Thread: Should tourists climb Uluru?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).