Walking in areas of significance to Tradtional Owners

[Lindsay]

There is no such thing as an indigenous 'nation' in Australia. Aboriginal society was organised around loose groups of extended family, not a nation in the accepted sense.

All this means is that you don't accept or cannot conceive of what an Aboriginal nation might be. You appear to be confusing a nation with a nation-state. The definition of a nation is not monolithic and is not necessarily the same as a state. For example, the Kurdish Nation does not have its own state but it's people would define themselves as a nation.
Aboriginal Nations are defined along the criteria already accepted for Indian/Native American peoples. The word nation is an acceptable word to describe the traditional country of Indigenous people in Australia. This word has been used to define and delineate traditional Aboriginal lands since at least 1996. here is some explanatory material.
http://www.australia.gov.au/about-austr ... l-heritage

The first settlers were instructed to acquire land from the natives by trade or agreement, but could not find any individual or any formal structure within aboriginal society with the authority to make such a deal.

Do you have any examples of this that you can cite? ...... .

Instructions to Arthur Phillip from King George III
"You are to endeavour by every possible means to open an intercourse with the natives and to conciliate their affections........" Phillips instructions 25 April 1787
"I think it a great point gained if I can proceed in this business without having any dispute with the natives..." Phillips Journal Vol 1Pt 2 p53

[slparker]

There is no such thing as an indigenous 'nation' in Australia. Aboriginal society was organised around loose groups of extended family, not a nation in the accepted sense.

All this means is that you don't accept or cannot conceive of what an Aboriginal nation might be. You appear to be confusing a nation with a nation-state. The definition of a nation is not monolithic and is not necessarily the same as a state. For example, the Kurdish Nation does not have its own state but it's people would define themselves as a nation.
Aboriginal Nations are defined along the criteria already accepted for Indian/Native American peoples. The word nation is an acceptable word to describe the traditional country of Indigenous people in Australia. This word has been used to define and delineate traditional Aboriginal lands since at least 1996. here is some explanatory material.
http://www.australia.gov.au/about-austr ... l-heritage

The first settlers were instructed to acquire land from the natives by trade or agreement, but could not find any individual or any formal structure within aboriginal society with the authority to make such a deal.

Do you have any examples of this that you can cite? ...... .

Instructions to Arthur Phillip from King George III
"You are to endeavour by every possible means to open an intercourse with the natives and to conciliate their affections........" Phillips instructions 25 April 1787
"I think it a great point gained if I can proceed in this business without having any dispute with the natives..." Phillips Journal Vol 1Pt 2 p53

Do tou have any examples of your assertion: '...but could not find any individual or any formal structure within aboriginal society with the authority to make such a deal.'

[jdeks]

Thanks for the points, but I'm just seeing exactly the diversion I mentioned

Demanding access against the wishes of the owners and traditional custodians is also disrespectful....

My point is those very wishes are, themselves, disrespectful.

Firstly, inherent in them is a restriction of liberties of fellow Australians. Other laws do the same, but they have justification grounded in the common good. So whats the reason here?

The traditional justification for not climbing Uluru is instead grounded entirely in the same primitive tribal law that also justified arranged marriages with child brides (often consummated with rape), and punished homosexual behavior by spearing offenders in the legs.

Nobody talks about 'respecting' those wishes now, because they impinge on liberties we value and they have no logical justification in their own right. Yet people support restricting freedom of movement on ground leased to the public and managed by tax dollars, citing the importance of respecting the same creed?

So which superstitious cultural 'wishes' deserve enshrinement in law, and which don't? Do Adam and Eve now have a place in biology classes? Do we comply with the wishes of the church on same-sex marriage, out of 'respect for their wishes?

Once again, 'respect' seems to be a very selective and flexible notion - mainly because it's hard to make a case for it when the demand itself is pretty unjustifiable.

That is the idea behind affirmative action. It is not about privileging one group above another, but making up for (correcting) prior discrimination against them.

