bgt wrote:

---

Cuppa remember it's a 2 way street. I'll accept any ones 'rights' provided they accept mine. I will not, however, be held to ransom or be responsible for what our great great relatives did in the past. We can only act on the 'now'. And the 'now' is not 'equal' for ALL Australians. And lecturing folks from a soap box isn't the way to reconcile differences.

---

 No it has never been 2 way street! A small step toward making it so, & people start to use language like being 'held to ransom'! Which of your 'rights' are threatened by these folk exercising their rights over their land?

-- Edited by Cuppa on Sunday 27th of September 2020 10:26:25 AM

bgt wrote:

---

Peter the problem with NPs is that if you take an image in a NP as a tourist and that image is then used by a club magazine for say a cover shot then it becomes 'commercial'. 

---

 Nope. It is not "commercial" if no money is paid.

I have had numerous pics published in magazines in that way. No different to publishing pics on this (commercial) web site.

Cheers,

Peter

bgt wrote:

---

Cuppa you won't be persuaded I understand that. But until ALL Australians are treated equally there will be disputes and those who wish to divide us more will never be happy.

---

 bgt, what will I not be persuaded about? The need for all Australians to be treated equally? (ie. Equitably? Fairly? Justly?). If that is what you suggest, I need no persuasion, I'm already there. I ask again "Which of your 'rights' are threatened by these folk exercising their rights over their land?"

dorian wrote:

---

The notion that anyone is permitted to do whatever they like with their land is wrong, both legally and morally. Legally one can't even scratch the topsoil until they have negotiated mountains of red and green tape. From a moral standpoint, I would denounce anyone's attempt to restrict access to what is, or should be, a public landmark, just as I detest the thought of privately owned beaches or lakes or rivers. Sure, the land originally belonged to the indigenous people, and no-one is more hateful of imperialism and colonialism than I. But thankfully those times are long gone. We should now be living in an egalitarian society where the natural wonders belong to us all. Let the indigenous people manage their land, but we should insist that they share it with all of us, in an unfettered way.

As for disallowing photography, that is just absurd. All I'm doing with my camera is capturing the energy of reflected photons -- I'm not damaging the property, or diminishing its "spiritual" value, whatever that may be. One has to draw a line, and for me, preventing someone from photographing nature, whether for commercial or private reasons, violates a basic human freedom. If nature isn't free, then what is? The aboriginal people didn't create the rock, that was nature's work. It's not like a pyramid or a ziggurat.

I tried to view this argument from all different perspectives. I asked myself, as an atheist, is there anything which I would view as a sacred site? Well, one immediate example is a cemetery, especially the one where my sister is buried. I treat all such places, including religious sites such as churches, with deference and respect, and I would hope that everyone else would do the same. But where does one draw the line when a handful of people lay claim to a natural wonder as their own personal monument? According to Wikipedia, "the local Aangu do not climb Uluru because of its great spiritual significance. They request that visitors do not climb the rock, partly due to the path crossing a sacred traditional Dreamtime track ..." I confess that I have a very difficult time understanding how crossing this track makes me a bad person, just as drawing a picture of Mohammed would in the minds of Muslims. I'm sure there are parallels in other religions, but where does it all end?

 

Another one ...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-28/lake-torrens-sacred-site-faces-exploratory-mining/12696750

-- Edited by dorian on Monday 28th of September 2020 10:25:37 AM

---

Very good points too Dorian. I must admit to now being torn between your point of view and Cuppa's, but I guess there's no real 'right' answer to this and many of society's other 'big' questions. But it's so good to see a respectful exchange of intelligent and informed views for once rather than the personal slanging matches that are so prevalent on the internet these days!  

dabbler wrote:

---

Their land, their decisions.

---

Do you say the same to the land owner who wants to clear-fell old growth forest?

Much of the discussion, which thankfully has returned to a rather more respectful 'playing the ball not the man' (thank you) essentially, in my view sidesteps the primary issue.

The primary issue, & far broader issue as I see it is the ongoing denial of aboriginal rights, fought for over decades in an alien legal system & won. As Dabbler suggests if anyone other than aboriginal peoples had achieved those legal wins, their may have been some whinging about the legal determinations, but by & large the determinations would be accepted. Yes I know there are always exceptions. However anything 'won' by aboriginal people in regard to them protecting what they have always viewed as important is always treated by a proportion of white Australian society as as an exception, to the extent that in the face of any legal or political support for the determinations many people continue to talk & act as though the determinations have never been made. This is almost unique to aboriginals in Australian culture (similar but less enduring for 'New Australians' & now refugees) who the critics love to proclaim have all sorts of advantages over the rest of the population, and it is this continued denial of their right to have rights & denial of their disadvantaged position in our community, which makes the situation so sad.

