Thread: Should tourists climb Uluru?

Why don't we have a plebiscite? That should sort it out

Originally Posted by Pickles2

G'Day Bob.
OF COURSE they are. And,like I said, anyone is allowed to walk around the Sanctuary where the Blessed Sacraments are kept,...as long as there is respect.
Pickles.

That's very inclusive of your Church. When I was a young Alter Boy, parishioners encroached on the priests territory at their own risk. It was fun knocking back the dregs of the Alter wine, though.

Originally Posted by JoeFriend

That was us, forgot the name of the town.

I see it as the same as standing on an alter, and I am sure that the tribe would too. It is a sacred place that is climbed only as a rite of passage - climbing it when it's not your place is the same.

Happy for you to have your opinion, and your views on whether or not you should climb it - just as long as you know that what you do is seen as disrespectful in the eyes of those who see it as culturally significant. This alone should be enough to deter people to climb it, why you would want to offend someone else's culture knowingly is beyond me. I wouldn't do it to yours so why do it to what makes up my culture.

Climbing on an alter is simply an unrealistic comparison. That WOULD be showing disrespect,..it would be like me jumping/climbing on an Indigenous made structure like a Bora Ring, or someone doing something disrespectful on the Rock, like dancing nude or shooting a rifle, or drinking on it etc.
An alter is a man made structure created for a particular purpose, & of course, again, available for ALL to use, Indigenous or whatever, should they chose to. Last I read, the rock, which is a natural phenomenon, has been there for at least 600 million years, indigenous people for around that area for 20,000 at the most, so it was there for a long time before that. It belongs to ALL Australians.
Aaahhh, so I was right,.Omeo. Of course I remember you guys, as I remember it, one of your Defenders had a starter problem. I think we even had a conversation with you guys the morning after. Wifey remembers, but neither of us remembers anything even slightly heated.
Pickles.

Originally Posted by Pickles2

Climbing on an alter is simply an unrealistic comparison. That WOULD be showing disrespect,..it would be like me jumping/climbing on an Indigenous made structure like a Bora Ring, or someone doing something disrespectful on the Rock, like dancing nude or shooting a rifle, or drinking on it etc.
An alter is a man made structure created for a particular purpose, & of course, again, available for ALL to use, Indigenous or whatever, should they chose to. Last I read, the rock, which is a natural phenomenon, has been there for at least 600 million years, indigenous people for around that area for 20,000 at the most, so it was there for a long time before that. It belongs to ALL Australians.
Aaahhh, so I was right,.Omeo. Of course I remember you guys, as I remember it, one of your Defenders had a starter problem. I think we even had a conversation with you guys the morning after. Wifey remembers, but neither of us remembers anything even slightly heated.
Pickles.

Gonna have to agree to disagree then on that one, but being part Aboriginal that is the way I see it the comparison and I see as the same thing.

Yeah he did, and no it wasn't a heated argument, didn't say it was - I was just merely stating that I know you and know your thoughts on things and you ability to have a sensible argument and see other points of view, which is why I am wondering if the Aboriginals see it at disrespectful then perhaps it is. I don't see that it is less important just because it isn't man made - I put it on the same level. As far as I am concerned an alter is just a tree, it's the significance that you give it is what makes it important. So while you see it as a rock, we see it as something different.

Originally Posted by Pickles2

YES!!...That's the one,....I knew someone would know.
Pickles.

It really isn't that simple. The Aboriginal people of Central and Western NT called themselves Anangu, which literally means human beings. However, the tribal group around Uluru are predominately Pitjandjara, with some Yankunytjatjara people. To complicate matters more, the tribe is divided into clan groups. The Mala [ hare-wallaby clan] group are a totemic group whose clan territory is on the northern side of the rock, while the clan on the southern face are the Kunia [ carpet snake] people.

The clan groups eg the Mala, are all members of an extended family , each of whom is related to the other by either birth or marriage. The males, Grandfathers, Fathers , Sons with their children belong to the same totemic group, ie, the Mala. Their wives, born in some other clan territory, will, of course, belong to a different totem.

The inhabitants of a particular clan territory normally gain a livelihood within its boundaries, and seldom leave it except on special occasions, such as the initiation of the youths, which is largely a tribal matter. or the performance of some important totemic ceremony involving the participation of many people. People think the tribal people were simple savages, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Australian Aboriginal has, and in the case of those removed from their tribal land, had one of the most complex social structures on Earth. It allowed them to survive, and prosper for at least 40,000 years. The European came, and fractured that structure. Unknowingly, admittedly. Is it any wonder after 40,000 years, Aboriginal tribal groups find it difficult to live in a white mans World?

To me, white people claiming uluru as their own, to climb as they wish, in the 200 or so years we have been here,compared to the 40,000 of the Aboriginal, is a bit rich.

Originally Posted by JoeFriend

.....

It is racist, simple as that. If a whole race of people have a set of beliefs and you choose to willingly trample on it, quite literally in this case - then really you are being racist .......

So following on and using this argument, the current efforts against a particularly nasty Islamic group(y know which one .. starts with I, four letters, ends with S) .. they also have set of beliefs and yet the current worldwide consensus is that this religious group should be eliminated!

I guess your assessment is that this concerted effort of 'elimination' is also racism?

Originally Posted by AK83

So following on and using this argument, the current efforts against a particularly nasty Islamic group(y know which one .. starts with I, four letters, ends with S) .. they also have set of beliefs and yet the current worldwide consensus is that this religious group should be eliminated!

I guess your assessment is that this concerted effort of 'elimination' is also racism?

I think this is moving the conversation where it should not go. Let's keep it simple, about Uluru and it's people., please.

Isis isn't a whole race, so taking that argument is a massive stretch mate, you could go tobthe Olympics with that leap, and congrats on making the new Hitler rule, cause that's essentially what you just did.