This ALSO has quite a few problems. Firstly, if we are really interested in correcting the imbalance, denying other Australians something for a symbolic point does absolutely nothing to address the actual deficiencies (health, education, employment) affecting indigenous communities. Which means this sort of affirmative action is NOT corrective, its compensatory. Biiig difference


Propping up practices that that don't stand up on their own merits, in the name of COMPENSATION for perceived imbalances elsewhere, is a really dangerous precedent. It endorses the principle that proposals are not to be judged by merit, and rights are not universal, but based on a per-determined notion of class-based entitlement. Social policy stops being about whats justified and fair, and becomes a bitter competition about who did what to whom. Those originally responsible are long gone, so those subjected to systemic inequality in the name of 'corrective equality' inevitably feel duped, on both sides.

History has proven time and time again, this ONLY creates further social conflict and broadens the social divide.

There is a daily ration of four biscuits for two people. One of those people has always taken three of the biscuits while the other gets one. This is privilege. In order to balance it, the person taking three has to take fewer so the other can get an equal share. It's not a difficult concept. Nor is it unfair on the person who used to take the most.

In short, your biscuit analogy is broken (forgive the pun). The biscuit thief is long gone, that was last saturday's tea party.Nobody at the table now wants any more than anyone else now. But demanding that you get decide who gets the orange creams won't make you any less hungry last week, and you can bet someone's going to feel jibbed and demand an extra bikkie next week to make up for it.


TL;DR?

the responses from advocates generally aim to shift or shut down the debate, usually with some derivative of 'You dont understand, you're privileged... two wrongs make a right.

[jdeks]

I understand where you're coming from Jdeks with the comments in the post above. But the thing is that it's not a zero sum equation- refraining from climbing Uluru does not lead to any negative outcome for non-Indigenous Australians.

It's not 'refraining', it's being locked out. That is a negative outcome, vs both current standards, and the standards applicable to the ones doing the locking.

Plus the important thing is that Indigenous Australians have suffered over 200 years of colonialism, and for many this colonial relationship continues. It is most certainly not water under the bridge. So in terms of achieving a social balance between Indigenous and non-Indigneous Australians, the balance need to come back a long way in favour of the former, and acts like respecting the wishes of the Traditional owners in non climbing Uluru are just one small part of achieving this.

More "Two Wrongs Make A Right" diversion. You talk about social balance (now we need another definition), but using MORE discrimination to fix the problems cause BY discrimination, only unbalances the situation further. See above regarding the dangers of compensatory action.

[slparker]

Thanks for the points, but I'm just seeing exactly the diversion I mentioned

Demanding access against the wishes of the owners and traditional custodians is also disrespectful....

My point is those very wishes are, themselves, disrespectful.

Aboriginal land is land for which Aboriginal people hold inalienable freehold title under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth). The title is similar to other freehold title but it may not be sold or transferred.

Do you similarly object when access is refused to other forms of freehold Land, your living room, for example?

Firstly, inherent in them is a restriction of liberties of fellow Australians. Other laws do the same, but they have justification grounded in the common good. So whats the reason here?
The traditional justification for not climbing Uluru is instead grounded entirely in the same primitive tribal law that also justified arranged marriages with child brides (often consummated with rape), and punished homosexual behavior by spearing offenders in the legs.

This is a strawman. In terms of Uluru, the Traditional Owners own the land so, technically, they can prohibit access to anyone because it is a form of Freehold Land. What Aboriginal peole practiced generations ago is no more relevant than the witch-burning to the Baptist Church in 2017.

So which superstitious cultural 'wishes' deserve enshrinement in law, and which don't? Do Adam and Eve now have a place in biology classes? Do we comply with the wishes of the church on same-sex marriage, out of 'respect for their wishes?

Religious freedoms are practiced in Australia and teaching in classrooms is a strawman argument. Cultural recognition of Aboriginal People, and their cultural practices, is subject to various acts of parliament. Most obviously the Native Title Act, which pretty much states that it is their land and htey can do what they like with it within the paramaters of Commowealth and State legislation. there is more:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work ... ion-rights
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publicat ... -peoples-1

Once again, 'respect' seems to be a very selective and flexible notion - mainly because it's hard to make a case for it when the demand itself is pretty unjustifiable.