Worse is the constant blame bestowed upon them for their own misfortune. As Greg1 says "We should be looking instead at getting rid of poverty and sickness amongst those less fortunate be they black, white or brindle. Ethnicity should not be considered". How could any caring person not agree with that sentiment. But there are plenty who don't. And of course whilst a worthwhile goal, reaching a goal like that is far from simple. In our lifetime we have seen the position of women in our society become stronger & far more respected. Many would argue it has a way to go before gender equity exists, but it cannot be denied that the position of women in our society has changed, & I believe for the better. Women however began their fight for gender equity from a far higher & more advantaged position than Aboriginals in this country have ever been allowed to hold since the arrival of the white man. I suggest therefore that it makes sense to pack away the irrational fears of Aboriginal take over of the all the things we value, using this to play victim, when really we continue to be the aggressors, & to accept that there are significant steps which need to be taken - in meaningful, genuine & demonstrable ways, as an essential part of the journey to reaching the goal of equity for all, & in particular for aboriginal folk who in Australia continue currently to be treated in the most inequitable manner of all Australians. There are many steps along any path, but there are some huge steps still necessary for for this journey to begin, & every time whether here or anywhere that aboriginal rights are denied, dismissed, disrespected etc , it is evidence that change & assistance is required to get the journey on it's way.

So much time, money & energy has been wasted through colonising, patronising, genocidal approaches to 'the problem' & sometimes well meaning but ignorant approaches too. What has always been almost universally missing are two major steps. A genuine recognition of the harm wreaked by our forefathers & the attitudes which allowed this to happen, & that still remain today. No we cannot change what has happened, but we can change what we think about it & the way we think now. Attitudes displayed earlier in this thread are far from unique to folk here, they are common. Stand around just about any campfire with beer in hand, & it remains almost inevitable that sooner or later the abbo jokes & unpleasantness arise. It's a common way for many whitefellas to join together. Safe & on shared ground. So much so that many simply do not realise how truly nasty it is, & when pulled up deny the nastiness & dismiss it as 'just banter, or a joke'. But they wouldn't feel like that if they were the one always the butt of the banter or joke. These are attitudes which need to change & until they do - in a widespread & meaningful way, anyone suggesting what 'aboriginals should or should not do' is just blowing smoke. As just one person I do what I can .... & that is to speak up when I see what is wrong. If the result is I get attacked personally that's unfortunate, I don't like it, but I maintain my integrity which I wouldn't if I looked the other way. I'm not on a mission, I don't consider myself 'holier than thou' ..... I just believe in a fair go.

The second major step missing is the ability to cease telling aboriginal people what they should do & how they should do it. That they should be like us. We need to find ways to make space for a culture that most of us have little knowledge of, a space where having forced ourselves upon them in a parental- like role that we acknowledge that we have made a total **** up of that, & that we really dont know how to do the job, & instead supply them with the resources they need to make their own decisions & mistakes, whilst we stand by to assist & learn with them when invited. This has never occurred in any sort of consistent manner or in a context where our society's collective behaviour has enabled aboriginals & aboriginal history & culture to feel respected. Instead we have & do paint them as an undeserving minority whom we'd just as soon see die out. We should be better than that. We should recognise that they have much to teach us & that it is us who need to change & to learn to better tolerate & value difference.

Ok, I accept that this post can be accused of being 'preachy' - I'm sorry about that if that's how I sound. I really don't pretend for a moment to have solutions to such a protracted issue. I would just like for the commonly heard slurs which emerge wenever any aboriginal issue arises, especially among older age groups (of which I am part) to cease being 'acceptable'. The fact is that even the title of the thread served as a 'rallying call' & the anti aboriginal sentiments predictable. That is sad.

I'm not trying to single anyone out for 'special treatment' - the thread, sadly , is fairly 'run of the mill', & would have remained so if I or someone else had not 'spoken'.

I hope rather than trying to 'shout me down' that if you've bothered reading this far that you might simply try to understand what I have tried to express. I don't think this thread needs to become a long circular argument with anyone trying to prevail. Obviously it is not a venue to develop solutions. Just another opportunity to step back & reconsider personal attitudes & what small role each of us as individuals plays in perpetuating something which could be so much better.

