Workbook and Online Study page: See 

 Arguments and Persuasive Language

: an essay-writing guide.
VCE Students; Keeping up-to-date and ahead: unlock the key to an A+
essay.

Strangers in “our own country”, No Sugar by Dr Jennifer Minter

Ernie Dingo, who performed in many of Jack Davis’s plays, writes: “We are
not/ Strangers/ In our own country/ Just/ Strangers/ To a European society/
And it is hard/ To be one/ When / The law/ Is the other.”

Jack Davis, Noong-ah, was born in 1917 in Perth; his mother was taken
from her tribe in Broome and reared by a white family; his father, William Davis, was also
removed and reared by whites.  Davis grew up in Yarloop, in a big family of 10. According to
Aboriginal poet Kevin Gilbert, Davis’s mother displayed grace and courage and a self-sacri cing
spirit.  Jack had eight years of education in public schools, then worked as a mill-hand, an engine
driver, boundary rider and drover which brought him into contact with the tribal people and
a orded examples of the everyday treatment and victimisation of the First Australians.

 No Sugar received standing ovations when performed in Vancouver and Edinburgh in 1986.

“The native must be helped in spite of himself”.

No Sugar by Jack Davis was rst performed as part of the Festival of Perth in 1985 to great
acclaim. Throughout the play, Davis depicts the First Australians struggling to survive in sub-
human conditions on an Aboriginal Reserve in the 1930s. During the depression, life is
particularly di cult for the Munday and Millimurra families who are controlled by apartheid-
style policies.  Davis uses a variety of dramatic literary techniques to depict their struggle to
survive in a hostile white culture, which treats them as “incompetent savages”. That they often
speak in their own language helps Davis draw attention to their cultural di erences and their
alienation from mainstream culture.

Those in a position of power and authority treat the First Australians with contempt and do not
provide humane and decent opportunities for them to improve their sub-standard living
conditions.  They believe that these “blithering stone age idiots” need to be civilised in order to
take their place in mainstream, white society. The constant references to dirtiness, laziness,
violence, and drunken, criminal behaviour are used by white “civilised” people to reinforce and
justify their discriminatory policies. In this regard, Davis explores the consequences of the
dispossession of the aborigines which culminates in a farcical depiction of the Australia Day
celebrations.  These celebrations place a strong emphasis on the (main) story of the pioneers
and overlook the cultural life, spirituality and history of the First Australians.

The attitude of the “uncivilised” savage is critiqued by Davis in the play from a variety of
perspectives.

Davis focuses our attention on:

the stereotypical attitudes of the indigenous “savage” held by those in positions of power
as well as by ordinary members of the white community; he shows how these views
entrench prejudice; the Seargeant who is of the view that the aborigines are “best left to
keep to themselves” reprimands Milly: “Your trouble, Milly, is you got three healthy men
bludging o you, too lazy to work”. (16); the white citizen opposes a reserve at Guilford
Road because he “wouldn’t be able to go out and leave his wife home alone at night” (15)
the social and historical context, which makes it di cult for Aboriginal Australians to earn a
decent and honest living and to counter these stereotypes;
the hypocritical attitude of those in power who exploit the First Australians in convenient
and contemptible ways. Note at the beginning the reference to the 30 girls (out of 80) who
have returned pregnant from the Moore River Native  Settlement. (15)

REAL-LIFE HARDSHIP OF INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS

Jack Davis opens No Sugar with a scene depicting typical daily life on an Aboriginal Reserve in
1929, which consists of a blend of lifestyles.  David and Cissie Millimurra play cricket with a
“home-made bat and ball”, Jimmy sharpens an axe “bush fashion” and Joe reads the newspaper
“falteringly”. Life is rudimentary, di cult and makeshift but they are spirited and resourceful.

Joe’s inability to read uently re ects the First Australians’ struggle with the language of the
dominant culture – a struggle that Davis would suggest dooms them to second-class status.
Although their literacy levels are poor, the government is reluctant to provide them with a decent
education.  (As Mr Neal suggests when the Sister wants to start up a library, “A little knowledge is
a dangerous thing” (90).)  Additionally, the children struggle with racism at the Northam school
(note the reference to the apples.) “The ding always sells us little shrivelled ones (pies) and them
wetjala kids big fat ones” (10) Furthermore, Joe’s recount of the commemoration of the pioneers
as relayed in mainstream news reports captures the dominant White Australian historical
narrative that marginalises the history and culture of the First Australians.

Davis depicts the Millimurra family as subject to the vagaries of government decrees and its
policies of segregation.  During the 1930s, Aboriginal Australians caught co-habiting with whites
in a loving relationship were savagely punished. There were pass laws and curfews. They were
restricted from being near any town after sunset on the pain of imprisonment or death. (See
note on “social context”.)

The First Australians hunt for food when they can, because there is no meat; they often have to
“barter” for goods and food because their rations are insu cient and they are often not paid for
a decent day’s work. They rely on damper and lack su cient blankets (which contributes to
Cissie’s ailment). Milly discusses the need of patching up the dilapidated tin house which is
“colder than the North Pole” hoping that “that old baldy” (the rations policeman) will “cough up
with some more blankets”.

The language and cultural divide

Jack Davis reinforces the consequences of the government’s harsh, discriminatory policies that
indirectly reduce Aboriginal Australians to criminal activities often through no fault of their own. 
As Davis shows, it is di cult for them to maintain their cultural life style because of their reduced
access to rivers and streams and the changing landscape.  Granny cannot grind the jam and
wattle seeds (a substitute for bicarb soda) for the damper. Gran remembers gathering a huge
bag of seeds, but now the wetjala have cut down the trees and they are di cult to nd. (16) And
yet, the ration system is insu cient. Their social welfare bene ts are considerably less than that
of their white counterparts. The Sergeant informs them that there will be no meat as there’s a
“bloody depression” on.   Instead, “fat is classi ed as meat”. They can catch “roos and rabbits”.
Joe nds quandongs to eat on the trip back to Northam.

Consequently, and despite the Government’s predicted state of “prosperity”, Jimmy has to steal
turnips to add to the rabbit stew (21)  and “snowdrop” to survive. (He has been in jail four times
for “drinkin, ghtin’ and snowdroppin’” (taking clothes o the clothes lines).   They plan to catch a
sheep from Old Skinny Martin’s farm.

