Comparative Language Analysis #3

[Shenz0r]

Hey guys, this is a rushed analysis I wrote a week ago under time constraints with around a 10 minute head-start.. The articles analysed focus on the apology of the Stolen Generations, and the cartoon can be found here: http://nicholsoncartoons.com.au/aborigines-reconciliation-bridge-pearson-450356.html

My Comparative SAC is on Wednesday and apparently it only needs to be around 600-700 words with 100 minutes to read and write, but I'm going to aim for around 800-1000. However I tend to focus on many devices and hence my analysis tend to be very long, are there any ways for me to try condense everything into a smaller essay? Or should I just cut short on my analysis in the future?

Word length: 1200 words
In the 20th century, the Australian government implemented a controversial federal policy to remove aboriginal children from their original families, and to educate them in schools and churches run by white settlers. Andrew Bolt's opinion article in the Herald Sun, "Truth is what was stolen", argues in a predominately critical and incredulous tone that aboriginal children were subjected to inhumane living conditions and family abuse, and that politicians are distorting this truth fir their own political benefit. On the contrary, an editorial in The Age, "Kevin Rudd must say sorry; no other word will do", stresses in a predominately conciliatory tone that all aborigines will benefit from the apology, as its significance will lead to a greater progress in the reconciliation of Australia's indigenous heritage. Finally, Nilcholson's satirical cartoon, published in The Australian, contends that the government is hypocritical as it promotes reconciliation while being negligent to the appalling living conditions that today's aboriginal populations live under.

Andrew Bolt's article in the Herald Sun commences discrediting the government by highlighting the lack of historical evidence towards the supposed "stolen generations". Bolt repeatedly implies the illegitimacy of the government's perception of the "stolen generation" by attacking Kevin Rudd as a "sentimentalist" who does not "respect the truth". The word "sentimentalist" implies that Rudd is manipulating the general public's feelings of sympathy and emotions for his own political popularity, with the ulterior motive of staying in government. Consequently, the reader is positioned to view Rudd's apology as a farce and as a result the reader may become sceptical on whether the Stolen Generations had actually occurred. Bolt supports the reader's pre-established notions of scepticism by demonstrating that most state governments have come to the conclusion that "there had been no formal policy for removing children", insinuating that Rudd and other "say-sorries" are responsible for deceiving the general public with lies. The word "say-sorries" positions the reader to undermine anybody who supports the apology as stubborn and irrational as the pejorative is tinged with allusions to that of a child. Bolt follows by describing Rudd's apology as "suffocating" the nation "with victimhood", portending that Rudd's apology is gravely harmful for the nations' development by burdening the reader with unpleasant feelings of shame and guilt for events that have been supposedly distorted by politicians. As a result the reader may perceive Rudd's apology as inherently damaging to the entire country. In addition, Bolt attempts to provoke the reader's sense of justice by stating that aboriginal children were "betrayed", "raped", "killed", "dumped" and "neglected" by their abusive parents, words which illustrate aboriginal communities as brutally horrific. The word "dumped" insinuates that aboriginal parents treated their young as sub-human, which elicits the reader to speculate that the government's decision to remove children from their families was justified, thereby proving that the "stolen generations" never took place. Bolt's apology at the end of the article argues that such policies were justified at that time as "in helping many, we did not help all", suggesting that only a small minority was removed from their families and that the rest of the aboriginal population were helplessly abused, positioning the reader to discredit the government's version of events.

The editorial in The Age takes an opposing stance to Bolt's opinion article by stressing the need for Australia's federal government to deliver a genuine apology that will consequently improve aboriginal communities. The editor describes the stolen generations as "one of the most tragic and traumatic episodes in our history", suggesting that the implementation of the stolen generations has affected the entire nation psychologically and that the shame that it has brought should lead the government to express remorse for their actions, provoking the reader's sensations of guilt and justice towards the events of the past. John Howard's "last-minute, pre-election...recantation" was suggested to lack genuine, sincere repentance in the desire to win government, and by drawing upon this line of logic, the editor insinuates that only a truly genuine apology will lead to improvements towards aboriginal communities, and as a by-product the reader may conclude that the "damage" caused by the stolen generations will subside after Rudd's apology. The editorial encourages Rudd to "seize the initiative" by "boldly...[going] where no prime minister has ever gone before", heightening the significance of the apology to not only those who were directly affected in the Stolen Generations, but to the entire nation. As a result the reader is positioned to regard the apology as a hugely "symbolic" step in Australia's history. Finally, the editorial concludes by advocating the reader to "learn" from the stolen generations and the apology, suggesting that such an apology will prevent similar policies from being enacted in the future, compounding upon the reader's pre-established notions of the significance towards the apology.

Focusing on a different aspect of the issue, Nicholson's satirical cartoon in The Australian does not attempt to discredit the Stolen Generations, but criticises the government's negligence towards improving the appalling conditions found in aboriginal communities, implying that the government's forthcoming apology lacks in sincerity. Aboriginals are depicted living under a bridge which coincidentally has a white family of four holding up a sign that reads "RECONCILIATION". The urban landscape that dominates the upper half of the frame is contrasted with the bleak environment under the bridge, symbolising the disparaging difference in living conditions between Aboriginals and the urban population. The facial expressions exhibited by the family of four upholding the "RECONCILIATION" flag accentuates that the government's apology is pretentious and lacking in sincerity, as the family is depicted with an unenthusiastic smile that symbolises their lack of commitment to pursue reconciliation. As a result, the reader is positioned to feel irate at the government for its insincere effort towards aboriginal reconciliation. In addition, the Aboriginals under the bridge are unnoticed by the family, implying that society is at odds with the aboriginal communities and are oblivious to the plight of many aboriginal families. Finally, the aborigines are drawn hiding completely under the bridge, implying that the obviously atrocious conditions at aboriginal communities are hidden from the ignorant public, positioning the reader to feel that the government must focus on improving the lives of aborigines if it is truly sorry for the injustices of the past.

Bolt's opinion article in the Herald Sun contends that the "stolen generation" is being distorted by government figures and highlights the brutal abuse of aboriginal children in the past, concluding that such policies were justified. The Age stresses that such policies were detrimental to aboriginal communities and that an apology is needed to address history, while Nicholson argues that the government's act of remorse is hypocritical. Bolt and The Age differ in their interpretations of the stolen generations; Bolt views the stolen generations as illegitimate and thus utilises an incredulous tone that is intended to engender the reader to question the need for an apology. As a result, Bolt's article utilises colloquial language, aiming to relate with readers and to strengthen their scepticism towards the stolen generations. The editorial in The Age is much more conciliatory and acknowledges the stolen generations as an integral part of Australia's history that must be laid to rest, and hence the editorial is geared towards potential victims of the stolen generations, whereas Bolt's article is more likely to attract that of the general public. While not denying or acknowledging the stolen generation, Nicholson's cartoon in The Australian criticise the government's neglect of aboriginal communities, differentiating itself from both articles by drawing attention to the urgent plight of aboriginal communities.