Uluru climbing ban: Tourists scale sacred rock for final time

[Nearly Sane]

This just seems utterly crass



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50151344

[Gordon]

It is indeed crass and there are times and situations, like this one, when respecting the sensitivities of others demonstrates a more considered approach than is seen in this example of selfish indulgence by insisting on doing something that isn't, in itself, an important test of personal liberty. 

[ProfessorDavey]

It is indeed crass and there are times and situations, like this one, when respecting the sensitivities of others demonstrates a more considered approach than is seen in this example of selfish indulgence by insisting on doing something that isn't, in itself, an important test of personal liberty.

Are you suggesting you support the ban?

If so, I cannot agree. Certainly the rock itself needs to be preserved from damage from people climbing it and that may lead to imposing restrictions on numbers. But Uluru is a natural phenomenon - it isn't owned by the Anangu people, regardless of how sacred they may consider it to be. Certainly tourists wanting to climb the rock need to do so in a manner that respects the fact that some other people may consider it sacred. But I don't think that just because some people think the rock is sacred means they have the right to ban others (who don't think it sacred) from their own experience of what is a natural, not a man made, object. 

[Nearly Sane]

Are you suggesting you support the ban?

If so, I cannot agree. Certainly the rock itself needs to be preserved from damage from people climbing it and that may lead to imposing restrictions on numbers. But Uluru is a natural phenomenon - it isn't owned by the Anangu people, regardless of how sacred they may consider it to be. Certainly tourists wanting to climb the rock need to do so in a manner that respects the fact that some other people may consider it sacred. But I don't think that just because some people think the rock is sacred means they have the right to ban others (who don't think it sacred) from their own experience of what is a natural, not a man made, object.

How does one  'climb the rock ... in a manner that respects the fact that some other people may consider it sacred'?

[ProfessorDavey]

How does one  'climb the rock need to do so in a manner that respects the fact that some other people may consider it sacred'?

Well firstly by limiting the numbers and times when visitors are allowed to climb. And also by ensuring all people who climb do so as part of an organised team where they are required to participate in an education session before hand that would focus both on the geological history of the rock but also on its importance to the indigenous people.

[Nearly Sane]

Well firstly by limiting the numbers and times when visitors are allowed to climb. And also by ensuring all people who climb do so as part of an organised team where they are required to participate in an education session before hand that would focus both on the geological history of the rock but also on its importance to the indigenous people.

So the education session will say - it's important to the indigeneous people that you don't climb the rock but we can just respectfully ignore that.

[ProfessorDavey]

So the education session will say - it's important to the indigeneous people that you don't climb the rock but we can just respectfully ignore that.

Respect is a two way thing.

I simply don't see why everyone should be banned from experiencing Uluru (which is a natural phenomenon, around for millions of years before people) because some people consider it sacred.

[Nearly Sane]

Respect is a two way thing.

I simply don't see why everyone should be banned from experiencing Uluru (which is a natural phenomenon, around for millions of years before people) because some people consider it sacred.

But how is it showing respect if you say to someone, I respect you don't want me to climb this, but I'm going to do it so I expect you to respect that?

[Outrider]

Can I declare all of the pound coins sacred, and expect everyone to stop using them and let me decide how they get used?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

But how is it showing respect if you say to someone, I respect you don't want me to climb this, but I'm going to do it so I expect you to respect that?

It is about education and respecting the fact that another person may hold a different view to you - that doesn't extend to agreeing with that view.

There are many things that various religions may consider sacred - we can respect the right for those religious individuals to hold that view without either agreeing with it, nor altering our behaviour to align with their view.

So to take a different example - it is a traditional view in Hinduism that cows are sacred and therefore Hindus should not eat beef. I do not hold that view myself yet I can respect the rights of Hindus to hold that view themselves while also choosing to eat beef in accordance with my own views. The equivalent here would be that non Hindus should be banned from eating beef (banned from climbing Uluru) because Hindus consider the cow to be sacred (because the Anangu people consider the rock to be sacred).

[Nearly Sane]

It is about education and respecting the fact that another person may hold a different view to you - that doesn't extend to agreeing with that view.

There are many things that various religions may consider sacred - we can respect the right for those religious individuals to hold that view without either agreeing with it, nor altering our behaviour to align with their view.

So to take a different example - it is a traditional view in Hinduism that cows are sacred and therefore Hindus should not eat beef. I do not hold that view myself yet I can respect the rights of Hindus to hold that view themselves while also choosing to eat beef in accordance with my own views. The equivalent here would be that non Hindus should be banned from eating beef (banned from climbing Uluru) because Hindus consider the cow to be sacred (because the Anangu people consider the rock to be sacred).

