It doesn’t matter how many show-offs and dickheads do stupid things on the top of Uluru, as long as they’re not damaging it I oppose any moves by the government or traditional owners to limit access to this natural wonder.
As previously argued. (Despite seriously alienating people).
A unique natural wonder that belongs to all Australians, to all people.
That said, I condemn utterly the hateful and stupid racist garbage that gets directed at indigenous Australians in the newspapers and talkback radio whenever this issue is raised.
Advertisement
Go there. You’ll change your mind.
I will never accept the argument that ownership of the rock is somehow conferred by Aboriginality. It is Australia’s to conserve and respect, not Aboriginal Australia’s.
I would like to climb the rock one day – that will be my spiritual journey to the heart of this country.
Mondo: I will never accept the argument that ownership of the rock is somehow conferred by Aboriginality. It is Australia’s to conserve and respect, not Aboriginal Australia’s.
Agreed.
I would like to climb the rock one day – that will be my spiritual journey to the heart of this country.
I had a similar idea, but when I got there I decided not to.
Closing the rock to climbing is not about a particular group who claims rights over it. However, it may be a decision that the authorities legitimately come to for a number of reasons based on preserving the rock and its great spiritual atmosphere and natural beauty.
I had a similar idea, but when I got there I decided not to.
I read your contribution to the previous thread and must admit that I found your argument against climbing it more compelling than the others. However I’m not generally supportive of decisions to restrict liberty unless there are really good reasons.
Preserving spirirtuality is not something I’d previously thought of as “a really good reason” for restricting anything. I’m not totally closed to the idea, but it does seem to be a very subjective concept.
Mondo, it is a question of balance. I can see both arguments, but I do think the climbing rail and the worn pathway detract from the natural character of the place.
I am with the traditional custodians on this one. Should they prefer to have Uluru closed, stopping tourists from climbing all over it, then so be it.
I imagine the outcry we’d get to hear if Aboriginal people would flock to the Mary McKillop chapel, unpacked their golf clubs and smashed a few balls around in it. Or even better, held regular strip shows there. Or maybe tried to climb it, dying of heart attacks on their way up there. What a laugh, surely.
I will never accept the argument that ownership of the rock is somehow conferred by Aboriginality. It is Australia’s to conserve and respect, not Aboriginal Australia’s.
Why Mondo? Is it that in your mind Aboriginal people don’t have land rights, or is it that whats sacred to traditional owners just doesn’t deserve your esteemed respect?
See, I don’t get the attempt to compare a natural wonder that no-one built and we all just found there, with something somebody actually built. They’re not the same thing at all.
Also, striking golf balls around a chapel would BREAK IT. Unlikely to happen to an enormous rock monolith.
No person or group has any more right to Uluru than any other.
and we all just found there
Wow. Historical revisionism at its best.
Sorry, in what way did each group of us not just find it there? None of us built it. It was there long before we were even a species.
See, I don’t get the attempt to compare a natural wonder that no-one built and we all just found there, with something somebody actually built. They’re not the same thing at all.
K, make it the Grotto of Massabielle in Lourdes, or if you want to look at it from a non-religious angle, Gallipoli, I am sure we’d all love to see ppl strip and play golf there.
We didn’t just find that rock, its been known to Australians for 10’000 years, a ceremonial place of immense cultural significance for the people who’ve been living there for hundreds of generations.
What you call finding the rock was its discovery by the first white ppl in 1872 when they strung the telegraph line. In my book that does not translate to now its everybody’s.
Also, striking golf balls around a chapel would BREAK IT. Unlikely to happen to an enormous rock monolith.
No Jeremy, we would only aim at stone walls, not windows. And should really one break, like a wooden blank on the Uluru Tourist walk, surely it can be fixed.
No person or group has any more right to Uluru than any other.
Why? In order for you to enter Arnhem Land in the NT you need a permit from the Tratitional Owners. Why should Uluru be treated differently?
“We” colonised this country. That means that “we” encountered a people who were already here, and who had already ascribed a meaning and significance to existing landmarks. A people who had existed in this country for tens of thousands of years before “we” found this landmark, which as it happens, is a site of spiritual and cultural significance to the people who traditionally claimed ownership of it before “we” turned up and told them to fuck off.
Handing back Uluru to the traditional owners was supposed to reconcile the past forcible acquisition of such landmarks of cultural and spiritual significance. If the now rightful owners want to place restrictions upon how “we” engage with these sites, then surely it’s the very bloody least “we” can do!
“K, make it the Grotto of Massabielle in Lourdes, or if you want to look at it from a non-religious angle, Gallipoli, I am sure we’d all love to see ppl strip and play golf there.”
I’ve got no problem with that. Natural wonders shouldn’t belong to anyone in particular.
And I didn’t say I’d “love” to see people strip or play golf on Uluru, either. I objected to anyone telling them they can’t, so long as they’re not damaging it.
“We didn’t just find that rock, its been known to Australians for 10’000 years”
They just found it, too. It was there when they arrived, just like it was there when we arrived.
“Why? In order for you to enter Arnhem Land in the NT you need a permit from the Tratitional Owners. “
Yeah, well I’ve got a problem with that, too.
““We” colonised this country. That means that “we” encountered a people who were already here, and who had already ascribed a meaning and significance to existing landmarks.”
They can “ascribe meaning and significance” to all they like. Doesn’t make the natural wonders theirs.
Uluru was there millions of years before any “indigenous” Australians arrived. It’ll be there millions of years after we all expire. It belongs to all of us, and none of us.
“is a site of spiritual and cultural significance to the people who traditionally claimed ownership of it before “we” turned up and told them to fuck off.”
No, no. I’m not telling anyone to fuck off. I’m objecting to those who are telling others to fuck off. Whoever is attempting to exert control over the Rock – they’re the people who should pull their heads in.
“If the now rightful owners want to place restrictions upon how “we” engage with these sites, then surely it’s the very bloody least “we” can do!”
I utterly refute the idea that anyone “owns” Uluru.
They just found it, too. It was there when they arrived, just like it was there when we arrived.
Yeah, and they were here first. With their laws, with their customs. With their spirituality. As an atheist I respect christians and others entitlements to claim ownership of whatever sites of spiritual significance they have (churches and whatever), and to assert whatever rules they want around appropriate engagement with these sites by people from outside their ranks. Buddhists insist on a certain dress code to enter their temples. This is really no different.
What your trying to do is to claim that because churches and mosques and temples are created by humans, they are somehow different from the natural landmarks that aboriginals give spiritual meaning to. They aren’t. Aboriginals didn’t create physical structures to express their spirituality, they took meaning from the natural structures around them. It’s very simple.
“Yeah, and they were here first. “
Did they call shotgun on the ancient natural monument?
“This is really no different. “
Yes, it is. They didn’t build it.
“What your trying to do is to claim that because churches and mosques and temples are created by humans, they are somehow different from the natural landmarks that aboriginals give spiritual meaning to.”
Yes. Finding something is not the same as building it.
“Aboriginals didn’t create physical structures to express their spirituality, they took meaning from the natural structures around them.”
They can take whatever meaning they like. That doesn’t give them the right to CONTROL those natural structures.
I “found” a nice property in north east Victoria. I didn’t “build” it. It was “there”. I just “found” it. And I bought it. I have ownership to it, just like aborigines have ownership to the rock. Stay off my fucking property!
1. Your property isn’t a unique natural wonder, with importance to the nation as a whole.
2. You bought it; you didn’t just “find it” and take possession of it.
I utterly refute the idea that anyone “owns” Uluru.
Well, you’d be alone on that score. The federal government handed back ownership of Uluru to the traditional owners, something like 30 years ago.
They own it. They get to decide how outsiders engage with it. And the ridiculous notion that aboriginals can’t own the rock and its surrounding lands simply because they weren’t created by humans reeks of white privileging. This is precisely how colonialists back then, and bigots today, justify the disenfranchising of aboriginals.
The rock is actually subject to a 99 year lease to the government.
Handing over the rock in the first place was an astonishing act of bastardry calculated to create division in society.
Anyone concerned with uniting humanity rather than promoting ethnic strife will want to put paid to the primitive tribalism which is the cause of so much violence and disharmony in the world.
Why Mondo? Is it that in your mind Aboriginal people don’t have land rights, or is it that whats sacred to traditional owners just doesn’t deserve your esteemed respect?
Geez Juan – do you ever stop in the middle of a comment like that and wonder why you need to completely misrepresent and exaggerate another person in order to respond to them? Was my actual comment too difficult for you to respond to so you decided to adopt a nonsense extrapolation instead?
Your comment is little more than a deliberate attempt at provocation and does nothing at all to address my assertion that ownership of the rock should be preserved for the benefit of all Australians, not just those of a particular race.
Well, you’d be alone on that score.
Except that he’s not confessions – there are thousands of Australians (and probably many more) who would like to see the rock owned by all rather than a few. There are at least three of us on this thread alone.
But don’t let reality interfere with your grandstanding and wild accusations that Lefty is a racist bigot.
“Except that he’s not confessions – there are thousands of Australians (and probably many more) who would like to see the rock owned by all rather than a few. There are at least three of us on this thread alone.”
I’d suggest there are probably millions of Australians who believe this. And make it 4 on this thread.
Handing over the rock in the first place was an astonishing act of bastardry calculated to create division in society.
Yes, forcibly taking land off the original inhabitants is a far preferable way of establishing social harmony. For us.
mondo: it is a fact that the federal government handed ownership of Uluru back to the traditional owners. It is your *opinion* that this didn’t occur.
And if you believe I’ve accused anyone of racism and bigotry, you have profoundly misread my comments.
1. Your property isn’t a unique natural wonder, with importance to the nation as a whole.
2. You bought it; you didn’t just “find it” and take possession of it.
1. Maybe not, but that wasn’t my point.
2. So because the aborigines didn’t “buy it”, it’s not theirs? Wasn’t it handed over to them? Do you want to repeal the transfer? Why stop there? Let’s repeal all native titles too on the basis the aborigines only “found” the land and didn’t “buy it”.
Confessions, in case you didn’t notice, there are no original inhabitants left. I do not accept that someone ought to have special rights because their ancestors got here before mine.
Yes. Finding something is not the same as building it.
What you are saying is that if the TO’s had build some kind of structure on top of the rock you’d grant them ownership, since they didn’t stiff shit. Its ours now.
Yeah, well I’ve got a problem with that, too.
Am I glad the people who granted the TO’s their land rights had more understanding of the plight the colonisation has caused the Indigenous folk, their attachment to land and dreamtime.
Lets have a look what the Greens party thinks about the issue:
—————
Principles
The Australian Greens believe that:
1. the Australian Constitution must recognise the prior occupation and sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
2. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a strong cultural and spiritual connection with the land, and their rights and obligations as owners and custodians must be respected.
4. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a right to self determination and political representation, and must be partners in the development and implementation of public policies, programs and services that affect them.
5. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have the right to retain, and benefit financially from, the Indigenous cultural and intellectual property (ICIP) and heritage rights invested in traditional knowledge and in the biodiversity of their own lands and waters, in accordance with the UN International Convention on Biological Diversity.
6. where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have been dispossessed from their lands and waters, they have a right to redress through measures that assist them to acquire, own and/or manage their land and waters in a way that enhances their social, cultural, spiritual, economic and environmental wellbeing.
9. governments must recognise the continuing effect of past treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Goals
The Australian Greens want:
11. a treaty that recognises the prior occupation and sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be enshrined in the constitution.
20. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be able to retain or reclaim language, heritage and cultural practices.
21. items of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage to be returned to their rightful owners and custodians.
Measures
The Australian Greens will:
34. amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, and other applicable legislation, to:
* respect customary law restrictions;
* guarantee access to significant sites by people with cultural connections to the site;
* establish independent cultural heritage bodies;
* ensure minimum protection standards under Commonwealth, state and territory laws;
* protect all aspects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage including intellectual property; and
* ensure that heritage decisions are made by the relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
37. fairly compensate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people where property has been taken from them or wages have been withheld.
39. ensure the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to sustainably hunt, fish and gather native flora and fauna in line with traditional cultural practice.
—————-
The idea that Australia was Terra Nullius in 1789 and its subscribers consequent dismissal of Indigenous people’s right to retain ownership over their cultural heritage is something I would have expected from John Howard. You are full of surprises you ol lefty.
confessions,
The government handed Uluru back to the local indigenous people, who then leased it back for a term of 99 years — one of the terms of that lease includes permission for people to climb it, therefore they currently have no legal right to prevent people from doing so, it would be interesting to see what will happen at the expiry of the lease though.
Your comment is little more than a deliberate attempt at provocation and does nothing at all to address my assertion that ownership of the rock should be preserved for the benefit of all Australians, not just those of a particular race.
Mondo, my comment was in response to your statement that you’d never accept “the argument that ownership of the rock is somehow conferred by Aboriginality.” Since you didn’t back up your argument I was left to wonder why you would hold such believes.
So, what could be the reason? My guess was that you either you don’t see Indigenous land rights worth supporting or you don’t respect TO’s cultural heritage and attachment to natural objects. Since you seem to be outraged that someone could possibly harbour such ideas about you, why don’t you put things straight and tell me why in your mind Indigenous people shouldn’t have land rights?
SB: Australia’s original inhabitants are the indigenous people. It is a matter of opinion whether they are entitled to have land ownership inferred by their ancestral connections, but the courts don’t agree with you.
Gavin: the rock is leased back, and is jointly managed by the traditional owners and the government. But the relevent indigenous community own the rock. As such they are entitlted to specify whatever rules of engagement apply to those wanting to come onto their land.
Confessions, I accept that our legal system now recognises native title. There are many arguments about the efficacy of this system and its effects on the particular natives it seeks to benefit.
Uluru is a different case. There is no reasonable argument for handing a national monument to a particular tribe. The current arrangement is a compromise, but it would be better if Uluru was owned by the government.
There is no reasonable argument for handing a national monument to a particular tribe.
SB, its not about handing it to them but rather one of not taking it.
No, it isn’t.
We’re saying it should belong to EVERYONE, and that NO-ONE should be excluded from it.
You’re saying it should belong to one racial group, and that the rest of us should be excluded from it according to their religious beliefs.
We’re not the people trying to “take” exclusive control of the national monument for themselves.
mondo: it is a fact that the federal government handed ownership of Uluru back to the traditional owners. It is your *opinion* that this didn’t occur.
Don’t be an idiot confessions. Obviously I was referring to your claim that SB is “alone” in his rejection of the idea that Uluru can be owned. That claim was simply wrong – he’s not alone. There are many thousans, perhaps millions (thanks Gavin) of us who feel the same way.
