Thread: NT to bring back climbing Uluru?

They never wanted it opened, but were forced to agree back in the day as a condition of being granted the land rights. The park is leased from them, so be grateful they don't just shut the gate and tell us all to buggar off, same as any other landowner could do.

Originally Posted by trout1105

So you are saying that it is purely coincidental that after the Uluru Statement wasn't implemented that the same people that hosted the event decided to close down the rock

Given that they've wanted the climbing stopped since tourists started doing it in the 1950s, that it was an issue when the land was given back in the 1980s, and there were signs asking people to not climb when I visited in the mid-90s (and the signs clearly weren't new), yes, it had nothing to do with the Uluru statement.

Originally Posted by Eevo

except a cathedral is manmade

Being a natural object doesn't mean it can't be sacred - as an example, there are sacred rocks, mountains and trees all over Japan. There are sacred mountains in Greece and Tibet.

But you're saying that they can't really be sacred to Shinto, or Buddhism or Christianity because they're not man-made?

Originally Posted by Arapiles

Being a natural object doesn't mean it can't be sacred - as an example, there are sacred rocks, mountains and trees all over Japan. There are sacred mountains in Greece and Tibet.

But you're saying that they can't really be sacred to Shinto, or Buddhism or Christianity because they're not man-made?

i was pointing out his comparison is flawed.

i definitely find it hard to attach any sacredness to a natural feature of the land such rock, mountain or watering hole

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

They never wanted it opened, but were forced to agree back in the day as a condition of being granted the land rights. The park is leased from them, so be grateful they don't just shut the gate and tell us all to buggar off, same as any other landowner could do.

If it was a part of the "Deal" then they have obviously "Reneged" on that deal, Personally they can close the gates whenever they like as far as I am concerned But they would only be cutting off their nose to spite their face if they did.

Originally Posted by Eevo

i was pointing out his comparison is flawed.

i definitely find it hard to attach any sacredness to a natural feature of the land such rock, mountain or watering hole

It also seems to me to pretty "Convenient" that these "Sacred Sites" seen to always pop up when a new mining development is started or some other venture where money can be "Ransomed" off and wasted by the recipiants

Originally Posted by trout1105

It also seems to me to pretty "Convenient" that these "Sacred Sites" seen to always pop up when a new mining development is started or some other venture where money can be "Ransomed" off and wasted by the recipiants

Provide an example?

Noting that dreaming tracks cover most of the landscape in a particular group's territory.

Originally Posted by trout1105

I do believe that the closure of the rock was more politically motivated that it was a cultural issue and it was always just a matter of time before the lack of revenue would start to effect this decision.

Simply 'liking' or 'thanking' this post would not be enough. Well said, trout.