It seems photographs of Ayres Rock / Uluru are now prohibited
Cuppa said
08:54 AM Sep 27, 2020
Some of you people are the ones who need to change & accept.
The number of Anangu is totally irelevant.
Exercising one's rights as Traditional owners is far from 'navel gazing' - how insulting.
Their land - always was, always will be.
Putting your own values on to others who's values you demonstrably fail to understand just shows ignorance.
The racism expressed through this thread is appalling.
If any one of you had had your rights to your land confirmed in law & others started criticising how you chose to exercise your rights you would call foul, but because the Anangu are aboriginal you seem to think it acceptable to continue to carp, criticise & disrespect their rights....... as though you consider you have the right to tell them what they should & should not do. ...... & when you cannot tell them what to do & not do, you seek to undermine them. You quote history & suggest that they should come to terms with it. It is you who needs to do that!
It's their land, it's their culture & they are free to do as they wish with that whether you approve or not. It is not up to me or you to like or approve how they choose to exercise their rights. It is however respectful to honour their right to determine for themselves, & the more that folk fail to understand & accept this, then I imagine the more the Anangu & other traditional owners are likely to increasingly choose to exclude others. In the face of the kind of sentiments expressed here I most certainly would choose to restrict access if I were them.
The sentiments here appear to refuse to recognise what has been hard fought for over generations & eventually recognised by white law as the fair & just outcomes. Time to act like decent human beings & accept that it is the sort of criticism made & implied here which is the navel gazing.
-- Edited by Cuppa on Sunday 27th of September 2020 09:02:24 AM
Mike Harding said
09:45 AM Sep 27, 2020
Cuppa wrote:
Some of you people are the ones who need to change & accept.
I strongly suspect if we had a thread about how cute fluffy black kittens are you would find racism and prejudice in it.
bgt said
10:04 AM Sep 27, 2020
Cuppa remember it's a 2 way street. I'll accept any ones 'rights' provided they accept mine. I will not, however, be held to ransom or be responsible for what our great great relatives did in the past. We can only act on the 'now'. And the 'now' is not 'equal' for ALL Australians. And lecturing folks from a soap box isn't the way to reconcile differences.
Cuppa said
10:20 AM Sep 27, 2020
Mike Harding wrote:
Cuppa wrote:
Some of you people are the ones who need to change & accept.
I strongly suspect if we had a thread about how cute fluffy black kittens are you would find racism and prejudice in it.
Really? A rather a silly & childish response which seeks to play the man & not the ball.
Cuppa said
10:25 AM Sep 27, 2020
bgt wrote:
Cuppa remember it's a 2 way street. I'll accept any ones 'rights' provided they accept mine. I will not, however, be held to ransom or be responsible for what our great great relatives did in the past. We can only act on the 'now'. And the 'now' is not 'equal' for ALL Australians. And lecturing folks from a soap box isn't the way to reconcile differences.
No it has never been 2 way street! A small step toward making it so, & people start to use language like being 'held to ransom'! Which of your 'rights' are threatened by these folk exercising their rights over their land?
-- Edited by Cuppa on Sunday 27th of September 2020 10:26:25 AM
-- Edited by Cuppa on Sunday 27th of September 2020 10:27:25 AM
Cuppa said
10:34 AM Sep 27, 2020
It is ironic that when folk perceive they are being told how to behave that it doesn't sit well, & yet it is seemingly ok to tell blackfellas how to behave. "Be like us, accept our rules or p*ss off" .
-- Edited by Cuppa on Sunday 27th of September 2020 10:35:25 AM
Peter_n_Margaret said
11:05 AM Sep 27, 2020
bgt wrote:
Peter the problem with NPs is that if you take an image in a NP as a tourist and that image is then used by a club magazine for say a cover shot then it becomes 'commercial'.
Nope. It is not "commercial" if no money is paid.
I have had numerous pics published in magazines in that way. No different to publishing pics on this (commercial) web site.
Cheers,
Peter
bgt said
11:11 AM Sep 27, 2020
Peter I should have clarified my statement with "paid". But either way in many instances it can be "deemed" to be commercial. As I said earlier it's a legal swamp.
bgt said
11:15 AM Sep 27, 2020
Cuppa you won't be persuaded I understand that. But until ALL Australians are treated equally there will be disputes and those who wish to divide us more will never be happy.
dabbler said
11:31 AM Sep 27, 2020
Equitably not equally. Equal is easy to say when you are in the majority and it isn't the solution to any issue. Equally means the club publishing images where payment is demanded, are asked to pay the same amount as the largest of media organizations. Change starts with attitude, time to change attitudes. It won't hurt you. And well said cuppa.
Cuppa said
11:34 AM Sep 27, 2020
bgt wrote:
Cuppa you won't be persuaded I understand that. But until ALL Australians are treated equally there will be disputes and those who wish to divide us more will never be happy.
bgt, what will I not be persuaded about? The need for all Australians to be treated equally? (ie. Equitably? Fairly? Justly?). If that is what you suggest, I need no persuasion, I'm already there. I ask again "Which of your 'rights' are threatened by these folk exercising their rights over their land?"
