VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club
2018 AA Club - Week 12
MissSmiley:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on April 03, 2018, 10:03:37 pm ---I'm very confused by these two sentences as they seem contradictory, and I have no idea as to how the second sentence wouldn't detract from the author's contention.
According to my rationale, I'm assuming that "original inhabitants" are the aborigines, while everyone else, including the British who 'colonised' Australia, are immigrants. Thus, through her reasoning, almost everyone would be defiling Australia. However, she then excludes herself from those contributing to this trampling, despite being an immigrant herself and having grouped all immigrants as having a detrimental effect on Australian society. How does making the exception for herself, which would thereby make it seem as though immigrants weren't so bad, aid in her argument that immigration should be restricted if not outright banned?
I feel like my logic is somewhat sound but am I missing something? I'm so confused.
--- End quote ---
Your logic is extremely sound!! :)
I love what's going on here! It's always so nice to have different interpretations in English! :)
I thought of it as Alm saying that she has integrated so well in Australia from the time she came, that she now is willing to call herself proudly as an Australian. In this sense, she might be likening herself (very subtly) to the original inhabitants (like you mentioned), as she too has made sure that she treats Australia carefully and light-footedly.
This means that she's saying that today's immigrants are sorta like aliens (they are, for the fact that they are new in this country) and will remain alienated by us (even if they reside in Australia for a long time) just because they can't preserve our resources to the extent that immigrants like Alm could. (this idea may alude to a generational difference between immigrants in past and today's immigrants? sorry if this is right out there, but just wondering :) ---> this would link to her argument that immigration should be banned because immigrants today can't be trusted.
I might be completely wrong and this may sound totally absurd so please go ahead with your own interpretation! But just writing what I feel :)
Also, if you or anyone else could please please correct me, that'll be awesome!!
I need some clarification too now! :)
Thanks for bring this up though!!
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: MissSmiley on April 03, 2018, 10:53:17 pm ---Your logic is extremely sound!! :)
I love what's going on here! It's always so nice to have different interpretations in English! :)
I thought of it as Alm saying that she has integrated so well in Australia from the time she came, that she now is willing to call herself proudly as an Australian. In this sense, she might be likening herself (very subtly) to the original inhabitants (like you mentioned), as she too has made sure that she treats Australia carefully and light-footedly.
This means that she's saying that today's immigrants are sorta like aliens (they are, for the fact that they are new in this country) and will remain alienated by us (even if they reside in Australia for a long time) just because they can't preserve our resources to the extent that immigrants like Alm could. (this idea may alude to a generational difference between immigrants in past and today's immigrants? sorry if this is right out there, but just wondering :) ---> this would link to her argument that immigration should be banned because immigrants today can't be trusted.
I might be completely wrong and this may sound totally absurd so please go ahead with your own interpretation! But just writing what I feel :)
Also, if you or anyone else could please please correct me, that'll be awesome!!
I need some clarification too now! :)
Thanks for bring this up though!!
--- End quote ---
This was an extremely refreshing, eye-opening, subtle and deep (just regurgitating flowery words to show how in awe I am of you) perspective that I'm totally on board with. A generation gap makes much more sense than an "Alm vs the immigrants" situation that I'd previously gone with. it works, although it does kinda feel like you pulled it out from thin air.
Also kind of in awe how this text went from being political to philosophical to extraterrestrial-related.
MissSmiley:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on April 03, 2018, 11:51:59 pm ---This was an extremely refreshing, eye-opening, subtle and deep (just regurgitating flowery words to show how in awe I am of you) perspective that I'm totally on board with. A generation gap makes much more sense than an "Alm vs the immigrants" situation that I'd previously gone with. it works, although it does kinda feel like you pulled it out from thin air.
Also kind of in awe how this text went from being political to philosophical to extraterrestrial-related.
--- End quote ---
I do agree that I have pulled it out from thin air.
It'll be great if someone else has a different take on this and wants to share it here! :)
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on April 03, 2018, 10:03:37 pm ---I'm very confused by these two sentences as they seem contradictory, and I have no idea as to how the second sentence wouldn't detract from the author's contention.
According to my rationale, I'm assuming that "original inhabitants" are the aborigines, while everyone else, including the British who 'colonised' Australia, are immigrants. Thus, through her reasoning, almost everyone would be defiling Australia. However, she then excludes herself from those contributing to this trampling, despite being an immigrant herself and having grouped all immigrants as having a detrimental effect on Australian society. How does making the exception for herself, which would thereby make it seem as though immigrants weren't so bad, aid in her argument that immigration should be restricted if not outright banned?
I feel like my logic is somewhat sound but am I missing something? I'm so confused.
--- End quote ---
Both yourself and MissSmiley's interpretations of this piece are completely viable. Reconciling the two pieces of information is quite ambiguous, and for that reason, is going to produce a myriad of different outlooks.
From how I understood it, Alm recognises that she will be classed as complicit in this 'crash,' given her status as a fellow immigrant. And as you've pointed out, this leads to some double standards, which will invariably work to weaken her point (ie. her blatant hypocrisy will likely cause readers to discount her credibility). Yet, the fact that she consciously sought to understand and preserve the land seeks to win over these sceptical readers, who are urged to understand that, while Alm is unapologetically an immigrant, she has not trampled over the land. She has understood it and knows how it can be further cultivated (leading readers to find truth in her assertions). She is subtly manipulating readers (although not in the most plausible way, I must admit) by having this phrase at the very end of her commentary. Structurally, this intends to leave an impression of rationality.
clarke54321:
::) That was me. After all this time I still battle with the anonymity button!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version