Walking in areas of significance to Tradtional Owners

[photohiker]

Keeping off the grass signs?

Sorry, I have spent time with Aboriginals and no way we should trash their opinions or their ancestry. They have been in Australia way more than 200 years and deserve their respect.

[Mark F]

Michael _ I think you may have misconstrued my keep off the grass comment. I was trying to infer that most of us would obey that sign which has far less validity or moral authority than the views of the traditional owners of Uluru.

[photohiker]

Ok then.

[neilmny]

A "gentleman"on the radio this morning told his story of camping at "Ayres Rock"in the 1950's. The announcer politely proffered the name Uluru but he bluntly stated it was originally named AR. I find it hard to believe that Mr. Ayre was here before the traditional owners. He did say there was no one around for miles and they didn't climb it for safety reasons being such a remote place. I think the comment on no one around was meant to indicated no one wanted it then. I climbed it myself in the 70's, at the time having miniscule knowledge and resources to understand the significance of doing so. I would not consider climbing Uluru today.

[north-north-west]

1) The previous name was Ayers, not Ayres.

2) Sir Henry Ayers (after whom the rock was named by Gosse in 1873) never went there. He was a politician and sometime Premier of South Australia.

3) The Anangu literally and legally own the land. They have as much right to prohibit climbing - or any other sort of access - as we have to ban all and sundry from pitching a tent in our front yards.

4) Good. Like Neil, I climbed it way back before the land was returned to its traditional custodians, when I had no idea of their attitude to it. There's plenty to do there without climbing the thing. I hope they remove the chain, too.

[neilmny]

Rats I should have known NNW would be lurking and I knew I should have checked that spelling

[Mark F]

As I understand it, the only reason climbing has been allowed since the hand back to the Anangu people is that the area was leased back to the Commonwealth (give with one hand and take away with the other) and elements on the NT tourism industry kicked up a big stink about climbing being banned.

[north-north-west]

As I understand it, the only reason climbing has been allowed since the hand back to the Anangu people is that the area was leased back to the Commonwealth (give with one hand and take away with the other) and elements on the NT tourism industry kicked up a big stink about climbing being banned.

Yep. They were happy to lease it back as NP provided they had a degree of control, but very reluctant to agree to the climb being retained. The argument pushed through by the authorities was that there would be sod-all visitation if the climb was closed and, thus, virtually no income or employment for the local Anangu.

[puredingo]

Interesting to note a lot of the No-Climb supporters have already climbed the thing!....

[north-north-west]

Interesting to note a lot of the No-Climb supporters have already climbed the thing!....

Even with the limited knowledge and understanding I had back then, if I had known about the issue and local attitudes, I would not have climbed. Yes, from memory the views are interesting, but not good enough to justify the energy taken to get up there or (especially) the disrespect shown to the traditional custodians.

[stepbystep]

The way I see it, is that we are ALL, ALWAYS walking in areas of significance to the traditional custodians of this land. All aspects of country were, and are important to them. Their connection to country was formed by living with it for 60,000 years. I consider myself incredibly lucky to have had this realisation, and genuinely enjoy being mindful of that as I walk through it and attempt to learn more about it, and in my own way care for it, as a new age custodian, rrala milaythina-ti.

[neilmny]

Not a fan of like buttons but I could use one right now SBS.

[crollsurf]

As I understand it, many of the traditional owners didn't mind people climbing Uluru but some did. So banning climbing will keep everyone happy and it's not as if there are not other climbs in the region that offer similar vistas.

Changing the name to Uluru makes sense as well because it is a sacred site. The one thing that is not clear to me is that their "God" is the earth so in that respect, everywhere is sacred. I guess some places are just more sacred than others.

[north-north-west]

The one thing that is not clear to me is that their "God" is the earth so in that respect, everywhere is sacred. I guess some places are just more sacred than others.

It's not about degree but nature. The tjukurpa associated with Uluru is such that walking on it is a really bad thing. There are places where some people are OK, but not others, places where certain types of activity are OK, but not others, places where access by anyone is against their laws, places where it's pretty much open slather. It's an extremely complex cultural bloc.