INJUSTICE: TREATED AS SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS

The White man’s paternalistic attitude to the aborigines.

The o cial treatment of the aborigines is based on the premise that as savages they need to be
“civilised” in order to become decent and worthy Australians.

At the Settlement, Mr Neville spouts the typically paternalistic spin that suggests the
natives should be “fortunate” for their shelter and provisions, especially during the
continued depression that is plaguing the state.   The whites believe that Aboriginal
Australians should live and behave “like whites”.
Mr Neville condescendingly tells them that they should be “preparing yourselves here to
take your place in Australian society, to live as other Australians live, to live alongside other
Australians” (92) Accordingly, they must “shoulder the responsibilities of living like the
white man. (Hence the symbolism of the hygiene throughout the play.)
Sergeant Carrol’s attitude is typical of law-enforcement o cers who believe that
Indigenous Australians are lazy and never put in a decent day’s work. They should pay for
their “luxury items”.  Typical of their o -the-record banter, the Constable and Sergeant talk
about poisoning the “natives”: it is “too late to adopt the Tasmanian solution” (39.)  The
Sergeant’s philosophy and attitude is that the “natives (are) best left to keep to
themselves”.
Joe is apprehended under Section Twelve of the Aborigines Act for absconding from Moore
River Native Settlement (79)
Aboriginal Australians are treated as second-class citizens. The stage directions draw
attention to the sign in the o ce which says, “Government of Western Australia, Fisheries,
Forestry, Wildlife and Aborigines”.

INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES

The use of Aboriginal language authenticates their experiences and seeks to tap into their
views and values/mindset.
It shows the diversity of their own culture and the extent of their alienation from
mainstream culture and norms.

The Millimurra family often speak in their own language which shows their unique relationship
to culture, land and lifestyle. Many indigenous terms are used to authenticate their experiences
(such as “inji sticks”, the “gugha”, the “jeering meear”); these expressions capture their unique
relationship to land and re ect their diverse cultural systems (“mummari” and “boolyaduk”)  and
lifestyle customs. (Their use also reinforces Davis’s point that many indigenous terms simply do
not have a corresponding word in the white man’s language, because of cultural and lifestyle
di erences. They cannot be translated.)
Gran often uses terms from her Nyoongah (South West) Language group. This is very signi cant
as it shows that she proudly represents her authentic indigenous culture.  She also speaks in
Aboriginal English which re ects her need to blend the two cultures.  (“He give you six months.”) 
The use of both these languages re ects cultural di erences. It re ects their priority as First
Australians.

Gran’s poignant song in her South West language at the close of the play suggests that the
indigenous culture and language will survive as long as the First  Australians have the courage
and pride to defend their cultural heritage, and to remember the heroic struggles of their
ancestors

Furthermore, audiences are invited to identify with the alienating a ect of a foreign language
with which the First Australians have to deal on a daily basis.  This alienation is also exacerbated
by their lack of access to education.

THE RATION SYSTEM

Davis shows how the ration system is designed to control and humiliate Indigenous
Australians.
The ration system re ects the patronising attitude of the government; the government
relies on the ration system to justify their heavy-handed policies and systems of control.

According to Davis, the First Australians are completely dependent upon Government rations
and yet the government restricts these arbitrarily.  Milly and Gran constantly lament the
reduction in soap rations (16) although the Sergeant gives Granny her “stick of nigger twist”
(gnummarri)  When Joe returns to Northam after his stay in the Settlement, Sergeant warns Joe
that he cannot camp at Government Well; there are no longer any rations.  (76-77) “Northam is
no longer a ration depot” now that the natives have been “shifted out”. Joe reminds him that they
were “booted out” (75).    Mr Neville is constantly cost-cutting.  He believes they should possibly
cut the supply of meat in their rations.  Soap has already been discontinued.   The Sergeant
believes that they should pay for their “luxury items”.

REFERENCES TO HYGIENE

The constant references to hygiene re ect the prevailing mindset that the First Australians
are unclean and “dirty savages” who need to be civilised.
Davis again encourages the audience to understand the Millimurra family’s struggle with
hygiene owing to sub-standard living conditions and reduced rations.
Also, in many cases the family uses their own medicinal resources that are unfamiliar to
white culture, but not necessarily inferior.
The constant references to hygiene and the soap rations reinforce Davis’s point that white
dogma (policy) typecasts Indigenous Australians as unclean “savages” who need to be civilised
and reminded to wash. Right from the opening of the play, Gran and Milly are preoccupied with
cleanliness and are dismayed at the restriction of soap in their rations. (The Seargeant tells him,
“I’m afraid that soap is no longer included as a ration item”. (p. 16). The stage directions state
that David removes his shirt for Milly to wash. “She tugs it o him and swaps it for a clean one”.

After the birth of the baby, the matron encourages Gran to use “clean cotton wool and baby
powder and Lysol soap” (98) and yet Gran has had a great deal of experience with childbirth; she
uses the “live” restick and ashes to great advantage to clean the afterbirth.  (Just because she
does not adhere to the “white man’s” system of hygiene, Davis would suggest, does not mean
that they are unclean “savages”.)  “I got you a little Noongah” she triumphantly exclaims as she
gloats proudly after the clean “belly button”. It is “just like your daddy’s” which suggests that Gran
is an expert mid-wife and her experience stands the family in good stead.

There is also a suggestion of humour in the constant references to the First Australians who
must be given “some practical training” and who must learn to wipe their noses and be given
more handkerchiefs (18).  The subtext is that the o cials must “inculcate such basic but essential
details of civilised living” and they will soon be able to “take their place in  Australian society” (18).
Davis suggests that their hypocrisy is breathtaking especially as the government keeps reducing
their soap rations.

Despite attempts to humiliate Milly and Gran, they proudly wash their clothes as best they can,
and are quick to complain about the reduction in soap rations.

