I’m not quite clear what the phrase “traditionally owned land” means. Like, title is legally held by Jack Smith, but he has voluntarily leased it to the Parks? Who actually holds the title? And what are the terms of the lease?
Who has the legal right to make the regulations? Jack Smith, or the Park Service, or Parliament, or what?
They should make it an official ban. But since they haven’t…this is where I’m stuck. I’m looking at something that looks fun, and which is legal, and a group of people are holding up signs saying “Please don’t.” Well… PETA, you know? I’m sorry I’m giving anyone offense, but…it isn’t against the law.
I know I’m coming off as a jerk here, but that’s a kind of American thing. Nazis in Skokie. If you need something not to happen, it won’t work to ask politely. Legislation or else freedom, even jerkish freedom.
(I also do not know what Australian fundamental law has to say about non-legislated regulations. The law there might give more weight to Aborigine traditions. I honestly do not know, and would not want to try to argue this before a court there!)
Not quite. I just made the comparison to PETA, who honestly believe that eating meat is murder.
It isn’t a racial thing.
It’s a thing about social pressure in lieu of actual legislation.
I don’t care what a lot of rich upper class white stockbrokers in Chicago think, either: unless there’s a rule saying “Keep off the grass,” I’m sitting down and having lunch.
“Traditional Owners” is a specific term for the Aboriginal groups who originally occupied the land and had stewardship over it. It doesn’t mean they own it now. In some cases it has been given back to them cleanly, in others it was given back and they now lease it to the government (perhaps under a bit of pressure), in other cases they have no legal claim to it now and the government does what it wants (which hopefully includes respecting their prior ownership, but doesn’t always). This is a very general description and I hope someone with more knowledge of the history and current situation can comment on it.
And since you have (rightly) called out others for distorting your statements by taking them to extremes, I’ll point out the immense difference between offending “rich upper class white stockbrokers” by sitting on their grass versus walking over what the Aboriginals consider the abode of the spirits of the original creators of all life. Those are not in any way comparable.
Let me see if I follow. If I ever find myself in the United States and visit Arlington Cemetery, I should feel free to play leap-frog on the gravestones because if I indulge the local superstition that places of the dead are for quiet contemplation and not boisterous recreation, the superstitious locals will take that as a cue to sacrifice children. Or - something.
I didn’t compare the two. I used the latter as a counterexample to someone playing the race card. This isn’t a racial issue; it’s an issue regarding regulation of publicly accessible land.
(I do not believe you have just misrepresented my post, but I do think you may have slightly missed the point I was trying to make.)
Nope: because that action is against the posted regulations there, and if you do a nice gentleman – quite possible armed – will come along with full legal empowerment to compel you to stop it already.
I’ll address this a little more lightly than Penfeather. I have no trouble drawing a line between someone who says “please don’t walk in this area that is sacred to me” and someone who says “you have to let me mutilate my daughter’s genitals” or “you must let me sacrifice this child.” You yourself acknowledge it’s a ridiculous comparison, so why bring it up? Of course there should not be automatic reverence to cultural sensitivities, I don’t think anyone would disagree with you there. But that doesn’t mean there should be automatic discounting of any that aren’t yours.
There is an interesting discussion to be had, and room for friendly disagreement, about where the line is. Personally, I can support not walking on Uluru. I don’t support genital mutilation. I don’t support “stay off the grass in front of my building because we’re rich stockbrokers.”
So to those who are fine with climbing Uluru, can I ask why? [My question is sincere, I’m not trying to antagonize and apologize if it comes across that way.] Do you feel the traditional owners claim to the land is not valid? Do you feel no responsibility to adhere to someone’s wishes if it involves beliefs that are not yours? Do you sometimes feel a responsibility, but not in this case because their religion is dumb/they didn’t build it themselves/the beauty of the rock trumps their beliefs/something else? Is it just about sticking it to the man and doing what you’re asked not to do? Some other reason?
In any case, the Australian Aborigines have had a long and shitty history of mistreatment at the hands of the British so even if it’s in a small way I’d prefer not to contribute to it.
I climbed Uluru when I visited Australia in 1974. At the time there was no indication that the Aboriginals had any objection, although there were some living in the area.
I probably wouldn’t do it today, simply out of respect. It was kind of cool to go up and the view was spectacular, but I did it more because it was one of the “things to do” at the site than anything else. It’s not like I had any compelling necessity to do that.
