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.
The telos is to show reality, by having the Aboriginals speak the same language as the colonists, the European supremacy ideology would not come through in the play. It would give the audience an incomplete and arguably whitewashed version of history. However, having them not speak at all dehumanizes them and portrays them as less advanced than reality. I think the best outcome would be for Grenville to have researched and collaborated with Aboriginal descent to realistically recreate aspects of the Aboriginal language. This would allow those portraying Aboriginals on stage to be as accurate as possible: showing that they were advanced people, but still recognizing that the colonists thought drastically differently.
Comments
Post a Comment