(Despite their humiliating conditions, Davis depicts a pompous Mr Neville, who is quick to remind
Indigenous Australians of their need to “shoulder the responsibilities of living like the white man.
(92))

HUMOUR

Davis’s humour often provides a sense of relief from the relentless hardship and persecution. 
Characters like Gran are resourceful and show amazing strength to withstand adversity.  Gran is
good humoured despite the hardships she faces daily in her struggle to keep the family together
and in her attempts to provide Cissie and David with an education.  Jimmy su ers from the
debilitating e ect of alcohol and often appears sentimental and maudlin. He stumbles over the
bike which David has been trying to x all day, which precipitates the ght.  Gran separates
them, grabbing “both by the hair and pulling viciously”.  Humorously, she “falls on her backside”.
Members of the family are spirited and often give “lip” (58) to the o cers as they seek to
maintain their dignity and pride in very di cult circumstances. Milly pours the alcohol on the
ground as Jimmy sits defeated, “sick in the bloody head”. He “groans” (25). The Constable tells
Gran, “I don’t want any lip from you” (37), implying that she like other family members, are
inconvenient rabble-rousers or troublemakers. She mocks the Vicar who gives them no help.   At
one stage when Jimmy is arrested, yet again, he states that he prefers to walk in front of the
sergeant because he does not trust him.

COMPARISON WITH FRANK BROWN:

Davis constructs the character of Frank Brown to show how the aborigines are at greater
risk and more disadvantaged than their white counterparts during the depression.
This depiction also enables Davis to criticise the Sergeant’s attitude — that the indigenous
Australians are just lazy and do not want to work;  Davis challenges the audience to
question just how much harder it is for indigenous people who also must also battle
discrimination.

Through strategic comparisons with other itinerant workers and victims of the depression, such
as Frank Brown, Davis shows how Indigenous Australians su er a far worse fate.  Owing to their
disadvantaged social status their problems are magni ed and they are more easily exploited.
White unemployed people get 7 shillings per week; an Aboriginal Australian gets 2 shillings and
fourpence per week.   The Sergeant’s attitude is typical of law-enforcement o cers who believe
that the “natives” are lazy and should do a decent day’s work.

Frank Brown is also su ering di culties with work and has to keep his wife and two children
with her parents in Leederville while Frank looks for work (12). Frank has not sent money home
for six months. He cannot “even raise a train fare to Perth to see them”.  As Frank puts his
“cigarettes away”, the stage setting changes to Mr Neville’s o ce, and Miss Dun, his secretary,
has a similar story about her own brother.  His wife and children are staying with her, while he
sells wirelesses, “door to door”, in the South West.  She is trying to sell his motorcycle because he
has only sold “one (wireless) in three weeks”.  (13)  If unemployment is tipped to reach 30 per
cent, then Davis shows how the aborigines will always be the worst a ected.

Frank bemoans the  “gubmet” because he had a couple of bad seasons and lost his farm. But as
Jimmy points out, at least they can walk down the street after sundown. (23) In contrast the
aborigines su er hardship and discrimination. Jimmy lists the restrictions: ‘they aren’t allowed to
go down the soak, not allowed to march” and in the stage directions, “mimes handcu s and goal”
(23) to suggest that the slightest infractions will lead to incarceration. (See “social context”.)
Depression: Unemployment in the West is tipped to reach 30 per cent.

INSTITUTIONALISED RACISM

The First Australians are treated as second-class citizens. They are belittled and humiliated —
constantly. Mr Neville treats Jimmy with contempt when he is trying to get his train fare to return
home. He is forced to wait until Mr Neville nishes his trivial conversation even though
Jimmy may miss the train. “He can wait” says the scornful Mr Neville as he reads the newspaper
and converses with the Constable about sport.  Davis notes in the stage directions, that Mr Neal
throws the tobacco contemptuously on the oor to Billy who must search for the runaways. (68)  
Mr Neal refers to him as a “blithering stone age idiot” and a “bloody incompetent savage” when
he doesn’t nd Joe and Mary and doesn’t answer swiftly and respectfully. (71)

Barter: The fact that Sam often has to barter his labour in order to get food and medical
services. This leaves him open to exploitation and reinforces again his second-class status as well
as the stigma attached to their aboriginality. Joe knows that he is going to have to do “another
hundred posts”. The white employers believe they can make them work for very little, or for ‘a
pair of second-hand boots and a piece of stag ram so tough even the dawgs couldn’t eat it” (17)

Jimmy is evidently frustrated and exasperated at the injustice.  Likewise, David also re ects the
injustice in the reference to the fact that “the ding always sells us little shrivelled ones (pies) and
them wetjala kids big fat ones” (10)   The Sergeant is subtly intimidating and threatens to put the
“bush lawyer” brother “ “straight inside” if he stirs up trouble.  Mr Neville treats Jimmy with
contempt when he is trying to get his train fare to return home. He is forced to wait constantly
even though he may miss the train. “He can wait” says Mr Neville as he reads the newspaper and
converses with the Constable about sport.

Billy Kimberley – the “black tracker” is interpreted as the magic man boolyaduk. He is “carrying a
whip” which he uses on his own people at the behest of the white authorities.   He often prods
the natives with the whip (54). Neal throws the tobacco contemptuously on the oor to Billy who
must go and search for the runaways. (68)

A political activist and “troublemaker” 

As a proud indigenous activist and “troublemaker” (“ringleader”), Jimmy draws attention to social
injustice and the discrimination they face on a daily basis. He believes that the theft of land has
caused terrible scars.  Jimmy states that the whites (wetjalas) “took our country” and therefore
the Indigenous Australians are in a helpless position of dependence.  In the stage directions,
Davis states that Jimmy nicks his nger with the axe and raises blood. This is symbolic of the
violent act of dispossession, which so infuriates Jimmy. He chastises (criticises) the Indigenous
Australians who “danced” for the white man.

At the Moore River Settlement, Jimmy asks Mr Neal if he voted for “Jimmy Mitchell’s lot”. He
knows that their forced removal was just a political stunt and that Mr Mitchell wanted to protect
his power   “so he could have a nice, white little town, white little fuckin’ town”  (94).    After his
confrontation with Mr Neal, Davis suggests in the stage directions that he is “he is left alone,
shouting”.   Jimmy’s death symbolises the di culties faced by the First Australians and their
sense of hopelessness.  Davis depicts the circumstances of his death and Mr Neville’s attitude as
deplorable. Jimmy dies a dehumanising death. He does not gain justice. He is isolated and
marginalised and treated like a “troublemaker” or an “unruly nigger”.

