Uluru climbing ban: Tourists scale sacred rock for final time

[Nearly Sane]

Irrelevant - the point is whether specific people can have a claim on a natural phenomenon such that it restricts the freedoms of others to enjoy that natural phenomenon.

How is it irrelevant? Isn't land a 'natural phenomenon'? Can't people who own land restrict the freedom of others to enjoy that 'natural phenomenon''?

[Udayana]

Nice diversionary tactic NS.

Can we check whether your views are consistent or you are promulgating double standards.

It is traditional Hindu belief that cows are sacred and to eat beef is a desecration of that sacredness.

Do you think therefore that:

1. Eating beef should be banned for everyone because Hindus consider the cow to be sacred.

2. That it is not possible to understand and respect the right of Hindus to consider the cow sacred, yet personally not to agree that the cow is sacred and to choose therefore to eat beef.

As if some Hindu beliefs were not even more of a diversionary tactic...

[Nearly Sane]

Nice diversionary tactic NS.

Can we check whether your views are consistent or you are promulgating double standards.

It is traditional Hindu belief that cows are sacred and to eat beef is a desecration of that sacredness.

Do you think therefore that:

1. Eating beef should be banned for everyone because Hindus consider the cow to be sacred.

2. That it is not possible to understand and respect the right of Hindus to consider the cow sacred, yet personally not to agree that the cow is sacred and to choose therefore to eat beef.

So asking about how you would deal with other beliefs is a diversion? Mmm that is a lovely shiny mirror you have there.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of-course trampling over other peoples heritage is racist.

It is a natural phenomenon - it existed for hundreds of millions of years before the Anangu people arrived and will likely be there for hundreds of millions of years more - long after they have gone. How on earth can it be considered the 'heritage' of a particular group of people.

[Udayana]

That is their tradition so a part of their heritage, and they have the power to decide (via the park board) whether climbing Uluru should be allowed or not.

There are other examples, eg. some areas in India being exploited for mining/minerals, where traditional beliefs have been overruled - to the economic detriment of the locals.

Let's take an example closer to home. The presence of Stonehenge in it's current location is a major impediment to traffic and the economic prosperity of the SW. Why can't it be dug up and moved to a museum somewhere suitable?

[Steve H]

How is it irrelevant? Isn't land a 'natural phenomenon'? Can't people who own land restrict the freedom of others to enjoy that 'natural phenomenon''?

You never heard of the mass trespasses in the Peak District in the 30s? You sound as though you're defending selfish landowners.

[Anchorman]

That is their tradition so a part of their heritage, and they have the power to decide (via the park board) whether climbing Uluru should be allowed or not. There are other examples, eg. some areas in India being exploited for mining/minerals, where traditional beliefs have been overruled - to the economic detriment of the locals. Let's take an example closer to home. The presence of Stonehenge in it's current location is a major impediment to traffic and the economic prosperity of the SW. Why can't it be dug up and moved to a museum somewhere suitable?

Hmmmm....no reason; after all, the temples of Abu Simbel in Egypt were taken down stone by stone to make way for the rising waters of the artificial lake Nasser, being repositioned on a site which still attracts the sun to the centre of the temple and illuminates 'Usermaatre-mery-Aumun , mery Horakhty' onthe anniversary of his assuming the double crown - just as it did on the day of its' completion. If the artefact is moved and causes no disturbance to the purpose for which it was (presumably) intended, then there's no issue... So; try moving Ularu, then......

[Roses]

I am not in favour of any sort of rock climbing, a very dangerous sport, which also puts the rescuers in danger!

[Steve H]

I am not in favour of any sort of rock climbing, a very dangerous sport, which also puts the rescuers in danger!

Why not give us the very short list of things you are in favour of or like, and have done?

[Nearly Sane]

You never heard of the mass trespasses in the Peak District in the 30s? You sound as though you're defending selfish landowners.

No, I'm saying that land owners generally have some rights, whether some or all of them are justified is a different argument. Can I refuse entry to my home? Is that just because it isn't a 'natural phenomenon'? Are you saying that the Anunga should have no say about what happens on Uluru?

[Steve H]

No, I'm saying that land owners generally have some rights, whether some or all of them are justified is a different argument. Can I refuse entry to my home? Is that just because it isn't a 'natural phenomenon'? Are you saying that the Anunga should have no say about what happens on Uluru?

No, but they shouldn't have absolute say either. I'm with the Prof: allow strictly limited numbers, in supervised groups.

[Nearly Sane]

No, but they shouldn't have absolute say either. I'm with the Prof: allow strictly limited numbers, in supervised groups.

So you will respect their views by ignoring them in a limited fashion?

[jeremyp]

No, it's whataboutery because you said you have seen worse things on the web. That is irrelevant to any charge of hypocrisy.

That was only by way of arguing that there are double standards in play.

