But it’s not on public property; the Australian government returned it to the Pitjantjatjara Aborigines - on condition that they lease it out to the the National Parks service for tourist access/management for 99 years.
I know it’s not like they built it, but it’s also not like they’re asking anything unreasonable. Please don’t climb, which might kill you - 35 people have died there, leave trash and piss on our sacred mountain. If they said that you had to climb it or it would cause great cultural offence, you would have a case to ask them to hold on a sec.
Is there a reason the Australian government doesn’t just prohibit climbing? If the Traditional Owners are so dead-set against it, and technically own it, why the heck don’t they just stop letting people up there? It’s not like Australia will miss the tourist revenue.
Traditionally the land belonged to the Anangu people. When the English came, they took over the place and claimed it for the Crown, then declared it a National Park. It was handed back to the traditional owners in 1985 on the condition that they immediately lease it back to the National Parks, which they did. There is a board, composed partly of representatives of the traditional owners and partly of government types, which is responsible for running the park. In theory, it is supposed to be run compatibly with Aboriginal law/lore but also for the benefit of visitors, so there is a lot of wiggle room.
The lease is for 99 years. The Anangu people get $150,000pa (there are about 4000 people; I have no idea how the money is distributed but there is a land council and a trust of some kind). The Anangu people keep the right to live in the area, hunt and gather food according to traditional methods, and they can temporarily close off ceremonial areas while they are using them. Basically, they can keep up their traditional lifestyle.
The lease doesn’t prohibit climbing because visitors like climbing. It’s in the management plan that if it gets to the point where less than 20% of visitors climb to the top, then they will close the climb, though they have recently added a couple more conditions to that.
Who is the ‘they’ you are talking about? The Australian government obviously has the resources to mount international advertising campaigns. The Anangu people not so much.
No, but this is exactly the point. The same thing would happen if you were dancing on the altar in St. Mary’s cathedral in Sydney. Why are some places protected in this way but not others?
I am not accusing you personally of racism but, in Australia, the laws about sacred sites are the way they are (i.e. non-existent) for deeply racist reasons.
But isn’t the racism the fault of the Australian government? Or at least the governing board of the site?
I guess I’m having a hard time understanding how the lead singer for Midnight Oil can be a government minister but the same government can’t pressure tourist sites to be more respectful of the Traditional Owners.
It also seems a bit harsh to make tourists make these racially freighted decisions about tourist activities when they surely have a far lesser understanding of the racial and historical issues at play than Australians at large.
And even if it hadn’t been given back to the Aborigines as Mr. Kobayashi points out, it was forcibly taken from them. They were there and had stewardship of the land long before the “public” came along.
I also want to point out that we have very similar issues in the U.S. between climbers and Native Americans. Devil’s Tower is one of the more prominent, where a compromise was reached for a voluntary climbing ban during June when Native Americans hold their religious ceremonies. Climbing Shiprock in New Mexico is completely banned. I found this discussion of climbing Devil’s Tower interesting, especially the following which I think is equally appropriate to Australia:
I don’t know enough about the specific culture of the owners in question so might well be wrong, but my impression is that it’s seen as more like respectful etiquette than legal obligation; “That’s a really important sacred thing that you are climbing… You shouldn’t climb. It’s not the real thing about this place. And maybe that makes you a bit sad. But anyway that’s what we have to say. We are obliged by Tjukurpa to say.”
…
“The climb is not prohibited but we ask you to respect our law and culture by not climbing Uluru.” http://www.parksaustralia.gov.au/uluru/plan/we-dont-climb.html
The link in the OP also says; "it is not in their nature, nor their culture, to come out with a direct “no”… They are trying to politely ask tourists not to clamber over a sacred site. "
This thread is very illuminating, not just about why American visitors are so often disliked abroad, but why that dislike seems to genuinely perplex them: “I’m all about respecting your quaint customs providing you can show me in writing that I have to, otherwise I’m going to do what I want because AMERICA AND FREEDOM”.
A combination of property rights regarding privately owned property – if you come in to my house, you will not be permitted to smoke cigarettes, no matter how legal they may be outside – and the formal regulatory/legislative process.
The Cathedral is private property, and the owners can make the rules, just as I can in my home.
The National Park is publicly accessible, and appears to be governed by specific codes or regulations that do not ban the climb.
Arlington cemetery is publicly accessible, but is governed by specific codes and regulations that prohibit certain kinds of excessively boisterous behavior; the legal power to create those codes is delegated to the Park Service by act of Congress.
I do not know if the Australian Park Service has the authority to create a code banning climbing Uluru. They damned well should, but…they haven’t.
The SDMB has a formal rule saying, “Don’t be a jerk.” Australia…doesn’t.
(America certainly doesn’t, or about 95% of us would be in the pokey.)