I don't see a convincing case that non-Indigenous people have been disrespected. let us look back 200 years. No, still don't see it. Can you elaborate on that one?

That is the idea behind affirmative action. It is not about privileging one group above another, but making up for (correcting) prior discrimination against them.

This ALSO has quite a few problems. Firstly, if we are really interested in correcting the imbalance, denying other Australians something for a symbolic point does absolutely nothing to address the actual deficiencies (health, education, employment) affecting indigenous communities. Which means this sort of affirmative action is NOT corrective, its compensatory. Biiig difference

http://www.businessdisabilityinternatio ... -equality/

Last edited by slparker on Tue 07 Nov, 2017 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[jdeks]

there is a way around it ...[snip]

The Mabo determination allows the formal legal transfer of land back to Aboriginal people if they can prove ancestry and continued cultural connections - which is a formality because as far as Aboriginal people are concerned it is their land.
Aboriginal people can then determine what they do with it - within Commonwealth and State legislation.

sigh. " around " the issue is certainly where you're going.



We're not talking about privately owned and managed land. We're talking about land that has, under whatever arrangement, been handed back for management and use by the Commonwealth. All of the commonly-used comparisons with privately managed properties are fallacies of false analogy.

the responses from advocates generally aim to shift or shut down the debate, usually with some derivative of 'You dont understand, you're privileged/selfish/western/white/bogan, two wrongs make a right, even debating this is wrong, its 'their land', OMG it's just basic/obvious/respect'.

This is what I mean. Everyone in favor bends over backwards to excuse, skirt or distract that at its core, the argument is self-contradicting. Everyone talking about respect, nobody addressing how it can somehow mean two opposing things at once.

And some just trying to dress up facetious counter-questions to sidestep it.

[jdeks]

Aboriginal land is land for which Aboriginal people hold inalienable freehold title under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth). The title is similar to other freehold title but it may not be sold or transferred.

Do you similarly object when access is refused to other forms of freehold Land, your living room, for example?

This is a strawman. In terms of Uluru, the Traditional Owners own the land so, technically, they can prohibit access to anyone because it is a form of Freehold Land. What Aboriginal peole practiced generations ago is no more relevant than the witch-burning to the Baptist Church in 2017.

Religious freedoms are practiced in Australia and teaching in classrooms is a strawman argument. Cultural recognition of Aboriginal People, and their cultural practices, is subject to various acts of parliament. Most obviously the Native Title Act, which pretty much states that it is their land and htey can do what they like with it within the peramaters of Commowealth and State legislation.

I don't see a convincing case that non-Indigenous people have been disrespected. let us look back 200 years. No, still don't see it. Can you elaborate on that one?


http://www.businessdisabilityinternatio ... -equality/

I'm well aware of what the laws are champ.

My point is their justifications are as ethically inconsistent , diversionary and narrow-scope as the argument of the people supporting them (and that laughable link).

None of what you're bringing up here actually addresses these inconsistencies.

[slparker]

sigh. " around " the issue is certainly where you're going.



We're not talking about privately owned and managed land. We're talking about land that has, under whatever arrangement, been handed back for management and use by the Commonwealth. All of the commonly-used comparisons with privately managed properties are fallacies of false analogy.

Uluru is Freehold land owned by the Anungu people; hterefore it is privately owned land. It leased to the commonwealth but is subject to the terms of the lease which the Parks Australia is obliged to comply with. You will find the lease here:
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/f ... t-plan.pdf

Please tell us where the land has been 'handed back to the Commonwealth' this is incorrrect. It is clear that Uluru is Native Title, a form of unalienable Freehold Title. It is not Commonwealth land. The Commonwealth would have to revoke The Act or apply to the Federal Court for revocation to be deemed the owners of Uluru. You seem stuck on this point in which you are manifestly incorrect. Where is your evidence that this, or any other Native Title Act derived land, has been handed back to the Commonwealth?

the responses from advocates generally aim to shift or shut down the debate, usually with some derivative of 'You dont understand, you're privileged/selfish/western/white/bogan, two wrongs make a right, even debating this is wrong, its 'their land', OMG it's just basic/obvious/respect'.

