Uluru climbing ban: Tourists scale sacred rock for final time

[Nearly Sane]

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.
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.

In what way is  'I see far more provocative examples than that all over the web.' not the same as  'people say worse things on the web'?

And in what way is saying '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. ' not saying it's a quote?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

What is your shared heritage with the Anangu?

[Nearly Sane]

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'.

Your post drips with colonialism

[ProfessorDavey]

What is your shared heritage with the Anangu?

I'm talking about shared heritage with Uluru, not with the Anangu. The same as it is with other major natural sites across the world, be it Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Giants Causeway, Great Barrier Reef etc. These aren't sites that 'belong' to any of us in heritage terms - they belong to all of us, hence they are world heritage sites.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your post drips with colonialism

My post was entirely factual, not opinion - I'm not sure how 'fact' can be dripping with colonialism.

[Nearly Sane]

My post was entirely factual, not opinion - I'm not sure how 'fact' can be dripping with colonialism.

Because you see it as reasonable to control the Anangu with law - enforced from a position of strength - definition of colonialism, ild boy.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm talking about shared heritage with Uluru, not with the Anangu. The same as it is with other major natural sites across the world, be it Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Giants Causeway, Great Barrier Reef etc. These aren't sites that 'belong' to any of us in heritage terms - they belong to all of us, hence they are world heritage sites.

You have shared heritage with a rock? How does that work? Yes, the sites belong to the white people who stole the land, of course, massa!

[ProfessorDavey]

Because you see it as reasonable to control the Anangu with law - enforced from a position of strength - definition of colonialism, ild boy.

remind me where I expressed an opinion on the position regarding management of Uluru in reply46 - Oh I'll save you the bother - I didn't.

I simply provide factual information about the conditions of the transfer of ownership (that it was jointly managed) and that as a world heritage site there are strict restrictions on what you can and cannot do with the site - again that is an entirely factual statement.

[ad_orientem]

I see! This is about Ayers Rock. What is this modern fad of having to refer to everything by its native name?

[Nearly Sane]

remind me where I expressed an opinion on the position regarding management of Uluru in reply46 - Oh I'll save you the bother - I didn't.

I simply provide factual information about the conditions of the transfer of ownership (that it was jointly managed) and that as a world heritage site there are strict restrictions on what you can and cannot do with the site - again that is an entirely factual statement.

And you derived a big old ought from that is by deciding it was a fair thing and that Anangu were just a bit too not white to be given ownership in reality. You probably think offering them a few shiny beads makes it all 'shared heritage".

[Nearly Sane]

I see! This is about Ayers Rock. What is this modern fad of having to refer to everything by its native name?

Because most of us think stealing is wrong.

[Roses]

Because most of us think stealing is wrong.

Agreed.

[ProfessorDavey]

I see! This is about Ayers Rock. What is this modern fad of having to refer to everything by its native name?

Careful now AO - NS will be after you in a flash for your colonial soaked language.

Interestingly I gather that the official nomenclature is dual naming with Uluru first - so it should officially be referred to as Uluru/Ayres Rock - not that any of us have done that on this thread. And before NS jumps on me again for being dripped in colonialism, again all I am doing is providing factual information.

[Nearly Sane]

Careful now AO - NS will be after you in a flash for your colonial soaked language.

Interestingly I gather that the official nomenclature is dual naming with Uluru first - so it should officially be referred to as Uluru/Ayres Rock - not that any of us have done that on this thread. And before NS jumps on me again for being dripped in colonialism, again all I am doing is providing factual information.

And through the thread have been arguing about what ought to be the case. You can't then use a legal statement to justify a jump from the is to the ought as you have tried. Though to be fair that is a tradition of white male colonialism.

[ad_orientem]

Because most of us think stealing is wrong.

Ok. From here on I insist that nobody refer to country I live in as Finland, but rather Suomi.

[Nearly Sane]

Ok. From here on I insist that nobody refer to country I live in as Finland, but rather Suomi.

Ok

[ad_orientem]

Careful now AO - NS will be after you in a flash for your colonial soaked language.

Interestingly I gather that the official nomenclature is dual naming with Uluru first - so it should officially be referred to as Uluru/Ayres Rock - not that any of us have done that on this thread. And before NS jumps on me again for being dripped in colonialism, again all I am doing is providing factual information.