-- Edited by Cuppa on Sunday 27th of September 2020 11:40:10 AM
As a recent immigrant to Australia myself, I must confess to knowing little about the aboriginal situation, but I do notice it seems to be a very polarising topic and always elicits strong words and emotions from both sides - much as the "Northern Ireland question" or the "China question" does in my other two homes, the UK and Hong Kong respectively. But as an observer of the debate rather than a participant I see much sense in Cuppa's words, but can't help feeling that it's all in vain as the history of human society is that the strong always take from the weak, and then find some way to justify their actions because they somehow deserved it.
Grandad5 said
09:11 AM Sep 28, 2020
Keep it up Cuppa. You're not alone in your views. You just articulate them so much better than I can.
Thank you.
Jim
dorian said
09:42 AM Sep 28, 2020
The notion that anyone is permitted to do whatever they like with their land is wrong, both legally and morally. Legally one can't even scratch the topsoil until they have negotiated mountains of red and green tape. From a moral standpoint, I would denounce anyone's attempt to restrict access to what is, or should be, a public landmark, just as I detest the thought of privately owned beaches or lakes or rivers. Sure, the land originally belonged to the indigenous people, and no-one is more hateful of imperialism and colonialism than I. But thankfully those times are long gone. We should now be living in an egalitarian society where the natural wonders belong to us all. Let the indigenous people manage their land, but we should insist that they share it with all of us, in an unfettered way.
As for disallowing photography, that is just absurd. All I'm doing with my camera is capturing the energy of reflected photons -- I'm not damaging the property, or diminishing its "spiritual" value, whatever that may be. One has to draw a line, and for me, preventing someone from photographing nature, whether for commercial or private reasons, violates a basic human freedom. If nature isn't free, then what is? The aboriginal people didn't create the rock, that was nature's work. It's not like a pyramid or a ziggurat.
I tried to view this argument from all different perspectives. I asked myself, as an atheist, is there anything which I would view as a sacred site? Well, one immediate example is a cemetery, especially the one where my sister is buried. I treat all such places, including religious sites such as churches, with deference and respect, and I would hope that everyone else would do the same. But where does one draw the line when a handful of people lay claim to a natural wonder as their own personal monument? According to Wikipedia, "the local Aangu do not climb Uluru because of its great spiritual significance. They request that visitors do not climb the rock, partly due to the path crossing a sacred traditional Dreamtime track ..." I confess that I have a very difficult time understanding how crossing this track makes me a bad person, just as drawing a picture of Mohammed would in the minds of Muslims. I'm sure there are parallels in other religions, but where does it all end?
-- Edited by dorian on Monday 28th of September 2020 10:25:37 AM
Mamil said
11:16 AM Sep 28, 2020
dorian wrote:
The notion that anyone is permitted to do whatever they like with their land is wrong, both legally and morally. Legally one can't even scratch the topsoil until they have negotiated mountains of red and green tape. From a moral standpoint, I would denounce anyone's attempt to restrict access to what is, or should be, a public landmark, just as I detest the thought of privately owned beaches or lakes or rivers. Sure, the land originally belonged to the indigenous people, and no-one is more hateful of imperialism and colonialism than I. But thankfully those times are long gone. We should now be living in an egalitarian society where the natural wonders belong to us all. Let the indigenous people manage their land, but we should insist that they share it with all of us, in an unfettered way.
As for disallowing photography, that is just absurd. All I'm doing with my camera is capturing the energy of reflected photons -- I'm not damaging the property, or diminishing its "spiritual" value, whatever that may be. One has to draw a line, and for me, preventing someone from photographing nature, whether for commercial or private reasons, violates a basic human freedom. If nature isn't free, then what is? The aboriginal people didn't create the rock, that was nature's work. It's not like a pyramid or a ziggurat.
I tried to view this argument from all different perspectives. I asked myself, as an atheist, is there anything which I would view as a sacred site? Well, one immediate example is a cemetery, especially the one where my sister is buried. I treat all such places, including religious sites such as churches, with deference and respect, and I would hope that everyone else would do the same. But where does one draw the line when a handful of people lay claim to a natural wonder as their own personal monument? According to Wikipedia, "the local Aangu do not climb Uluru because of its great spiritual significance. They request that visitors do not climb the rock, partly due to the path crossing a sacred traditional Dreamtime track ..." I confess that I have a very difficult time understanding how crossing this track makes me a bad person, just as drawing a picture of Mohammed would in the minds of Muslims. I'm sure there are parallels in other religions, but where does it all end?
-- Edited by dorian on Monday 28th of September 2020 10:25:37 AM
Very good points too Dorian. I must admit to now being torn between your point of view and Cuppa's, but I guess there's no real 'right' answer to this and many of society's other 'big' questions. But it's so good to see a respectful exchange of intelligent and informed views for once rather than the personal slanging matches that are so prevalent on the internet these days!