But surely Australia is more at fault than the tourists, no? You’re asking a tourist, maybe one from China with little knowledge of Australian history, to make a snap decision about climbing in a sacred area. Apparently, you Aussies can’t even agree amongst yourselves whether to ban it.
If it’s an Ugly American who pisses all over a sacred rock, surely it’s an Uglier Australian that sells him the ticket to do it.
Well, yes, in essence. Show me the rules, and stand by them. Don’t ask me for a bribe to go through customs. Don’t say, “It’s forbidden” and rub your fingers together.
If you’ve got a rule, post it. If you don’t have a rule, then don’t try to make one up informally and apply it unevenly. It’s called transparency, and it’s a good thing.
You’re using a lot of nasty language here, but you don’t actually seem to have a point, other than that you seem perfectly happy to whine about racism, but engage in equally ugly nationalism.
How is this relevant? If a tourist is a racist for climbing Uluru, then the Australian government is even more racist for forcing the Traditional Owners to grant tourist access. If it’s such a heinous act that only a disgusting American could conceive of it, what are we to think of an Australian voting public that hasn’t been able to elect a government willing to change the policy in 30 long Uluru-defacing years? I mean, seriously. If five bus loads of Chinese tourists climb Uluru in defiance of the natives’ wishes, is it still America’s fault? Or is it Australia’s?
In the 90s we were introduced to the concept of Secret Women’s Business when a group of Aboriginal women sought to stop the construction of a bridge on what they said was sacred ground. They claimed they couldn’t elaborate on why the site was sacred, but that it was central to their beliefs. Other Aboriginal women said those claims were untrue. A court found that the claims were fabricated. So right there you have people believing that Aboriginal people have fabricated claims about sacred sites to interrupt development.
Later, an inquiry found there was not enough evidence to call the claims a fabrication, although it stopped short of saying they were true. You’ll never hear about that from the sort of people who bring up Secret Women’s Business as a reason to disregard any Aboriginal cultural considerations.
A tourist doesn’t bring that sort of baggage into the decision making process. The plea from the Anangu people to respect their culture shouldn’t be assessed on the basis of whether or not the Ngarrindjeri women Elders lied to prevent the construction of a bridge, but some Australians mistrust one because of the other. In this respect, I believe some tourists can make a less biased decision based on the only information that is relevant: “The climb is not prohibited but we ask you to respect our law and culture by not climbing Uluru.”
For myself? I would probably comply with the same sort of polite irritation that I feel around churches and other things that people hold sacred for reasons that seem a bit silly to me. The sexist and racist traditions of the Traditional Owners are vaguely offensive to me as a 21st century citizen, but I’m descended from the invaders and oppressors, not the oppressed people, and I’m sure we’ve done enough damage without trying to force a 45,000 year old society to abandon their traditions to soothe my modern sensibilities.
What would you say to someone who came to the United States and refused to tip on the grounds that it was neither compulsory nor required in writing, then? After all,
It may indeed be eloquently stated but it’s also absurd. Tourists, with no knowledge of past or present relations with the indigenous people are better placed to judge because they don’t know what stinking liars the Aborigines are? Is that really what you’re saying?
Simply put, Australians can’t come to an agreement so they’re outsourcing the moral judgement to outsiders. And then judging them if they make the wrong choice! Really, that’s the only part that rankles. Coming from the United States, I can relate to living in a country that consistently votes for policies that lead to starkly racist outcomes. However, I’m not going to try to assuage my feelings of collective guilt by trying to foist the responsibility off on some convenient foreign visitors.
And Penfeather’s silence about Australian culpability in this matter is deafening.
Nope. I’m saying the Anangu people shouldn’t be assumed to be liars just because some of the Ngarrindjeri people are thought to have possibly lied 20 years ago about an unrelated matter in a different part of the country. I’m also saying that that whole controversy is baggage that is brought to the table by some Australians because, like you, they would summarise it as “Aboriginals are stinking liars”. Why not say Australians are stinking liars? It makes as much sense.
I don’t know what to say about the rest of your post. Indigenous Australians live roughly half as long as the rest of the population and are disadvantaged in all areas - health, education, employment, and they struggle with negative perceptions. Access to Uluru is way down the list of things that urgently need addressing.
Most people will vote in their own self interest first, and so will prioritise other issues - childcare, rising utility bills and the cost of living, the beat up about refugees, climate change, etc. I imagine that if one political party committed to a 25% reduction in power bills through funding raised by holding dance parties on top of Uluru, they’d probably win in a landslide. There are more people worried about their power bills than worried about Indigenous rights.
Indigenous issues are complex and unpleasant to think about, and there are no easy answers. As just 3% of the population, or around 670,000 individuals, they don’t have numbers on their side either. Essentially they are background noise at election time. I doubt many votes in the wider community are swayed by indigenous policies.