Why am I not surprised that you have simply dismissed us all as non-existant? I guess it makes it easier if you just assume that everyone in the world agrees with you.
if you believe I’ve accused anyone of racism and bigotry, you have profoundly misread my comments
If that is true then I apologise. When you made the following comment about the argument Jeremy was putting forward:
This is precisely how colonialists back then, and bigots today, justify the disenfranchising of aboriginals.
I assumed you were implying that Jeremy was one of the ‘bigots today’.
a national monument
I see. So the blacks can own the surrounding land, but because Uluru is a “monument”, they can’t own it? But we whites can own ‘monuments’ of significance to us because we made them?
I’m detecting some hypocracy here.
There’s an enormous difference between a unique natural monument that humans have found, and something specific humans have built.
“Gavin: the rock is leased back, and is jointly managed by the traditional owners and the government. But the relevent indigenous community own the rock. As such they are entitlted to specify whatever rules of engagement apply to those wanting to come onto their land.”
Yes they own it, but they have agreed to the terms of the current lease, one of which is that people be allowed to climb it, therefore they presently have no legal right to prevent them doing so.
So, what could be the reason? My guess was that . . .
Tell you what Juan, instead of guessing why I have made an argument, and then building your comment around that strawman, perhaps next time you’ll just ask me. Then we could actually engage in a substantive discussion.
why don’t you put things straight and tell me why in your mind Indigenous people shouldn’t have land rights?
Oh gawd . . . lesson not learned eh?
I’ll spell it out for you – it is not correct to assume (and then assert) that I don’t support Aboriginal land rights. One can simultaneously believe in Aboriginal land rights and the idea that Uluru should be preserved as a national monument for all Australians and not a privately owned Aboriginal posession.
I know – it’s crazy and confusing isn’t it Juan? Who knew such independence of thought was possible!! Maybe it would be best if you just stuck to the blinkered black and white approach on this issue . . . .
I see. So the blacks can own the surrounding land, but because Uluru is a “monument”, they can’t own it?
Correct – although it has nothing to do with their skin colour (odd that you would feel that was relevant given that you claim to not be accusing Jeremy of racism).
Anyway, think of it as being like a national park – you can own land all around it but the government owns the park in order to preserve it for the benefit of all Australians.
There’s nothing hypocritical about this concept.
Of course, the issue of climbing the rock is separate from the ownership issue. Clearly ownership is not a relevant consideration at the moment as, as Gavin has pointed out, the owners have already agreed that the lessees can permit climbing. However, there are other valid reasons as to why climbing the rock might be banned.
We’re not the people trying to “take” exclusive control of the national monument for themselves.
Thats your pov, to be expected from someone who sees his rights anchored in “if you haven’t bought it its also mine”. Thats however not how the TO’s of the area see things.
They have been custodians of the rock for hundreds of generations, in control of this sacred site when our ancestors Jeremy were still living in caves on the other side of the world. At what point did they relinquish their rights over Uluru to you so that you now can claim its yours? 1789?
Having said all that, kudos for promoting the Greens despite the fact the party’s official line is pretty much the exact opposite view to your ideas on the issue of Indigenous rights.
Yeah, well, I don’t vote for them for their indigenous rights policies. Or their environmental ones, for that matter. I vote for their social and economic policies.
Juan – I dispute they ever had exclusive rights over Uluru. I don’t think anyone owns it. Or the Grand Canyon. Or Mount Everest. Or the Great Barrier Reef etc.
the fact the party’s official line is pretty much the exact opposite view to your ideas on the issue of Indigenous rights.
When has Lefty argued against indigenous rights Juan?
This discussion has been about the ownership of Uluru, which Lefty clearly believes should be nationalised. Not once has he stated an opposition to the concept of indigenous rights.
Your whole approach to this issue is to hide behind a pathetic strawman Juan. You appear incapable of treating criticism of Aboriginal ownership of Uluru as anything other than a general rejection of Aboriginal land rights.
You’re like one of those fanatics who can only see anti-semitism in criticism of Israeli policy.
Tell you what Juan, instead of guessing why I have made an argument, and then building your comment around that strawman,
Mondo, alternatively, avoid making short categorical statements on political blogs without writing a few lines on what your reasoning is behind your stated opinion. Fellow commenters will be less inclined to make assumptions about your motives.
perhaps next time you’ll just ask me. Then we could actually engage in a substantive discussion.
My reply to your initial statement was just that, me asking you. And hey, we are having a discussion. Not that you’d notice in your hurry to fire a broadside.
One can simultaneously believe in Aboriginal land rights and the idea that Uluru should be preserved as a national monument for all Australians and not a privately owned Aboriginal posession.
Indigenous people have preserved their monument for thousands of years, with a passion you’ll never come close to comprehending. Some whitey telling them that millions of tourists crawling all over the rock is a better method of preserving the rock than the ways handed down from their ancestors, is a laughable notion.
it’s crazy and confusing isn’t it Juan?
Not really. But if believing it is so helps you come to terms with your double standards, sure, let it be crazy.
There’s an enormous difference between a unique natural monument that humans have found, and something specific humans have built.
Only if you give a greater significance to things we make.
Anyway, think of it as being like a national park – you can own land all around it but the government owns the park in order to preserve it for the benefit of all Australians.
Except the indigenous community *does* own the land, and the rock mondo.
The reverse actually – it’s the significance of these natural wonders that means no human has the right to take control of them.
When has Lefty argued against indigenous rights Juan?
Its a pitty that your selective reading hinders you from comprehending the syntax of Jeremy’s statements. Try your intellect on this one:
Jeremy: “None of us built it. It was there long before we were even a species.”
Now, put your thinking cap on and see if you can follow. Not just Uluru, land in general is something that isn’t build but was here before we were a species. Meaning, according to Jeremy’s line of reasoning where one has to have built something to have rights over it, they have no land rights at all.
Since none of the land they claim, if it now has an elevated section on it or not, was hand made by Aboriginals but has always been here, it can’t be theirs. Jeremy made a blanket statement that if taken literally would deny all Indigenous people land rights as they didn’t build it. Comprende?
You appear incapable of treating criticism of Aboriginal ownership of Uluru as anything other than a general rejection of Aboriginal land rights.
If the criticism of Aboriginal ownership is based on such flimsy arguments such as they didn’t build it or cos its so big and beautiful, then it deserves not to be treated any different. If we’d start going down that road most if not all Aboriginal land rights would be voided.
You’re like one of those fanatics who can only see anti-semitism in criticism of Israeli policy.
I let that one go through to the keeper.
To pretend that Uluru is equivalent to a random bit of the northern territory is to abandon reality entirely.
I don’t think that’s what juanmoment is saying.
Meaning, according to Jeremy’s line of reasoning where one has to have built something to have rights over it, they have no land rights at all.
LOL. In order to maintain your patently absurd strawman you’ve mangled Jeremy’s argument so thoroughly that it is now presented as a complete rejection of the notion that vacant land can be owned by anyone. You’re a hoot Juan.
Given that Lefty obviously doesn’t believe something so ridiculous do you think this might show that you’ve gone a little astray somewhere in your reasoning?
I’ll give you a hint champ – Jeremy’s argument applies to a very specific national monument, not land rights as a general concept.
But don’t let that stop you from maintaining your strawman.
And in any case, why not? If you accept that indigenous people can be granted ownership of lands (and seas ftm), then at what point do you draw the line on ‘significance’?
Come on, there are heaps of magnificent natural features in Australia that are truly owned by everyone and that are open for all to climb and/or walk over. Wanting to deny the aborigines ownership over Uluru is being personally selective – i.e. you like it so you want it to belong to everyone. It’s mean spirited.
“And in any case, why not? If you accept that indigenous people can be granted ownership of lands (and seas ftm), then at what point do you draw the line on ‘significance’?”
You get that we draw that line already don’t you? Or is the fact that we don’t let people plant an oil rig on the Great Barrier Reef amount to a rejection of the entire notion of property in land? Is every national park an assault on your right to own your own backyard?
I’m saying Uluru is more on the GBR side of the equation than your backyard.
To pretend that Uluru is equivalent to a random bit of the northern territory is to abandon reality entirely.
Jeremy, when I mentioned further up Arnhem Land in the NT, a random bit of territory, you said you don’t like the fact Aboriginals have ownership rights over that piece of land either. I take it from that statement that you have a problem with land rights in general, not just with Uluru. Am I wrong?
Jeremy’s argument applies to a very specific national monument, not land rights as a general concept.
No it doesn’t. His argument that only man made objects could be claimed by Indigenous people, although made in reference to Uluru, applies equally to other land. He or you could use the same argument to deny Indigenous people any land rights. Today Uluru, tomorrow Arnhem Land.
We are talking about Uluru, the ownership of which was handed back to the specific indigenous community. There is no comparison with the GBR.
And again: where do you draw the line on ‘significance’?
If you accept that indigenous people can be granted ownership of lands (and seas ftm), then at what point do you draw the line on ‘significance’?
That’s the million dollar question – and one that applies to all Australians (not just Aborigines).
Without venturing too far into that murky water, wouldn’t you agree that Uluru is likely to pass pretty much any ‘significant to Australia’ tests that might be designed?
To be honest I struggle to see how you could creat a ‘national significance test’ that would exclude Uluru.
To be honest I struggle to see how you could creat a ‘national significance test’ that would exclude Uluru.
It is owned by the relevent indigenous community. Therefore, they get to set the rules for how the wider public engage with the rock.
That’s not how a lease works.
So confessions, do they get the right to totally exclude people from the vicinity of the rock, or to blow it up if they so please?
It is owned by the relevent indigenous community. Therefore, they get to set the rules for how the wider public engage with the rock
FFS confessions – you were the one who asked where we would draw the ‘significane’ line!!
And again: where do you draw the line on ‘significance’?
Now, when answered in a way that makes it clear Uluru would meet whatever significance test you could design, you just abandon this argument and go back to blandly asserting that significance is irrelevant as long as a landmark is privately owned!!
By your logic, if the Government sold off the Great Barrier Reef to a Chinese oil company, which then proceeded to deny Australian the right to swim over it, you’d defend them on the basis that they own it and therefore “get to set the rules”.
Somehow, though, I think your commitment to the primacy of private property rights over the national interest is strongly dependent on the private owner’s race.
Unless you know the conditions of the 99 year lease you can’t say with certainty that the landlord (aborigines) have no right to set entry conditions. They may well have that right. And they may have a right to claim that the conditions of the lease are breached if the rock is abused and disrepected.
The assertion here is that a natural wonder cannot be owned, simply because it hasn’t been created by humans, irrespective of the fact that the traditional owners do indeed have ownership rights over Uluru. Those same people have argued that we as Australians own the minerals that are a hot topic right now, and are in agreement that aboriginals can indeed have ownership rights to land, despite the obvious contradiction that neither we nor the aboriginals created either the minerals or the land.
I have asked for a line on significance to demonstrate the shallowness of this argument, that there is no universally agreed definition of significance that could trump ownership in a way that applies equally to indigenous and non-indigenous people. The entire premise of come comments seems to be: yes aboriginals can have ownership of land, but only the land that ‘we’ deem worthless and useless.
No, those positions are entirely consistent.
* Australia’s natural wonders belong to all Australians.
* Australia’s natural resources belong to all Australians.
Yes, defining what is “nationally significant” is arbitrary – but so what? We do that now. And I don’t think anyone would seriously dispute that Uluru is nationally significant anyway. Would you?
Of course I would. Who wouldn’t?
But I’m not the one arguing that this therefore means the country’s original inhabitants can’t own it and the land it’s on.
I love that you’re expressing it as if this was us taking something from them where what you’re proposing is to give one group the power to exclude others from a natural wonder of national significance.
Because the relevent indigenous community owns Uluru. It was handed back to them 30 years ago.
You keep forgetting this.
The deal was that they couldn’t exclude people from climbing the Rock.
If they were planning on exerting “ownership” over it, in the sense of excluding other Australians, then they would not have been given it by the then government.
The grant of title to Uluru and the long-term lease back to the government were part of the same transaction. You keep forgetting this.
The assertion here is that a natural wonder cannot be owned, simply because it hasn’t been created by humans
No it isn’t – the argument is that it should not be owned. Do you understand this fairly critical difference?
I have asked for a line on significance to demonstrate the shallowness of this argument
Oh – now I understand why you ignored my answer. You were only using the question as a prop.
that there is no universally agreed definition of significance that could trump ownership in a way that applies equally to indigenous and non-indigenous people.
Nonsense. A baseless assertion.
The entire premise of come comments seems to be: yes aboriginals can have ownership of land, but only the land that ‘we’ deem worthless and useless
And another deliberate strawman!!
Confessions this is apalling dishonesty from you – to summarise an argument that national monuments should not be privately owned as “Aborigines should only be able to own worthless land” is just idiotic.
Doesn’t it worry you that you have to resort to this sort of deliberate stupidity in order to sustain your position?
The deal was that they couldn’t exclude people from climbing the Rock.
Yes that’s true. And periodically as I understand it, the terms of the agreement come up for review – didn’t we have this discussion a while back because of some review of the conditions or something?
In any case, I said then, and it remains my position now, that if the traditional owners want to change the rules by which the public engage with Uluru and its surrounding land, they should be entitled to do so. Regardless of whether Uluru was created naturally or by human intervention, it is owned by the relevent indigenous group. This is a fact, and one which is highly unlikely to change. Nothing I’ve seen or heard about this since gives cause for me to change my views, so perhaps it is best that on this issue we simply agree to disagree.
to summarise an argument that national monuments should not be privately owned as “Aborigines should only be able to own worthless land” is just idiotic.
WTF?! I think you need to take a deep breath, and re-read my comments.
Doesn’t it worry you that you have to resort to this sort of deliberate stupidity in order to sustain your position?
LOL hypocrite much? So far I’ve been verballed by you, called an idiot, called dishonest and resorting to stupidity. Doesn’t it worry you that you have to resort to this sort of deliberate abuse in order to sustain your position?
I don’t know how you’re putting up with it, confessions, quite frankly. Personal abuse is the mark of those losing the argument.
The deal was that they couldn’t exclude people from climbing the Rock.
Link required, Jeremy. How do you know this?
Oh, my comment is “randomly” caught in the WordPress unrandom moderation filter again.
Heh knew I’d seen something about revisiting the conditions.
And tigtog also summarises my view.
“Handing over the rock in the first place was an astonishing act of bastardry calculated to create division in society.”
Really? How so? For what possible gain? Could it not have been a genuine gesture of respect and attempt at reconciliation over this issue?
Just to state my position, I have climbed the rock about 15 years ago and I took the trouble to read the cultural information and position of the local people. I felt that as an Australian, I too had some connection with the rock, albeit in a different way to the Aboriginal people.
