Sample Writing: expository
‘In times of conflict ordinary people can act in extraordinary ways.’
ORDINARY PEOPLE, EXTRAORDINARY ACTIONS
What is it about conflict that results in a change in human nature? In recent times we have seen people acting in inhumane ways, both overseas and in our own country. For years Australia has been burdened by people’s inability to accept that the indigenous people have inhabited this country for tens of thousands of years. We have seen attempts made to resolve this conflict, but continually, we see ordinary people acting extraordinarily when faced with conflict.
Many people may hold the belief that Australia is a country free of struggles and fights, but for years there has been an
underlying battle for reconciliation between the Indigenous and the settlers. For some this reconciliation is long overdue. The experiences these people have had as a result of our ancestors settling here is almost incomprehensible. While many have had land clashes, perhaps the most memorable is the Stolen Generation. Something that could be viewed as irreconcilable. However, in recent times we have seen the likes of former Prime Minister Paul Keating and current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd address the issues faced by many Australians. At Redfern in 1992, Paul Keating said ‘We cannot simply sweep injustice aside,’ meaning action must be taken in order to resolve disputes. In February this year, Kevin Rudd addressed the issue again with a formal apology, in which he apologised for the degradation of the Indigenous race, and for the suffering that has been caused. This, I believe, is something that was long overdue. Both of these actions showed the nation that extraordinary things can happen if people allow them to. The thing to remember in the case of the Apology is that the extraordinary thing is not that it happened, but the resolution it is aiming to achieve, similarly with the Redfern Speech, the extraordinary thing to come from that is the desire for equality and justice.
This need for equality can date back to when the first settlers arrived in Australia. They came believing this land was theirs. However, as I found out when I explored the ideas presented by Kate Grenville in her novel The Secret River, the original Indigenous did not view things this way. What I discovered by reading this novel was that it was not the Indigenous who acted at all out of the ordinary, all they were trying to do was protect what they believed to be rightfully theirs. Rather it was William Thornbill, a convict, who, when in England did not trust the gentry, so when in Australia saw the Aboriginal people as below him – a threat to him. He did not know how to trust people, nor how to build people’s trust. This inability to trust led him to act in an extraordinary manner. It led him to participate in a massacre that would change him forever. The fact that he consciously participated in a massacre is something of human nature I will never be able to grasp. Was it because he felt he did not fit in? Or was it because he was unable to be at one with the land as they were? The actions he performed in the massacre were not only extraordinary they were unfathomable. They were not his usual character.
Times of conflict do change people’s characters; an ordinary person one day can be completely transformed as a result of
contradicting beliefs. As is the case of the Stolen Generation, ordinary mothers were happy one minute and in ruins when their children were taken. Similarly, we witness characters transformed into different beings when investigating Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. This play presents the events of witchcraft in the town of Salem and how quickly a town can be torn apart as a result of conflicting ideas. We witness this through the transformation of Abigail Williams, who conjures spirits to try to cause a conflict between John Proctor and his wife Elizabeth. However, John is able to break free of Abigail’s powers and come to a realisation; he resolves himself pleading guilty to adultery. At first, he acted in an extraordinary way, committing the sin of adultery, allowing himself to be changed into someone he does not want to be, but he was able to find it within himself to plead guilty, he found justice and aimed for equality. From an anonymous farmer to a man who extraordinarily stood up to the evil of the girls and the court and giving his life for his name and his family, Proctor showed how the heat of a crucible can transform a person.
These actions can be likened with those of the Indigenous, they did not look to cause conflict, they acted merely to protect their own beliefs. They did want conflict to arise initially; they did not want people to have to change their actions. In times of conflict, they acted on their traditional values. People who act unusually are often the ones who cause the conflict. The white settlers were viewed by the Indigenous as the ones who initiated conflict. They saw setting as a struggle, and, to me, it seems they did not want to be the only ones suffering. They wanted life to be a struggle for others. Why did they act in this way? Was it because they did not want to be ordinary? Was it because they had come from a place where they were nothing but ordinary? This we may never know. What we do know, however, is that resolutions can be reached even if struggles are the only way to reach them. Sometimes ordinary people do have to respond to conflict in extraordinary ways. But not everyone’s actions are viewed as extraordinary. Some are feeble. This, however, will never be a trait of the Indigenous
ORDINARY PEOPLE, EXTRAORDINARY ACTIONS
What is it about conflict that results in a change in human nature? In recent times we have seen people acting in inhumane ways, both overseas and in our own country. For years Australia has been burdened by people’s inability to accept that the indigenous people have inhabited this country for tens of thousands of years. We have seen attempts made to resolve this conflict, but continually, we see ordinary people acting extraordinarily when faced with conflict.
