No Sugar Play Analysis
Realist plays are often a response or a comment on an issue or topic in society, past or present. Within No sugar, it is accepted Davis is responding to the topic of racism against Indigenous Australians, treating them in a subhuman manner and “othering” them. Othering can be defined as the practise of imposing a definition on a particular group in society, most commonly a marginalised one. It consequently disempowers the chosen groups and allows the dominant group to maintain it’s power and control. With reference to the 1905 Aborigines Act, it can be determined that the process of othering happened on a political scale to the Australians Aboriginals. The act was intentionally constructed to consolidate the use of the Indigenous Australian’s
…show more content…
An Indigenous person, who legitimately works for payment, gets less as a result than a white person does for literally doing nothing. From this example, it can be inferred that in some cases the Indigenous were used as a resource for the Europeans gain, even at the expense of the Native’s livelihood. Additionally, another example of othering within the 1905 act comes from section 12; “Ministers can dictate where Aboriginals in terms of reserves and boundaries”. Ironically enough, this section is one of the primary forces of conflict driving the play, the gentrification of the Indigenous reserve in order to benefit white authority figures in a political sense. The othering of Indigenous Australian’s predates the 1905 act and is even evident at the very roots of the Australian nation through the establishment of the Australia constitution, section 51, part 26 states; “the people of any race for who it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. Furthermore, it is clear that the marginalisation of the Australian Aborigines came from a systematic, institutionalised sense through the 1905 act, and indirectly through the Australian
An Indigenous person, who legitimately works for payment, gets less as a result than a white person does for literally doing nothing. From this example, it can be inferred that in some cases the Indigenous were used as a resource for the Europeans gain, even at the expense of the Native’s livelihood. Additionally, another example of othering within the 1905 act comes from section 12; “Ministers can dictate where Aboriginals in terms of reserves and boundaries”. Ironically enough, this section is one of the primary forces of conflict driving the play, the gentrification of the Indigenous reserve in order to benefit white authority figures in a political sense. The othering of Indigenous Australian’s predates the 1905 act and is even evident at the very roots of the Australian nation through the establishment of the Australia constitution, section 51, part 26 states; “the people of any race for who it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. Furthermore, it is clear that the marginalisation of the Australian Aborigines came from a systematic, institutionalised sense through the 1905 act, and indirectly through the Australian