[ProfessorDavey]

And through the thread have been arguing about what ought to be the case. You can't then use a legal statement to justify a jump from the is to the ought as you have tried. Though to be fair that is a tradition of white male colonialism.

Non-sense - my comment about the factual basis of management etc of Uluru was in response to Jeremy P's opinion that they 'can do what they like with it'. That is factually incorrect. None of that is specifically linked to my opinion on access - which is different.

And I see no reason why believing that the rights of those who believe that Uluru is sacred and those who do not believe that and wish to experience the rock should be carefully balanced can be considered colonial.

I would think the same if Welsh druids wanted to ban people from climbing Yr Wyddfa on the basis of considering it sacred, or the DUP wanting to ban visitors to the Giants Causeway on the basis that it is sacred to unionism as the rock formation extends under the sea to Fingal's Cave in Scotland (second example is tongue in cheek).

And the designation of world heritage site comes from UNECSO which has 193 member states, very much dominated by the developing world countries - so hardly a hot bed of colonial sentiment.

[Nearly Sane]

Non-sense - my comment about the factual basis of management etc of Uluru was in response to Jeremy P's opinion that they 'can do what they like with it'. That is factually incorrect. None of that is specifically linked to my opinion on access - which is different.

And I see no reason why believing that the rights of those who believe that Uluru is sacred and those who do not believe that and wish to experience the rock should be carefully balanced can be considered colonial.

I would think the same if Welsh druids wanted to ban people from climbing Yr Wyddfa on the basis of considering it sacred, or the DUP wanting to ban visitors to the Giants Causeway on the basis that it is sacred to unionism as the rock formation extends under the sea to Fingal's Cave in Scotland (second example is tongue in cheek).

And the designation of world heritage site comes from UNECSO which has 193 member states, very much dominated by the developing world countries - so hardly a hot bed of colonial sentiment.

Yes let's just ignore the asymmetry of power because we like owning things that we stole and murdered for.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes let's just ignore the asymmetry of power because we like owning things that we stole and murdered for.

Which is completely irrelevant to the point being made. Indeed the exact opposite of my views as I was clear that in my mind significant physical natural phenomena (whether Uluru, Great Barrier Reef, Grant Canyon, Giants Causeway etc) are, in a moral sense, owned by none of us - we are merely, at best, temporary custodians of their importance.

[Nearly Sane]

Which is completely irrelevant to the point being made. Indeed the exact opposite of my views as I was clear that in my mind significant physical natural phenomena (whether Uluru, Great Barrier Reef, Grant Canyon, Giants Causeway etc) are, in a moral sense, owned by none of us - we are merely, at best, temporary custodians of their importance.

But free to ignore the wishes of the people we murdered and stole from because YOLO.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes let's just ignore the asymmetry of power because we like owning things that we stole and murdered for.

By the way you are still studiously refusing to answer my questions about the entirety analogous situation of Hindus considering cows to be sacred. I have to presume that, in the interests of consistency, that their belief in the sacredness of cows means we should all be banned from eating beef.

[Nearly Sane]

By the way you are still studiously refusing to answer my questions about the entirety analogous situation of Hindus considering cows to be sacred. I have to presume that, in the interests of consistency, that their belief in the sacredness of cows means we should all be banned from eating beef.

See reply #27 covering your hypocrisy on this. And as for being entirely analogous, it isn't - consider fungibility.

[ProfessorDavey]

But free to ignore the wishes of the people we murdered and stole from because YOLO.

Would you like to actually address the issue please rather than making rather offensive and inaccurate comments.

Where have I ever said we should ignore their views and wishes - I haven't. I think their views and wishes are not the only ones that need to be considered in respect of access to Uluru as the rock is also hugely significant as a natural physical phenomenon as well as being considered to be a sacred site by others. Both of those sets of views need to be considered - neither should trump the other and demand exclusivity.

[Nearly Sane]

Would you like to actually address the issue please rather than making rather offensive and inaccurate comments.

Where have I ever said we should ignore their views and wishes - I haven't. I think their views and wishes are not the only ones that need to be considered in respect of access to Uluru as the rock is also hugely significant as a natural physical phenomenon as well as being considered to be a sacred site by others. Both of those sets of views need to be considered - neither should trump the other and demand exclusivity.

We'll listen to your concerns and then ignore them because Tamsin wants a selfie.