-- Edited by Mamil on Monday 28th of September 2020 11:27:49 AM
dabbler said
12:51 PM Sep 28, 2020
There is no notice of intention to ban photography in the general areas of Uluru and surrounds. Parks Australia have asked Google to stop displaying images of the climb to the top, user supplied images from the top and Streetview imagery depicting the climb, in keeping with the wishes of the Anangu people. That is very different from a ban on photography and exactly the same as a number of other sacred and/or historic sites around the world. While some sites might permit use of imagery after payment, the Anangu aren't interested in payment. Just because some can't see the spiritual value, it does exist and it's not for you and me to say otherwise. This country does have a few private and leasehold beaches and similar areas normally be associated with free unfettered access. But access to those areas is decided by those that control them and not based on our normal expectations. We accept that as law whether we think it right or not and it's never a hot topic like indigenous lands. It's past time people accept that indigenous Australians control access and use of parts of the country and landmark status is totally irrelevant. Calls for public control and full access to the areas controlled by indigenous Australians is a shameful denial the laws of this country apply to everyone. Their land, their decisions.
Mike Harding said
01:05 PM Sep 28, 2020
dabbler wrote:
Their land, their decisions.
Do you say the same to the land owner who wants to clear-fell old growth forest?
Greg 1 said
02:00 PM Sep 28, 2020
I don't really have a problem with not climbing the rock. I can understand that from several aspects.
I do have an issue with not being able to take photographs of public places or shutting off National Parks from a large proportion of Australians.
With regards land ownership, none of us really own a piece of land. We are really only custodians and the government can resume it at anytime they like if they feel they have reason to do so. Don't pay your rates and see how long you will still be resident on your little parcel.
There are 25 million of us in this country from all lands on earth. We make up a wonderful country with it's large diversity. No one should receive or not receive things on the basis of their race, colour or creed. And that includes our indigenous people. We should be looking instead at getting rid of poverty and sickness amongst those less fortunate be they black, white or brindle. Ethnicity should not be considered. The current situation is very divisive and will not lead to reconciliation.
dabbler said
02:10 PM Sep 28, 2020
Is that okd growth clearance permitted within the our laws Mike ?
dorian said
03:15 PM Sep 28, 2020
"Spiritual value" is an intensely personal, abstract and unquantifiable term. I doubt very much that it has any basis in law. After all, law is concerned with precise definitions, and cases are judged on verifiable facts. If, for example, a bank wants to foreclose on a mortgage, it does no good for the mortgagee to argue that they have a spiritual attachment to their house.
I accept that the Anangu are not motivated by financial gain from photography, nor are the tourists, but that still of itself does not justify their position. As for the existence of private beaches, I see them as Unaustralian. Just like marital infidelity, they may be legal or at least not illegal, but they are morally wrong. Moreover, I feel confident that if their existence were brought into the public spotlight, they would be soundly denounced by all.
Dorian, the law says the Anangu have the legal right to ask the very things people are bitching about but because they are indigenous people still eant to bitch. By their moral standards the Anangu are acting morally. Again, just because you and others think differently, doesn't outweigh their legal and moral rights. In the same way, I too consider myself an atheist and by my moral compass, i won't demean or devalue another person's religious or spiritual beliefs. This thread is a real joke because it still comes down to Australian law but there is an unwillingness to accept the legal reality. And that's essentially why indigenous people ask for ownership of land in the European sense when they would rather have their custodianship acknowledged and respected according to traditional lore and any custodial decisions respected and obeyed.
Cuppa said
04:26 PM Sep 28, 2020
Much of the discussion, which thankfully has returned to a rather more respectful 'playing the ball not the man' (thank you) essentially, in my view sidesteps the primary issue.
The primary issue, & far broader issue as I see it is the ongoing denial of aboriginal rights, fought for over decades in an alien legal system & won. As Dabbler suggests if anyone other than aboriginal peoples had achieved those legal wins, their may have been some whinging about the legal determinations, but by & large the determinations would be accepted. Yes I know there are always exceptions. However anything 'won' by aboriginal people in regard to them protecting what they have always viewed as important is always treated by a proportion of white Australian society as as an exception, to the extent that in the face of any legal or political support for the determinations many people continue to talk & act as though the determinations have never been made. This is almost unique to aboriginals in Australian culture (similar but less enduring for 'New Australians' & now refugees) who the critics love to proclaim have all sorts of advantages over the rest of the population, and it is this continued denial of their right to have rights & denial of their disadvantaged position in our community, which makes the situation so sad.