Jimmy criticises the political system of control and curfews. He states: “you know we’re not
allowed in town, not allowed to go down the soak, not allowed to march”.
As well as Gran, Jimmy is the other character to sing a song in his South West language, it is
the grandfather’s song as he celebrates the crabs in the river and mimes a corroborree.
(60)Davis suggests that his problem with alcohol is linked with his feelings of despair.
Jimmy leads the parody of the words to the song during the Australia Day celebration,
which they repeat “even louder”: “No sugar in our tea/bread and butter we never see”. He
mocks the celebration of a “happy land” that is “bright, bright as day”. .. Jimmy challenges
Mr Neville to share their supper of “bread and drippin’ and black tea”
For white settlement, Australia Day celebrates the rst eet, which is particularly o ensive
for the First Australians who make it obvious that they have been completely discarded
and treated contemptuously by o cials such as Mr Neal and Mr Neville. Davis depicts Mr
Neville’s response as typically vindictive and indignant. He vows that they will “rue this day”
and accuses them of rank and “disgraceful” “ingratitude”.

(For students who wish to excel in “Analysing Argument and Persuasive Language” please
see our new workbook and free online exercise study program).
Arguments and Persuasive language: an essay-writing guide helps students in Years 11/12
unlock the key to an A+ essay : $22.95.

The violent act of dispossession

Indignantly, Jimmy draws our attention at the beginning of the play to the fact that the land was
forcibly taken from the First Australians. Likewise, Billy recounts the massacre (in Creole) and
mimes the violence and tragedy that befell the tribe. The use of pidgin English reinforces cultural
di erences and the importance of oral stories in the indigenous historical narrative. Davis uses
this story to foreground the disproportionate and indiscriminate violence that occurred during
the colonial period.

Mr George ogged the “old man”, almost to death, who in an act of retaliation, speared the
“gudeeah” with his “chubel spear”. The police force returns to “shoot ‘em everybody mens,
kooris, little yumbahs”. In addition, contrary to the o cial version of history as narrated in Mr
Neville’s Australia Day speech, the colonial government with its “big mob politjmans” are the
ones to massacre the children and mothers and “chuck ‘em on a big re”. (62) Davis suggests
that this is the story of settlement that is not included in the early o cial narrative. Even Mr
Neville refers to the rst 70 days of Tasmanian settlement, or the “Tasmanian solution” (30)
during which only one Aboriginal Tasmanian remained out of “some six thousand natives (who)
disappeared”. (81)

Davis also shows how the oral indigenous version of history di ers from the pioneer narrative
which foregrounds the notion that bravely, the settlers fought hostile and violent indigenous
tribes. Clearly, the colonial government with its “big mob politjmans” are the ones to massacre
the children and mothers and “chuck ‘em on a big re”. (62) For the remaining members of the
clan, the place becomes superstitiously haunted by the cries of mothers. These shrieks enable
Davis to highlight the hypocrisy of colonial settlement that judged the First Australians as violent
and barbaric.

The Decree to Move

Davis refers to a typical political and social situation whereby the Government and Council
con ict over the best way to remove Aboriginal Australians from the township. In this case, the
government wants to move the families from their tents to a new reserve earmarked for the
Guilford Road site which is not acceptable to the council. (The Council opposes the gazetting of
the Guilford Road site.)   However, the sergeant believes that it has water supply and a couple of
acres of grazing land (implying that the government is moving cattle).  The council would rather a
park for boy scouts and picnic parties. (37)

The attempted resettlement highlights the stereotypical attitude towards Indigenous Australians
typically held by the white townspeople. The council wants the new site to be “well away from
any residences”.  Adjoining landholders have lodged objections.  No one in Northam Shire wants
to be living near Aboriginal Australians because they believe it will be unsafe to leave wives and
children, despite the fact that many of the neighbours are getting drunk at the Shamrock Hotel
“till stumps” and, as we will discover, the men in charge at many reserves are abusing aboriginal
women in their care.

Aware that the Aboriginal Australians are victims of a wilful political campaign, Jimmy scathingly
and infuriatingly explains that the wetjalas “in this town don’t want us ‘ere” don’t want our kids at
the school” (45). Jimmy asks Mr Neal if he voted for “Jimmy Mitchell’s lot”. He knows it is just a
political stunt; he wishes to protect his  power   “so he could have a nice, white little town, white
little fuckin’ town”  (94).  (For political reasons, the government fears that Bert Awkes may upseat
Jimmy Mitchell in the forthcoming election.     There are a lot of Chinamen working on his farm at
Grass Valley which is very unpopular (45).)

Mr Neville instigates the procedure to forcibly remove the aborigines owing to “scabies”. They
will be transferred to Moore River Settlement (42)  They are given a meagre allowance and will
have to leave all their animals behind.  Of course, Neville is keen to impress upon his o cers
that they must maintain “absolute con dentiality of the matter” (43)

The government justi es the forced repatriation because of “health reasons” and issues warrants
for the arrest of those who refuse to move. Later, when the matron examines the natives, only 4
out of 89 have scabies. As Davis clearly shows, it is a complete farce. They are meant to be in the
quarantine camp but there is no need for it. (58)

Joe returns to their previous camp and recognises that everything has been wilfully burnt, even
David’s bike. They were fed lies – they were assured that the o cials would “look after everything
we left behind”. Joe seethes resentfully. “It’ll never be over.”

Language is used constantly to reinforce  di erences. For example, when one of their horses
turned up at Martin’s property, the language downplays the act of theft.  The horse just
“wandered down”, just as Mary is the “give girl”.  However, Joe believes the horse was “grabbed”,
that is, stolen. In contrast, the supposed “criminality” of Indigenous Australians is always
reinforced. They are presented as thieves and criminals.