Ray, you arrogant clod, almost ALL comments here are moderated, because of trolls. (Ask Confessions.) It’s not just yours. Stop whinging.
It’s a weird issue this – looking at tigtog’s post, all these people with whom I’d normally agree on an issue have this weird sudden need to let religious people’s “sensitivities” control their access to natural wonders, and can’t understand how anyone could not “respect” the need of this religious group to control a national monument. They can’t grasp my approach and I can’t grasp theirs.
It’s odd when people with similar perspectives come at something from completely opposing sides and simply cannot reconcile with each other.
PS As far as the people damaging the rock by defecating on it etc – MASSIVE fines should apply for that. Tourists who want to climb the rock should be required to take bags and bring their sh!t back down with them later, if they can’t hold on. Whatever it is that visitors to Antarctica have to do – that should be required of anyone who wants to climb the Rock.
Because that’s about reducing the damage to the natural wonder, for the benefit of everyone.
I don’t think it’s odd at all. It simply proves that we’re all individuals who have our own views on certain issues. And it’s a big extended middle finger to the polemicists who try to pidgeon-hole this mythical ‘The Left’ as being all the same. How dumb is that?
Btw, the biggest OMG!!!1! moment for me in this thread was when you said you don’t vote for the Greens on indigenous issues, but vote for them on social and economic issues. For me the three are interlocked, esp when it comes to addressing disadvantage in aboriginal communities.
I certainly agree government has a responsibility to assist indigenous Australians, who are some of the most disadvantaged people in the country. We did that to them, we owe them a serious commitment to helping them overcome those problems.
But I don’t agree that government should be forcing anyone’s religious beliefs on anyone else – indigenous Australians included – and I’m afraid don’t agree that anything’s solved by just giving huge chunks of land to people because of who their ancestors were. No matter how unforgivably terribly we as a country treated those ancestors.
The whole thread reminds me of a pig they chased through the Darwin media a couple of years ago.
Aboriginal itinerants, long grassers, were seen camping and drinking in a cemetery. Should have seen the fury in some of the letters to the editors. How dare they, dishonouring the resting place of our loved ones like that! The council of course promised immediate action.
At the same time, every Thursday and Sunday evening during the dry season, Darwin’s Mindil Beach is jam packed with thousands of tourists visiting the sunset markets. Many of them getting drunk, puking and urinating all over the place, not caring about the fact that Mindil Beach is the area where the TO’s of the greater Darwin area used to hold their sorry business ceremonies until white man came, killed some of them and then stole their land.
Aboriginals doing the same thing as we do, their acts called a disgrace, ours a tourism venture.
As part of my business I occasionally travel to Aboriginal communities. Am booked to go again this Tuesday, to a place about 450 km south east of Darwin. On my last visit the people there took me for a quick round trip of their country, showing me some stunning places, gorgeous waterholes, massive escarpments. All the time telling me about some of its history and its meaning to their identity.
They didn’t build it, nor did they buy it, but in my mind this tiny part of the country is theirs. Lucky for them the telegraph surveyors didn’t come past their neck of the woods. But then again, with the attitude prevalent in Australia today, one day soon someone will zoom in with google maps, see what a pearl it is and then demand that their ancestral lands, since it would make a popular holiday destination, should be handed to a horde of tourists.
But I don’t agree that government should be forcing anyone’s religious beliefs on anyone else – indigenous Australians included – and I’m afraid don’t agree that anything’s solved by just giving huge chunks of land to people because of who their ancestors were. No matter how unforgivably terribly we as a country treated those ancestors.
Jeremy, I agree with your first line, but by reducing the issue of Aboriginal land rights to a purely religious matter I believe you miss the bigger picture. Its as much about equity and acknowledging that terra nullius is discredited, as it is about justice for past atrocities. And even the religious aspect can’t be dismissed so easily in their case, as traditionally, Aboriginal people feel they are part of the land, simply a walking part thereof. Their ancestors not seen in some distant heaven but all around them in nature, ever present. After two hundred years of being disowned, pushed around like cattle, their culture and sense of self is already on its knees, they are barely clinging on. Take their land from them, and you take their collective identity, their last remaining link to their history.
Whilst I understand the need for national treasures generally to be held in public hands and accessible to all Australians, Aboriginal custodians who can demonstrate a continuous connection and cultural attachment to their land ought to be given an exemption. And if for no other reason than to compensate them for the terrible treatment of their grandparents.
If you are serious about “commitment to helping them overcome those problems”, may I put it to you that suggesting we’d abolish land rights over any chunk of land we deem ascetically pleasing, or as Barnett in WA is arguing now, economically too precious to be left in Aboriginal hands, is counterproductive.
You’re a glutton for punishment Jeremy! I admire that.
For me the underlying immovable principle is that this is land owned by the local indigenous people. Yes, they have leased it back to the C’wealth, but is only a lease. And under that lease theyhave the right to request changes to it. Even for it to be terminated.
And other thing to remember is that they haven’t come into our backyards demanding that we comply with their spirtual beliefs, rather we’ve gone into theirs and demanded that we be allowed to do what we want. Which in this case is the continuation of a fairly trivial ritual, one begun in equal parts ignorance and arrogance.
If you are keen to walk up a hill in CA, I’d recommend Mt Sonder – it’s higher, the views are much, much better and you’ll see some native flora and fauna rather than a bunch of huffing puffing, sweating, tourists half of whom look like they’re ready for a MI.
and I’m afraid don’t agree that anything’s solved by just giving huge chunks of land to people because of who their ancestors were.
As you say, that’s your opinion. The reality however is that countless reviews and inquiries into the parlous state of indigenous affairs in this country have recognised that land rights and recognition of existence and ownership prior to colonial settlement are fundamental to reconciliation, and indigenous equality. Why on earth would anyone want to deny aboriginals the rights to ownership of land they can demonstrate an ongoing cultural connection to, when we know how fundamental cultural continuity is to a person’s wellbeing?
or as Barnett in WA is arguing now, economically too precious to be left in Aboriginal hands
This is what I was getting at earlier. The Barnetts of the world are essentially saying that indigenous people can have ownership of land, but once we deem it valuable for whatever reason, we are justified in yanking it back off them.
That’s about right confessions – we’re happy to finally cede some remote tracts of land to Indigenous people……until we find out there’s something we want there.
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to pretend that Uluru is just some piece of land.
It’s an important enough national monument that it shouldn’t be ceded to anybody. It should belong to no-one – and everyone. It’s the height of human arrogance to declare that one lot of us has special rights over it.
By the way, while we’re on this subject – how much do you think we should respect the parts of indigenous culture that discriminate against women? I take it that you don’t approve of say Christian or Muslim organisations excluding women – what’s your attitude to “men only” or “women only” spaces in indigenous culture?
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to pretend that Uluru is just some piece of land.
Nobody is pretending that. It is significant. But it is also owned by the indigenous commuinity there, who have their own significance attached to it. As juanmoment has identified however, there are currently instances where aboriginal groups have been awarded ownership of land, but when we find something about that land we define as significant, try to take it away. This simply de-legitimises indigenous ownership of land in the eyes of many people, and does nothing to engender a spirit of trust and reciprocity.
how much do you think we should respect the parts of indigenous culture that discriminate against women?
I don’t, it is wrong to discriminate against people based on gender.
If you are referring to men’s and women’s ‘business’, then I don’t see that as discrimination. More of a way of structuring society around the rearing and educating children, care of the elderly and the frail, the division of labour, individual and collective obligations to the wider group, and the performance of specific cultural rituals. If you walk into most households in Australia, you’ll find it structured along similar lines.
Ray, you arrogant clod, almost ALL comments here are moderated … It’s not just yours. Stop whinging.
What, this is arrogant & whinging?:
Oh, my comment is “randomly” caught in the WordPress unrandom moderation filter again.
Pot .. kettle …
Anyway, how did you go backing up your claim that “the deal” (ie the lease) states they couldn’t exclude people from climbing the Rock?
It’s not at all disingenous at all when you get the chronological order correct – claiments for special rights to trample over a rock are the johnny-come-lately’s.
And the muslim/womens rights thing is a bit of a low blow Jeremy. The indigeneous owners of that land are not discriminating against anyone based on race, gender or religion in regards to climbing Uluru -they have one rule for everyone, themselves included.
If you think that you not being allowed to climb a small hill in central Australia is akin to discrimination against women, then you’re suffering from some lost perspective on this.
I’ve no problem with the gender specific aspects of indigenous ceremonial life. If you have, I eagerly await your next post on the evils of gender segregated toilets in Australia. (Hint – gender specific does not equal discrimination).
“It’s not at all disingenous at all when you get the chronological order correct – claiments for special rights to trample over a rock are the johnny-come-lately’s. “
Nobody’s asking for “special rights to trample over a rock”. The default position is that all of us have an equal right to explore and enjoy our natural heritage, so long as we’re not damaging it.
The people seeking special “rights” are those seeking the right to tell other people what they can and can’t do.
“The indigeneous owners of that land are not discriminating against anyone based on race, gender or religion in regards to climbing Uluru -they have one rule for everyone, themselves included. “
I know. The gendered cultural practice thing wasn’t about Uluru, it was about the general principle.
“I’ve no problem with the gender specific aspects of indigenous ceremonial life. If you have, I eagerly await your next post on the evils of gender segregated toilets in Australia. (Hint – gender specific does not equal discrimination).”
Sorry, are people denied access to an important part of community life by virtue of segregated toilets?
I presume that you, like me, do not agree with the men in the Roman Catholic church denying ordination to women or gays, for example.
I’m hard pressed to see how only looking at Uluru but not walking on it, is even remotely an equivelent issue to being “denied access to an important part of community life”???
Most parts of all our national parks are off limits. It’s the default setting – we are advised where we can go and what we can do – “please remain on marked trails/roads at all times” – for a wide variety of reasons. Indigenous owned parks are a little different in that they remain the active living places of the owners. They aren’t just nice places for us to visit, they are peoples permanent homes, where they live, work, and carry out various social activities that ,are to them, integral to their existance on their land.
There are some magnificant art sites in Kakadu , but you can’t see them and you don’t complain simply you don’t know of them.
There are parts of the land – beautiful, special parts of the land – that the indigenous custodians will permit men to visit but not women.
You don’t have a problem with that?
(And, again, this issue is separate from the Uluru one. I don’t know whether there is a gender-based rule for access to the Rock for the local community.)
“that the indigenous custodians will permit men to visit but not women.”
And vice versa. Do you really see this as discrimination against men?? So, no, I don’t have a problem with it, just like I don’t have a problem with gender seperated toilets. No discrimination (in the negative sense) is involved, or even implied.
And yes, it is a completely seperate issue from the Uluru climb, so why do you keep introducing it in discussions about Uluru?
I said it was an aside. I was curious, while we were talking about “respect” for indigenous culture, just how far that was supposed to extend.
I have a problem with women being arbitrarily told that they’re not allowed somewhere because of their gender.
But no problem when it’s the male gender?
The respect issue is very significant because the NP is valued for both it’s natural and cultural heritage. They aren’t a buffet; the cultural and natural values are inseperable.
I’d no more walk on Uluru than I would take a jack-hammer to it and carve my initials on it, or take a chainsaw to a tree. Natural and cultural values.
This is a step foward in our understanding of what national parks are. We’re moving away from the old romantic notion of ‘unspoilt’ wilderness untouched by man, to one that explicitly recognises the long history of human existence and influence in these places, and in the case of U-K NP, the ongoing nature of this connection.
Unfortunately I am coming in late to this discussion, but it all boils down to lack of respect. I know you won’t see it, but I thought your last post where you talk about women being “arbitrarily” told what to do highlights this. It may be arbitrary in your eyes, but to Indigenous people it is not arbitrary and restrictions are equally applied to men and women. Only when you come from a position of disrespect could you make such a flippant statement.
The lack of respect that mainstream Australia has for Indigenous culture allows things such as the NTER or just changing the rules when things don’t go your way (link below).
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1916717.htm
Jeremy it is purely from your cultural point of view that significant natural wonders should be for everyone to enjoy anyway they want as long as they don’t damage it. There is no reconciling this with the TOs cultural point of view that walking all over Uluru is against theirs.
This is where respect or lack thereof comes in. You simply rate your beliefs higher than the TOs. Exactly like colonisation, like xtrata like Barnett and thousands of other examples throughout recent Australian history. As I posted in the first thread this lack of respect and lack of control Indigenous people have over even their own land is harmful to their health. Given the position of power and privilege most Australians have over our First Nation brothers and sisters I am willing to give them this one even if it did overrule some universal rule of access to natural wonders.
I guess I would simply ask why you would climb the rock when there is evidence that doing so is harmful to Indigenous health and part of a broader movement of dispossession?
“It may be arbitrary in your eyes, but to Indigenous people it is not arbitrary and restrictions are equally applied to men and women.”
You could say that about any group’s religious beliefs. That doesn’t mean we should “respect” their “right” to discriminate against others.
“There is no reconciling this with the TOs cultural point of view that walking all over Uluru is against theirs. “
Perhaps – but if two cultural points of view conflict, surely the resolution should be that neither is inflicted on the other.
If someone was proposing to deny indigenous Australians access to Uluru I would oppose that just as much as I oppose anyone else being denied access to Uluru.
“Exactly like colonisation, like xtrata like Barnett and thousands of other examples throughout recent Australian history.”
Um, no – they’re not having their access to the Rock taken away from them. Not like colonisation at all.
“I guess I would simply ask why you would climb the rock when there is evidence that doing so is harmful to Indigenous health and part of a broader movement of dispossession?”
That’s ridiculous. Climbing an ancient natural monolith doesn’t “harm” anyone.
Jeremy restrictions equally applied are not discrimination. I await a post on the evils of women’s only gyms.
“Perhaps – but if two cultural points of view conflict, surely the resolution should be that neither is inflicted on the other.”
That is my point though Jeremy by saying anyone can climb Uluru you are imposing your belief over theirs.
“Um, no – they’re not having their access to the Rock taken away from them. Not like colonisation at all.”
I am not talking about access Uluru I am talking about having control over Uluru they are two different things. Your access negates their control and does tie into a broader movement of dispossession.
“That’s ridiculous. Climbing an ancient natural monolith doesn’t “harm” anyone.”
Indigenous health is intrinsically linked to control of land. I posted 2 journal articles in the first thread on this subject and a link to the WHO Social Determinants of Health which you never acknowledged. Here is another article that lays it out.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/may3/jackson/jackson.html#refbody10
“To Aboriginal people, ill-health is more than physical illness; it is a manifestation of other factors, including spiritual and emotional alienation from land, family and culture. Aboriginal people have a spiritual link with the land which provides a sense of identity, and which lies at the centre of their spiritual beliefs.11 Land is the crux of Aboriginal health and well-being.”
