Thread: Should tourists climb Uluru?

There are a few simple ways to look at this

Education versus Legislation

Is it not better to explain to people why you wish them to do something in a particular way rather than simply close something off with no explanation.

There is also a very simply philosophy which I try to follow:-

'When you know better, do better'

Regards

XDrive

I was under the impression that there has been an enormous amount of effort put into education about this issue.

Not only that, but there seems to be a concerted effort to provide alternative activities so that visitors won't feel short changed when they visit the area.

I agree with your suggestion about how things should be done. I think that is exactly the approach that is being taken. The education is happening.

Really interesting reading this thread. To my mind people are probably more aligned on this than they realise. On one side there is a very important point about the site being sacred. On the other there is a valid reason to want to see and share what is special about the place.

I will admit to being in the camp that would love to climb it. For me it is similar to going and seeing some other awe inspiring religious (or for that matter historical and natural wonder) sites around the world.

I am not particularly religious at all but I have felt humbled and always been respectful in various cathedrals, religious sites and other places I have visited. I would certainly be the same at Uluru. I would also much prefer to be taken up by some Traditonal Owners and learn what they feel comfortable in sharing.

I would hope people would not take my desire to visit and climb it as being racist. Instead I would hope this place could represent a place that could very powerfully educate non-aboriginal people about aboriginal customs and beliefs. It should also be done in such a way that is respectful.

To my mind there would be a number of other places around the country where similar could occur and maybe bring us all a bit closer together.

I appreciate someone me may find this still political incorrect. But not that long ago visiting a western cathedral or a mosque or monastery etc from the Middle East to the Far East by someone of a different faith would also have been deemed almost heretical.

Apologies for the long post!

Originally Posted by MrLandy

It's actually very straight forward. "...the Anangu people, Uluru's traditional owners, have asked for decades that tourists not climb it".

"Following the Rock's handback, the traditional owners were obliged to lease the Park back to the Director of National Parks"

The handback was conditional. The management report is propaganda.

The financial pressure on a community living in poverty next door to a playground for the wealthy has been clearly illustrated again and again if you care to look beyond the propaganda. Here is one recent example:
Why is it still possible to climb Ulu<u>r</u>u?

What makes me angry is the blatant disregard being shown to Anangu people by AULRO members, despite the very clear fact that Uluru is a sacred 'religious' icon for Anangu. It is obvious when you arrive at Uluru how powerful the place is. To deliberately disrespect this in full knowledge that the Anangu people don't want you to climb is disrespectful at best, and racist IMO.

The CONTINUING politics of colonial dispossession in Australia (political) have resulted in a false handback. If Anangu people were truly in charge it's clear the climb would close.

This thread is both political and religious and should be shut down.Much of what is being said is highly offensive. Not knowing it is offensive is not an excuse. It's not about a difference of opinion. Knowing it is offensive and continuing is racist.

Bob I suggest you start a thread instead about the beauty and power of walking around Uluru. About the extraordinary privilege of being able to visit this iconic place for Anangu people and the wisdom to be gained by going on an Anangu walking tour around their country.

To what benefit ??.

I for one have learnt a quite abit from this thread and I believe others have as well. If we all act like adults and keep thing civil without dummy spits and threats, then the discussion can only be a good thing and may even help educate all us dam colonialist

Thanks for the great thread Bob

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I understood the locals made it clear they didn't want it climbed at the time of the original agreement but were overruled and the best concession they could get was agreement for signs to be erected asking people not to climb. Is that right?

More than 40,000 years of indigenous settlement has to be respected by us recent arrivals.
World-first genome study reveals rich history of Aboriginal Australians - Science News - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

Correct, however the way it unfolded wasnt quite so simple.

(sorry for the delay and thread dig back guys)

when it was intially done the responsability was put back to the reps of the "original owners" (the quotes are not to represent all of them just a select few bare with me) as it laid out the elders wanted the place as no climbing put the signs up. The white fellas didnt want to do it that would be bad for tourism/economy. Political fighting ensued and a trial was agreed at.

