Thread: The Banning of Climbing Uluru (Ayers Rock) - thoughts on this article?

Aboriginal settlement at 60 - 125 thousand years

European settlement: 232 years

Show a bit of respect maybe?

William Gosse only stumbled across it 146 years ago - and suddenly it's a bloomin theme park!

The rock is being closed to climbers because of cultural sensitivities, high traffic errosion and loss of human life which is no doubt taking its toll on the community that lives there. When you visit somewhere away from home, is it too hard to show the locals some respect?

As a tourist, you don't NEED to climb the rock. Uluru is a stunner, and you can't see it if you are standing right on top of it.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

True, but they were still here well before us, so have a prior claim.

why is it a claim? why cant it be owned by everyone?

Originally Posted by Eevo

why is it a claim? why cant it be owned by everyone?

You're sounding native now.

Pre european settlement it was 'owned' by everyone.

Originally Posted by manic

You're sounding native now.

Pre european settlement it was 'owned' by everyone.

yet they are not doing the same now.
a bit hypercritical of them.

Originally Posted by manic

Pre european settlement it was 'owned' by everyone.

No it wasn't - was "owned" by the clan that "owned" the land that the rock was on - for sure the land was not owned in the Western sense of deeds and mortgages etc but it was owned by the local people. See what would have happened if a member from another clan outside the area was caught on the land (without an invitation) let alone if that member climbed the rock without invitation.

Sorry, despite other claims, indigenous people did possess (own) land - not as individuals but at a tribal level - the ownership and boundaries were just expressed differently to Western society.

Now I completely disagree with the decision and is an opportunity lost by the traditional owners to make the climb culturally sensitive and providing a chance to inform and educate visitors on their culture.

Garry

Correct, not ownership as we know it. More like residency. Back then, if you wandered into a settlement you could try to show appropriate respect and communicate your intentions.

That changed when the British claimed it all for the Queen, imposed their rule of law, and shot down any resistance.

Now we ignore and avoid them, climb Ayers Rock, take the photo, have a beer and go home.

If Aboriginal communities are living on land that they have occupied for thousands of years then that can be recognised by law.

And with legal rights, why shouldnt they push through local regulations that are in their communities best interests? Hardly any one else appears to give a **** about them.

If they don't want tourists that ridicule their culture coming in by the coach load, climbing and ****ting about the place - could the local authorities shut it all down? It would be great if they did, for a short while at least. But I doubt they can.

If the locals say climbing is not culturally sensitive, how can you say they missed an opportunity by not offering culturally sensitive climbs?

They have taken their opportunity, the rock ride is getting shut down!

No, it was ownership. They had accounts of their local history, they jealously guarded their boundaries and they had defined trading routes and procedures for contacts between tribes. It was ownership. The High Court has settled this. Its not in dispute.

Originally Posted by manic

If they don't want tourists that ridicule their culture coming in by the coach load, climbing and ****ting about the place - could the local authorities shut it all down? It would be great if they did, for a short while at least. But I doubt they can.

Actually I think most tourists and most Australians do not ridicule the genuine culture and actually respect it - I think they do ridicule those that exist in any group who use the situation to further their own agenda.