Lecture 2 Part A

  What I thought was really interesting about lecture part A was the idea of who gets to tell a story. I think it’s interesting to look at Grenville’s work on The Secret River from different perspectives. On the one hand, the aboriginal story isn’t really one for her to tell. She was related to the man that Thornhill is based on and therefore that is her story. However, by not including a native perspective she has severely limited them as characters and takes away their voice and representation. I think a possible solution could be working with someone who is aboriginal in order to properly portray the aboriginal characters. What also interested me was when Grenville was talking about her book and how great and controversial it was. At first, this seemed somewhat frustrating as she was patting herself on the back for telling yet another story from the perspective of the colonists without giving the native people any real voice. However, after consideration I have realized that this is from a different time. She grew up always being told that her ancestors went to New South Wales and just acquired land like it was just open and ready for the taking. If that was the narrative at the time, then I can understand how The Secret River could actually be informative and controversial. Who has a right to tell what stories reminds me of the part in Lecture 2 Part A in which Kauanui states that although Wolfe did not invent the study of settler colonialism, and that it was instead created by Native scholars, he still gets cited the most. I wonder why this is. Regardless, it feels like an ironic continuation of the effects of colonialism and the silencing of Native voices.