Worse is the constant blame bestowed upon them for their own misfortune. As Greg1 says "We should be looking instead at getting rid of poverty and sickness amongst those less fortunate be they black, white or brindle. Ethnicity should not be considered". How could any caring person not agree with that sentiment. But there are plenty who don't. And of course whilst a worthwhile goal, reaching a goal like that is far from simple. In our lifetime we have seen the position of women in our society become stronger & far more respected. Many would argue it has a way to go before gender equity exists, but it cannot be denied that the position of women in our society has changed, & I believe for the better. Women however began their fight for gender equity from a far higher & more advantaged position than Aboriginals in this country have ever been allowed to hold since the arrival of the white man. I suggest therefore that it makes sense to pack away the irrational fears of Aboriginal take over of the all the things we value, using this to play victim, when really we continue to be the aggressors, & to accept that there are significant steps which need to be taken - in meaningful, genuine & demonstrable ways, as an essential part of the journey to reaching the goal of equity for all, & in particular for aboriginal folk who in Australia continue currently to be treated in the most inequitable manner of all Australians. There are many steps along any path, but there are some huge steps still necessary for for this journey to begin, & every time whether here or anywhere that aboriginal rights are denied, dismissed, disrespected etc , it is evidence that change & assistance is required to get the journey on it's way.
So much time, money & energy has been wasted through colonising, patronising, genocidal approaches to 'the problem' & sometimes well meaning but ignorant approaches too. What has always been almost universally missing are two major steps. A genuine recognition of the harm wreaked by our forefathers & the attitudes which allowed this to happen, & that still remain today. No we cannot change what has happened, but we can change what we think about it & the way we think now. Attitudes displayed earlier in this thread are far from unique to folk here, they are common. Stand around just about any campfire with beer in hand, & it remains almost inevitable that sooner or later the abbo jokes & unpleasantness arise. It's a common way for many whitefellas to join together. Safe & on shared ground. So much so that many simply do not realise how truly nasty it is, & when pulled up deny the nastiness & dismiss it as 'just banter, or a joke'. But they wouldn't feel like that if they were the one always the butt of the banter or joke. These are attitudes which need to change & until they do - in a widespread & meaningful way, anyone suggesting what 'aboriginals should or should not do' is just blowing smoke. As just one person I do what I can .... & that is to speak up when I see what is wrong. If the result is I get attacked personally that's unfortunate, I don't like it, but I maintain my integrity which I wouldn't if I looked the other way. I'm not on a mission, I don't consider myself 'holier than thou' ..... I just believe in a fair go.
The second major step missing is the ability to cease telling aboriginal people what they should do & how they should do it. That they should be like us. We need to find ways to make space for a culture that most of us have little knowledge of, a space where having forced ourselves upon them in a parental- like role that we acknowledge that we have made a total **** up of that, & that we really dont know how to do the job, & instead supply them with the resources they need to make their own decisions & mistakes, whilst we stand by to assist & learn with them when invited. This has never occurred in any sort of consistent manner or in a context where our society's collective behaviour has enabled aboriginals & aboriginal history & culture to feel respected. Instead we have & do paint them as an undeserving minority whom we'd just as soon see die out. We should be better than that. We should recognise that they have much to teach us & that it is us who need to change & to learn to better tolerate & value difference.
Ok, I accept that this post can be accused of being 'preachy' - I'm sorry about that if that's how I sound. I really don't pretend for a moment to have solutions to such a protracted issue. I would just like for the commonly heard slurs which emerge wenever any aboriginal issue arises, especially among older age groups (of which I am part) to cease being 'acceptable'. The fact is that even the title of the thread served as a 'rallying call' & the anti aboriginal sentiments predictable. That is sad.
I'm not trying to single anyone out for 'special treatment' - the thread, sadly , is fairly 'run of the mill', & would have remained so if I or someone else had not 'spoken'.
I hope rather than trying to 'shout me down' that if you've bothered reading this far that you might simply try to understand what I have tried to express. I don't think this thread needs to become a long circular argument with anyone trying to prevail. Obviously it is not a venue to develop solutions. Just another opportunity to step back & reconsider personal attitudes & what small role each of us as individuals plays in perpetuating something which could be so much better.
-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 28th of September 2020 04:37:23 PM
-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 28th of September 2020 04:38:25 PM
iana said
04:45 PM Sep 28, 2020
Why is this thread still going?
Cuppa said
04:49 PM Sep 28, 2020
iana wrote:
Why is this thread still going?
I would have though the answer to that is obvious. Could you add anything more positive?
I had the opportunity of speaking with Paddy Uluru early in my work in Central Australia (I arrived in December 1974). Mr Uluru was the undisputed custodian of The Rock at that time. We spoke face to face at the base of monolith, and he was happy to be photographed with the Rock in the background. Mr Uluru told me if tourists are stupid enough to climb the Rock, they're welcome to it. For him there was nothing of practical value up there such as water, game nor edible plants. He made it clear that knowledge of certain elements of the Rock's dreaming must remain secret, to be known only by a strictly defined circle of people. That knowledge would be passed on to outsiders at the pain of serious punishment and perhaps death. But the physical act of climbing was of no cultural interest, Mr Uluru told me.
