English - Text Response - No Sugar Essay

[YellowTongue]

Hi, can someone please have a read of this essay and provide any tips for improvement. Also, what sort of mark would this get in the English exam (how low would it be...  )?

Prompt: To what extent does Jimmy's character reflect the life experiences of all Indigenous characters in No Sugar?

Jack Davis’ No Sugar reflects upon the lifestyles of Indigenous Australians in 1930s Western Australia; exposing cultural ideologies that berated Indigenous people with racial discrimination and subjugation. Through the characters of Jimmy Munday, Davis identifies similarities between his life experiences and those of other characters, however Davis juxtaposes Jimmy’s character with Gran, Sam, Billy and Joe to reveal that being a “native” in 1930s Western Australia involved different lifestyles for a variety of people.

Davis highlights a number of similarities between Jimmy and Gran; commenting on the effectiveness of their responses to cultural and institution racial conflict. Throughout the play, Jimmy is typically aggressive towards non-Indigenous authorities; boasting of his ability to potentially “blow the Sergeant’s head off”, throwing around the “koomp” (urine) bucket, exposing the social ideology that “blackfellas are bloody mugs” to the Sergeant and impudently challenging Neville’s speech at the Moore River Settlement. Davis distributes these rebellious action throughout the text; emphasising Jimmy’s lack of character development. Hence, Davis reveals that Jimmy is a character who doesn’t learn from his past mistakes. Similarly, Gran also antagonises situations with authorities; arguing with Sergeant Carrol about “rations” and undermining Matron’s expertise by boasting of Joe’s “belly button”. Davis demonstrates that these action are generally ineffective in achieving the desired outcome; however Gran is effective in arguing with Sergeant Carrol when she refuses to travel to Moore River by “train”. This is illustrated in contrast to Jimmy, who only suffers as a result of his attitude. Thus, Davis implies that aggressive approaches to conflict resolution can be effective; depending upon the situation. Furthermore, Davis uses the ineffectiveness of most of Gran and Jimmy’s action respectively to expose cultural and institutionalised racism’s lack of disparity throughout the Indigenous community; treating all Indigenous people equally. Overall, Davis uses the similarities between Jimmy and Gran to highlight racial discrimination faced by Indigenous Australians in 1930s Western Australia.
 
Though Davis features Sam very little throughout the text, he contrasts the way that both Jimmy and Sam respond to non-Indigenous authorities; highlighting the need for one to defend their personal right to social Justice in oppressive situations. When Jimmy and Sam are contained within the Northam police station, Sam consistently attempts to calm his “gnoolya” (brother-in-law); feebly commanding him to “dubakieny” (steady). The same occurs when both characters face trial for public “drinking” and during the Australia Day ceremony at the Moore River Settlement. Davis uses Sam’s attempts to calm Jimmy to draw attention to the differences between Jimmy’s aggressive nature and Sam’s passive personality; highlighting the fact that both characters respond to social Injustices differently. Thus, Davis uses these characters to exemplify that Indigenous people vary in nature; challenging the ideology that all “blackfellas are bloody mugs”. Moreover, one could argue that Davis uses the differences between these characters to highlight the ineffectiveness of passive and aggressive responses to conflict; suggesting that one’s approach to conflict resolution needs to be strategic.

Through the character of Billy, Davis exemplifies the consequences of interpersonal racism on individuals within communities. When the Millimurra-Munday family are first introduced to Billy, they cruelly mock him; referring to him as a “black cockatoo”, relating his identity to that of actors such as “Buck Jones” and claiming that he is “purple”. Thus, Davis foregrounds the racism and lack of acceptance that Billy is berated with by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. This is in juxtaposition to Jimmy, who is welcomed by his Indigenous family. By identifying this, Davis allows his audience to recognise that racism is not only exhibited interracially, but also amongst racial communities. Thus, Davis comments on the nature of conflict exposing that discrimination is berated upon “politjmans” and other authorities; and that this subjugation is independent of one’s race. Therefore, Davis suggests that not all Indigenous people were treated equally in 1930s Western Australia; exemplifying that one’s identity differentiates their life experiences from others.

Finally, Davis compares Jimmy and Joe’s achievements to foreground the fact that that different Indigenous people of Western Australia in the 1930s faced varying life experiences. Davis uses the “corroboree” scene at the Moore River Settlement as a turning point for Joe’s character. Prior to his involvement is this cultural practice Davis portrayed Joe as an insignificant character; similar to his immature siblings. However, immediately following the “corroboree” Joe bravely chooses to “abscond” from the Moore River Settlement to protect Mary from the Neal and his “cot-o’-nine-tails” and sexual abuse in the hospital. Following this, Joe is far more defiant than previously; threatening to “kill” Billy, dismissing the idea that the “tjenna guppi” will harm him and claiming that he will “see” Neal in “hell” where he will be able to seek vengeance for his abuse perpetrated upon the Indigenous community of the Moore River Settlement. Whilst Davis characterises Joe as a defiant character, he draws similarities between his responses to conflict and Jimmy’s. However, through Jimmy’s death whilst arguing with Neville and Joe’s success in receiving permission to leave the Moore River Settlement with Mary, Davis juxtaposes the effectiveness of their attitudes to non-Indigenous authorities. Davis effectively summarises this when Joe is arrested in Northam for “absconding” from Moore River with a “minor”; walking “side-by-side” with the constable; an important symbol of equality. On the other hand, this could be interpreted as an intelligent decision by Joe to protect himself whilst Davis makes reference to Indigenous deaths in custody. Either way, Davis portrays Joe as more intelligent than Jimmy, as his actions are more effective in achieving their desired outcome. Overall, Davis draws a clear comparison between Jimmy and Joe; further emphasising the fact that not all “blackfellas are bloody mugs” and highlighting the effectiveness of creative responses to social conflict. Thus, Davis reflects upon the fact that Indigenous Australians faced varying lifestyle experiences in 1930s Western Australia.

All things considered, Jack Davis uses No Sugar to foreground different experiences endured by varying Indigenous Australians in 1930s Western Australia; drawing attention to the fact the individuals have personal identities leading to varying treatments by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Through Jimmy and Gran’s similarities, Davis highlights the need for creative alternatives to aggression. Similarly, Davis uses Sam to expose the need for one to defend one’s self from Injustice. Moreover, through Billy Davis identifies the realities of interpersonal racism. Finally, Davis uses Joe’s successes to highlight the fact that one can be successful in overcoming oppression if situations are approached strategically.