-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 28th of September 2020 04:37:23 PM

iana wrote:

---

Why is this thread still going?

---

 I would have though the answer to that is obvious. Could you add anything more positive?

After some research, I found an interesting fact. It appears that the Anangu had no name for The Rock until Paddy Uluru began agitating for its return to indigenous ownership:

https://www.polylogzentrum.at/weltprojekt-der-berge/dokumentation/die-namen-der-berge/uluruayers-rock/

5. The Origin of the Name Uluru

To my knowledge, there is no traditional symbolic representation for Uluru itself. The monolith was named after a Yangkuntjatjara Aborigine, Paddy Uluru who began the movement by local indigenous groups to protect the sacred sites of the Rock. After many years of petitioning and struggle, he and his sons achieved the return of the land to the traditional custodians, and the Rock was passed to the Aboriginal Uluru -- Kata Tjuta Land Trust in 1985.

https://www.axonjournal.com.au/issue-vol-9-no-2-december-2019/knowing-and-unknowing-uluru

However, speaking and writing about Uluru poses another tricky problem. Even calling it Uluru, the way the non-Indigenous people like me call it, can be considered improper. It's the name of a deceased elder and hence to utter it is inappropriate. In his book, Hill decides to use the word 'the Rock' to describe the rock itself and also the 'country' around it.

. . .

The Anangu call it 'an Aboriginal place with much Aboriginal law (Ananguku ngura nyangatja, Anangu Tjukurpa tjutatjara)' (Visitor Guide 2012: 8). The important word in the phrase is 'place'. In calling it a place, the Anangu emphasise the lived nature of the space. By living for thousands of years, following their 'law', they have transformed the geographical space into place; a place they call home, their 'country.'

dorian wrote:

---

After some research, I found an interesting fact. It appears that the Anangu had no name for The Rock until Paddy Uluru began agitating for its return to indigenous ownership:

https://www.polylogzentrum.at/weltprojekt-der-berge/dokumentation/die-namen-der-berge/uluruayers-rock/

5. The Origin of the Name Uluru

 

To my knowledge, there is no traditional symbolic representation for Uluru itself. The monolith was named after a Yangkuntjatjara Aborigine, Paddy Uluru who began the movement by local indigenous groups to protect the sacred sites of the Rock. After many years of petitioning and struggle, he and his sons achieved the return of the land to the traditional custodians, and the Rock was passed to the Aboriginal Uluru -- Kata Tjuta Land Trust in 1985.

https://www.axonjournal.com.au/issue-vol-9-no-2-december-2019/knowing-and-unknowing-uluru

However, speaking and writing about Uluru poses another tricky problem. Even calling it Uluru, the way the non-Indigenous people like me call it, can be considered improper. It's the name of a deceased elder and hence to utter it is inappropriate. In his book, Hill decides to use the word 'the Rock' to describe the rock itself and also the 'country' around it.

. . .

The Anangu call it 'an Aboriginal place with much Aboriginal law (Ananguku ngura nyangatja, Anangu Tjukurpa tjutatjara)' (Visitor Guide 2012: 8). The important word in the phrase is 'place'. In calling it a place, the Anangu emphasise the lived nature of the space. By living for thousands of years, following their 'law', they have transformed the geographical space into place; a place they call home, their 'country.'

---

 Another interesting piece of history.  Two responses.

1. I think there are probably many instances of places being important but not having a name in Aborginal culture. A river deep in the Kimberley a friend told me about a couple of years ago being another. Accessible only on foot after a helicopter drop. The River has no name, not in English, nor in the local aboriginal language, but people still talk of it as the place where XYZ happened/happens. There was ancient rock art at several locations along it's banks.  Last year I came across a birthing place, it was obvious what I had found, but I very much doubt it would have had a name, rather it would have been 'the birthing place up in that gorge'.  The latter just my belief, the former from info gathered from the people of that country. Many names of places which do exist may well have been coined for us folk who wanted to know 'What is this called

2.Lack of a name of a place in our culture might imply lack of ownership, in much the same way that Terra Nullius gave 'legal right' for the taking of aboriginal land, but this would not be the case in Aboriginal culture, least of all because ownership of land is a western concept they have been forced to adopt to protect their country via our legal system.