-- Edited by dorian on Monday 28th of September 2020 04:57:47 PM
dorian said
05:15 PM Sep 28, 2020
After some research, I found an interesting fact. It appears that the Anangu had no name for The Rock until Paddy Uluru began agitating for its return to indigenous ownership:
To my knowledge, there is no traditional symbolic representation for Uluru itself. The monolith was named after a Yangkuntjatjara Aborigine, Paddy Uluru who began the movement by local indigenous groups to protect the sacred sites of the Rock. After many years of petitioning and struggle, he and his sons achieved the return of the land to the traditional custodians, and the Rock was passed to the Aboriginal Uluru -- Kata Tjuta Land Trust in 1985.
However, speaking and writing about Uluru poses another tricky problem. Even calling it Uluru, the way the non-Indigenous people like me call it, can be considered improper. It's the name of a deceased elder and hence to utter it is inappropriate. In his book, Hill decides to use the word 'the Rock' to describe the rock itself and also the 'country' around it.
. . .
The Anangu call it 'an Aboriginal place with much Aboriginal law (Ananguku ngura nyangatja, Anangu Tjukurpa tjutatjara)' (Visitor Guide 2012: 8). The important word in the phrase is 'place'. In calling it a place, the Anangu emphasise the lived nature of the space. By living for thousands of years, following their 'law', they have transformed the geographical space into place; a place they call home, their 'country.'
I had the opportunity of speaking with Paddy Uluru early in my work in Central Australia (I arrived in December 1974). Mr Uluru was the undisputed custodian of The Rock at that time. We spoke face to face at the base of monolith, and he was happy to be photographed with the Rock in the background. Mr Uluru told me if tourists are stupid enough to climb the Rock, they're welcome to it. For him there was nothing of practical value up there such as water, game nor edible plants. He made it clear that knowledge of certain elements of the Rock's dreaming must remain secret, to be known only by a strictly defined circle of people. That knowledge would be passed on to outsiders at the pain of serious punishment and perhaps death. But the physical act of climbing was of no cultural interest, Mr Uluru told me.
-- Edited by dorian on Monday 28th of September 2020 04:57:47 PM
Whether correct or not - it is interesting but not relevant.
What is relevant is that Australians should accept that the Anangu who are there today have the right to decide. Whatever reasons they have which lay behind their decisions is their business, not ours.
There is nothing to compel them to give us a reason whether truthful or otherwise. Chances are high that anyone is less likely to be truthful about what they say to those who show little or no respect.
Cuppa said
06:04 PM Sep 28, 2020
dorian wrote:
After some research, I found an interesting fact. It appears that the Anangu had no name for The Rock until Paddy Uluru began agitating for its return to indigenous ownership:
To my knowledge, there is no traditional symbolic representation for Uluru itself. The monolith was named after a Yangkuntjatjara Aborigine, Paddy Uluru who began the movement by local indigenous groups to protect the sacred sites of the Rock. After many years of petitioning and struggle, he and his sons achieved the return of the land to the traditional custodians, and the Rock was passed to the Aboriginal Uluru -- Kata Tjuta Land Trust in 1985.
However, speaking and writing about Uluru poses another tricky problem. Even calling it Uluru, the way the non-Indigenous people like me call it, can be considered improper. It's the name of a deceased elder and hence to utter it is inappropriate. In his book, Hill decides to use the word 'the Rock' to describe the rock itself and also the 'country' around it.
. . .
The Anangu call it 'an Aboriginal place with much Aboriginal law (Ananguku ngura nyangatja, Anangu Tjukurpa tjutatjara)' (Visitor Guide 2012: 8). The important word in the phrase is 'place'. In calling it a place, the Anangu emphasise the lived nature of the space. By living for thousands of years, following their 'law', they have transformed the geographical space into place; a place they call home, their 'country.'
Another interesting piece of history. Two responses.
1. I think there are probably many instances of places being important but not having a name in Aborginal culture. A river deep in the Kimberley a friend told me about a couple of years ago being another. Accessible only on foot after a helicopter drop. The River has no name, not in English, nor in the local aboriginal language, but people still talk of it as the place where XYZ happened/happens. There was ancient rock art at several locations along it's banks. Last year I came across a birthing place, it was obvious what I had found, but I very much doubt it would have had a name, rather it would have been 'the birthing place up in that gorge'. The latter just my belief, the former from info gathered from the people of that country. Many names of places which do exist may well have been coined for us folk who wanted to know 'What is this called
2.Lack of a name of a place in our culture might imply lack of ownership, in much the same way that Terra Nullius gave 'legal right' for the taking of aboriginal land, but this would not be the case in Aboriginal culture, least of all because ownership of land is a western concept they have been forced to adopt to protect their country via our legal system.
the rocket said
01:03 AM Sep 29, 2020
I love all my aboriginal friends. I admire their respect for their elders And compassion for others. Rocket
Some of you people are the ones who need to change & accept.