“Jeremy restrictions equally applied are not discrimination. I await a post on the evils of women’s only gyms. “
Women’s only gyms are discriminatory. It’s just that there’s a good, rational reason for the discrimination – hence the exemption.
“That is my point though Jeremy by saying anyone can climb Uluru you are imposing your belief over theirs. “
That’s like saying by not being, say, Christian I’m “imposing my belief” on Christians. That denying someone else’s “right” to impose their beliefs on me, somehow equals me “imposing my belief” on them.
Confessions above: The entire premise of come comments seems to be: yes aboriginals can have ownership of land, but only the land that ‘we’ deem worthless and useless
My response: “to summarise an argument that national monuments should not be privately owned as “Aborigines should only be able to own worthless land” is just idiotic”
Confessions’ answer: WTF?! I think you need to take a deep breath, and re-read my comments
I’ve taken a breath, re-read your comment and I still see the same pathetic strawman. And now you won’t even own up to it.
I’ll say it again – the only way you’re able to respond to the argument that national monuments should be publicly owned is through the sort of dissembling that’s evident from the quoted exchange above. It’s dishonest, weak and symptomatic of a thoroughly flawed position.
that’s what *other people* appear to be saying mondo, not what I’m saying. Again: it seems you aren’t reading my comments properly.
Jeremy it is purely from your cultural point of view that significant natural wonders should be for everyone to enjoy anyway they want as long as they don’t damage it.
This seems to me to be the most sensible summary of what’s been argued so far. It is, at least, an honest and rational and avoids the strawman ‘land rights’ argument being thrown around.
Yuwalk – accepting your comment above as accurate – what exactly is wrong with Jeremy arguing his cultural viewpoint? Why is it any more or less persuasive to you than an Aboriginal arguing theirs?
If Jeremy can describe rational and logical reasons why a natural landmark of national significance should remain open to the public then why should that viewpoint be automatically trumped by the quasi-religious beliefs of another group?
I can’t think of any other circumstance where so many Lefties would argue that the superstitious beliefs of a small handfull of religious conservatives should override the democratic wishes and basic freedoms of the rest of us.
Confessions – those excerpts in my post are direct quotes from your comments.
It is what you’re saying. You’re trying to characterise Lefty and my argument as: “Aboriginals can only have worthless and useless land”.
Stop denying it.
FMD! mondo what part of “seems to be” are you having difficulty understanding?
If I was trying to characterise your argument in such a way, I’d flat out say so!
So, since you only claimed that our argument “seems to be” that Aboriginals land rights should be restricted to worthless and useless land, this absolves you of the strawman in your mind?
Okey dokey confessions.
Your argument seems to be one made by a recalcitrant and simple minded ideologue who is unable to admit when she’s wrong.
I agree with the no-climbing crowd on this one.
It’s not just a religious thing Jeremy it’s a cultural thing as well.
Like, in our culture we don’t just barge into somebody’s place and make ourselves at home. In their culture they don’t like people climbing all over sacred sites. It’s just that one culture seems more dominant.
And i agree with the sentiments that it is the white colonial culture imposing itself on Aboriginal culture.
I think you should review what yuwalk has posted in the links between land control and health. If it is the case the climbing Uluru does harm the health of Aboriginal people – would you still feel you need to do it?
Like seriously, to them it’s something special, to me it’s just a big rock of no real significance. Why all this desire to climb the fucking thing?
Why is it any more or less persuasive to you than an Aboriginal arguing theirs?
Because the indigenous people own the rock and its land. They do so because they can demonstrate an ongoing cultural connection to it that dates back to before we got here.
Confessions no one here said “yes aboriginals can have ownership of land, but only the land that ‘we’ deem worthless and useless.” You use this invented premise to attack other commenters. It would be better to attack what they actually said.
“I can’t think of any other circumstance where so many Lefties would argue that the superstitious beliefs of a small handfull of religious conservatives should override the democratic wishes and basic freedoms of the rest of us.” – mondo
That’s a bit of a SB-take on it mondo.
No-one’s democratic right to enjoy Uluru would be curtailed. Access to the area is excellent, and even given climb closure you’d still be able to stare at it and walk around it all day every day if you so chose. What appears to be the issue is that some (a minority? – given that most visitors currently do not climb Uluru) believe that walking on the rock is the primary way to enjoy it. Let’s just say that that is a highly contestable proposition. And there seem to be plenty more underlying the ‘right’ to walk on Uluru. What exactly is a ‘national monument’ or ‘natural wonder’ and by what proces did it become so? For those concerned about the democratic view point, was there a vote? Do we have to walk on other national monuements / natural wonder before we can enjoy them?? If not, then is it the ritual of the Uluru climb which is the issue? If so, wouldn’t that be interesting given the rather abrupt dismissal of Anangu concerns as the “superstitious beliefs” of “religious conservatives”. Moreso given the relatively recent nature of this particular ritual which some now hold so dear that it’s a, ahem, “basic freedom”. More than 60 years ago this conversation would have been filed with a lot of ‘Ayre’s what?’ and ‘Ulu-who?’ The tranmission of cultural beieifs is an interesting thing. Not so long ago you could camp in the shadow of Uluru – that was quite a ritual and an experience, however I don’t think our democracy has been too abused by its ending.
“Women’s only gyms are discriminatory. It’s just that there’s a good, rational reason for the discrimination – hence the exemption.”
Exactly the same for Uluru.
“That’s like saying by not being, say, Christian I’m “imposing my belief” on Christians. That denying someone else’s “right” to impose their beliefs on me, somehow equals me “imposing my belief” on them.”
I feel you are deliberately confusing what I said. My point is really quite simple.
The TOs beliefs mean they do not want people climbing Uluru.
Your belief is that anyone should.
The two are incompatible someone is going to have to lose in this situation. If you say people should be able to climb the rock because of your beliefs the beliefs of the TOs are subjugated. They have access to their land, but not control and this is very clearly linked to poor health outcomes.
Confessions
“Yuwalk – accepting your comment above as accurate – what exactly is wrong with Jeremy arguing his cultural viewpoint? Why is it any more or less persuasive to you than an Aboriginal arguing theirs?”
There is nothing wrong with Jeremy arguing his cultural viewpoint. The point I thought I made very clearly was that in this situation someone has to win and someone has to lose. I am simply willing to give the Anangu this one given their long connection to the place, the importance it holds in their culture and the damage to health that lack of control has been proven to cause.
“If Jeremy can describe rational and logical reasons why a natural landmark of national significance should remain open to the public then why should that viewpoint be automatically trumped by the quasi-religious beliefs of another group?
I can’t think of any other circumstance where so many Lefties would argue that the superstitious beliefs of a small handfull of religious conservatives should override the democratic wishes and basic freedoms of the rest of us.”
I think the focus on religion is unhelpful. Most Indigenous people I know in East Arnhem are more religious (Christian) than the average Australian and I assume this holds true for central Australia? So it is very likely (I am unfamiliar with this country so I am guessing) the Anangu primarily identify as Christian in their religious beliefs, however they still hold onto their original culture which includes an attachment to country. Viewing it in purely religious terms is I think somewhat simplistic and misses the fact that that connection to country has more relation to family relationships past and present, important historical meanings, cultural significance as well as religious overtones.
Your comments about “handfull of religious conservatives” is indicative of that lack of respect for Indigenous culture. You are talking about the way and entire people see themselves, their place in the world, their very essence as a person their individual and cultural identity as “quasi-religious beliefs”.
I don’t like making analogies as they can always be read differently and twisted. However using some of your own words it’s a bit like saying:
It’s only a “handful of religious conservatives” with “superstitious” or “quasi-religious beliefs” in Australia who want to have a loving family unit. It’s just not for “rational and logical reasons”.
You could replace loving family unit with remembering Gallipoli, educating your children, following the AFL/Cricket/Soccer or anything else that is central to many mainstream Australians beliefs.
Anyway this is a bit long I will end this post like I ended the last with a question for Jeremy. I hope you answer it without pretending the 3 journal articles now posted and a link the Who Social Determinants of Health do not exist.
Why would you would climb the rock when there is evidence that doing so is harmful to Indigenous health?
I don’t except the premise. How can my climbing the Rock harm anyone else’s health?
The two incompatible perspectives about Uluru are not equivalent. One group is trying to deny others access to a natural wonder; the other is just denying the denial of the other group.
The default position should always be that neither group gets to tell the other one what to do. I don’t get to tell indigenous Australians how to experience the Rock, and vice-versa.
Yuwalk the cult of hurt feelings is the new moral battleground for social fascists.
We do not need legal prohibitions on people behaving inconsistently with the religious beliefs of others. Sensible people manage to get over themselves when others don’t share their irrational beliefs.
We should have the freedom to hold whatever spiritual beliefs we choose, and with that comes recognition that others are not bound to conform to them.
If irrational belief systems cause illness when others flout their rules then they should be discarded.
I think the focus on religion is unhelpful.
Call it a ‘belief system’ if that helps – the point I am trying to make is that the objection is not based on anything concrete (such as actual damage to the rock) so much as the cultural preferences of a small group of people.
The default position in this country should be one of liberty – i.e. we are able to do whatever we want unless the law prevents it. If you want to create a law denying Australians the right to do something then, at least in my view, there’d better be a bloody good reason for it. Not offending the cultural sensitivities or a particular group strikes me as a shithouse one – regardless of how sympathetic you might be to those sensitivities.
To be honest I thought our society was (rather sensibly) moving away from laws aimed at protecting people from being offended.
But I guess we’ve reached the point of our difference of opinion that will not be resolved. You’re willing to tolerate restrictions on your freedom so as to accommodate Aboriginal cultural preferences whereas I’m a bit more of an absolutist in that regard.
Yuwalk the cult of hurt feelings is the new moral battleground for social fascists.
Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims on the right, the ‘culturally sensitive’ on the Left.
If only they could find a way to work together?
“The two incompatible perspectives about Uluru are not equivalent. One group is trying to deny others access to a natural wonder; the other is just denying the denial of the other group’ – Jeremy.
This is simply wrong. Access would not be denied, only a particular activity. Anangu are very happy to host visitors to their land to marvel at the beauty of the area and share in, if only for a brief time, their view of the world.
Mondo, we have it as good as it will ever get – people can choose to be as fundamental as they like in their own beliefs, and in their private actions. In the town square other peoples’ freedoms are respected, including their freedom to have no regard to the private beliefs of others.
the objection is not based on anything concrete (such as actual damage to the rock)
You clearly didn’t read the links I posted earlier.
“Not offending the cultural sensitivities or a particular group strikes me as a shithouse one – regardless of how sympathetic you might be to those sensitivities. ” – mondo
And I though we were moving towrds an era where we could accept and respect difference, particularly in regard to Indigenous people where our not so glorious history is one of deliberately setting out to destroy or devalue Indigenous culture and tradition.
Maybe taking the opposite tack is just too big an ask for us yet, and it’s much easier to sniff about Indigenous attachment to their land as being mere “superstition”, as opposed to our superior rationality that demands our right to continue our oh-so objective and vitally important tradition of tramping up a rock.
“Access would not be denied, only a particular activity. “
Sorry, how is denying access to climb the rock not denying access?
Because you can enter Anangu land with their blessing, look at it, touch it and fly over it.
How is that not access?
You’ve been making it sound as though it’s going to locked away in a cupboard never to be seen again.
“Because you can enter Anangu land with their blessing, look at it, touch it and fly over it.
How is that not access?”
It is.
So is climbing it.
Which they’re seeking to deny.
Do I need to draw a Venn diagram?
“You’ve been making it sound as though it’s going to locked away in a cupboard never to be seen again.”
No, I haven’t. We’re talking about the access they’re seeking to deny, not all the other access that is not in dispute.
Jeremy it is not a premise it is what the literature on the matter says. If you can find me some research otherwise I would love you to post a link to it.
“The two incompatible perspectives about Uluru are not equivalent. One group is trying to deny others access to a natural wonder; the other is just denying the denial of the other group.”
I honestly feel like you are trying to use fancy lawyer talk here by making something very simple harder to comprehend. To me your above comment still says someone has their views forced on others. The denial of the denial still means one group is denied. And now we are arguing semantics rather than what the literature clearly states, a lawyer trick if I ever heard of one.
“The default position should always be that neither group gets to tell the other one what to do.”
The problem is Jeremy that your so called default position does tell the other group how they get to control their own land. How on earth should a default position be decided? It is not neutral it is not equal it does not give them control and once again that lack of control is very clearly related to their poor health.
hmm.. Post a few above is obviously not addressed to confessions.
yuwalk: I gathered that.
The link between caring for country and health is an interesting one. I read about a study in the NT recently that sought to elicit some quantitative data on the matter. Their results were impressive: lower rates of risk factors for chronic disease, especially heart disease, but also better mental health outcomes.
There was a nice piece of research in British Columbia that looked at suicide rates in First Nations communities. They found that suicide rates were lowest to nonexistent in those communities which actually controlled their local government, schools, health services etc, and highest in those communities which had no such control.
“Jeremy it is not a premise it is what the literature on the matter says.”
Your links assert, without evidence, the impossible.
I repeat: how on Earth can my climbing an ancient monolith cause harm to an indigenous person’s health?
“The denial of the denial still means one group is denied.”
No, their attempted denial is denied.
They still have the same rights to do what they want with the rock as the rest of us.
They just don’t have the right to take that right away from someone else.
“The problem is Jeremy that your so called default position does tell the other group how they get to control their own land. “
I dispute that Uluru should be “their land”. It should belong to no-one and everyone.
“It is not neutral it is not equal it does not give them control”
Giving them control is not “neutral” or “equal”.
Jeremy, asI’ve pointed out alreasy, limits to access and activites exist in ecery nationa park you’ve ever been in, even if you were unaware of what they were. Access is 365 days a year.
Confessions and yuwalk – very important points that I hadn’t considered. Yes, the research is pretty clear on this and the recent study you mentioned confessions quite explicitly looked at this.
So, Jeremy and others, consider it from this point – your defiance of the wishes of the owners of the land does contribute to real harm to them.
Does this make you re-consider at all?
“Jeremy, asI’ve pointed out alreasy, limits to access and activites exist in ecery nationa park you’ve ever been in, even if you were unaware of what they were. “
Limiting access to specific vulnerable areas for the purpose of preservation is not in any way equivalent to preventing people from climbing an ancient (and fairly resilient) monolith.
“So, Jeremy and others, consider it from this point – your defiance of the wishes of the owners of the land does contribute to real harm to them.”
Reasserting that claim doesn’t make it any more plausible.
Jeremy it’s backed by extensive research.