How is the debate being shut down? In terms of Uluru you have made statements that are incorrect - which I have provided evidence to debunk. To date you have provided no evidence that your assertions are correct.

[slparker]

Aboriginal land is land for which Aboriginal people hold inalienable freehold title under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth). The title is similar to other freehold title but it may not be sold or transferred.

Do you similarly object when access is refused to other forms of freehold Land, your living room, for example?

This is a strawman. In terms of Uluru, the Traditional Owners own the land so, technically, they can prohibit access to anyone because it is a form of Freehold Land. What Aboriginal peole practiced generations ago is no more relevant than the witch-burning to the Baptist Church in 2017.

Religious freedoms are practiced in Australia and teaching in classrooms is a strawman argument. Cultural recognition of Aboriginal People, and their cultural practices, is subject to various acts of parliament. Most obviously the Native Title Act, which pretty much states that it is their land and htey can do what they like with it within the peramaters of Commowealth and State legislation.

I don't see a convincing case that non-Indigenous people have been disrespected. let us look back 200 years. No, still don't see it. Can you elaborate on that one?


http://www.businessdisabilityinternatio ... -equality/

I'm well aware of what the laws are champ.

My point is their justifications are as ethically inconsistent , diversionary and narrow-scope as the argument of the people supporting them (and that laughable link).

None of what you're bringing up here actually addresses these inconsistencies.

Well, if you are so familiar with the law please explain where they are inconsistent? Uluru is Freehold, which you were/now are aware. How is it inconsistent for the owners to restrict access to their land? Have you read the lease agreement between the Traditional Owners and Parks Australia? I have thoughtfully provided a link above.

[jdeks]

sigh. " around " the issue is certainly where you're going.



We're not talking about privately owned and managed land. We're talking about land that has, under whatever arrangement, been handed back for management and use by the Commonwealth. All of the commonly-used comparisons with privately managed properties are fallacies of false analogy.

Uluru is Freehold land leased to the commonwealth. It is subject to the terms of hte lease which you will find here:
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/f ... t-plan.pdf

Please tell us where the land has been 'handed back to the Commonwealth' this is incorrrect. It is clear that Uluru is Native Title, a form of unalienable Freehold Title. It is not Commonwealth land. The Commonwealth would have to revoke The Act or apply to the Federal Court for revocation to be deemed the owners of Uluru. You seem stuck on this point in which you are manifestly incorrect.


How is the debate being shut down? In terms of Uluru you have made statements that are incorrect - which I have provided evidence to debunk. To date you have provided no evidence that your assertions are correct.

The land has been leased back to the commonwealth. Before you start jumping up and down about the provisions in that lease, let me state very clearly again - my point is those provisions were/are poorly justified on inconsistent principles, with respect to restricting public access, to a land legally leased as a public national park, funded by public money.

You know this as well as I do, but you are selectively misinterpreting or de-contextualising my statements in order to "debunk" them, as you say. I'm not interested in this 'point-scoring' approach to discussion. You come across as panicked.

[Mark F]

I was trying to walk away from this acrimony but if you feel that "those provisions were/are poorly justified on inconsistent principles, with respect to restricting public access, to a land legally leased as a public national park, funded by public money." then the best way to address your issue is to bring a legal challenge to either the lease or the native title determination. As far I can tell you haven't articulated what the "poorly justified provisions and inconsistent principles" are other than I believe you consider the ban on climbing Uluru to be one of those provisions. Public access is denied to many areas of National Park across Australia for a wide range of reasons.

Edit - @jdeks- if you were walking the Larapinta Track would you insist on entering the various areas that walkers are asked not to visit?

[slparker]

sigh. " around " the issue is certainly where you're going.



We're not talking about privately owned and managed land. We're talking about land that has, under whatever arrangement, been handed back for management and use by the Commonwealth. All of the commonly-used comparisons with privately managed properties are fallacies of false analogy.