The number of Anangu is totally irelevant.
Exercising one's rights as Traditional owners is far from 'navel gazing' - how insulting.
Their land - always was, always will be.
Putting your own values on to others who's values you demonstrably fail to understand just shows ignorance.
The racism expressed through this thread is appalling.
If any one of you had had your rights to your land confirmed in law & others started criticising how you chose to exercise your rights you would call foul, but because the Anangu are aboriginal you seem to think it acceptable to continue to carp, criticise & disrespect their rights....... as though you consider you have the right to tell them what they should & should not do. ...... & when you cannot tell them what to do & not do, you seek to undermine them. You quote history & suggest that they should come to terms with it. It is you who needs to do that!
It's their land, it's their culture & they are free to do as they wish with that whether you approve or not. It is not up to me or you to like or approve how they choose to exercise their rights. It is however respectful to honour their right to determine for themselves, & the more that folk fail to understand & accept this, then I imagine the more the Anangu & other traditional owners are likely to increasingly choose to exclude others. In the face of the kind of sentiments expressed here I most certainly would choose to restrict access if I were them.
The sentiments here appear to refuse to recognise what has been hard fought for over generations & eventually recognised by white law as the fair & just outcomes. Time to act like decent human beings & accept that it is the sort of criticism made & implied here which is the navel gazing.
-- Edited by Cuppa on Sunday 27th of September 2020 09:02:24 AM
I strongly suspect if we had a thread about how cute fluffy black kittens are you would find racism and prejudice in it.
Really? A rather a silly & childish response which seeks to play the man & not the ball.
No it has never been 2 way street! A small step toward making it so, & people start to use language like being 'held to ransom'! Which of your 'rights' are threatened by these folk exercising their rights over their land?
-- Edited by Cuppa on Sunday 27th of September 2020 10:26:25 AM
-- Edited by Cuppa on Sunday 27th of September 2020 10:27:25 AM
It is ironic that when folk perceive they are being told how to behave that it doesn't sit well, & yet it is seemingly ok to tell blackfellas how to behave. "Be like us, accept our rules or p*ss off" .
-- Edited by Cuppa on Sunday 27th of September 2020 10:35:25 AM
Nope. It is not "commercial" if no money is paid.
I have had numerous pics published in magazines in that way. No different to publishing pics on this (commercial) web site.
Cheers,
Peter
bgt, what will I not be persuaded about? The need for all Australians to be treated equally? (ie. Equitably? Fairly? Justly?). If that is what you suggest, I need no persuasion, I'm already there. I ask again "Which of your 'rights' are threatened by these folk exercising their rights over their land?"
-- Edited by Cuppa on Sunday 27th of September 2020 11:40:10 AM
Thank you.
Jim
The notion that anyone is permitted to do whatever they like with their land is wrong, both legally and morally. Legally one can't even scratch the topsoil until they have negotiated mountains of red and green tape. From a moral standpoint, I would denounce anyone's attempt to restrict access to what is, or should be, a public landmark, just as I detest the thought of privately owned beaches or lakes or rivers. Sure, the land originally belonged to the indigenous people, and no-one is more hateful of imperialism and colonialism than I. But thankfully those times are long gone. We should now be living in an egalitarian society where the natural wonders belong to us all. Let the indigenous people manage their land, but we should insist that they share it with all of us, in an unfettered way.
As for disallowing photography, that is just absurd. All I'm doing with my camera is capturing the energy of reflected photons -- I'm not damaging the property, or diminishing its "spiritual" value, whatever that may be. One has to draw a line, and for me, preventing someone from photographing nature, whether for commercial or private reasons, violates a basic human freedom. If nature isn't free, then what is? The aboriginal people didn't create the rock, that was nature's work. It's not like a pyramid or a ziggurat.
I tried to view this argument from all different perspectives. I asked myself, as an atheist, is there anything which I would view as a sacred site? Well, one immediate example is a cemetery, especially the one where my sister is buried. I treat all such places, including religious sites such as churches, with deference and respect, and I would hope that everyone else would do the same. But where does one draw the line when a handful of people lay claim to a natural wonder as their own personal monument? According to Wikipedia, "the local Aangu do not climb Uluru because of its great spiritual significance. They request that visitors do not climb the rock, partly due to the path crossing a sacred traditional Dreamtime track ..." I confess that I have a very difficult time understanding how crossing this track makes me a bad person, just as drawing a picture of Mohammed would in the minds of Muslims. I'm sure there are parallels in other religions, but where does it all end?
Another one ...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-28/lake-torrens-sacred-site-faces-exploratory-mining/12696750
-- Edited by dorian on Monday 28th of September 2020 10:25:37 AM
Very good points too Dorian. I must admit to now being torn between your point of view and Cuppa's, but I guess there's no real 'right' answer to this and many of society's other 'big' questions. But it's so good to see a respectful exchange of intelligent and informed views for once rather than the personal slanging matches that are so prevalent on the internet these days!