PRISON RATES: LAW AND ORDER

Davis reminds the audience that Indigenous Australians must constantly be controlled by white
man’s laws that are foreign to them.   The laws, especially those relating to the consumption of
alcohol, are discriminatory and patronising; often Aboriginal Australians have no legal defence
and are often ignorant of their changes because of their inability to read.  This again reinforces
their alienation from mainstream society and its laws.
Sergeant Carol apprehends Frank and accuses him of supplying liquor to the natives, which is an
o ence under the Aboriginal Act. (12)  It appears that James Munday was apprehended drunk
after Frank supplied him with two bottles of port wine in the Shamrock Hotel.  (12)   Joe is
apprehended under Section Twelve of the Aborigines act for absconding from Moore River
Native Settlement. The Sergeant almost boasts – is certainly proud – of the fact that he “nabbed”
a bloke for giving a native wine and he is “doing three months hard labour in Fremantle” . Jimmy
suggests that he has been in gaol four times for “drinkin, ghtin’ and snowdroppin’” (taking
clothes o the clothes lines).

Legal system: During the court proceedings,  it is evident that Sam and Jimmy are dealing with a
“foreign” or strange legal system that is often designed to alienate and humiliate them.  They are
ridiculed because of their apparent ignorance of a system that criminalises them through no
fault of their own (31).   The contrast and distance between the aborigines and the o cials is
apparent as Jimmy and Sam revert to aboriginal terms, while the JP spouts legalese such as
“contempt of court” .  Jimmy and Sam repeat native terms such as ‘gnoolya’ (brother-in-law)
which is foreign to the JP. Millimurra gets a minor ne of two and sixpence or seven days
imprisonment by default. (31)  The JP eventually loses patience at Jimmy who seems to prolong
the hearings because he highlights the humiliating circumstances of the “piss” and the “ “shit
bucket” . The JP tells Jimmy, “shut up, you bloody idiot or I’ll charge you with contempt of court”
(Of course, the audience would infer that Jimmy does not understand this legal terminology.

When Jimmy complains about the “piss bucket” which is leaking, the Sergeant reminds him, “if
you know what’s good for you, you’ll shut up”. (27) Humiliated, Jimmy becomes angrier. “Fuck ‘em
all”. He is aware of his completely powerless situation and “hurls the bucket against the wall”. 
The Constable carries a baton; they do not hesitate to use force when needed.  Jimmy’s charges
increase.  Frank testi es to the charity of the aborigines and their kindness in giving him a meal
and a razor, 30. By way of “explanation” he excuses the gift, but this is inconsequential to the
Sargeant.  Jimmy is sentenced to six weeks imprisonment  with hard labour (30))

THE MOORE RIVER NATIVE SETTLEMENT

The act of becoming “civilised” is presented as a hypocritical concept as Davis shows that  taking
their “place” in white society, often dooms them to exploitation or physical and sexual
assault. Mary is the “give girl” and slavery is referred to as ‘wardship’.

Many white o cials exploit and rape the Indigenous women; their babies are frequently killed.
Of 80 girls from the Moore River Native  Settlement who went into domestic service in one year,
30 returned in a “pregnant condition”.  (16).  If Mary does not ful l Mr Neal’s whims she will be
sent back to the “old man” at home.   She is petri ed of Mr Neal who carries a “cat o nine tails”;
he is always leering at the girls and it is no secret that those he wishes to rape those he
conveniently sends to the hospital. (56).  Vulnerable but not defeated, Mary refuses to leave
herself so exposed, but also knows that if she is sent to work on the farm for the “guddeeah” she
will return pregnant as most of them do.  She is haunted by the story of one girl whose baby was
fatally choked after she was raped by an employer’s sons on the farm. (57)

Neal is infuriated that Mary refuses to work in the hospital where she can be raped and
exploited. He takes this as a personal challenge to his power. Degradingly and contemptuously
he tells her, “Millimurra seems to have learnt you well. Well I’m going to unlearn you”.

Neal whips her barbarically with a “cat o nine tail” over the bag of our. The fact that Billy holds
her “outstretched over a pile of our bags” also raises questions about the complicity of the
aborigines in the colonial settlement. After “Neal raises the cat o nine tails” there is a blackout.
The audience hears Mary’s heart-rendering and pitiful scream that becomes a powerful symbol
of Aboriginal resistance in the face of shameful violence.

As Mary later explains,  “he got wild I wouldn’t knuckle under to him”.  “He’s yours for life” says
Gran who delivers her baby safely. (97)

Despite the Matron’s constant sarcastic remarks to Mr Neal regarding  his assaults and binge
drinking episodes at the hotel (she is “scared of living”), she is powerless to a ect any change.

Literacy levels are very low: sub-standard education

Joe Millimurra tries to read “falteringly”. Mary probably can’t read and gives Joe’s letter to  Cissie
who has been going to school in Northam.    Mr Neal forbids books at the Settlement; but the
sister wonders whether the bible would be classi ed as a book. Neal is contemptuous of “do
gooders”  Mr Neal is adamant that no books are needed – they have enough troublemakers.  “A
little knowledge is a dangerous thing” (90).   Neal intimidates Sister and suggests she takes a
transfer to Mulla Bulla on the edge of the Gibson desert.  (90)  She also wants to set up a library. 
 They often cannot read the o cial papers that they are forced to sign; clearly, their ignorance is
exploited.

CULTURAL BELIEFS AND STORIES: DIFFERENT HISTORIES

Davis includes many indigenous terms and uses the South West and North West Languages to
show the relationship to land of the First Australians. Moving from a hunter-gatherer society,
their daily-life dependence on nature and wildlife and they have separate histories.   The
Aboriginal stories are relegated to second place; they are subordinate to the pioneering myths of
settlement.  Davis suggests that Australian pride revolves around the achievements of the
pioneers. (9.) Evidently they faced dangers from the First Australians.   Joe reads (faltering)
“Commemorating the pioneers whose lives… were a steadfast performance of duty in the face of
di culty and danger. With them was a reminder of the dangers they faced, in the shape of three
lorries… carrying Aborigines.” 

Jimmy is annoyed that the “blackfellas dancin’ for ‘em”, that is, for  the white man’s brass band,
instead of focussing on their own corroborees.   The reference to the “stolen” land implies that
the aborigines are not doing enough to resist and to draw attention to their plight.

