What Is The Moral Of The Secret River By Kate Grenville

Kate Grenville, presents a confronting story about ‘life on the frontier’ in her historically based novel of early 19th century colonist Australia; The Secret River. Grenville successfully constructs the protagonist, William Thornhill, as a man who struggles with various decisions, in order to achieve and maintain security in the contexts of London, Sydney and The Hawkesbury River. However, this security is compromised by the bitter and violent frontier conflict between the Aboriginal people and English settlers. Throughout the early nineteenth century, the two cultural groups struggle for control and occupancy of Hawkesbury River region. Grenville effectively represents emancipist Thornhill, and his choices that confront the concern of conflict
in different ways. Eventually, this conflict culminates in the massacre. Thornhill’s final decision ends the power struggle whilst compromising his morality.
The reader is provoked to consider the inevitably of conflict and the extent personal morality can be compromised by uncontrolled circumstances.
Primarily, Thornhill is constructed as an individual who has to make various choices, all stemming from his desire to secure security. The first significant choice of Thornhill’s is his decision to repeatedly steal, as 18th century working class London was inhospitable and he was convinced thievery was the only way to provide for his family. However, as a result of Thornhill’s theft of Brazilian Wood (from Mr Lucas) he is convicted and eventually sentenced to Sydney, Australia. Eventually, the protagonist chooses to abandon Sydney and move to ‘Thornhill’s point’ along the Hawkesbury River, where his most significant choice occurs. Thornhill is immensely devoted to his land, and the promise of security it provides for his family. However, the Aboriginals appear to become increasingly aggressive, thus compromising Thornhill and his family’s safety and happiness. Thornhill is torn between
motivations to take whatever steps necessary in order to maintain ownership of land, and maintaining his morality. As Sal becomes intolerant and decides to leave Thornhill’s point, Thornhill is adamant that “Unless the blacks have settled, Sal would leave Thornhill’s point” (p. 298). Thus, Thornhill justifies his decision to violently massacre the Aborigines, acting alongside Smasher and other settlers. This is significant, as Thornhill chooses to break his previous promise to Sal; that he would not act like Smasher and harm the indigenous people. As a consequence of breaking this promise, Thornhill earns unquestionable ownership. His family is provided with security and prestige. However, there is an insurmountable divide within his and Sal’s relationship. As Thornhill has gained everything he has ever desired, and he looks over his extensive property, he is left with a sense of remorse and an inability to understand “Why it did not feel like triumph.” (p334) It is evident that while Thornhill’s desired security has been achieved, it is not without a cost.
Although various characters struggle with the significant problem of frontier conflict, Thornhill is torn between adapting an attitude like Blackwood or Smasher, two characters that choose to deal with the concern in very contrasting ways. Blackwood adopts a ‘give a little take a little attitude’, (p.205) repeatedly choosing to advocate for the aboriginal people and attempting to maintain a civil relationship. This is evident when considering his relationship and most probable child with an aboriginal woman. As Blackwood speaks aborigine, communication barriers are not problematic and Blackwood is able to comprehend Aboriginal motives, thus, Blackwood does not view the conflict/settlers attitudes as warranted. Alternatively, Smasher consistently decides to act in a hostile and aggressive manner, initiating multiple violent encounters. Smasher, lacking guilt, captures and tortures an aboriginal woman in his hut, highlighting his intolerant nature. This unaccepting nature can be further realised when Smasher proposes the Aboriginals must be ‘sterminated’ (p. 298). Smasher is motivated by fear and ignorance, and although Thornhill initially considers Smasher ‘evil’, he demonstrates an increasingly similar attitude as the novel progresses. Although the characters from the text are presented with similar scenarios, each embarks in a different way. Resultantly, Smasher is killed during the massacre he is so eager to partake in. Blackwood however, is injured in his attempt to stop the genocide event, eventually healing and living a long life with the companion of a younger Richard Thornhill. Each character approaches the concern in alternative ways, facing repercussions appropriate to their actions.
Ultimately, Thornhill’s crucial choice is realised in the novels most shocking event; the massacre, as the concerns of decision making and power struggles culminate in a powerful interaction between the characters and the themes.
Although initiated by Smasher, various characters decide to partake in the brutal event. The settlers are convinced that the genocide would be retribution for Sagitty’s death. Their detachment and lack of cultural understanding of the Darug people allow them to convince themselves that the blacks are not really ‘people’, and massacre is necessary in order for them to maintain occupancy of their land. The conflict, which has remained fairly tame and presented in emotional tension, reaches a climax in a horrific way. “All around the clearing men fired and reloaded and swords rose and fell and came up all over blood in a din of screaming and roaring and high panicked cries of children.” (p.305) Afterwards, there is a “great shocked silence hanging over everything” (p. 308) as the colonists realise the enormity and inhumanness of the event that just occurred. As this violent nature is realised, the audience considers the individual choices that culminated in this event, and the power struggle; fuelled by a desire for security combined with ignorance and fear of the unknown, which led to an event as tragic as
genocide.