The front-runner was an Australian epidemiologist, Michael Marmot, who conducted the most well-known early research. The basic point that Marmot made is that ‘control factors’ expalin health differentials that had previously been unexplainable through the usual socio-economic and medical factors. The underlying mechansim is thought to be a stress reaction to environments where the individual has less control over their enviorments and the factors that directly affect them. The effect has been replicated in numerous follow-up studies.
So, no, this isn’t anyone’s assertion, but hard science. If you like, I’m sure I can dig up a few studies on Google Scholar that aren’t stuck behind the subscription wall.
In the Australian context, the lower LE for Indigenous Australians compared to their counterparts in roughly similar contexts (ie NZ and NA) is down to our less favourable policy and social settings in regard to Indigenous people.
That abiding by Indigenous wishes over their own land will have a positive impact (and vice versa) is well supported by the science.
What are your rational arguments against this?
Jeremy if you read the 3 journal articles and particularity the social determinants of health PDF I have posted it is all spelled out for you. A sense of control and the position one feels in a hierarchy is directly related to health. People climbing on Uluru reduces the Anangu’s sense of control and increases their stress levels to constantly elevated levels. Elevated levels of stress is harmful. Comments about the Anangu’s position not being the “default position” and the denigrating and insulting language used by mondo rock lower the standing of all Australians who identify as Indigenous. As the evidence shows feeling lower in a social hierarchy raises stress levels and is clearly linked to poor health. Jeremy the evidence is in fact quite overwhelming and simply saying its “impossible” is being wilfully ignorant some might even say denialist.
This intro to a longer documentary Stress Portrait of a Killer spells it out.
Then there is the Whitehall and Whitehall II study which found the lower you are in a hierarchy the poorer your health and has resulted in over 250 papers being published.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/silva/whitehallII/history
The Spirit level is a book that builds on the work of the Whitehall Studies and explains it in an easy to understand manner.
Here is a quick intro to the book to make it easy for you.
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/short-film
Jeremy, would you mind if we were able to climb on your house anytime we felt like it?
My house is neither a national monument, and it’s considerably more flimsy than an enormous rock monolith, so yes.
I have no doubt that having no control over your life etc would have health effects.
That doesn’t mean that you get to have complete control over your life and exert that control over other people by taking away their rights. Which is what you’re saying the Anangu need in order to be healthy. Which is absurd.
“I have no doubt that having no control over your life etc would have health effects.
That doesn’t mean that you get to have complete control over your life and exert that control over other people by taking away their rights. Which is what you’re saying the Anangu need in order to be healthy. Which is absurd.”
A quick word search of the page reveals the only time the words total control are mentioned is by you Jeremy. No one is saying total control is needed simply that lack of control in an area as important as sacred sites to Indigenous people can be a significant health issue for them. So I repeat.
Why would you climb the rock when there is evidence that doing so is harmful to Indigenous health?
Because the suggestion is absurd. There’s evidence that being denied control over their own lives is harmful to Indigenous health. That’s not the same thing at all.
And you might not be using the word “control” to describe what you’re advocating – but exactly that’s what giving one group the right to tell others what they can’t do on a national monument is.
Jeremy unfortunately in regard to sacred sites and Indigenous people it is. Maybe it is time you visit the site and take the time to talk to the traditional owners. Let me know what you think then.
Otherwise I don’t think this conversation can go any further.
By me I mean post it on your blog and I will probably read it :p
Jeremy, you seem to be determined to misunderstand the argument. The studies find a gradient of health effects related to the degree of control over ones life. The implication for Indigenous people is pretty clear – they are at the bottom of the control hierarchy, with LE’s to match. Taking action to reverse the history of Aboriginal people being subjugated to the will of others is a positive step. No one has even remotely suggested that “complete control” is what is called for. Obviously, such a thing is impossible for anyone.
Looking at the climb issue through the lens of control factor theory, it is quite clear how this may operate. Leaving aside the misunderstanding of this as mere “superstition”, the Anangu position is that they have obligations and rights in relation to their country, and to ensure that no one climbs Uluru is part of that obligation. To see thousands of people climbing the rock is a daily reminder that they are unable to fulfill an important obligation in their own backyard. This is a stessor in control factor theory. And in this instance it seems easy to argue that it’s a very significant one.
While you’ve been quick to dismiss this as mere assertion, I haven’t seen much of substance from you to support the contention that walking up as hill in CA is in fact a “right”. I’m quite familair with a range of rights, like the right to legal representation etc, which are fairly well accepted, but I can’t say I’m familiar with the specific reasoning behind this ‘right’.
“The implication for Indigenous people is pretty clear – they are at the bottom of the control hierarchy, with LE’s to match. Taking action to reverse the history of Aboriginal people being subjugated to the will of others is a positive step.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
“No one has even remotely suggested that “complete control” is what is called for.”
Nor have I ever mentioned “complete” control.
“To see thousands of people climbing the rock is a daily reminder that they are unable to fulfill an important obligation in their own backyard.”
Well, they need to pick aspects of their life to control that aren’t ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NATURAL WONDERS IN THE COUNTRY.
“I haven’t seen much of substance from you to support the contention that walking up as hill in CA is in fact a “right”.”
It’s certainly more a “right” than that of one group to issue directives about who can and can’t do what with regards to a natural wonder.
Just out of interest, who do you reckon should control Jerusalem? Since it’s spiritually vital to at least three different major religions. Are they each oppressing each other by not allowing the other religions to deny them access?
“That doesn’t mean that you get to have complete control over your life and exert that control over other people by taking away their rights. Which is what you’re saying the Anangu need in order to be healthy.”
You pretty clearly do say complete control Jeremy.
Oh and nawagadj what is going on with ntert?
http://ntert.wordpress.com/
Been too busy studying, but that is now over and there’ll be some updates soon!
“I agree wholeheartedly.” – J
But allowing Anangu to have control over access in their backyard is out of the question. The problem with this, is that this is what every special interest pleads. The miners, the pastoralists, even the recreational fisherman – ‘but “x” is really, really important to us, we can’t be denied access’. And the tourists – it’s really really important to us to climb Uluru. Soon, there’s not a lot left. And that’s been the histroical experience for Aboriginal people.
“Nor have I ever mentioned “complete” control.” – J.
It’s hard to keep track of multiple discussions, but yeah, you did,
” 5 July, 2010 at 11:29 pm – That doesn’t mean that you get to have complete control over your life … Which is what you’re saying the Anangu need in order to be healthy. Which is absurd.”
“Well, they need to pick aspects of their life to control that aren’t ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NATURAL WONDERS IN THE COUNTRY.” – J
Yes, how very inconvenient of them to pick this one thing. It’s like they set out to spite us.
Maybe if you think about this for a moment in terms of control you might see how wonderfully absurd a suggestion this is.
“It’s certainly more a “right” than that of one group to issue directives about who can and can’t do what with regards to a natural wonder.” – J
I think part of the problem with this is the very nebulous “natural wonder” phenomenon. The rights associated with free-hold title are pretty clear, though you seem to have strong, if unexplained, views about how there are some undefined ‘rights’ associated with the ‘natural wonder’. Could you explain this in more detail, as I really can’t understand what this means, or what the underlying principles might be.
“Just out of interest, who do you reckon should control Jerusalem?” – J
That’s pretty easy. Israel -WJ, Palestine – EJ. The UN already has a detailed plan drawn up to sort out access.
In U-K NP, it’s even easier. The free-hold title owners have a lease arrangement with the C’Wealth. Under the lease, the owners can request any alteration in rthe unning of the park. Closing the climb included. If accepted, this would be part of the park regulations that all visitors would accept upon entry.
“Under the lease, the owners can request any alteration in rthe unning of the park. “
And the Commonwealth Government, on behalf of all Australians, has the right – and responsibility – to decline any such request.
The point about a natural wonder of worldwide significance – and you can hardly deny that Uluru is one of if not the most important in the country – is that it should be there to be enjoyed by all people. No-one should have the right to exclude others from the GBR, or the Franklin, or the Grand Canyon, or Yellowstone, or Everest etc.
Governments can and should set rules for the management of those sites, to preserve them for future generations – but where access does not harm the site, it should not be denied. Certainly not to placate some religious or cultural group that seeks to exert control.
I am very sympathetic to the plight of indigenous Australians, and agree wholeheartedly that we as a country have treated them appallingly. We owe them a debt and we must help them overcome the difficulties into which we’ve placed them.
But that does not require locking up natural wonders that should belong to all of us.
To summarise:
This nonsense about Aboriginal people being somehow uniquely incapable of handling stress needs to stop. Human Beings all sufffer from stress from the loss of control, and to try to paint the Aboriginal people as somehow uniquely incapable of dealing with this universal human challenge is apalling paternalism.
Muslim fanatics could undoubtedly make the same claim about the mohammed cartoons, yet I assume few here would argue that their extreme mental anguish provides justification for pandering to their superstition. People need to just toughen up and accept that in a free country there will always be a significant population of people who completely ignore your religious beliefs.
What surprises me the most is that this is a premise that most here would usually agree with wholeheartedly yet, for some reason, an exception is made for the Aborigines. It’s almost as though, merely by virtue of their historical geography (or perhaps it’s our guilt?), an entire race of people are somehow removed from the progressive goals we espouse for the rest of our society.
I honestly don’t think that this approach is the right way to go. Consistent application of secular democratic principle across all races and cultures is the hallmark of a successful mulicultural society and we create only division when we allow a specific racial or cultural group control over an asset of national significance.
As Jeremy said – just ask the Israelis and Palestinians.
Jeremy
“You say that the only way of doing this is by giving them the power to deny people the right to climb the Rock”
No one said that it is the only way. We simply pointed out what the published literature says. That lack of control and stress is damaging to health and that climbing the rock reduces control and increases the stress of the TOs . It wouldn’t solve all health problems or probably make a huge difference at all, but it would help.
Mondo if you bothered to read or watch anything I posted most of the work was done on British Civil Servants. It has nothing to do with uniqueness of Indigenous Australians.
Put me in control or I will get sick. There is only one reasonable response to that kind of blackmail – a suggestion that you might feel better if you go fuck yourself.
I feel sickened every time someone asserts priority because their mental health can only be maintained at the expense of my freedom.
Put me in control or I will get sick.
A nice summary of the ridiculous argument that’s being peddled . . . .
mondo: Are you disputing the research and evidence?
Brave, given I’m betting the first time you’d ever heard about it was when it was mentioned here.
“Put me in control or I will get sick. There is only one reasonable response to that kind of blackmail – a suggestion that you might feel better if you go fuck yourself. ” – SB
It’s mainstream science.
The response to which has so far been abuse and stupidity.
Does anyone on the negative side have a single rational thing to say on a large body of scientific literature?
Even if it is ‘mainstream science’, it doesn’t follow that the personal freedoms of other people must be curtailed to pander to yet another class of victims that have been conveniently identified.
If the way people comprehend the world causes them to be ill, the first step should be to examine whether their perceptions are well founded. If it turns out that the thoughts that cause them so much grief are illogical or unreasonable then step one is to convince them to let go of the ideas that are doing so much damage to them.
Changing the world to conform to the belief systems of a particular group is antithetical to the human dignity of everybody else.
Your personal freedoms are not “being curtailed”, unless you are trying to argue that it’s an abuse to your personal freedoms to march onto someone’s land and do whatever you want to it.
For the final time: Australians do not own Uluru, the aboriginal community there does.
Confessions“Australians do not own Uluru, the aboriginal community there does.”
What you neglect to mention is that this bald statement as to ownership neglects the lease arrangements and the fact that climbing is permitted.
Well SB, I’ll give it to you that you at least tried…a bit.
Though you’ve misunderstood what the science has shown. It’s not about beliefs, the effect appears to be beyond conscious control or perception.
It’s interesting to note the trivialities that poor “human dignity” and “personal freedom” are being dragged in to defend. Stuart Mill might turn in his grave.
And the main “class of victims ” appear to be the climbers, against whom all manner of grave injustices would be committed if they were unable to climb Uluru.
Oi, why are my comments still in moderation?
I’m not even swearing at SB’s stupidity this time!
Nawagadj, the whole “please pander to my illness” approach is contemptible. It is the same as where a person claims to suffer psychological detriment if they can’t defend their family honour by killing someone.
Your claim that particular people will suffer if they do not control the rock is degrading to them. But more relevantly, if that is indeed the case, they should be prepared to suffer more when they make such claims as they will rightly come in for a fair amount of scorn and derision.
Sorry, SB, I’ll have to defer to the science over your perceptual preference for pandering.
Your claim that particular people will suffer if they do not control the rock is degrading to them.
I don’t think that is Nawagadj’s claim.
Actually it’s exactly Nawagadj’s claim:
The studies find a gradient of health effects related to the degree of control over ones life. The implication for Indigenous people is pretty clear – they are at the bottom of the control hierarchy, with LE’s to match.
In other words if you take away their control over the Rock then Aboriginal health will suffer.
It’s a pretty straightforward argument, even if it is unpersuasive to some of us in the present case.
You’re doing wonderful line in ignoring the nuance of complex matters mondo.
As I said – “related to the degree of control over ones life” – life generally covering a whole range of factors. As a scientific question, it’s hard to know how much a particular element contributes to the overall picture, but as I said, the implication is pretty clear.
Nagawadgj: “The studies find a gradient of health effects related to the degree of control over ones life. The implication for Indigenous people is pretty clear – they are at the bottom of the control hierarchy, with LE’s to match.”
SB: “Your claim that particular people will suffer if they do not control the rock is degrading to them.”
Sorry, not the same at all.
As far as I can tell the debate has moved from saying a health risk is ridiculous:
Jeremy // 5 July, 2010 at 6:04 pm
I don’t except the premise. How can my climbing the Rock harm anyone else’s health?
Jeremy // 5 July, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Your links assert, without evidence, the impossible.
To its plausible:
Jeremy // 5 July, 2010 at 11:29 pm
I have no doubt that having no control over your life etc would have health effects.
Just not in this case because its somehow different:
Jeremy // 5 July, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Because the suggestion is absurd. There’s evidence that being denied control over their own lives is harmful to Indigenous health. That’s not the same thing at all.
To agreeing that it could be happening with the TOs but because it is important to mainstream Australians the TOs need to just pick something else to believe. Essentially asking the TOs to stop being Aboriginal:
Jeremy // 6 July, 2010 at 12:35 am
“The implication for Indigenous people is pretty clear – they are at the bottom of the control hierarchy, with LE’s to match. Taking action to reverse the history of Aboriginal people being subjugated to the will of others is a positive step.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
“To see thousands of people climbing the rock is a daily reminder that they are unable to fulfill an important obligation in their own backyard.”
Well, they need to pick aspects of their life to control that aren’t ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NATURAL WONDERS IN THE COUNTRY.