The strawman was in putting something in a quote as if that was what was being argued on the thread. And in using that you implied that because there is insufficient recompense for the indigeneous people, that it doesn't matter if people climb Uluru.

You said it on the thread. If you don't want people to take issue with it and (shock, horror) quote it, then don't say it.

[Nearly Sane]

That was only by way of arguing that there are double standards in play.
You said it on the thread. If you don't want people to take issue with it and (shock, horror) quote it, then don't say it.

And by just saying, you have seen worse on the web, that isn't double standards, it's just saying some people say worse things - which is why it's whataboutery.

And the quote you made up was "We came here , stole your land and treated your ancestors like animals and discriminate severely against you, but hey, we'll stop climbing that rock anymore. Call it quits?" - since I didn't say that, and since it isn't a quote then it's a strawman.

[Steve H]

So you will respect their views by ignoring them in a limited fashion?

Sarcasm is not an argument.

[jeremyp]

Of-course trampling over other peoples heritage is racist.

I said the religious beliefs of the Anangu are false. Is that racist? Is it racist because I chose a deliberately provocative way of putting it? Can you tell me what language to express the opinion that a religion is false is acceptably non racist?

That is why the climb will be closed. I expect the Anangu already regard the myths as er... myths, but it doesn't mean they will be any happier to see tourists disrespect them.

So there is actually no reason whatsoever to stop people from climbing Uluru (excepting environmental damage).

[Nearly Sane]

Sarcasm is not an argument.

Neither is evasion

[Udayana]

I said the religious beliefs of the Anangu are false. Is that racist? Is it racist because I chose a deliberately provocative way of putting it? Can you tell me what language to express the opinion that a religion is false is acceptably non racist?

No, of-course arguing that the beliefs are false is not racist. Dismissing and ignoring their feelings is.

So there is actually no reason whatsoever to stop people from climbing Uluru (excepting environmental damage).

There is no reason to climb it either. This is about feelings and emotions not fact.

[jeremyp]

And by just saying, you have seen worse on the web, that isn't double standards, it's just saying some people say worse things - which is why it's whataboutery.

That's not true. I didn't say people say worse things on the web. Admittedly there were two typos in the post which might have confused you, but I've corrected them now, so you can go back and read it again.

And the quote you made up was "We came here , stole your land and treated your ancestors like animals and discriminate severely against you, but hey, we'll stop climbing that rock anymore. Call it quits?" - since I didn't say that, and since it isn't a quote then it's a strawman.

Jesus Christ. It should have been obvious, even to you, that it wasn't an actual quote of an actual person least of all you.

[ProfessorDavey]

That is their tradition so a part of their heritage, and they have the power to decide (via the park board) whether climbing Uluru should be allowed or not.

But it is just as much part of everyone's heritage as a major natural phenomenon of global importance and significance - that's why it is a world heritage site. What you are, in effect, saying is that the Anangu people should be able to claim exclusivity in heritage terms - I don't think that is right.

[jeremyp]

Here's something that we probably all should take into account.

I looked up who owns Uluru and it turns out that the Aṉangu own it. They've owned it since 1985. As owners, as far as I am concerned, they can do what they like with it. The only reason that people have been allowed to climb on the rock is that the government stitched them up with a 99 year lease as a condition of getting the rock back

[ProfessorDavey]

Here's something that we probably all should take into account.

I looked up who owns Uluru and it turns out that the Aṉangu own it. They've owned it since 1985. As owners, as far as I am concerned, they can do what they like with it. The only reason that people have been allowed to climb on the rock is that the government stitched them up with a 99 year lease as a condition of getting the rock back

Ownership was transferred to the people on the understanding that it is jointly managed with the National Parks and Wildlife agency. It is also a world heritage site, so regardless of ownership they most definitely cannot 'do what they like with it'.

[Udayana]

But it is just as much part of everyone's heritage as a major natural phenomenon of global importance and significance - that's why it is a world heritage site. What you are, in effect, saying is that the Anangu people should be able to claim exclusivity in heritage terms - I don't think that is right.

Not exclusivity, it is a shared heritage - implying that others feelings on it's use should be taken into account.

I was listening to World at One today, which had a piece on it: Even those taking the opportunity to climb it "for the last time" and including a descendent of Ayers, agreed that it is was right that the Anangu control access and stop climbing.

It doesn't need to be climbed to be appreciated and enjoyed.

[Gordon]

A piece of advice that appears frequently in the Foreign Office Travel Advice site is the importance of taking into account local cultural aspects: to me this is fundamentally what this issue is about, and respecting the beliefs of the indigenous people of Australia hasn't had a great history to date.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not exclusivity, it is a shared heritage - implying that others feelings on it's use should be taken into account.

Which would be consistent with carefully managed access, that would respect both the heritage as a sacred object to some people and a hugely important geological site to others. And you can't fully experience the rock merely by looking at it from a distance. To ban access, in reality implies the heritage isn't shared, but the sacred element believed by the few completely trumps the views of the many.