Uluru is Freehold land leased to the commonwealth. It is subject to the terms of hte lease which you will find here:
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/f ... t-plan.pdf

Please tell us where the land has been 'handed back to the Commonwealth' this is incorrrect. It is clear that Uluru is Native Title, a form of unalienable Freehold Title. It is not Commonwealth land. The Commonwealth would have to revoke The Act or apply to the Federal Court for revocation to be deemed the owners of Uluru. You seem stuck on this point in which you are manifestly incorrect.


How is the debate being shut down? In terms of Uluru you have made statements that are incorrect - which I have provided evidence to debunk. To date you have provided no evidence that your assertions are correct.

The land has been leased back to the commonwealth. Before you start jumping up and down about the provisions in that lease, let me state very clearly again - my point is those provisions were/are poorly justified on inconsistent principles, with respect to restricting public access, to a land legally leased as a public national park, funded by public money.

You know this as well as I do, but you are selectively misinterpreting or de-contextualising my statements in order to "debunk" them, as you say. I'm not interested in this 'point-scoring' approach to discussion. You come across as panicked.

If Uluru was public land, Parks Australia would still be obliged to restrict access for cultural reasons, because Parks Australia is obliged to operate under the EPBC Act (1999) and its obligations as signatories to the UN declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. So, every National Park in Australia is subject to restricted access under these provisions. Uluru is not unique.

Similarly, Crown Land is also subject to restriction, also under the respective Relics acts of each state and territory.

You still haven't demonstrated how this is in any way inconsistent...

[jdeks]

If Uluru was public land, Parks Australia would still be obliged to restrict access for cultural reasons, because Parks Australia is obliged to operate under the EPBC Act (1999) and its obligations as signatories to the UN declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. So, every National Park in Australia is subject to restricted access under these provisions. Uluru is not unique.

Similarly, Crown Land is also subject to restriction, also under the respective Relics acts of each state and territory.

You still haven't demonstrated how this is in any way inconsistent...

I have. Pages ago. But at this point in time it's quite clear that your incomprehension, deliberate or otherwise, is your problem. I'm quite certain any response I offer would not change your responses. Ergo, I wont bother.

I was trying to walk away from this acrimony but if you feel that "those provisions were/are poorly justified on inconsistent principles, with respect to restricting public access, to a land legally leased as a public national park, funded by public money." then the best way to address your issue is to bring a legal challenge to either the lease or the native title determination. As far I can tell you haven't articulated what the "poorly justified provisions and inconsistent principles" are other than I believe you consider the ban on climbing Uluru to be one of those provisions. Public access is denied to many areas of National Park across Australia for a wide range of reasons.

Edit - @jdeks- if you were walking the Larapinta Track would you insist on entering the various areas that walkers are asked not to visit?

Its a bushwalking forum so I've tended to avoid droning on with legislative specifics, but the most relevant provision currently is section 6.3.3 (c) of the Uluru-Kata Tjutu NPMP. My specific problems with it range from the total lack of specification on how they determine the numbers (essentially rendering the meaning to 'whenever we want'), to the overt statement that they intend to use the climb closure to work with tour companies to force people onto commercially-operated 'culture' tours.

But my primary problem is that nowhere in the document do they provide any sort of rationale or justification as to why this clause should even exist, save for the usual glib line about 'respecting the laws of the traditional owners'. As I outlined before, I think there are some major issues with blindly 'respecting' (or rather, enforcing) laws, solely because they're traditional.

Your point about legal channels to address this is valid. But there are two main obstacles. One - for all the talk about underprivileged indigenous, your average Australian has nowhere near the financial resources to mount such a challenge, compared to, say the Central Land Council. Two - There is a really, really strong discourse of political correctness that would target anyone seeking to even examine, let alone challenge, anything that could be construed as a matter of indigenous 'respect'. Hence why when the ILC acquired the Ayers Rock Resort in 2010 and $100m evaporated, there was no investigation. In fact, they got $65m extra as a bailout (and the resort is still struggling).

As you can probably see here, anyone who challenges the narrative of respect is typically met with fierce denouncement for even considering such a thing. Whether anyone can or is willing to face that...well, lets see where things stand in 2019.