Jeremy do you realise how insensitive that comment is? If people could simply pick and choose what to feel who to be wouldn’t that easily solve the whole gay marriage issue? Gay people should simply pick not to be gay. Problem solved.
I have been slightly creative with the cut and paste below, but these are all negative comments about TOs having control of Uluru with the context changed to opposition to gay marriage. I wonder how people on this thread would react to these comments if they were made like this in regard to gay marriage?
Because you know heterosexual marriage is the “default position”. “Reasons for gay marriage is not based on anything concrete” “so much as the cultural preferences of a small group of people”. Its really just people with “irrational belief systems”. Heterosexual marriage is for “rational and logical reasons” while gay marriage is only “quasi-religious beliefs”. “I can’t think of any other circumstance where so many Lefties would argue that the superstitious beliefs of a small handfull of” gay rights activists “should override the democratic wishes and basic freedoms of the rest of us”. Gay people “need to pick aspects of their life to control that aren’t” ONE OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF WESTERN CIVILISATION.
If people really did respect Indigenous people and their culture as they claim would such comments be acceptable?
If people really did respect Indigenous people and their culture would they wish to climb Uluru against their wishes when there is evidence that it harms their health?
“As far as I can tell the debate has moved from saying a health risk is ridiculous:
Jeremy // 5 July, 2010 at 6:04 pm
I don’t except the premise. How can my climbing the Rock harm anyone else’s health?
Jeremy // 5 July, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Your links assert, without evidence, the impossible.
To its plausible:
Jeremy // 5 July, 2010 at 11:29 pm
I have no doubt that having no control over your life etc would have health effects.”
No, it’s plausible that having no control over your life would have health effects. It’s not plausible that someone climbing Uluru would have health effects on someone else.
“Well, they need to pick aspects of their life to control that aren’t ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NATURAL WONDERS IN THE COUNTRY.
Jeremy do you realise how insensitive that comment is? If people could simply pick and choose what to feel who to be wouldn’t that easily solve the whole gay marriage issue? Gay people should simply pick not to be gay. Problem solved. “
That’s the stupidest, most offensive analogy I’ve ever heard. Gay people aren’t projecting their beliefs and desires on other people. The situations are fundamentally different.
Choosing not to demand control over something that should belong to all Australians is not even close to the same level as “choosing” to change your sexuality. It also has completely different effects on other people.
Gay people marrying other gay people affects NO-ONE BUT THEM. An indigenous community demanding control over a national treasure affects EVERYONE.
“Because you know heterosexual marriage is the “default position”. “
No it isn’t. The government not discriminating against people based on gender or sexuality is the “default position”. If there’s no good reason to discriminate (and there isn’t), that discrimination should be removed.
The rest of your lame attempt to mix up the two issues fails in a similar fashion. “Heterosexual marriage is for “rational and logical reasons” while gay marriage is only “quasi-religious beliefs”. doesn’t even make a tiny bit of sense.
The default position should always be people having the freedom to live their lives without other people telling them what they can and can’t do; rules should only be imposed when they’re for a good reason. Preserving the Rock from damage would be a good reason. Exerting one religious group’s control because they’ll make themselves sick if you don’t, is not.
“As far as I can tell the debate has moved from saying a health risk is ridiculous:
Jeremy // 5 July, 2010 at 6:04 pm
I don’t except the premise. How can my climbing the Rock harm anyone else’s health?
Jeremy // 5 July, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Your links assert, without evidence, the impossible.
To its plausible:
Jeremy // 5 July, 2010 at 11:29 pm
I have no doubt that having no control over your life etc would have health effects.”
No, it’s plausible that having no control over your life would have health effects. It’s not plausible that someone climbing Uluru would have health effects on someone else.
“Well, they need to pick aspects of their life to control that aren’t ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NATURAL WONDERS IN THE COUNTRY.
Jeremy do you realise how insensitive that comment is? If people could simply pick and choose what to feel who to be wouldn’t that easily solve the whole gay marriage issue? Gay people should simply pick not to be gay. Problem solved. “
That’s the stupidest, most offensive analogy I’ve ever heard. Gay people aren’t projecting their beliefs and desires on other people. They’re seeking to have the imposition of other people’s religious beliefs on them removed. The situations are fundamentally different.
Choosing not to demand control over something that should belong to all Australians is not even close to the same level as “choosing” to change your sexuality. It also has completely different effects on other people.
Gay people marrying other gay people affects NO-ONE BUT THEM. An indigenous community demanding control over a national treasure affects EVERYONE.
“Because you know heterosexual marriage is the “default position”.”
No it isn’t. The government not discriminating against people based on gender or sexuality is the “default position”. If there’s no good reason to discriminate (and there isn’t), that discrimination should be removed.
The rest of your lame attempt to mix up the two issues fails in a similar fashion. “Heterosexual marriage is for “rational and logical reasons” while gay marriage is only “quasi-religious beliefs”. doesn’t even make a tiny bit of sense.
The default position should always be people having the freedom to live their lives without other people telling them what they can and can’t do; rules should only be imposed when they’re for a good reason. Preserving the Rock from damage would be a good reason. Exerting one religious group’s control because they’ll make themselves sick if you don’t, is not.
Jeremy
I do not believe I am saying the things you are attributing to me.
For example
“That’s the stupidest, most offensive analogy I’ve ever heard. Gay people aren’t projecting their beliefs and desires on other people. The situations are fundamentally different.”
I never said gay people were projecting their beliefs as that is not my point. My point is about something that obviously cannot just be chosen. It is offensive to tell an Indigenous person that they just need to “pick” something else just as it is offensive to tell a gay person to pick not to be gay. While I think the argument is retarded myself, but I am sure there are plenty of people out there who think homosexuals wishing to marry are projecting their wishes onto a christian institution.
More than anything I am trying to point out the number of assumptions being made where the Indigenous point of view is subjugated to the mainstream. Where the default position encroaches on TOs rights to control their own land. Where comments have been made that are racist and no one seems to bat an eyelid.
“It’s not plausible that someone climbing Uluru would have health effects on someone else.” – J
On the science, it’s absolutely plausible. The Whitehall studies showed health outcome differences linked to only relatively minor differences in job status.
You might not like the implication, but a reference to science disputing this would be more persuasive than your feeling that it’s not plausible. Our feelings on what is or isn’t plausible tend to come off second best against science.
I have to say that I’ve been stunned by some of the arguments employed on this thread. Especially the one that has cropped up several times – that describes Indigenous people as just another religous or cultural group, to devalue their connection to land as just superstition affronting liberty.
Sad to say, the other place I’ve seen this is in Quadrant Magazine, where it’s long been the favoured vehicle to attack Aboriginal land rights.
I never thought I’d see it here.
You two are relentless. You just can’t see it.
There’s a huge difference between a gay or lesbian person rejecting the state telling him or her who they can love because of their gender, demanding to be treated equally, and someone projecting their “right” to control a national monument on everyone else.
I don’t agree that what you’ve presented as “science” justifies the conclusions you’ve drawn; that somebody should take over a unique natural wonder because they’ll make themselves sick if they don’t.
You can’t show a single way that someone climbing Uluru physically harms anyone else, because they simply don’t.
As for “that describes Indigenous people as just another religous or cultural group” – of course they are. They’re a group we as a country have treated historically very badly, and to whom we owe a great deal – but that’s not the same as saying they should have special exclusionary rights over something like Uluru.
To pretend that arguing that Uluru should be in public hands like the GBR or the Blue Mountains or the Franklin or any other national park is equivalent to denying indigenous Australians access to land in general, is flat-out disingenuous.
As for the “you’re just like Quadrant” – that’s a ridiculous misrepresentation of what we’ve argued.
Even if the thesis, that TOs need to control the rock to be healthy is true, that that proposition is irrelevant to who should control the park. If people have health issues they need to see a doctor, preferably not one of the voodoo doctors who wrote the MJA article linked to above.
If the “give me control or I’ll be sick” premise is right, then allowing control of the rock by a particular group will no doubt cause illness and injury to many other Australians who are thereby deprived of control.
Indigenous people as just another religous or cultural group, to devalue their connection to land as just superstition
Um – the Aborigines are a cultural group within Australia and their beliefs about connection to the land are based on supersition (like all religious or ‘spiritual’ beliefs are).
Why would you deny this Nawagadj? Is Aboriginal spirituality somehow fundamentally different to the religious and spiritual convictions of everyone else in this country?
Is Aboriginal spirituality somehow fundamentally different to the religious and spiritual convictions of everyone else in this country?
I would say nope. Which is why their culture should be respected the same as ours.
You can’t party in a graveyard.
You cant just wander around any old private property, regardless of how beautiful the scenery might be.
and Israel is allowed to dictate who has access to the holy sites of three religions (yet SB would never condemn their denial of this access to Muslims of course).
I asked the question before, but it’s STILL in moderation. What the hell is a “national monument”. It seems to me that a belief that some rock in the middle of the country is something that helps define your identity is a pretty wacko thing in itself.
What’s with you obsession with this rock Mondo and Jeremy?
And finally, can the rock be climbed without sticking metal polls in it and attaching a bunch of fencing and hand rails?
If not, shouldn’t this “natural wonder” be kept as natural as possible, e.g. – sans the metal shit all over it?
Oh fuck. I fucking buggered the close tag. lame.
What’s with your obsession with this rock Mondo and Jeremy?
Interesting question BT – and I’ll give you an honest answer. For me, the Rock represents the heart of Australia, which is my country (my land). I have long dreamed of standing on top of it and drinking in the landscape that surrounds me in every direction. I imagine it would be a rich (though very personal) spiritual experience for me as a proud and native Australian.
It sounds a bit dramatic I’m sure, but that’s the truth. This is my country and I would like the right to commune with its special places in whatever way I desire (within reason).
But the truth, of course, is that whether the Rock is important to me or not is completely irrelevant – this issue is about individual freedom. While we should accept the limiting of our freedoms in some circumstances (such as where behaviour has the potential to cause damage to others or presents a legitimate public safety concern) we should never do so just to pander to the superstitions of another group of people.
Any argument based on the premise that the cultural beliefs of one group should automatically be given primacy over everyone else’s should be treated with derision and contempt. Our society’s laws and rules should be both rational and secular, and should be justifiable without reference to either superstition or irrelevant claims of who was “here first”.
Somebody once said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Well, this is me being vigilant.
Jeremy
“There’s a huge difference between a gay or lesbian person rejecting the state telling him or her who they can love because of their gender, demanding to be treated equally, and someone projecting their “right” to control a national monument on everyone else.”
Not unless you view marriage as a cornerstone of society a monument of civilisation if you will. Apparently then the state is well within its right to deny one group for the benefit of another. A point I have made again and again, but you wilfully ignore is about the perspective and world view you are coming from. Hence what I said probably doesn’t go far enough say if it came from that ministries of fire mob, but just seems silly to the rest of us.
Saying “Well, they need to pick aspects of their life to control that aren’t ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NATURAL WONDERS IN THE COUNTRY.” is a racist thing to say. Quite frankly I am horrified someone who espouses to support Indigenous Australians would even say it.
Splatterbottm
“If the “give me control or I’ll be sick” premise is right, then allowing control of the rock by a particular group will no doubt cause illness and injury to many other Australians who are thereby deprived of control.”
This is kind of true, but if you actually bothered to read what I posted to you would realise that it is perception of control that matters. This is largely influenced by where you sit on the social gradient. As Indigenous people are at the bottom of that gradient lifting them up or helping them feel more in control does not have a negative impact on the rest of us. If anything the work done in The Spirit Level shows that if you can create a more equal society then even those at the top of the hierarchy do better. If we could improve Indigenous health and standing ALL Australians would probably be healthier.
Bah, it’s tag incompetence day!
Anyway, thanks for being honest Mondo, but I gotta say – sounds like just as much made up mumbo jumbo as some people accuse Aboriginal people of.
proud and native Australian.
Rock represents the heart of Australia
This is my country and I would like the right to commune with its special places in whatever way I desire
Um what? How do you “commune” with a rock Mondo? How does an island or a continent or any piece of land have a heart?
Dude, it’s just a rock in the middle of an island. All this crap Australia having a heart or “special places”,
and this proud identity you seem to place on yourself because you were born on this particular island is just as much a load of guff as any other cultural belief.
Except this culture of belonging to a nation and that somehow defining us as individuals is much more recent than any of the main religions and has come 10′s of thousands of years after Aboriginal people developed their culture.
Any argument based on the premise that the cultural beliefs of one group should automatically be given primacy over everyone else’s should be treated with derision and contempt.
Well it sounds like you want your silly belonging-to-a-nation-with-special-places culture given primacy over Aboriginal culture.
And if it we were going to say:
“ok, Uluru is special to everybody who lives on this particular island, regardless of whether they believe in nationhood”,
Do you think I should be able to drink in any of the natural beauty that private land owners have cut off around Sydney’s waterways with their big ass houses and private golf courses?
I personally prefer beaches and inlets and rivers etc to rocks. So is it acceptable to you that so much of that prime beauty is off limits to all other members of this nation?
Finally, your cultural belief throws you into the same groups as people like John Howard and Kevin Rudd and Rupert Murdoch, whilst putting cool people all over the world in other groups purely because they were born on different patches of land. Nationalism my friend is a strange belief system.
What Mondo said.
“Not unless you view marriage as a cornerstone of society a monument of civilisation if you will. Apparently then the state is well within its right to deny one group for the benefit of another. A point I have made again and again, but you wilfully ignore is about the perspective and world view you are coming from.”
We’re all coming from “a world view”.
How to reconcile them all? I suggest not preferencing one over another. Not giving one special rights over another. Not giving one the power to deny a reasonable form of access to a natural wonder to another.
“Saying “Well, they need to pick aspects of their life to control that aren’t ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NATURAL WONDERS IN THE COUNTRY.” is a racist thing to say. Quite frankly I am horrified someone who espouses to support Indigenous Australians would even say it.”
How is that “racist”? Where is that judging someone differently because of their race?
It would be more accurate to say that your position on this subject is racist – you are ascribing special importance, special rights to one religious/cultural group you would deny to others.
“What the hell is a “national monument”.”
Something of considerable national significance, that is important to the entire country.
“Well it sounds like you want your silly belonging-to-a-nation-with-special-places culture given primacy over Aboriginal culture.’
You mean the principle of government preserving national assets for the benefit of all the people?
In the absence of anyone yet providing the law which says Australians get to be tourists and visit monuments this becomes an argument between two cultural views. Your above principle (Not a Law) Jeremy is simply another cultural belief. While I am happy to let the TOs have their cultural views over ours on their own land others here are unhappy with that outcome. So what does the law say and what is in the actual lease?
