Should tourists climb Uluru?

Wow, just read this thread and learned something about Uluru, the traditional owners and how some people clearly see things as black & white (no racism intended !).

Firstly, I climbed it in the 90's as a tourist over from the UK.

From this thread there seem to be three camps, yes, no and let people make up their own minds. I personally agree with the last view but feel that the tour operators need to take some responsibility (although I'm not sure what they tell visitors currently but I got very little back in the 90's).

As an overseas visitor it was the done thing to 'climb Ayers Rock' I think I got a T-shirt back then that advertised that I'd climbed Ayers Rock (may still have it if I look but it's probably 'shrunk'). So the education needs to extend overseas although with the Internet a little research throws up that the traditional owners do not wish people to climb.

You are not stopped from climbing at the moment but asked not to so it's up to the individual. If they announced that it was being stopped in the future would there be a big rush to climb it before it was stopped ? I think there would.....

Has anyone produced a professional film of the climb and the views from the top ? Something like this that could be shown to visitors might reduce the number of climbers. Showing how strenuous it is would definitely put a few people off.
I do remember the feeling as you got to 'chicken rock', the wind speed picked up and the bloody flies finally disappeared.


Would I climb it again......I'm not sure, I've been there, done that, but I would make sure my kids understood why they are requested not to climb and then let them make up their own minds.


Colin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pickles2

.
Not so, in this case.
It is an interesting subject with varying views, and many new ones, for me anyway.
You have said, I don't "get it". Well simply because I disagree with you does not mean that at all,...it simply means that we do not agree.

---

That is the only point you have made which is correct.

The entire Australian continent was sacred to its inhabitants before White Man arrived. Therefore we should all bugger off to where our ancestors came from. Australia was invaded, not settled. It's all or nothing.

Discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bee utey

The entire Australian continent was sacred to its inhabitants before White Man arrived. Therefore we should all bugger off to where our ancestors came from. Australia was invaded, not settled. It's all or nothing.

Discuss.

---

Fair point it's like we walked up and ****ed all over their D4 interior but feel we should take our shoes off before getting in, because we have the upmost respect and feel we must show it by yelling at others that forgot to take their shoes off while we sit in a **** covered bucket seat with our bare feet on the dash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bee utey

The entire Australian continent was sacred to its inhabitants before White Man arrived. Therefore we should all bugger off to where our ancestors came from. Australia was invaded, not settled. It's all or nothing.

Discuss.

---

Why not go back further. Everybody should return to Africa.
World-first genome study reveals rich history of Aboriginal Australians - Science News - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Finally read right to the end of the thread.

Every single post is off topic. What's wrong with you all!?

May I remind readers that the topic is "Should tourists climb Uluru?"

Every post in this epic thread is about whether we should climb Uluru. (For dullards: keyword is "we" and that should be an all inclusive "we" Australians)

In the many off topic posts about whether "we" should climb Uluru, some are really pushing a cultural divide of the "we". Surely the "assimilation or not" debate isn't the topic here? (Ie the question of whether the indigenous and invaders of long ago are now a "we", or should be or should not be)

Back on topic: Tourists don't have any rights that come with citizenship or residency so the "we" (if such even exists or should exist) just need to decide yes or no and make sure it's clear to tourists so their expectations are properly set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tact

Finally read right to the end of the thread.

Every single post is off topic. What's wrong with you all!?

May I remind readers that the topic is "Should tourists climb Uluru?".......

---

Given the definition of tourist is

Quote:

---

someone who visits a place for pleasure and interest, usually while on holiday

---

We would be talking about everyone except those who live in the immediate environs of Uluru, not necessarily just overseas visitors.

So we are on topic.

Further to the offtopic "what the we can and can't do" discussions:
- it appears that there are very strong arguments that any racial divisions are artificial divisions. (One only human race)

- assuming so, then it comes down to the only real divisions are based on nations' borders (national identity) and cultural divisions.

Within a nation there may be one culture, but often there be multiple cultures resident within a nation's borders. (Tiny nation/state/city Singapore has 3 distinct cultures resident)

BlkKnightAus (I think?) made a very perceptive point that relates to all of the above: Within a nation no one cultural group should have any right to force the other cultural groups to behave as they do. ("Don't tell me I can't eat bacon").

..Which links to the next level down, subcultures. Lots of different subcultures can be described. The bogan. The goth. I'd toss religion into this bucket. (The bacon reference relates to a religious prohibition).

So as to avoid the prohibition on religious discussion and risking this thread being closed - I won't discuss any religion as such.

I will say though that the point about one culture not demanding other cultures do and don't do, the things they do/don't do - it also stands for subcultures like surfer subculture and the religious subculture. Ie just because one subculture says "this is sacred to me", does not mandate any behavioral modification by other cultures.

Note the term "mandate" in the above. Common sense and respect may drive certain non-mandatory behavior modifications. Like not taking a bacon sanger to a synagogue or not farting in a crowded elevator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheerluck

Given the definition of tourist is
"someone who visits a place for pleasure and interest, usually while on holiday"

We would be talking about everyone except those who live in the immediate environs of Uluru, not necessarily just overseas visitors.

So we are on topic.

---

Flawed definition & logic. That def'n&logic would have you a tourist in your own toilet. (When you take a dump on Australia Day). :twisted:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tact

Flawed definition & logic. That def'n&logic would have you a tourist in your own toilet. (When you take a dump on Australia Day). :twisted:

---

Well done on the twisted logic there.;)

Not my definition, but from the Oxford English Dictionary. Coupled with the fact that nowhere in the OP has Bob mentioned overseas tourists.

If I go for a weekend in Sydney, I'm there as a tourist, even though I'm a citizen and entitled to wander pretty much anywhere with public access within the shores of this fair land.
If I go to Uluru, I'd be there as a tourist.

I'd be pretty sure that the "man on the street" would accept that dictionary definition as being correct.

Plus I only ever use the main bathroom toilet on public holidays, just for variety. :p