Many people may hold the belief that Australia is a country free of struggles and fights, but for years there has been an
underlying battle for reconciliation between the Indigenous and the settlers. For some this reconciliation is long overdue. The experiences these people have had as a result of our ancestors settling here is almost incomprehensible. While many have had land clashes, perhaps the most memorable is the Stolen Generation. Something that could be viewed as irreconcilable. However, in recent times we have seen the likes of former Prime Minister Paul Keating and current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd address the issues faced by many Australians. At Redfern in 1992, Paul Keating said ‘We cannot simply sweep injustice aside,’ meaning action must be taken in order to resolve disputes. In February this year, Kevin Rudd addressed the issue again with a formal apology, in which he apologised for the degradation of the Indigenous race, and for the suffering that has been caused. This, I believe, is something that was long overdue. Both of these actions showed the nation that extraordinary things can happen if people allow them to. The thing to remember in the case of the Apology is that the extraordinary thing is not that it happened, but the resolution it is aiming to achieve, similarly with the Redfern Speech, the extraordinary thing to come from that is the desire for equality and justice.
This need for equality can date back to when the first settlers arrived in Australia. They came believing this land was theirs. However, as I found out when I explored the ideas presented by Kate Grenville in her novel The Secret River, the original Indigenous did not view things this way. What I discovered by reading this novel was that it was not the Indigenous who acted at all out of the ordinary, all they were trying to do was protect what they believed to be rightfully theirs. Rather it was William Thornbill, a convict, who, when in England did not trust the gentry, so when in Australia saw the Aboriginal people as below him – a threat to him. He did not know how to trust people, nor how to build people’s trust. This inability to trust led him to act in an extraordinary manner. It led him to participate in a massacre that would change him forever. The fact that he consciously participated in a massacre is something of human nature I will never be able to grasp. Was it because he felt he did not fit in? Or was it because he was unable to be at one with the land as they were? The actions he performed in the massacre were not only extraordinary they were unfathomable. They were not his usual character.
Times of conflict do change people’s characters; an ordinary person one day can be completely transformed as a result of
contradicting beliefs. As is the case of the Stolen Generation, ordinary mothers were happy one minute and in ruins when their children were taken. Similarly, we witness characters transformed into different beings when investigating Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. This play presents the events of witchcraft in the town of Salem and how quickly a town can be torn apart as a result of conflicting ideas. We witness this through the transformation of Abigail Williams, who conjures spirits to try to cause a conflict between John Proctor and his wife Elizabeth. However, John is able to break free of Abigail’s powers and come to a realisation; he resolves himself pleading guilty to adultery. At first, he acted in an extraordinary way, committing the sin of adultery, allowing himself to be changed into someone he does not want to be, but he was able to find it within himself to plead guilty, he found justice and aimed for equality. From an anonymous farmer to a man who extraordinarily stood up to the evil of the girls and the court and giving his life for his name and his family, Proctor showed how the heat of a crucible can transform a person.
These actions can be likened with those of the Indigenous, they did not look to cause conflict, they acted merely to protect their own beliefs. They did want conflict to arise initially; they did not want people to have to change their actions. In times of conflict, they acted on their traditional values. People who act unusually are often the ones who cause the conflict. The white settlers were viewed by the Indigenous as the ones who initiated conflict. They saw setting as a struggle, and, to me, it seems they did not want to be the only ones suffering. They wanted life to be a struggle for others. Why did they act in this way? Was it because they did not want to be ordinary? Was it because they had come from a place where they were nothing but ordinary? This we may never know. What we do know, however, is that resolutions can be reached even if struggles are the only way to reach them. Sometimes ordinary people do have to respond to conflict in extraordinary ways. But not everyone’s actions are viewed as extraordinary. Some are feeble. This, however, will never be a trait of the Indigenous