And re Larapinta: I choose to typically keep personal arguments out of these discussion. But for the record - anywhere it's not explicitly illegal to go, I will typically go if I have an interest, with a few caveats.

[slparker]

If Uluru was public land, Parks Australia would still be obliged to restrict access for cultural reasons, because Parks Australia is obliged to operate under the EPBC Act (1999) and its obligations as signatories to the UN declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. So, every National Park in Australia is subject to restricted access under these provisions. Uluru is not unique.

Similarly, Crown Land is also subject to restriction, also under the respective Relics acts of each state and territory.

You still haven't demonstrated how this is in any way inconsistent...

I have. Pages ago. But at this point in time it's quite clear that your incomprehension, deliberate or otherwise, is your problem. I'm quite certain any response I offer would not change your responses. Ergo, I wont bother.

No i read them - the objections just don't make sense in the context of Uluru being private land. You seem to be raising objections to Native Title in general rather than that of the thread, or the matter of Uluru.

[Lindsay]

............


Do tou have any examples of your assertion: '...but could not find any individual or any formal structure within aboriginal society with the authority to make such a deal.'

There are no examples of Phillip or subsequent governors finding anyone to deal with who could speak for a whole community - because such people did not exist....hence there is no such thing as an Aboriginal 'nation', in spite of what todays professional aborigines would have us believe.

[slparker]

............


Do tou have any examples of your assertion: '...but could not find any individual or any formal structure within aboriginal society with the authority to make such a deal.'

There are no examples of Phillip or subsequent governors finding anyone to deal with who could speak for a whole community - because such people did not exist....hence there is no such thing as an Aboriginal 'nation', in spite of what todays professional aborigines would have us believe.

Really? I can give you plenty of examples of elders speaking on behalf of the community. Some as recent as this year, given that Aboriginal people didn’t disappear in 1788.

Since I can provide examples, what does that mean for your opinion that Aboriginal nations do not exist?

[Hallu]

Thanks for the points, but I'm just seeing exactly the diversion I mentioned

Demanding access against the wishes of the owners and traditional custodians is also disrespectful....

My point is those very wishes are, themselves, disrespectful.

Firstly, inherent in them is a restriction of liberties of fellow Australians. Other laws do the same, but they have justification grounded in the common good. So whats the reason here?

The traditional justification for not climbing Uluru is instead grounded entirely in the same primitive tribal law that also justified arranged marriages with child brides (often consummated with rape), and punished homosexual behavior by spearing offenders in the legs.

You jump to ridiculous conclusions with purposely disgusting evocations. So because of the crusades and the Spanish inquisition Catholicism should be banned ? Because of extremist terrorism Islam should be banned ? You're just like those people who say "they won't tell me what to do" except you try to reason it to death.

[jdeks]

Thanks for the points, but I'm just seeing exactly the diversion I mentioned
My point is those very wishes are, themselves, disrespectful.

Firstly, inherent in them is a restriction of liberties of fellow Australians. Other laws do the same, but they have justification grounded in the common good. So whats the reason here?

The traditional justification for not climbing Uluru is instead grounded entirely in the same primitive tribal law that also justified arranged marriages with child brides (often consummated with rape), and punished homosexual behavior by spearing offenders in the legs.

You jump to ridiculous conclusions with purposely disgusting evocations. So because of the crusades and the Spanish inquisition Catholicism should be banned ? Because of extremist terrorism Islam should be banned ? You're just like those people who say "they won't tell me what to do" except you try to reason it to death.

No. I never spoke of 'banning' anything, quite the opposite. You're the one advocating policies 'banning' other peoples freedom of access. You're deliberately taking bits out of context, and flying off the handle in an appeal to outrage

What I said was:

...
Nobody talks about 'respecting' those wishes now, because they impinge on liberties we value and they have no logical justification in their own right. Yet people support restricting freedom of movement on ground leased to the public and managed by tax dollars, citing the importance of respecting the same creed?

So which superstitious cultural 'wishes' deserve enshrinement in law, and which don't?