Would you visit  St Peter's in flip flops and budgie smugglers?

[ProfessorDavey]

Would you visit  St Peter's in flip flops and budgie smugglers?

Not an equivalent example because:

1. We are talking about banning so the equivalent would be to ban people from visiting St Peters regardless of what they are wearing and

2. More importantly the RCC can make a claim on St Peters as they built and own it - Uluru is a natural phenomenon owned either by all or by on-one depending on your view. It is not a man made object that a certain people can have a special claim upon.

[Nearly Sane]

Not an equivalent example because:

1. We are talking about banning so the equivalent would be to ban people from visiting St Peters regardless of what they are wearing and

2. More importantly the RCC can make a claim on St Peters as they built and own it - Uluru is a natural phenomenon owned either by all or by on-one depending on your view. It is not a man made object that a certain people can have a special claim upon.

So people cannot own land?

[Gordon]

Are you suggesting you support the ban?

If so, I cannot agree. Certainly the rock itself needs to be preserved from damage from people climbing it and that may lead to imposing restrictions on numbers. But Uluru is a natural phenomenon - it isn't owned by the Anangu people, regardless of how sacred they may consider it to be. Certainly tourists wanting to climb the rock need to do so in a manner that respects the fact that some other people may consider it sacred. But I don't think that just because some people think the rock is sacred means they have the right to ban others (who don't think it sacred) from their own experience of what is a natural, not a man made, object.

I do, though it would be better if no ban was needed and that people would perhaps decide not to climb it given its cultural significance to others.

That it is natural and not constructed doesn't seen to lessen its cultural significance to the indigenous people, so in cultural terms climbing it seems to me about as insensitive as expecting to be able abseil down the front of Westminster Abbey just because you fancy doing so.

[jeremyp]

This just seems utterly crass



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50151344

What's crass? That people climb the rock or that modern people are held hostage to an ancient fairytale?

[Nearly Sane]

What's crass? That people climb the rock or that modern people are held hostage to an ancient fairytale?

I think using the term here 'held hostage' is crass. But in terms of people rushing to climb here just to get in before the ban is crass. Particular given the treatment of the indigeneous people in Australia through history.

[Udayana]

What's crass? That people climb the rock or that modern people are held hostage to an ancient fairytale?

Yeah, the white man always knows best - he holds the science stick and wants to wave it from the top of the rock.

[jeremyp]

I think using the term here 'held hostage' is crass.

I admit it was deliberately provocative but I smell double standards going on. Is it crass to claim that Christians are held hostage to an ancient myth? I see far more provocative examples than that all over the web.

But in terms of people rushing to climb here just to get in before the ban is crass. Particular given the treatment of the indigeneous people in Australia through history.

Actually it's kind of pathetic. "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?"

[jeremyp]

Yeah, the white man always knows best - he holds the science stick and wants to wave it from the top of the rock.

Oh come on. You don't actually believe those ancient myths that make the rock sacred do you?

Science is not the preserve of the white man. Anybody can do it. I expect some of the Anangu people do science. So stop playing the racist card.

[Nearly Sane]

I admit it was deliberately provocative but I smell double standards going on. Is it crass to claim that Christians are held hostage to an ancient myth? I see far moreprovocastive examples than that all over the web.
Actually it's kind of pathetic. "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?"

So a bit of whataboutery to start with. Followed by a strawman which then justifies worse behaviour on the basis that behaving better isn't perfect.

[jeremyp]

So a bit of whataboutery to start with.

Errr, no. I was calling out double standards. It's apparently OK to be critical of Christianity on the grounds that it is nonsense but apparently not of the Anangu.

Followed by a strawman which then justifies worse behaviour on the basis that behaving better isn't perfect.

What? What is the straw man? How does anything I wrote justify bad behaviour?

[ProfessorDavey]

So people cannot own land?

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Errr, no. I was calling out double standards. It's apparently OK to be critical of Christianity on the grounds that it is nonsense but apparently not of the Anangu.
What? What is the straw man? How does anything I wrote justify bad behaviour?

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


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.

[ProfessorDavey]

Would you visit  St Peter's in flip flops and budgie smugglers?

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.

[Udayana]

Oh come on. You don't actually believe those ancient myths that make the rock sacred do you?

Science is not the preserve of the white man. Anybody can do it. I expect some of the Anangu people do science. So stop playing the racist card.

Of-course trampling over other peoples heritage is 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.