Since the "original owners" were kicking up a stink and the white fellas didnt want to care about it a trial "hand back" was arranged and the "original owners" were given responsability for the area, permitted to do as they pleased with the relevant area and the income it could generate

That did not go well. The signs didnt go up, the place degraded and the "original owners" spent the money on the kind of things that youd expect of welfare mooching ipswichians. No-one was really complaining as the white fella wasnt loosing money on upkeep, the "original owners" were getting money to waste and the tourists could still climb.

Trial period over and the actual "original owners" the proper elders were not happy so it returned to white fella management. Part of the compromise that followed was the signs were not of the "do not climb" variety but the "please do not climb" not actually making it illegal and leaving the choice to the individual.

The reason this unfolded was simple, 20% of aboriginals give the rest of them a bad name. In this case the few elders who should have had their wishes respected were tarnish with the same brush as the louts who just wanted to drink themselves stupid.

This is, as best I recall it, as it was told to me by one of the older (not sure if he was an elder proper) indigenous rangers of the time when it was climbed by an adventure training ex with the ADF, 2 groups and I was there doing the safety vehicle radio coms. (I got to climb as part of the second smaller group and stayed in the park area maintaining a coms link while the ex was active)

Now my personal opinion on it.

1. yes it should be open for anyone to climb it its a beautiful experience
2. yes it should be managed, limited numbers, paid for with a cultural awareness/training progam to be completed before being permitted to climb
3. for one group of people to claim they own it is ridiculous, I don't care how long the aboriginals have been around they were not around when the thing was formed. if it was something they had built or constructed or were living in/on different story.
4. Claiming religious reasons gets you no leeway with me, I'm an atheist it falls into the same kind of category as a muslim telling me I cant eat bacon because that what their belief system requires.

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

Correct, however the way it unfolded wasnt quite so simple.

(sorry for the delay and thread dig back guys)

when it was intially done the responsability was put back to the reps of the "original owners" (the quotes are not to represent all of them just a select few bare with me) as it laid out the elders wanted the place as no climbing put the signs up. The white fellas didnt want to do it that would be bad for tourism/economy. Political fighting ensued and a trial was agreed at.

Since the "original owners" were kicking up a stink and the white fellas didnt want to care about it a trial "hand back" was arranged and the "original owners" were given responsability for the area, permitted to do as they pleased with the relevant area and the income it could generate

That did not go well. The signs didnt go up, the place degraded and the "original owners" spent the money on the kind of things that youd expect of welfare mooching ipswichians. No-one was really complaining as the white fella wasnt loosing money on upkeep, the "original owners" were getting money to waste and the tourists could still climb.

Trial period over and the actual "original owners" the proper elders were not happy so it returned to white fella management. Part of the compromise that followed was the signs were not of the "do not climb" variety but the "please do not climb" not actually making it illegal and leaving the choice to the individual.

The reason this unfolded was simple, 20% of aboriginals give the rest of them a bad name. In this case the few elders who should have had their wishes respected were tarnish with the same brush as the louts who just wanted to drink themselves stupid.

This is, as best I recall it, as it was told to me by one of the older (not sure if he was an elder proper) indigenous rangers of the time when it was climbed by an adventure training ex with the ADF, 2 groups and I was there doing the safety vehicle radio coms. (I got to climb as part of the second smaller group and stayed in the park area maintaining a coms link while the ex was active)

Now my personal opinion on it.

1. yes it should be open for anyone to climb it its a beautiful experience
2. yes it should be managed, limited numbers, paid for with a cultural awareness/training progam to be completed before being permitted to climb
3. for one group of people to claim they own it is ridiculous, I don't care how long the aboriginals have been around they were not around when the thing was formed. if it was something they had built or constructed or were living in/on different story.
4. Claiming religious reasons gets you no leeway with me, I'm an atheist it falls into the same kind of category as a muslim telling me I cant eat bacon because that what their belief system requires.