My point being just because something is a traditional indigenous law, doesn't mean it is necessarily a reasonable or equitable request. We hold other traditional wishes to contemporary scrutiny - why not reasons for closing public land access?

I don't know quite which stereotype youre referring to with "those people who say "they won't tell me what to do" ", but are your expectations that people should just do what they're told and never question it? At least when it comes to matters of your opinion?

[slparker]

Firstly, inherent in them is a restriction of liberties of fellow Australians. Other laws do the same, but they have justification grounded in the common good. So whats the reason here?

Can you give examples of where Australian citizens' liberties are restricted?
Let us examine them and we will see what a breach to human rights they actually are.

[Hallu]

Flying off the handle lol, mate you respond to EVERY reply bit by bit like a mental, you call people racist when they're not just to provoke and troll... No one can see your point anymore.

[jdeks]

Flying off the handle lol, mate you respond to EVERY reply bit by bit like a mental, you call people racist when they're not just to provoke and troll... No one can see your point anymore.

You seem upset. Maybe time to step away from the discussion for a bit?

[Lophophaps]

People, please keep the conversation pleasant.

Moderator.

[puredingo]

Talk about flexing your cyber muscle!!!

Lop enters the room and BAM!....the sound of silence.

[jdeks]

I think it was more the behavior of a few other individuals.

It's a pity, there was some decent discussion there briefly.

[Lophophaps]

A number of posts were and are of concern, hence my post. The options were and are a gentle public warning, a gentle private message warning, edit posts, remove posts, lock the thread and remove the thread. The easiest is first. I'm not singling out any individual, and no import should be taken from when I posted. It should be possible to disagree without being disagreeable, and most people do this. Also, dealing with the substance of the matter rather than the individual is best.

Apart from the above I'd like this discussion to continue. It's very interesting, and I've had to reconsider my views. This is what debate is about - making people think and persuading them to look at things in another light. Some people whose views I do not share have shown me new aspects of the matter, and I've learned from their posts, and most others for that matter.

Maybe the discussion could be continued with a summary of the For and Against in point form. There's been a lot of posts and a summary would focus on the key issues.

[slparker]

Good idea Lophophaps.

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

Not that everyone’s opinion isn’t valid, but I spent approximately two years working with Aboriginal people in the Kimberley.

I thought my views were balanced, and fair.

But in hindsight, I feel there’s no way these issues can be understood unless you’ve spent a long time with them.

That’s not to say I think I understand more now - in fact, the one thing I walked away with was knowing that I actually understand very, very little.

The discussion has been interesting, but I do dislike the nit-picking quote arguments that go around in circles.

I have climbed Uluru twice. Once as a very young child <5 - for which I take limited responsibility, and once as a first year uni student about 15 years ago for which, now I understand more, I’m pretty disgusted with myself.

Rather than waste time trying to explain to people vehemently opposed to the ban why I think they shouldn’t climb, I prefer to expend that effort encouraging them instead to do the base walk.

It’s a fantastic experience. Less strenuous, much longer, less dangerous, protects sacred sites from damage, yet immerses one in the culture of the past. It also gives great sense of scale which I found trumped the feeling of size and majesty from the top.

I don’t have to understand why they wish climbing it be banned. I’m not particularly interested to be frank. What I am excited about is being able to see it, walk around it, and try to understand just a fraction of its cultural significance and history.

It’s a national treasure.

[jdeks]

Rather than waste time trying to explain to people vehemently opposed to the ban why I think they shouldn’t climb, I prefer to expend that effort encouraging them instead to do the base walk.
...
I don’t have to understand why they wish climbing it be banned. I’m not particularly interested to be frank...

This is fair enough.You're well within your rights to take that attitude.

But what do you have to say to the people who've done both, and prefer the climb? What do you say to the people who are interested in the reasons for now being forcibly prevented from appreciating something in their own way?

If it's a "National Treasure", should not everyone in the nation have some right to it?

Last edited by jdeks on Sat 11 Nov, 2017 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

[peregrinator]

We tend to be a nation of manic consumers, which may in part explain why we have difficulty understanding the difference between the appreciation and the appropriation of things.