COMPARATIVE VERSIONS OF HISTORY

Mr Neville is head of department: Chief Protector of Aborigines O ce, Government of Western

Australia, Fisheries, Forestry, Wildlife and Aborigines.  Mr Neville’s speech to the Royal Western
Australian Historical Society.  He typically gives a glowing picture of the pioneers;  and a di erent
account of the massacre that rationalises the violence.  An Aboriginal Australian was shot while
stealing our and that was “the beginning of the end”  at Pinjarra. The o cial account of history
remains against the oral hearsay of the natives.  The o cial estimate was 15 to 20 dead.

Typical of their o -the-record banter, the Constable and Sergeant talk about poisoning the
natives; it is  “too late to adopt the Tasmanian solution” (39). The author insinuates that the
Western Australian Government was not as brutal or not as lucky as the Tasmanian Government
which oversaw the death of 6000 natives during the rst 70 years of settlement.  In the West,
(from 1829-1901) the number of indigenous, 13,000, was reduced to 1,419 – many of whom were
half castes.

During their life at the Moore River Settlement, the aborigines are (forcibly) exposed to the
Christian religion which replaces their own rich cultural beliefs and oral stories. David is whipped
by Billy and forced to attend religious lessons despite the Sister’s protestations, “we don’t hit
people to make them do God’s will” (84).

Australia Day ceremony 

The Settlement is, inappropriately, preparing for the Australia Day ceremony. Hypocritically, Mr
Neville expresses his gratitude to Mr Neal about the “splendid ceremony”. As Davis suggests,
there appears to be a lot of empty pomp and ceremony, but little real action.  The hymn, “The
Happy Land”, is later humorously, parodied by the “blackfellas”.  As Davis suggests, the hymn
reveals an exclusive view of  Australia – one which denies Aborigines basic necessities such as
“sugar in our tea”. They also note, “bread and butter we never see”.  The trivial reference to the
“fading away” is also a sinister reminder of an understated goal of government policies – racial
genocide, also euphemistically known as the “Tasmanian solution”.  The playwright suggests that
Christian institutions are complicit in the destruction of aboriginal dignity and culture whilst
purporting to “save” them at the same time.

Mr Neville’s exaggerated and dramatic reaction is farcical. He criticises the Aborigine’s

“demonstration of ingratitude” which is re ects his paternalistic attitude that the aborigines need
to be civilised in order to take their place in White Australian society. Furthermore, the fact that
Neville intends to restrict privileges is ironic because the Millimurra family has constantly
struggled with bare necessities.

HISTORY AND CULTURE

The parody of the hymn also highlights another of Jack Davis’s concerns – that aboriginal cultural
legends and stories have been relegated to the margins in place of the dominate Christian
narrative. Earlier, we learn that Jimmy was a choir boy at the New Norcia Mission, singing “Ave
Maria”, but with conditions so tough, it was di cult to live o God alone.   Jimmy sings a
Christian hymn that he has learnt at the mission which again reminds the police of their
hypocritical culture. “Mother of Christ, star of the sea”.

The aboriginal stories are inconsequential; they are subordinate to the pioneering myths of
settlement.  Davis suggests that the focus of Australian pride centres around the achievements
of the pioneers. (9.) The white people ignore the black man’s cultural stories and histories.
Instead, they reinforce the stories of the pioneers which are o ensive to the native people. They
also give priority to Christian stories, myths and values which the aborigines are forced to learn,
once again implying that their stories are insigni cant and “uncivilised”. (See Billy’s story of the
massacre.)

The o cial version of history is the focus of Mr Neville’s address to the Royal Western
Australian Historical Society. Davis shows how the o cial white man’s narrative typically gives a
glowing picture of the pioneers  and a rationalising account of massacres in order to downplay
the act of theft and the violence.  For example, an Aboriginal Australian was shot while stealing
our and that was “the beginning of the end”  at Pinjarra.  The o cial account of history remains
against the oral hearsay of the First Australians.  The o cial estimate was 15 to 20 dead.  
 However Billy gives a di erent account which reveals errors in the white man’s version.   Billy
relates the 1926 massacre that killed most of his tribe. Mr George belted the old man with the
stockwhip; the old man was bleeding from the cuts. He picked up the chubel spear and speared
Midja George.  Retribution was swift and brutal; the tribe was killed. He hates to return to the
area because of the sounds of the bush: “Mothers cryin’ and babies cryin’, screamin’, Waiwai!
Waiwai! Waiwai!” (63)

Religious doctrine is used to “educate” the aborigines and replace their own cultural stories.
David is whipped by Billy to attend church despite the Sister’s protestations, “we don’t hit people
to make them do God’s will” (84. Contrastingly, Jimmy is often depicted dancing and having a
corroborre. Jimmy enacts the dance about crabs and the eagle, which shows awareness of
traditional customs and lifestyles.

Through the characterisation of the matron, Davis shows their awareness of their shameful
complicity, and their inability to challenge authority gures because of the consequences (an
inferior out of the way posting).

Jimmy’s resistance

Jimmy’s protest symbolises the angry voice of the dispossessed. In the opening scene he displays
a sense of pride in his indigenous roots and anger at the government and the “blackfellas” who
are “dancin’ for ’em”. “Cause them bastards took our country and them blackfellas dancin’ for
’em. Bastards!” (10)

Proud, angry and frustrated, Jimmy “savagely” “drives the axe into a log and nicks his nger. The
stage directions note that he “watches the blood on the ground”, symbolising the blood spent by
his indigenous forebears. He claims that he would not have been so coerced. At 12 years old,
Jimmy was a choir boy at New Norcia Mission and rails at the fact that they are not even allowed
to march. He “mimes handcu s and goal” which re ects a series of miming actions throughout
the play. He enacts the discrimination he faces; this is not only a dramatic tool of the playwright’s
but it also reinforces the language di culties. (Notice the reference to religion which is, Davis,
believes a hypocritical tool of dispossession used by the white man.)