If it helps, I’m far from “fine” with it. I might do it…or I might not. If I did, it would be with much reluctance and even sorrow. I’d do it with full awareness of being a personal jerk. I’d probably try to make it up somehow by giving a monetary donation to some worthwhile charity or preservationist effort or the like.
For me, it’s really just a dumb libertarian principle. Our system of government has a process for making laws. I don’t want private individuals to be able to create regulations outside of that system. Sure, it’s a slippery slope argument, but “if that sort of thing goes on” – where does it stop?
I’ve been told horror stories of physical violence in Jerusalem, against people who approach the Western Wall improperly covered. Physical violence! What a way to celebrate the holiness of a site!
I do want to say that I think Penfeather had a better point than I acknowledged at first. It isn’t a racial thing. It isn’t “Who cares what a bunch of dumb blacks want?” But it is harder for pretty much anyone to have sensitivity to the cultural values of people whose culture is different. Since we weren’t brought up in that culture, we’re blind to the thousands of little cues and messages, the almost subliminal way that societies communicate their values.
It isn’t about race. I’d be similarly blind in France, Poland, or Sweden.
Because the prohibitions of a religion should restrict those who adhere to that religion, not others. I’d think the same if a Muslim didn’t want me to draw Muhammad* or a Jew didn’t want me to say “Jehovah”** or a Baptist didn’t want me to dance***. It’s the difference between teetotalism and prohibitionism.
There are situations where I might incidentally act in a way that is consistent with the religious beliefs of someone else. Like, say, being quiet in a temple or during a religious chant. I would do so for the very same reasons that I would be quiet in a library or during a concert.
lMl
/
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk
***I tried dancing with my cat but he didn’t want to. I suspect he might be Baptist although most definitely not the dunking kind.
You mean the type of people over fifty yeas of age?
There is a park near my house with a Vietnamese name, before that the european name of an aboriginal, maybe before that an aboriginal name, who know but its the same piece of dirt.
For me, being a good tourist is about trying to tune in to these values, to respect them and live by them, albeit briefly. To leave your own cultural principles aside for a short time, and experience life as a local, or at least to pretend to be, to try and understand why things are why they are in certain places. To listen to the locals, to emulate them in some ways, to avoid giving offense.
Is that too hard?
Do you think this is part of the reason for the “Ugly American” tourist stereotype?
I’ll consider the requests for cultural sensitivity one by one, and push back if it reached the point of being unreasonable. The request to not climb Uluru seems reasonable. But I do understand your point.
Yup, I have no problem pushing back against extremism like that - you have to give respect to get respect. I wouldn’t go so far as to purposely dress inappropriately, but it would make me less sympathetic to other requests and lower the bar for what I considered unreasonable.
I agree with you to the point until my actions impact the people holding those beliefs. I have no problem with drawing Muhammad, but I wouldn’t give the drawing to a Muslim. I wouldn’t shout “Jehovah” at a Jewish person, I wouldn’t rent out the Baptist church for my school dance.
I think seeing people climb Uluru does personally impact the traditional owners, and it’s not an undue hardship to avoid it.
If it’s worth anything, this is one of the reasons I don’t do a lot of travel. I know my own cultural referents and am most comfortable immersed in them.
(Quick caveat: in southern California, this includes many Hispanic, Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, Chaldean…and many other…cultural referents. It’s only my misfortune that I’ve never met a descendant of the first Australians.)
And…yes, I’m pretty sure that this is all tied in with the Ugly American thing. Many of us aren’t that ugly…but way too damn many are.
(Also, every American is a lawyer. Every single one. It’s in the water or something. We grow up on courtroom dramas. We love reading fine print and looking for exceptional cases. Absolutely every one of us. It’s good SDMB practice not to make universal declarations, but I’m on safe ground here.)
I dunno, I think this is different because they are talking about a natural part of the landscape on public property.
Nobody would think twice about a request like “don’t swim in our pool” or “don’t climb our tower”… but if someone says “don’t swim in that bay” or “don’t climb that mountain”, I think that does sound a bit jarring and almost anti-democratic to westerners… nothing Ugly American about it either.
No, it’s a very apt comparison: both sites are sacred to the custodians, and both require a certain standard of decorous behaviour. The only difference is that one is enforced by written statute, the other is requested by a people who have an oral rather than a written system of recording codes of behaviour. So chortling “I’m American, buddy, show me it in writing or it doesn’t count” is not just pretty dickheaded, but monocultural to the point of, yes, racism.
)