Good info cheers Dave!
Not loaded questions but just genuinely want to understand, was the old ranger part of the guys that were keen to share the top of the rock? As a hypothetical if he had said he didn't want you fellas going up would that change things. Not being a dick just wanted to see as I don't know much of the local politics that way as I may take certain rules in everyday life with a grain of salt but things sometimes change for me if someone has a personal reason not to do something Eg growing up I was happy to record tapes ect but on talking to a friend who made music for a living it changed my stance (to be honest only for Australian music and movies but happy to download a Hollywood blockbuster). Not that that is even remotely similar but the first analogy I could think of. Or is it more the point that in reality none of us can lay claims to natural occurring phenomena (which I totally agree). However I find this a grey area for me in regards to to traditional owners (I've only had a few mates who were from indigenous backgrounds as I grew up down south so I only have a crude idea of the spiritual connection to country) as cognitively I am with you 100% that nobody can claim natural phenomena but if a mate of mine had said it's important to him that I don't go to an area I probably wouldn't no matter of his background, though I probably would rev him up about it for a while and if I could see that it was quite important to then would accept it out of respect not to **** on his parade. I suppose that is a form of racism on my behalf that I would take an indigenous mates wishes of land access more seriously than joe blogsie down the road but for me it's understanding that I don't really understand his spiritual identity with country and would take a wider birth so to speak. A further form of racism for me would be that I would take my mates wishes even more serious if he was initiated but hey nobody's perfect eh. Again not trying to be a dick just honestly wanted to know your take on it

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

1. yes it should be open for anyone to climb it its a beautiful experience
2. yes it should be managed, limited numbers, paid for with a cultural awareness/training progam to be completed before being permitted to climb
3. for one group of people to claim they own it is ridiculous, I don't care how long the aboriginals have been around they were not around when the thing was formed. if it was something they had built or constructed or were living in/on different story.
4. Claiming religious reasons gets you no leeway with me, I'm an atheist it falls into the same kind of category as a muslim telling me I cant eat bacon because that what their belief system requires.

Sorry, but your explanation is just a tad simplistic. As explained before, the influence of Missionaries created a underclass of fringe dwellers, uninitiated adults ,often seen on the banks of the Todd river. It was this group which was empowered by some smart white men, and indeed set up to fail.Which they did, not surprisingly. No one has said they own the rock, that's a white mans concept. However, to the old people, it is much more than just a rock.I respect your beliefs, as an atheist. Is it too hard to respect the genuine Aboriginal beliefs? Their belief system has very little to do with religion, everything to do with their culture. Atheists have culture.

I like your no. 2 dot point, and would like to expand it further. My idea would be to use modern technology, in the form of drones, to overfly the rock,filming , then build a modern cinema, with all the bells & whistles to make it a magical cinematic experience. Some sensitivity to aboriginal sacred sites would be required, but with the best commentary, much more of Uluru would be explained, and seen , it would be better than climbing it. And here is the clincher. It should be minimal cost, perhaps a gold coin donation.

Millions have been spent on the Aboriginal " problem ", much wasted. Spend some of it on education of non indigenous Australia . Education of the aboriginal children, and education of non indigenous Australians is the key , I think. And to me, and some old Aboriginal men I have the privilege of knowing, turning Uluru into a business, white man way, just doesn't sit right.

Pie in the sky stuff, I know. Tell me I'm dreamin', and I would agree.

We went to Stonehenge, which is more than 3000 years old and definitely a religious site. People were certainly not allowed to climb all over it. In fact, there were paths and rope barriers and you were not allowed off the paths, with rangers supervising peoples' movements. Was this a problem? Not at all. Should we respect an ancient Celtic religious site? Definitely. Should we show the same respect to an Aboriginal religious site at Uluru? Definitely. My opinion.


Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app