Death and rebirth

As a proud indigenous activist and “troublemaker” (“ringleader”), Jimmy draws attention to social
injustice and the discrimination they face on a daily basis. Sadly, his death becomes a potent
symbol of despair. Jimmy sees through the rhetoric spoken by the ‘wetjalas’ and he is unafraid to
voice his opinions to both his family and white people in positions of authority. Jimmy
systematically exposes the hypocrisy of the Government, but his addiction to alcohol acutely
captures their loss of faith, their degradation and their sense of despair.   Jimmy’s willingness to
stand up for himself is shown when Neville tries to dismiss him. He replies “I’m not wait’ ‘round
here all day.” On Australia Day, he insightfully and courageously announces to the entire
assembled company at the Moore River Settlement that the transfer of his family and other
Aborigines to said settlement was “nothin’ to do with bloody scabies” but so “them wetjalas vote
for [Jimmy Mitchell],” showing that he is a voice for the Aboriginal people. His heart attack
symbolically represents the death of the voice of protest amongst Aborigines  – despair.

Although he shows how disheartening life can be for the Aborigines, Davis also suggests there is
hope. One symbol of hope is Joe and Mary’s baby which is named after Jimmy, suggesting a
future ghter.  Cissie and David also represent hope for the Aborigines, who, despite ‘joining’
white society, also try to protect their Indigenous heritage. Gran’s insistence on Cissie and David
attending school shows that she understands the importance of, and power, that derives from
learning the dominant language. But Gran also sings the nal song in her own South West
Language suggesting that there is hope so long as the Indigenous remember their cultural roots.

The fact that Mary is a “good milker” symbolically points to their survival. Also she proudly
wins her ght against Mr Neal and withstands his barbaric actions. She restrains Joe who
wishes to assault him, and states, “He got wild ‘coz I wouldn’t knuckle under to him” (101)
As Joe and Mary bid farewell to “each member” with the “ re [] burning” and a “magpie
squawk[ing]”, Davis suggests that there is hope through reconnecting with their
cultural identity.
As Billy “hands [Joe] his whip”, Billy seems to redeem himself through the help he o ers. He
subverts the white authorities attempts to dehumanise and control him.
Joe uses Billy’s whip to catch rabbits and Sam gives him the knife. These are symbolic tools
of survival in a harsh bush landscape. (Sam notes that “he can always make another one”)
Gran’s poignant song in her Indigenous language at the close of the play suggests that the
indigenous culture and language will survive as long as the First  Australians have the
courage and pride to defend their cultural heritage, and to remember the heroic struggles
of their ancestors.

Make a summary on some of the author’s most critical views

The paternalistic, contemptuous treatment of the Indigenous Australians by the

authorities; i.e Mr. Neville and the policemen (include literary devices, symbols etc.)
The stereotypical view of First Australians as perpetuated by the authorities (in order to
justify the oppression and what Davis depicts as scandalous and dehumanising treatment.)
How Davis de es/uncovers/deconstructs these stereotypes through his humanising
portrayal of the families. For example Molly and Gran are obsessed with hygiene and soap
despite their extreme sub-standard living conditions.
 The families’ relationship with the dominant/mainstream cultural views and values: the
story about the pioneers; attempts to read; (literary devices: alienating e ect of language
etc.); their options to belong; think about Jimmy’s comments
The contradictory e orts of the authorities: they seek to “civilise” Aboriginal Australians but
restrict their rations and in particular soap; they want to “civilise” them and prepare them
to take their place in mainstream society and yet undermine their e orts through the
restriction of education and access to decent work; how those in a position of power
exploit the domestic and itinerant workers

1. Strangers in “our own country”, No Sugar by Dr Jennifer

Minter (English Works Notes, 2014)
2. See No Sugar: Two perspectives
3. See No Sugar: Some sample plans

Workbook and Online Study page

Return to Arguments and Persuasive Language : an

essay-writing guide: Suggested Responses

VCE Students; Keeping up-to-date and ahead: unlock the key to an A+

essay.

For EAL students, please see the Techniques of Persuasion: $16.95  

SOCIAL CONTEXT:

The Aboriginal poet Kevin Gilbert grew up in the 1930s. He describes an

“apartheid system” whereby the aborigines “were not allowed to be in ‘town’ later than 30
minutes after the end of the last movie. “We were separated from the white audience by a roped
enclosure, not allowed into hospital dormitories, but kept out on the verandahs of the hospital
known as the ‘boong’ ward where pillows, sheets, bedding were stencilled in black with the word
‘Abo’ on them.” They had to ask for a ‘pass’ from the manager to visit ‘missions’ where the
relatives lived.  (“Inside Black Australia: an anthology of Aboriginal Poetry” edited by Kevin
Gilbert.)
“I was born ‘black’ in a white society that spoke oh so easily of ‘justice’, ‘democracy’, ‘fair go’,
‘Christian love’ and had me and mine living in old tin sheds, under scraps of iron, starving on
what we could catch – goanna, rabbit, kangaroo, or on what we could nd – bread and fat,
treasures of old lino and hessian bags from the white man’s rubbish tip to keep us a little bit dry
and warmer in the winter.’

In the 1980s and 1990s in Western Australia, Indigenous Australians consisted of 3 per cent of
the population, yet their numbers in prison often increased to 30 per cent of the population.
Gilbert echoes Davis’s beliefs that this disproportionate number re ects not the Aboriginal
Australian’s criminality, but the government’s policy of discrimination and the attitude of a police
force that practices racial pro ling and targets a minority group.

Originally Aboriginal Australians’ rights were written into the Letters Patent that approved land
and usufructuary rights to hunt; 15% of land sales were to be set aside for aboriginal bene t; but
governments did not honour the Letters Patent obligations. The people were placed in reserves.

Indigenous Australians were exiled in areas euphemistically called ‘reserves’. Apartheid laws
were enacted and co-habiting with whites in a loving relationship was savagely punished, while
house slavery and sexual abuse was considered more or less a ‘civilising’ in uence. Children
were not allowed to speak their language in many of the ‘missions’ and were discouraged by the
simple expedient punishment of locking an o ender away in solitary con nement on a bread
and water diet. Even saying “hello’ in the local lingo was punished. The ‘master’ of the camp
determined degrading roles such as tinker, tailor, drover, jacky, dish washer, maid and cane-
cutter.