———-
http://www.atns.net.au/agreement.asp?EntityID=526
Lessee’s Obligations
The DNPW agrees to pay all reasonable costs of and incidental to the preparation, registration and execution of the lease. It also agrees to pay all taxes and rates which may become due. Subject to the Plan of Management, the DNPW agrees to:
-promote and protect the interests of relevant Aboriginals;
-protect areas and things of significance to relevant Aboriginals;
-encourage the maintenance of the Aboriginal tradition;
-take all practicable steps to promote Aboriginal administration, management and control of the Park;
-establish and implement a training programme for Aboriginals in administration, management and control of the Park;
-engage as many Aboriginals as is practicable to provide services in the Park;
-utilise the traditional skills of Aboriginals in the management of the Park;
-promote among non-Aboriginal staff members and visitors to the Park, a knowledge and understanding and respect for the traditions, languages, culture, customs and skills of the traditional owners;
-encourage Aboriginal business and commercial enterprises within the Park;
-consult and liaise with the Land Council;
-provide equipment for the maintenance of roads;
-implement a licensing and induction scheme for tour operators in the Park in consultation with the Land Council and Aboriginal Association;
-permit officers of the Land Council to move freely in the park for the purpose performing statutory functions on behalf of the Land Council.
———-
Anyway there is a link to the actual lease on the above link. I read it reasonably carefully and while there is lots of stuff about the rights of the Anangu and a number of points that would justify closing the climb I didn’t actually see it state anywhere that there is a right for visitors to climb. The lease does call up a management plan (Link Below) however I fail to see anywhere in the management plan that gives people the right to climb. As far as I can tell it is only on the good wishes of the Anangu that they haven’t just demanded the climb be closed. I am no lawyer so maybe Jeremy needs to have a look, but it seems the Anangu would be well in their right to ask for it to be banned and under the lease it would have to be.
http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/publications/uluru/pubs/management-plan.pdf
If someone were to try to ban the climb, the Federal Government should, on behalf of all Australians, reacquire Uluru and make it a National Park again.
I have no truck with private ownership over natural wonders.
“I don’t agree that what you’ve presented as “science” justifies the conclusions you’ve drawn; that somebody should take over a unique natural wonder because they’ll make themselves sick if they don’t.” – J
And your basis for disagreeing with the “science” is…..your inference that’s it’s just our interpretation?? The health effects of psycho-social stressors is old news, even if it’s new to you.
I offered to give you links if that was what you required. I do so again.
“They’re a group we as a country have treated historically very badly, and to whom we owe a great deal – but that’s not the same as saying they should have special exclusionary rights over something like Uluru.” – J
The historical problem, one we are trying to avoid repeating, is that there have always been ‘special’ reasons why we must curtail Indigenous rights – whether it was because we couldn’t countenence Indigenous control over something like good grazing land, or something like good farming land, or well watered country, or populated areas, or mineral rich areas. There’s a generally been some ‘special’ reason being more important than Indigenous reasons. The trend has been so pervasive than I think it could be summed up as – our reasons are more important than yours. Land rights have been a welcome reverse, and one I’m reluctant to back-track on in the face of yet more ‘special’ reasons.
“As for the “you’re just like Quadrant” – that’s a ridiculous misrepresentation of what we’ve argued.” – J
I’m sorry to lay this charge, but the similiarity is so close it was like having flash-backs. If you like I’ll dig out some old Quadrants. They were very keen on this argument of Indigenous connection being just religious belief, that such superstition was out of place in the modern world, and that is was certainly no basis for determining Govt policy, ie land rights, at the expense of all other Australians.
If, on the other hand, you’re saying that no one has argued this way in this thread, I’ll happily trawl back through and requote the offensive passages.
“I offered to give you links if that was what you required. I do so again.”
By all means. Where is this “science” that makes indigenous health dependent on control of Uluru?
“whether it was because we couldn’t countenence Indigenous control over something like good grazing land, or something like good farming land, or well watered country, or populated areas, or mineral rich areas. “
That’s considerably different from what we’re talking about here:
1. that was the theft of indigenous land for private benefit; and
2. unlike Uluru, there were alternatives. In contrast, Uluru is unique.
“They were very keen on this argument of Indigenous connection being just religious belief, that such superstition was out of place in the modern world”
I didn’t say it was “out of place” – I certainly wouldn’t presume to tell anyone what religious or cultural beliefs to hold PROVIDED THAT THEY DON’T TAKE AWAY OTHERS’ RIGHTS. Just like I wouldn’t accept some hardline muslim/christian person saying that treating women in their family as second class citizens and taking away their freedoms was okay “because it’s his religious belief/cultural practice”, I don’t accept that spiritual theories about the Rock give someone the right to exert control over it. Believe what you will – but don’t force it on others.
As for Quadrant – you’re talking about a philosophy that doesn’t care what we’ve done to indigenous Australians, and doesn’t think we owe them any special efforts to try to redress the harm. That’s clearly not what anyone on this thread has argued.
“Um – the Aborigines are a cultural group within Australia and their beliefs about connection to the land are based on supersition (like all religious or ‘spiritual’ beliefs are).
Why would you deny this Nawagadj? Is Aboriginal spirituality somehow fundamentally different to the religious and spiritual convictions of everyone else in this country?” – mondo
Gobsmacked x 2.
Um – hell yeah. Which part of land rights and colonisation don’t you understand?
The entire premise of land lands is the pre-existing Indigenous attachment to land that was disrupted by European colonisation. Often deliberately and malicously so. This is the ‘original sin’ of Australia’s founding.
Just to be clear, I’ve no problem with calling Indigenous beliefs religion, or their ancestral spirits gods. But ‘just’ another religion!? Hell no. Fuck no. The connection is with precise geographical areas and sites. Geological formations are not just associated with spiritual events, but are in many cases the god itself. And Indigenous belief is tied in with that land and those sites – existing on it and performing rituals and ceremonies at those locations at certain times, and having specific responsibilities to guard/protect/ look after those areas.
So, they’re not ‘just’ another religious group. A catholic can go to mass in their local church, or the one in the next suburb, or town, or city or state or, even the next country. Tell me, where is the next alternative Uluru for Anangu?
Land rights have been a partial restitution/penance/apology for all the previous crimes against Indigenous people. A promise that we might stop fucking with them over their land. Dismissing this conection as just the superstitious mumbo-jumbo of a bunch of religious conservatives – I can’t believe I’m reading this here at my favourite lefty blog.
If you truly believe this argument, then there is little reason to support land rights.
I despair.
Jeremy your argument falls down on the simple fact that you have to take away Indigenous rights to fulfill your own preference. Once again you come back to two opposing beliefs.
This is why your comment “Well, they need to pick aspects of their life to control that aren’t ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NATURAL WONDERS IN THE COUNTRY.” is racist.
It presumes your own personal belief should be given priority over Indigenous Australians even though they are the ones acting within the law. You go so far to say if they are following the law that your personal preference should be given precedence over theirs and the law changed.
This is exactly what nawagadj is pointing out in the post above. There will always be something so special that it needs to be taken away. This is exactly what Colin Barnett is threatening it is exactly what happened in the link I posted about with the Claire Martin Government and Xtrata.
Even though your reason is one unique natural wonder there is always something so unique or worthwhile that somebody will argue we can’t let Indigenous people have it. If you truly support Indigenous rights it is the times when it requires a personal sacrifice that really counts. Otherwise you simply do it out of convenience.
“Jeremy your argument falls down on the simple fact that you have to take away Indigenous rights to fulfill your own preference.’
Actually, decline to grant them a ridiculously extreme “right” that is beyond anything that would ever be granted to any other Australian. Can you imagine someone being given control of the Great Barrier Reef?
“This is why your comment “Well, they need to pick aspects of their life to control that aren’t ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NATURAL WONDERS IN THE COUNTRY.” is racist.”
Um, I think we need a definition of what you mean by “racist”. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
“Even though your reason is one unique natural wonder there is always something so unique or worthwhile that somebody will argue we can’t let Indigenous people have it. “
I don’t think making Uluru a national park will open some crazy “floodgates” of out-of-control nationalparkism.
“Actually, decline to grant them a ridiculously extreme “right” that is beyond anything that would ever be granted to any other Australian. Can you imagine someone being given control of the Great Barrier Reef?”
The great barrier reef has not been part of someone’s home and belief system for 1000s of years so it is irrelevant.
—–
“Um, I think we need a definition of what you mean by “racist”. I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
If you bothered to read the next paragraph from the above quote there is already an explanation. As you already know racism doesn’t have to be explicit. It is the hidden kind, the one that parades as something reasonable that is the worst. But you know this already or else you wouldn’t be upset about laws that are applied equally to everyone, but just happen to target Indigenous Australians.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/06/03/council-bans-aboriginal-street-artists-racist-or-just-dumb/#comment-77284
—–
“I don’t think making Uluru a national park will open some crazy “floodgates” of out-of-control nationalparkism.”
I can only believe you are deliberately misrepresenting what nawagadj and I are saying. When you use the exact same arguments as mining companies, governments and right wing thinktanks to argue against land rights you validate those arguments. Just because in your case it is only Uluru you are talking about does not negate this fact. It’s the friends who stand by you when it is hard to do so not those who do it when convenient.
I understand the concept of implicit racism. I dispute that there is anything implicitly racist about consistently denying the right of any religious or cultural group to tell other people what to do.
gotta say – sounds like just as much made up mumbo jumbo as some people accuse Aboriginal people of.
It’s complete mumbo jumbo BT – I couldn’t agree more. It should have no meaning to you whatsoever.
As it so happens it is what I believe, but as I said it’s completely irrelevant to the point I’m making. All that matters is that I have my reasons for wanting to climb the rock, and I don’t see why those reasons should be superseded by the subjective reasons of another.
It’s not about me imposing my cultural beliefs on anyone – it’s about others not being able to impose theirs on me. If you can’t see the difference between those positions then I suggest you ask a gay person to explain why mardigras isn’t an attempt to impose homosexuality on straight people.
I recognise, of course, that the fact that the local TOs own the rock gives them increased rights – but that’s sort of the point. Granting ownership over such a significant national landmark was a mistake given that it limits the right of all Australians to enjoy it in whatever way we wish.
As you already know racism doesn’t have to be explicit. It is the hidden kind, the one that parades as something reasonable that is the worst.
Surely you’ve read this blog long enough to know that Jeremy’s not racist – have you read his posts about the apparent racism of Alice Springs town council??
I don’t see why it’s so difficult for you to accept that the ‘Rock for all Australians’ argument could be based on a premise other than racism.
“By all means. Where is this “science” that makes indigenous health dependent on control of Uluru?” – J
Crude mischaraterisation of others arguments doesn’t contribute much to the debate.
No one has made that claim, only that the science clearly links psycho-social factors with health outcomes and the evidence is strong that those at the lower end of the power /control continuum have poorer health, even when differences in income / education etc are controlled for.
The implications of this in regards to Indigenous health aren’t too hard to understand.
Here’s not a bad summary from ABC’s the health report.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s17549.htm
and a more recent paper exploring the mechanism,
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/106/21/2659
“That’s considerably different from what we’re talking about here:
1. that was the theft of indigenous land for private benefit; and
2. unlike Uluru, there were alternatives. In contrast, Uluru is unique.” – J
Isn’t the point of uniqueness exactly what you’re missing, but from the other perspective? All those other bits of land, they weren’t unique to us, we could have taken others, but were unique to the Aboriginal people who once lived on them. We managed to get rid of most of them, let’s not do the same to those who’ve, through very long struggle, managed to hold onto theirs.
“I didn’t say it was “out of place” – I certainly wouldn’t presume to tell anyone what religious or cultural beliefs to hold PROVIDED THAT THEY DON’T TAKE AWAY OTHERS’ RIGHTS” – J
Can you try explaining this ‘right’ to me again? I’m sure I’ve of never heard of it before.
I know you tried to explain it from the the ‘natural wonder’ perspective, but that too seems pretty vague and not really the kind of thing we think of when it comes ‘rights’. ‘Strong preference’, ‘burning desire’, are terms I’d readily concede, but a ‘right’.?
“As for Quadrant – you’re talking about a philosophy that doesn’t care what we’ve done to indigenous Australians, and doesn’t think we owe them any special efforts to try to redress the harm. That’s clearly not what anyone on this thread has argued.” – J
I’d agree that their general motivation is far less generous, but in the specifc case, the logic is identical, it’s just that the Quadrant brigade want it applied to Indigenous land rights broadly, where several people on this discussion are applying it with a single specific target in mind. Quite disturbing nevertheless.
“Granting ownership over such a significant national landmark was a mistake given that it limits the right of all Australians to enjoy it in whatever way we wish.” – mondo
One thing at least should be clear by now, is that you have absolutely no ‘right’ to enjoy it whatever way you wish, even with the climb open. There are a range of controls imposed by the parks regulations.
“No one has made that claim, only that the science clearly links psycho-social factors with health outcomes and the evidence is strong that those at the lower end of the power /control continuum have poorer health, even when differences in income / education etc are controlled for.
The implications of this in regards to Indigenous health aren’t too hard to understand. “
Well, of course. And no-one is disputing those factors. We’re disputing that they justify handing over one of Australia’s most significant natural wonders to a particular group and denying access to the community at large.
“Isn’t the point of uniqueness exactly what you’re missing, but from the other perspective? All those other bits of land, they weren’t unique to us, we could have taken others, but were unique to the Aboriginal people who once lived on them.”
Uluru isn’t like just some spot that’s important to someone – it’s important to everyone. It is unique. It is in a class of its own. There’s a reason it’s one of the iconic images for Australia around the world.
“Can you try explaining this ‘right’ to me again? I’m sure I’ve of never heard of it before.”
The right all people have to experience the wonders of this planet?
Are you saying if some religious or cultural group reckoned they had a connection with the Great Barrier Reef going back tens of thousands of years, and didn’t want us going out to look at it, you’d be happy with them being given the power to prevent us?
“The right all people have to experience the wonders of this planet?
Are you saying if some religious or cultural group reckoned they had a connection with the Great Barrier Reef going back tens of thousands of years, and didn’t want us going out to look at it, you’d be happy with them being given the power to prevent us?” – J
I guess this is where we struggle – the ‘natural wonder’ and ‘unique’ angles which suggest ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’.
Such considerations, while real and with some weight, fall far short of a right. The ‘unique’ claim is interesting too. At a trivial level every lump of rock is unique in that they’re not exactly alike. Uluru is certainly stunningly beautiful, but so are lots of other rocky outcrops. I think that the combination of natural beaty and cultural values is super-special, but even more reason to respect both aspects of the area.
Some of the unique angle seems to rest on the myth that’s it’s the largest rock in the world. It’s not. It’s not even the biggest rock in Oz.