-- Edited by Mamil on Monday 28th of September 2020 11:27:49 AM
Do you say the same to the land owner who wants to clear-fell old growth forest?
I accept that the Anangu are not motivated by financial gain from photography, nor are the tourists, but that still of itself does not justify their position. As for the existence of private beaches, I see them as Unaustralian. Just like marital infidelity, they may be legal or at least not illegal, but they are morally wrong. Moreover, I feel confident that if their existence were brought into the public spotlight, they would be soundly denounced by all.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7239093/Aboriginal-elder-no-problem-tourists-climbing-Uluru.html
Much of the discussion, which thankfully has returned to a rather more respectful 'playing the ball not the man' (thank you) essentially, in my view sidesteps the primary issue.
The primary issue, & far broader issue as I see it is the ongoing denial of aboriginal rights, fought for over decades in an alien legal system & won. As Dabbler suggests if anyone other than aboriginal peoples had achieved those legal wins, their may have been some whinging about the legal determinations, but by & large the determinations would be accepted. Yes I know there are always exceptions. However anything 'won' by aboriginal people in regard to them protecting what they have always viewed as important is always treated by a proportion of white Australian society as as an exception, to the extent that in the face of any legal or political support for the determinations many people continue to talk & act as though the determinations have never been made. This is almost unique to aboriginals in Australian culture (similar but less enduring for 'New Australians' & now refugees) who the critics love to proclaim have all sorts of advantages over the rest of the population, and it is this continued denial of their right to have rights & denial of their disadvantaged position in our community, which makes the situation so sad.
Worse is the constant blame bestowed upon them for their own misfortune. As Greg1 says "We should be looking instead at getting rid of poverty and sickness amongst those less fortunate be they black, white or brindle. Ethnicity should not be considered". How could any caring person not agree with that sentiment. But there are plenty who don't. And of course whilst a worthwhile goal, reaching a goal like that is far from simple. In our lifetime we have seen the position of women in our society become stronger & far more respected. Many would argue it has a way to go before gender equity exists, but it cannot be denied that the position of women in our society has changed, & I believe for the better. Women however began their fight for gender equity from a far higher & more advantaged position than Aboriginals in this country have ever been allowed to hold since the arrival of the white man. I suggest therefore that it makes sense to pack away the irrational fears of Aboriginal take over of the all the things we value, using this to play victim, when really we continue to be the aggressors, & to accept that there are significant steps which need to be taken - in meaningful, genuine & demonstrable ways, as an essential part of the journey to reaching the goal of equity for all, & in particular for aboriginal folk who in Australia continue currently to be treated in the most inequitable manner of all Australians. There are many steps along any path, but there are some huge steps still necessary for for this journey to begin, & every time whether here or anywhere that aboriginal rights are denied, dismissed, disrespected etc , it is evidence that change & assistance is required to get the journey on it's way.
So much time, money & energy has been wasted through colonising, patronising, genocidal approaches to 'the problem' & sometimes well meaning but ignorant approaches too. What has always been almost universally missing are two major steps. A genuine recognition of the harm wreaked by our forefathers & the attitudes which allowed this to happen, & that still remain today. No we cannot change what has happened, but we can change what we think about it & the way we think now. Attitudes displayed earlier in this thread are far from unique to folk here, they are common. Stand around just about any campfire with beer in hand, & it remains almost inevitable that sooner or later the abbo jokes & unpleasantness arise. It's a common way for many whitefellas to join together. Safe & on shared ground. So much so that many simply do not realise how truly nasty it is, & when pulled up deny the nastiness & dismiss it as 'just banter, or a joke'. But they wouldn't feel like that if they were the one always the butt of the banter or joke. These are attitudes which need to change & until they do - in a widespread & meaningful way, anyone suggesting what 'aboriginals should or should not do' is just blowing smoke. As just one person I do what I can .... & that is to speak up when I see what is wrong. If the result is I get attacked personally that's unfortunate, I don't like it, but I maintain my integrity which I wouldn't if I looked the other way. I'm not on a mission, I don't consider myself 'holier than thou' ..... I just believe in a fair go.
The second major step missing is the ability to cease telling aboriginal people what they should do & how they should do it. That they should be like us. We need to find ways to make space for a culture that most of us have little knowledge of, a space where having forced ourselves upon them in a parental- like role that we acknowledge that we have made a total **** up of that, & that we really dont know how to do the job, & instead supply them with the resources they need to make their own decisions & mistakes, whilst we stand by to assist & learn with them when invited. This has never occurred in any sort of consistent manner or in a context where our society's collective behaviour has enabled aboriginals & aboriginal history & culture to feel respected. Instead we have & do paint them as an undeserving minority whom we'd just as soon see die out. We should be better than that. We should recognise that they have much to teach us & that it is us who need to change & to learn to better tolerate & value difference.