By 1911, the Northern Territory and every State except Tasmania had “protectionist legislation”
giving the Chief Protector or Protection Board extensive power to control Indigenous people. The
management of the reserves was delegated to government-appointed managers. Enforcement
of the protectionist legislation at the local level was the responsibility of protector’s who were
usually police o cers.  In the National Overview, “Bringing them Home Report” into the
Separation of Aboriginal Children from their Families (April 1997) it is claimed that: “in the name
of protection, Indigenous people were subject to near-total control. Their entry to and exit from
reserves was regulated as was their everyday life on the reserves, their right to marry and their
employment. With a view to encouraging the conversion of the children to Christianity and
distancing them from their Indigenous lifestyle, children were housed in dormitories and contact
with their families strictly limited.” (p. 29) In Tasmania, most indigenous families had been
removed to Cape Barren o the north coast. “Until the late 1960s Tasmanian governments
resolutely insisted that Tasmania did not have an Aboriginal population, just some ‘half-caste’
people.”

In some states and in the Northern Territory, the Chief Protector was made the legal guardian of
all Aboriginal people, displacing the rights of parents.  Mr Neville, (the Chief Protector of WA) was
of the view that “within one hundred years the pure black will be extinct.” He reported that in
1937, the population of full-blooded had decreased from 60,000 to 20,000. He believed that it
was important to segregate half-castes from full-blooded Aborigines because the increase in the
numbers of the former created a problem. In his view, “skin colour was the key to absorption.
Children with lighter skin colour would automatically be accepted into non-indigenous society
and lose their Aboriginal identity”.

Accordingly, the ‘protectionist’ legislation was used to remove Indigenous children. The protector
did not have to establish whether or not the child was neglected. The aim was to remove
children from their mothers around the age of four years and place them in dormitories away
from their families. They would be sent to missions to work at 14 years of age.

Consequently, the Indigenous Australians lived in sub-human conditions. Many were denied
access to rivers and waterholes by pastoralists and miners; they lived in scraps of tarpaulin and
hessian and derelict car bodies, and died from curable eighteenth century diseases.

In 1984, Robert Walker, (aged 25) died in Freemantle Gaol; in protest, he cut his wrists and
played his guitar. The prison o cers removed him from his cell; screaming in mortal fear he was
removed to a grassed area; held by o cers and beaten with sts, boots and truncheons over a
period of 17 minutes. 126 Coroner McCann dismissed the evidence of prisoner witnesses; he
found that “death arose by way of misadventure”.

Aboriginal culture, dreamtime origins and oral stories

To many white people, a group of Aboriginals who sit around a camp re are just singing a
corroboree song or “yacking”.  But for the Aboriginal Australians, it is a deeply sacred and
spiritual experience; so much so that if an uninvited man or woman enters the circle unbidden,
they can well court a death sentence, for which that circle the Great Creator Essence is present.

Davis also highlights the importance of oral histories in Aboriginal culture. Martin Flanagan says
of “revisionists” in Australia concerning Aboriginal history: “if it’s not written down, it didn’t
happen”. (The Age, 19/7/14)
Indigenous labourers were forced to work without pay, apart from a few rations – dry bread or
our, camp meat, a stick of tobacco.  If aborigines killed cattle to eat, they risked death or at the
very least, imprisonment, or removal from family.

Doris Pilkington Garimara       Writer    1937 — 10-4-2014

“Sometime in 1937, Doris Pilkington Garimara was born Nugi Garimara under a wintamarra –
mulga – tree on Balfour Downs Station, the daughter of Molly Craig and Toby Kelly, an Aboriginal
stockman. Six years earlier, in 1931, Molly had escaped from Moore River Native Settlement with
her two sister/cousins, Daisy and Gracie, and walked all the way back to Jigalong, an
extraordinary journey along the rabbit-proof fence that took them three months.  (See Rabbit
Proof Fence).

When Doris was 4, she, her mother and Annabelle, her new little sister, again came to the
attention of Auber Octavius Neville, the chief protector of Aboriginals in Western Australia. They
were interned at Moore River. Molly ran away, taking the baby with her but leaving Doris behind.
She did not see her mother again for 21 years.

Pilkington grew up at Moore River and at 12 was transferred to Roelands Mission where
missionaries brought her up to believe Aboriginal people were dirty and evil. ”I actually despised
my own traditional culture because we were taught to,” she said. ”We were told that our culture
was evil and those that practised it were devil worshippers. I was taught to deny my own people
– be ashamed of them even. The blacker your skin was, the worse individual you were.””

She described the conditions as “more like a concentration camp than a residential school for
Aboriginal children”.

“Young men and women constantly ran away (this was in breach of the Aborigines Act. Not only
were they separated from their families and relatives, but they were regimented and locked up
like caged animals, locked in their dormitory after supper for the night. They were given severe
punishments, including solitary con nements for minor misdeeds. (Choo 1989, p. 46.)

The per capita funding for the Moore River Settlement was half that of the lowest funded white
institution (the Old Men’s Home).  The children were taught basic literacy, numeracy and
hygiene, with a view to employment as domestic servants and rural labourers. An Aboriginal
witness to the “Bringing them Home” Inquiry in Perth who taught in the school at Moore River
during the 1950s gave evidence that inmates were ogged with a cat-o’nine-tails (now held in the
Western Australian museum).
In 1936, Western Australia spent less per capita on Aboriginal a airs than any other State.

See full article: “Fearless writer revealed the lives behind the Sorry Day stories of dispossession”,
The Age, 26/4/13     Published: April 26, 2014 – 3:00AM

“Where are my rst-born, said the brown land, sighing/ They came out of my womb long, long ago.
They were formed of my dust – why, why are they crying / And the light of their being barely aglow?”
 “The First-born” (poem by Jack Davis).

Strangers in “our own country”, No Sugar by Dr Jennifer Minter

Dr Jennifer Minter, English Works, (VCE Resources)

Tweet

Clear Writing: Language and Grammar

$18.95

View this Product

View all Products in this Category

TEXT PAIRS YEAR 12

Ransom (David Malouf)

Tracks (Robyn Davidson)
The Crucible (Arthur Miller)
Stasiland (Anna Funder)
Year of Wonders (Geraldine Brooks)