By coincidence you actually can climb the biggest rock in Australia (and the world!) and it’s even with local Indigenous approval. It’s very pretty, glows red in the sunset, and is twice as big as Uluru, but you’ll have to go to WA to see it. Perahps in another 50 years Mt. Augustus will have put Uluru in the shade.
As for the GBR – it is already quite tightly controlled. There are plenty of things you can’t do. And yes, I’d be perfectly happy if I couldn’t look at some bits for specific cultural reasons.
And no one is stopping anyone from looking at Uluru.
Mondo I never said Jeremy was racist. I said and I still maintain that what Jeremy said about Indigenous people being able to just pick things to put significance in is a racist thing to say. An Indigenous person can no more pick and choose sacred sites than a homosexual can just choose to be heterosexual. To propose either of those things is offensive.
Jeremy if the great barrier reef was in a similar situation to Uluru I would be more than happy to enjoy it in a way that is culturally appropriate.
As it so happens it is what I believe
And as such you believe that your cultural positions are more important than theirs.
I’m not saying the government should ban climbing the rock BTW.
I’m just saying that you guys shouldn’t try and hide the fact that you want to climb the rock because your nationalism based culture is any less superstitious than Aboriginal culture, and as such, when two superstitious cultures are colliding – you determine yours to be more important.
Just own up to it man.
Also, what of the private ownership of so much of this nations great waterways. Is it cool with you guys that it’s not available to be shared with “all Australians”?
There are chain linked hand rails sticking out of this natural wonder. Again, shouldn’t it be kept as natural as possible?
Would you respect the wishes of the Cambodian people and not take photos in the Killing Fields? or do you think that if people want to take photos they should be allowed to?
Jeremy Uluru isn’t like just some spot that’s important to someone – it’s important to everyone
No it’s not. As Mondo and I are discussing, it’s important to YOU because of YOUR culture which is based on nationalism. Which is no less ridiculous than what you make Aboriginal culture out to be.
It’s of no importance to many people in Australia in fact.
“The right all people have to experience the wonders of this planet?”
Nobodies saying you cant experience Uluru. But ALL wonders of the planet have rules on how you can and cant experience them.
We’re disputing that they justify handing over one of Australia’s most significant natural wonders to a particular group and denying access to the community at large.
Should read We’re disputing that they justify handing BACK to the original owners, who never ceded ownership, but had ownership forcifully taken from them a piece of land that because of my own kooky cultural beliefs (which were developed relatively recently compared to their own beliefs), dictates I should find significant.
Furthermore I can only experience fully this piece of land in a certain way – which involves defacing it somewhat – because my kooky culture has an obsession with climbing shit
Quite disturbing nevertheless.
The disturbing thing to me is how quickly and easily you slip accusations of racism into an argument that is not based on a racial premise.
You’re no different to the neocons who so casually accuse every critic of Israel of anti-semitism, or the thug Mugabe who cries racism every time a non-African country criticises his greed.
A charge of racism from you appears to be little more than a cheap shield to help you dismiss the opposing argument without addressing its substance.
And as such you believe that your cultural positions are more important than theirs.
This is a nonsense strawman BT – I’ve now explained to you twice that the basis for my personal desire to climb the rock is irrelevant and not the premise of my argument. Yet you persist in pretending that it is.
There’s no reason to continue discussing this with you if you are unable to address the actual argument being made.
An Indigenous person can no more pick and choose sacred sites than a homosexual can just choose to be heterosexual.
More nonsense, this time from yuwalk. Religious belief is a choice – homosexuality is not. It is incredible to me that you would seek to equate the two.
You’re no different to the neocons who so casually accuse every critic of Israel of anti-semitism, or the thug Mugabe who cries racism every time a non-African country criticises his greed.
I think it’s a fair bit different Mondo.
Also there is a different between saying somebody is A racist and saying a persons point of view is racist.
Fact is, it is disturbing when people believe their cultural desires should be grounds enough to brush aside the wishes of another culture AND justify stealing their land back by force if they don’t accept it. Which is what Jeremy is kind of advocating.
And Mondo, when they said Somebody once said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
I don’t think they meant it to be applied to one of the most oppressed and marginalized people on the planet, but vigilant against those WITH power.
There’s no reason to continue discussing this with you if you are unable to address the actual argument being made.
This is the real argument.
It’s YOU and Jeremy that keep whining that Aboriginal cultural desires should have nothing to do with whether people can climb the rock or not – that they’re imposing their culture on you.
When in fact my point is very relevant, because it us YOU, Jeremy and every other Australian that want to be able to climb Uluru that trying to impose YOUR culture on Aboriginal people.
If you still feel that doesn’t address the real argument, then how about this:
That land belongs to the Anangu traditional owners and if you don’t like the rules they impose on access to THEIR land you can just such a fucking lemon.
Religious belief is a choice – homosexuality is not
Mondo, you’re wrong.
There is no scientific evidence to suggest this is the case with homosexuality.
Their shouldn’t even need to be a justification like “oh they’re born gay, so they cant help it” for people to do what they want with their own bodies.
“When in fact my point is very relevant, because it us YOU, Jeremy and every other Australian that want to be able to climb Uluru that trying to impose YOUR culture on Aboriginal people.”
That is the crux of it: you think that people climbing Uluru are “imposing their culture on aboriginal people”. The claim is frankly absurd. The only thing that climbing Uluru “imposes” is a a footprint on the rock. It is, frankly, nobody else’s business.
“That land belongs to the Anangu traditional owners and if you don’t like the rules they impose on access to THEIR land you can just such a fucking lemon.”
Not while they’re demanding our representatives accede to their demands I won’t. And I dispute that Uluru should ever have been “given” to any group in any form.
“Their shouldn’t even need to be a justification like “oh they’re born gay, so they cant help it” for people to do what they want with their own bodies.”
I agree with that. I’ve never understood why “what makes people gay” is such an issue – the point is that it’s nobody else’s right to tell someone who they can and can’t love.
That is the crux of it: you think that people climbing Uluru are “imposing their culture on aboriginal people”. The claim is frankly absurd. The only thing that climbing Uluru “imposes” is a a footprint on the rock. It is, frankly, nobody else’s business.
now THAT is absurd. Their culture dictates that they own and should control the land. your culture dictates that it belongs to all Australians. You are imposing your nationalism based culture on them.
Also, as I’ve mentioned a few times, it’s more than just a foot print involved. People shit, piss, spit and even fucking die on that trail. There is metal shit sticking out all over it and the track is clearly worn away. It’s hardly in it’s original state of natural beauty.
Not while they’re demanding our representatives accede to their demands I won’t. And I dispute that Uluru should ever have been “given” to any group in any form.
As i said before, that should be given back
So what you’re saying is, that if they don’t let you do whatever you want with their land, the government should forcefully disposses them again
Why not just declare the iron ore under their land belongs to “all Australians” and as such they should fuck off to the cities and live like us, so we can all enjoy the fruits of that ore?
I agree with that. I’ve never understood why “what makes people gay” is such an issue – the point is that it’s nobody else’s right to tell someone who they can and can’t love
Fuck you’re quick at the moment Jeremy, no sooner to I hit submit and BANG, another comment from Jeremy.
I hope you’re not spending your entire lunch break on this blog!
Anyway, good we can agree on a lot of things, but this ownership issue doesn’t seem like it’s going to be one of them.
Fact is, it is disturbing when people believe their cultural desires should be grounds enough to brush aside the wishes of another culture . . .
Hey – we’re back on the same page BT. That was a pretty good summary of the argument that both Jeremy and I have made. I’d only amend it slightly:
Fact is, it is disturbing when people believe their cultural desires should be grounds enough to brush aside the individual freedoms of the other members of their society
After all, asserting that the Rock should be free to all comers is not arguing a “cultural right” any more than asserting that we should be free to celebrate mardigras is arguing a cultural right.
It is not about culture, it is about individual freedom.
Religious conservatives may indeed find it disturbing, obscene and distressing to watch gay people dancing down Oxford street but they just need to get over it. Our society no longer accepts that their personal issues are a reasonable basis for restricting the freedom of the rest of us.
It’s odd that so many here accept that Australia’s rules should not pander to conservative Christian beliefs but argue passionately that our rules should pander to conservative Aboriginal beliefs.
Its such a clear double-standard.
“of the other members of their society” is the key point here.
It’s your culture that dictates that we’re all party of the same society.
It’s your culture that basically says “I’m Australian, they’re Australian, it’s an Australian monument that is unique to Australia, so every Australian has a right to interact with the Australian monument in their the method of their choosing”.
Not everybody believes in this garbage called nationalism, it’s a disgusting concept and they have every right to reject it and say “no, this is Anungu land, and whilst we’ll allow visitors from other societies onto our land , we retain the right to dictate what visitors can and cant do on our land”.
And why should they feel like we’re all one society? They’re having their land still stolen for mining, being treated like fucking infants by the government and can be murdered by members of the “justice system” without any sort of punishment.
They’re locked up for the smallest of misdemeanors whilst white football players can get away with rape and racists like John Howard have government pensions of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Until their legitimate grievances have been met, why the hell should they accept YOUR notion that they’re part of the same society as you???
And as I have repeatedly stated, climbing the rock DOES deface it, it does detract from it’s natural beauty.
Seriously, have you seen the track? It looks like Uluru has a fucking bikini line.
“Not everybody believes in this garbage called nationalism, it’s a disgusting concept and they have every right to reject it”
Actually, I also oppose nationalism, which is about excluding people.
My argument isn’t that Uluru should be for the benefit just of Australians, but all people.
You’re the one wanting to exclude people based on the beliefs of a particular group.
“They’re having their land still stolen for mining, being treated like fucking infants by the government and can be murdered by members of the “justice system” without any sort of punishment.
They’re locked up for the smallest of misdemeanors whilst white football players can get away with rape and racists like John Howard have government pensions of hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Well, yes – and those are the things we should be tackling. Handing over Uluru doesn’t make up for those things. It’s got nothing to do with them.
“And as I have repeatedly stated, climbing the rock DOES deface it, it does detract from it’s natural beauty.
Seriously, have you seen the track? It looks like Uluru has a fucking bikini line.”
That’s the strongest argument you’ve thus far put. Any links showing just how bad the impact of that line is? (And if we were debating putting the line in, that would be somewhat different to debating what we should do with it now it’s there.)
See here.
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200907/r397273_1861102.jpg
Google Uluru + climb. There’s plenty of pics. Some seem worse than others.
And you honestly think people will climb Uluru without spitting, pissing, shitting and even dieing on it?
My argument isn’t that Uluru should be for the benefit just of Australians, but all people.
That’s not how you phrased it originally I’m sure.
You’re the one wanting to exclude people based on the beliefs of a particular group.
You can’t just go onto anybodies land and do whatever you like.
I can’t go to your home and grind my muddy boots on your couch like I’m Rick James now can I? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUb06iLjTKA
So why should you be able to go onto their land and do whatever the hell you want whilst you’re their? And it IS their land.
Well, yes – and those are the things we should be tackling. Handing over Uluru doesn’t make up for those things. It’s got nothing to do with them.
Sure it does, you want people to feel a part of society and open up to others in that society? Well they should be able to feel like equals in that society first.
The land around Uluru has been leased to the Australian government. It is their call as to whether climbing should be allowed.
This debate seems to have effectively become an argument over the meaning of the word ‘cultural’.
I suppose it’s possible to describe a commitment to individual liberty as a ‘cultural belief’ (rather than simply a personal belief) and to therefore characterise it’s promotion as the promotion of a cultural viewpoint.
But if those are the boundaries within which you want to argue BT then you might want to consider the question of how our society should resolve cases of cultural dispute. Should the determinative factors include the level of religious conviction of one side (or even the ability to prove a long Australian ancestry), or should those factors play second fiddle to a more objective (i.e. secular) analysis of the societal merits of the competing claims?
Obviously we have opposing viewpoints on this question – I fall more on the secular ‘merit-based’ side and you would prefer our society make greater accommodation for the religious views of Aborigines – so I doubt we will find common ground.
I just hope that your apparent tolerance for laws that specifically pander to the religious views of one cultural group are applied consistently to other cultural groups.
Somehow, though, I suspect they are not.
I just hope that your apparent tolerance for laws that specifically pander to the religious views of one cultural group are applied consistently to other cultural groups.
Actually, i think it’s you that is inconsistent. Do you think that any piece of private property can just be trampled on by whoever?
Our society holds the right of private property to be sacrosanct however you feel you should be able to pick and choose WHO has a right to hold WHAT property, and determine whose rights to private property should be trampled for your own silly beliefs.
‘Our society holds the right of private property to be sacrosanct “
No it isn’t. Land is compulsorily reacquired for the public benefit all the time. This morning I see in the paper that some houses in western Melbourne will be bulldozed to widen a road for trucks.
Uluru WAS a national park, was subsequently (and wrongly) given to an indigenous group on the conditions that there would be a hundred years where it continued to in practice be a national park, and we’re saying that it should go back to officially and in other respects be a national park, for the benefit of all Australians.
It’s not the owners who are the issue here, it’s the specific piece of land in question.
To put it more simply for you Mondo, because your usual ability to grasp concepts seems to be failing you here.
If i decided to go fishing in Parramatta River, and the bank I sit on to do my fishing is part of say, Mr Jones property, does he have the right to tell me to get off his land? Or would that be encroaching on my individual liberty?
If i went to the beach and decided the best spot happened to be part of a beach side mansion owned by Mr Jones.
So I set up my umbrella, unroll my towel and Mr Jones comes along and tells me to get lost.
Is he curtailing my individual freedoms in doing so or does Mr Jones have a right to control his land?
was subsequently (and wrongly) given to an indigenous group
No Jeremy. It was returned to an indigenous group. There is a difference.
Just say my grandfather mugged your grandfather and stole his wallet.
Decades later I decide you should have the wallet, am i giving you a wallet? Or am I returning it?
No it isn’t. Land is compulsorily reacquired for the public benefit all the time. This morning I see in the paper that some houses in western Melbourne will be bulldozed to widen a road for trucks.
Was it called the Matlock Express Way?
Anyway, so what, Who decides what’s in the public interest? Certainly Aboriginal people don’t seem to have a say on that matter in this society.
And what public interest? We’re struggling with global warming but when business need better infrastructure to move their commodities around then they get it.
When the people of Melbourne need better public transport then the government doesn’t care.
That’s the interest of business Jeremy, not the interest of the general public.
The State government uses compulsory acquisition power to acquire harbour foreshore areas for public use, and has done so for more than a century. Obviously BT will be taking to the streets to protest this monumental injustice.
With Uluru, the bottom line is that it is part of a National Park and is administered accordingly under the terms of a long-term lease.
Pingback: Sorry, cultural freedom trumps religious control | An Onymous Lefty