate in the church, I understand that for my community, the church has made some meaningful changes. It was interesting to see how different William Thornhill's relationship with the church was compared to the telos church leaders claim to uphold. Church is supposed to connect the community while overtly supporting those most vulnerable to socioeconomic hardships. William is exactly who the church is supposed to support, yet he always feels like an outsider. It seems as though, at the time, the church was economically corrupt—more capable of building churches and steeples that are on every corner and stand taller t...