Unveiling the Cultural Clash in Kate Grenville's the Secret River

International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124 Negotiating Culture: Unveiling the Cultural Clash in Kate Grenville’s The Secret River Melba. G Ph.D. Research Scholar Reg. No: 18123164012033 Department of English & Centre for Research Scott Christian College (Autonomous), Nagercoil-629001 Affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli – 627 012. Tamil Nadu, India. Dr. J. Chitta Assistant Professor of English Department of English & Centre for Research Scott Christian College (Autonomous), Nagercoil- 629001. Affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli – 627 012. Tamil Nadu, India. ----------- Abstract Aboriginal culture in Australia has undergone tremendous changes due to the colonial supremacy of the colonisers. The native communities of Australia have unique and distinct culture. The colonial mission of the European countries has inflicted grave harm not only to the aboriginals but also to their culture. After colonization, the aboriginals undergo physical as well as psychological problems. They have the fear of losing not only their natural resources, their sources of livelihood but also their precious culture. Kate Grenville, a white Australian writer, projects the cultural heritage of the Australian aboriginals to the world. She shoulders the responsibility to spread the submerged culture of the aboriginals to the world. The present paper analyses the aboriginal culture and the indigenous people’s desire for national identity in contemporary Australia in Grenville’s The Secret River. Key Words: Colonial supremacy, Colonization, Cultural heritage, National identity, Indigenous people. Volume VIII, Issue II, February/2019 Page No:1769 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124 Negotiating Culture: Unveiling the Cultural Clash in Kate Grenville’s The Secret River Culture refers the social behaviour, beliefs and norms found in a particular human society. It also reflects the lifestyle of a particular group of people. It differentiates one group of people from the other in terms of their attitudes, customs and beliefs. Cultural conflicts occur when the values and beliefs of others are not given due importance which results in cultural diversity and the domination of one culture over the other. The critic, Abdalla is of the view that when there is cultural clash, “the effect is dangerous in the sense that it creates a diversity between us and them, and this us and them mentality is dangerous in a multicultural society. It can shatter the fabric of any pluralistic society” (93). The clash in culture fails to bring uniqueness in the minds of the people despite of their affection towards their country. Countries like Africa, India and Australia are the crucible determinants of the clash of cultures. As these countries provide grounds for new employment, they are no longer unicultural. Australian aboriginal culture includes a variety of practices and ceremonies. For more than fifty thousand years, before the arrival of the colonisers, the aboriginal culture is the only culture that existed in Australia. The aborigines are the group of tribes who live in the Australian land and the critic, Rickard points out the fact that, “tribe is an inappropriate word to describe an aboriginal community. There was no chieftain and the community come together infrequently and usually only for ceremonial purposes” (5). The aboriginals lead a unified life despite of their varied lifestyle, customs and traditions. The colonisers, who arrived in 1788, are not able to recognise the culture of the aborigines and thus the clash of culture began. The clash of the British and the Australian aboriginal cultures get affected in the Australian society. Australia is a land which epitomizes the theory of unity in diversity. As man is a social animal, the aboriginals love to mingle with their fellow human beings, but the white settlers want to set apart them from the aboriginal culture because they think the aboriginals are uncivilized. David Myers, the critic is of the view that the “contemporary Australian literature provides important insights into an Australian society that has changed rapidly and is still changing” (9). Grenville portrays the two cultures, especially the cultural conflicts experienced by the white settlers and the native aborigines due to their different lifestyles, language, views, values and land ownership. She has written The Secret River as an exemplary vehicle for conveying the cross-cultural perspectives. The aboriginal people of the New South Wales in The Secret River seemed to the original inhabitants of the Australian land. They live a harmonious life with nature and the land, but the peaceful life of the aboriginal people is destroyed by the white settlers who are obsessed with the mere possession of the Australian land. The Secret River explores the reality of what has happened, when the Europeans colonised the Australian land which was already inhabited by the aboriginal people. The novel remains a chronicle of the experience of William Thornhill, who was transported as a thief from London to Australia in the early Volume VIII, Issue II, February/2019 Page No:1770 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124 nineteenth century. Thornhill and his family claim an attractive area in Hawkesbury as their own but they show contempt over the existence of the aboriginal people, who are the original inhabitants of the Australian land. As a result of the misunderstanding, there arises a tension between the colonisers and the aboriginals, which leads to violence and blood massacres in Australia. The colonial supremacy and violence play a major role in Australia, to ruin the life of the natives and to disturb their ways of life. The colonisers’ greed for material wealth and land do not allow them to lead a happy life in Australia. The Europeans forget the fact they are not the natives of Australia but they are the transported convicts. The issue of land ownership is the root of the cultural clash between the colonisers and the aborigines. The aborigines strongly believe in the policy of terra nullius, which means nobody’s land. They regard their land as sacred and is common to all the aborigines. They think that there is no need to divide their land because it can satisfy everyone’s hunger and thirst. Rickard opines, For the aborigines the earth had always been there. It required no explanation. Myth interpreted the shape and appearance of the aborigines knew and inhabited. Rocks, trees, waterholes, animals, birds: such objects, intimately experienced were integrated through myth and ritual into a spiritual universe of extraordinary richness. (61) The convicts, who lived in the midst of poverty in London see the Australian land as a source of only food, water and shelter. Their main intention is to become the owner of the land in Australia. They are of the view that if they own more land, they will be respected in the society and can even dominate over the other. They thought that the nomadic tradition of the aboriginals is the evidence of the lack of their intelligence and civilization. The reality is that the aboriginals are making use of their instinct knowledge to find the sources for their food, water and shelter from nature. They make temporary camps and took only the resources they need to live. They never want to spoil their land and natural resources. The aboriginal people in Australia never distinguish themselves as rich and poor and have and have-nots among their clan. They regard everyone as equal, as the land is common to all, but the colonisers believe that the material-oriented life determines one’s position in a society. The aborigines, who are the original inhabitants of the land, mark no signs to indicate that the land belongs to them. The protagonist Thornhill is astonished to see the relationship of the aborigines to their land as “there were no signs that the blacks felt that the land belonged to them. They had no fences that said this is mine. No house that said, this is our home. There were no fields or flock that said, we have put the labour of our hands into this place” (River 93). The relationship between the aborigines and their land is inseparable. Unlike the aborigines, the transported convicts to the Australian land think that ownership over the land is more important than the land. The Britishers even go to the extent of naming the land with their names. Volume VIII, Issue II, February/2019 Page No:1771 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124 The colonisers lead a material-oriented life in Australia. They want to be dominative and suppress the other. The one and only intention of Thornhill is to own a hundred acres of land so that he can be known as the wealthiest person in the Sydney Cove. He thinks of several ways to own a land in Australia and so he says “it would be another way to possess the place, to look down and think everything, I see, I own” (153). Thornhill represents the transported convicts; whose main intention is to own the lands in Australia. Also, he in his search for land thinks of the Australians as the wild vermin who distract his ways but he fails to understand the relationship between the aborigines and their land. The Europeans misunderstand the land ownership policy of the aborigines and thus the conflict begins. The colonisers consider the semi-nomadic tradition of the aborigines is the result of their lack of civilization. The critic Peng points out that “the absence of the basic cultural background knowledge would be expected to cause breakdown in communication. Members within the same language-culture community in which they were brought up have been influenced by its cultural tradition” (165). The colonisers fail to understand that the aborigines have the real ability to get food, water and shelter without polluting and disturbing their land.

Load more