Discuss discourse and counter-discourse in No Sugar
In No Sugar, Davis attempts to break the White Hegemony’s monopoly on discourse through the Aboriginal counter-discourse to give an alternate view to the Western version of history. By doing this, Davis is able to make aware his predominantly white audience, of the injustices suffered by the Aboriginal in the past. While this may make No Sugar seem like a 'protest play' to many, while doing so, it criticises the Paternalistic Nature of the English language and the white hegemony.Without any prior knowledge of Australian history, it would be easy to fall into the trap of our biased western discourses, but as Davis provides the alternative 'counter-discourse' the criticism is made clear.
The often biased, but commonly dismissed discourse is that of the white hegemony. Innately, the English language is biased on a gender basis, but in the past it has become derogatorily paternalistic to the Aboriginal people. As a result of our language or perhaps the reverse, the treatment of Aboriginals became the same way. The Aboriginal population was seen as so inferior as to be unable to manage their own possessions and land, so were assigned a government official to be the 'Chief Protector for Aborigines'. This was a people who had lived off the land for tens of thousands of years but were being 'protected' by a white man, who in fact took control of many decisions which would be regarded as personal, such as marriage, finance and social habits. This view of the aboriginals was entirely constructed by the hegemony within the overall colonial population, shown by those white men, that while accepting the legal aspects of Aboriginal oppression, did not agree with the principle. The Prime example of this in No Sugar is Frank, who while pleading guilty in court, still wishes to highlight the Millamurras and Mundays as human beings. It is through this counter-discourse that Davis is able to expose the white discourse for...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document