Ok, I accept that this post can be accused of being 'preachy' - I'm sorry about that if that's how I sound. I really don't pretend for a moment to have solutions to such a protracted issue. I would just like for the commonly heard slurs which emerge wenever any aboriginal issue arises, especially among older age groups (of which I am part) to cease being 'acceptable'. The fact is that even the title of the thread served as a 'rallying call' & the anti aboriginal sentiments predictable. That is sad.
I'm not trying to single anyone out for 'special treatment' - the thread, sadly , is fairly 'run of the mill', & would have remained so if I or someone else had not 'spoken'.
I hope rather than trying to 'shout me down' that if you've bothered reading this far that you might simply try to understand what I have tried to express. I don't think this thread needs to become a long circular argument with anyone trying to prevail. Obviously it is not a venue to develop solutions. Just another opportunity to step back & reconsider personal attitudes & what small role each of us as individuals plays in perpetuating something which could be so much better.
-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 28th of September 2020 04:37:23 PM
-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 28th of September 2020 04:38:25 PM
I would have though the answer to that is obvious. Could you add anything more positive?
This is the original article by Erwin Chlanda:
https://alicespringsnews.com.au/2015/01/27/the-rock-to-climb-or-not-to-climb/
I had the opportunity of speaking with Paddy Uluru early in my work in Central Australia (I arrived in December 1974).
Mr Uluru was the undisputed custodian of The Rock at that time.
We spoke face to face at the base of monolith, and he was happy to be photographed with the Rock in the background.
Mr Uluru told me if tourists are stupid enough to climb the Rock, they're welcome to it.
For him there was nothing of practical value up there such as water, game nor edible plants.
He made it clear that knowledge of certain elements of the Rock's dreaming must remain secret, to be known only by a strictly defined circle of people.
That knowledge would be passed on to outsiders at the pain of serious punishment and perhaps death.
But the physical act of climbing was of no cultural interest, Mr Uluru told me.
-- Edited by dorian on Monday 28th of September 2020 04:57:47 PM
After some research, I found an interesting fact. It appears that the Anangu had no name for The Rock until Paddy Uluru began agitating for its return to indigenous ownership:
https://www.polylogzentrum.at/weltprojekt-der-berge/dokumentation/die-namen-der-berge/uluruayers-rock/
5. The Origin of the Name Uluru
To my knowledge, there is no traditional symbolic representation for Uluru itself. The monolith was named after a Yangkuntjatjara Aborigine, Paddy Uluru who began the movement by local indigenous groups to protect the sacred sites of the Rock. After many years of petitioning and struggle, he and his sons achieved the return of the land to the traditional custodians, and the Rock was passed to the Aboriginal Uluru -- Kata Tjuta Land Trust in 1985.
https://www.axonjournal.com.au/issue-vol-9-no-2-december-2019/knowing-and-unknowing-uluru
However, speaking and writing about Uluru poses another tricky problem. Even calling it Uluru, the way the non-Indigenous people like me call it, can be considered improper. It's the name of a deceased elder and hence to utter it is inappropriate. In his book, Hill decides to use the word 'the Rock' to describe the rock itself and also the 'country' around it.
. . .
The Anangu call it 'an Aboriginal place with much Aboriginal law (Ananguku ngura nyangatja, Anangu Tjukurpa tjutatjara)' (Visitor Guide 2012: 8). The important word in the phrase is 'place'. In calling it a place, the Anangu emphasise the lived nature of the space. By living for thousands of years, following their 'law', they have transformed the geographical space into place; a place they call home, their 'country.'
Whether correct or not - it is interesting but not relevant.
What is relevant is that Australians should accept that the Anangu who are there today have the right to decide. Whatever reasons they have which lay behind their decisions is their business, not ours.
There is nothing to compel them to give us a reason whether truthful or otherwise. Chances are high that anyone is less likely to be truthful about what they say to those who show little or no respect.
Another interesting piece of history. Two responses.
1. I think there are probably many instances of places being important but not having a name in Aborginal culture. A river deep in the Kimberley a friend told me about a couple of years ago being another. Accessible only on foot after a helicopter drop. The River has no name, not in English, nor in the local aboriginal language, but people still talk of it as the place where XYZ happened/happens. There was ancient rock art at several locations along it's banks. Last year I came across a birthing place, it was obvious what I had found, but I very much doubt it would have had a name, rather it would have been 'the birthing place up in that gorge'. The latter just my belief, the former from info gathered from the people of that country. Many names of places which do exist may well have been coined for us folk who wanted to know 'What is this called
2.Lack of a name of a place in our culture might imply lack of ownership, in much the same way that Terra Nullius gave 'legal right' for the taking of aboriginal land, but this would not be the case in Aboriginal culture, least of all because ownership of land is a western concept they have been forced to adopt to protect their country via our legal system.
I love all my aboriginal friends. I admire their respect for their elders And compassion for others. Rocket