Smasher's Character vs Blackwood's Character

 I do not think it is possible to talk about Smasher without talking about Blackwood. They are inverses of each other, and as such the story would not be complete without the two sides of the spectrum. Smasher represents the side of Will that wants the aboriginals gone. He has no mercy for them as humans, and he takes pleasure in their pain. Blackwood is the opposite. He sees the aboriginals as equals, supporting them and even learning their own language. Blackwood represents the side of Will that wants to live peacefully with them. What is shown in Will’s thoughts seems to represent the mind of the average colonizer. Neither here, nor there. However, Greenville uses the two opposing characters of Blackwood and Smasher to portray the extreme ends of the ideology. We can also see how Smasher’s perspective is more or less supported by the British government. When they send the letter with directions on how to handle the aboriginals, it states that peaceful coexistence must first be tried, however there will be no consequences if violent action must be taken. In this sense, the first thought of peace in the letter will not matter, because the end result will always be violence. When you put a decision that large in the hands of a bunch of scared settlers, it can be assumed they will almost always resort to violence. Unless, of course, you are Blackwood (though he isn’t exactly scared, so I guess he does not count). All in all, the way Smasher and Blackwood are portrayed provide crucial viewpoints of the average citizen, just to the extreme.

Comments

  1. John FredericksJanuary 24, 2022 at 8:50 AM

    I appreciate this new perspective on each characters representing the extremes of Thornhill's psyche. I think both characters are vital to the novel with each being a "good" angel and "bad" devil resting on Will's soldiers. I'm excited to see how the novel ends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Javier MartinezJanuary 24, 2022 at 11:40 AM

      I also find it really interesting, and it was a perspective I have contemplating on my own recently as well as I reflect on the story. It feels as if Will is the character through which we are supposed to experience and understand the sentiments and mindsets of all the other major characters in the story, as in so many ways he is on the edge between the sentiments of various characters (particularly in his feelings towards the natives) and often expresses similar views to contrasting characters.

      Delete
  2. Isabella FernandezJanuary 24, 2022 at 3:39 PM

    Although this book is purely told through William's perspective, I do believe that it was extremely important for us to gain an insight into Smasher and Blackwood's lives and their line of thinking in regards to Australian colonization. These three characters give us three distinct views on the Aboriginals; views that we needed to be exposed to in order to try to understanding what happened during those times. I do agree that Blackwood never seemed to be a scared of the Aboriginals, unlike Smasher, William, and many others. Because he developed relationships with the Aboriginals and learned to cherish and respect their culture, beliefs, and land, he had no reason to fear for his place in that land. On the other hand, Smasher, William, Sal, and other were forced to stand on constant defense because of their lack of acceptance and willingness to adapt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jenna ChinnJanuary 24, 2022 at 11:38 PM

    I love the idea of Smasher and Blackwood as opposites to represent the two extremes. While we know that Smasher's way of "dealing with" the Aboriginals is barbaric and immoral, Blackwood's method of integrating is also illogical, which is simply shown by the nature of his neighbors. It may work for him, but it will never work entirely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michelle BJanuary 25, 2022 at 11:23 AM

      Why do you think Blackwood's method can't be a commonly shared method?

      Delete
    2. KrisJanuary 25, 2022 at 5:49 PM

      Well, I believe that the reasoning for which Blackwood's method couldn't be a commonly shared method in the past is that assimilation is far from the first instinct people usually have. Consider the modern day: immigrants will often form communities with people from their original culture, e.g. Chinatown and Little Italy (although these are also largely influenced by commercial reasons). With that in mind, this comfort would become solidarity in the past, when it was not immigration but settler colonialism, and not only were beliefs of racial supremacy several times more prominent, but global social interconnectedness had not yet even been conceived. Overall, the number of people like Blackwood who would be willing to assimilate in those times would be miniscule, and pressure from other colonists upon those individuals would ruin their chances.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gender in Pachinko

  In the novel, there are characters that seem to have defined gender roles, and there are some that blur the lines. For example, Kyunghee seems to portray a typical woman. She is extremely loyal to her husband, and respects him almost to a fault. She is also described as beautiful. Without the introduction of Sunja, she may have never had the courage to ask for anything. For example, she had the lovely idea of constructing a kimchi business. She is able to partially achieve this dream, but she would not have been able to do it without the encouragement from Sunja. She seems to be smart, but just enough to be a good wife. In a parallel sense, Yoseb is very ‘manly’. He has a strange addiction to tradition, and we see him slip into anger when he senses he is losing control. These are traits typically associated with a man. Then there are characters like Sunja. She is never described as pretty, in fact she is described as quite the opposite. She explores her sexuality with Hansu, but ...
Read more

Equiano Project

  The Equiano group’s project was extremely enlightening. I knew slave ships were bad, but not that bad. A 45% mortality rate is absolutely horrendous. I literally cannot imagine living in captivity so close to other people. It really makes you appreciate everything you have/ all the space you have to move around. It also seems counter-intuitive. When so many of the people you need to sell die, aren’t you losing money? It would make more sense to create habitable environments. In light of this, it seems like those who forced slaves to be in the ships were simply evil. It is also saddening, but not surprising to learn of the commonality of suicide. When faced when actual torture, it is not suprising that many people chose death. Even when healthy, the outlook of servitude was probably horrifying. What I found most interesting were the revolts. I had not thought about the idea that slaves could revolt, and it is encouraging that the enslaved people did not give up. Apparently around ...
Read more