[ofuros]

Being such an tourist magnet, I'm sure you could always hire a helicopter, plane or hot air balloon if you want a birds eye view of Uluru....

[crollsurf]

It's not about degree but nature. The tjukurpa associated with Uluru is such that walking on it is a really bad thing. There are places where some people are OK, but not others, places where certain types of activity are OK, but not others, places where access by anyone is against their laws, places where it's pretty much open slather. It's an extremely complex cultural bloc.

Yes, I knew that but forgot I read a book called "The Greatest Estate on Earth" that doesn't explicitly go into there belief system but there agricultural practices mesh nicely with what you say.

EDIT: "The Greatest Estate on Earth" I can recommend highly. A bit boring in places where the author goes on and on, validating his observations but totally dispels the idea that aborigines where hunter gathers. Might have looked like hunting and gathering to European settlers but was in fact harvesting. They worked and managed the land like any other farmer, just differently and more effectively to what was known in the European world. And this is why our National Parks should manage there Parks the same way. They have not inherited wilderness but cultivated lands.

[Hallu]

I came to Australia in 2011 and have known a lot of foreign students and workers. All of those who've been to Uluru refused to climb it once they heard it was forbidden, and passed on that knowledge to other people who wanted to go there : "you shouldn't climb it, it holds spiritual significance". The only person who climbed it that I know of is kind of a bogan, an Aussie, born and raised, with the 4x4, the fishing gear, pop-up trailer and all, who's not very fond of aboriginal people. His argument was most basic : "they won't tell me what I can and can't do". I don't know how many people thinking like that are left in Australia.

[north-north-west]

I don't know how many people thinking like that are left in Australia.

All too many.

[crollsurf]

I've read that about 2/3rd of people who climb Uluru are Australian. Didn't break them down by ethnic background or Bogan status. More than 80% of Japanese tourists also climb. I remember the Germans where also mentioned.

[LachlanB]

EDIT: "The Greatest Estate on Earth" I can recommend highly. A bit boring in places where the author goes on and on, validating his observations but totally dispels the idea that aborigines where hunter gathers. Might have looked like hunting and gathering to European settlers but was in fact harvesting. They worked and managed the land like any other farmer, just differently and more effectively to what was known in the European world. And this is why our National Parks should manage there Parks the same way. They have not inherited wilderness but cultivated lands.

Except that Bill Gammage tries to be both a scientist and a historian, and isn't particularly good at being either.

[Nuts]

Enough for his work to (help re-affirm the high court's Mabo decision and) further dispel the application of Terra nullius.
Traditional ownership, the pittance so ruled, has been accepted in all fairness and by a system we have a withering excuse not to comprehend.

[geoskid]

Enough for his work to (help re-affirm the high court's Mabo decision and) further dispel the application of Terra nullius.
Traditional ownership, the pittance so ruled, has been accepted in all fairness and by a system we have a withering excuse not to comprehend.

Fair dinkum. We all know now (or can know) that all peoples originated out of Africa and that no one particular individual can claim to have a greater connection to 'Country'. Let alone a person younger than me claiming a greater connection to country than me. SBS, please, mate. WT *$&# is a new age custodian. Really. Follow your thinking through. Think about the idea of ownership. We, and I, say ,I own my block of land that I built my Mudbrick house on. What It actually means is that I own the title to the block of land that I built my house on. When humans migrated out of Africa and eventually found themselves in a landscape that was amenable to flourishing, ownership was not in the thinking. If people want to talk about 'ownership', you can confidently disregard them as not being up to speed if this includes descendants that talk of rights beyond their right to live or die at the whim of the elements. Nobody has rights, unless agreed upon with other human beings.

[slparker]

Enough for his work to (help re-affirm the high court's Mabo decision and) further dispel the application of Terra nullius.
Traditional ownership, the pittance so ruled, has been accepted in all fairness and by a system we have a withering excuse not to comprehend.

Fair dinkum. We all know now (or can know) that all peoples originated out of Africa and that no one particular individual can claim to have a greater connection to 'Country'. Let alone a person younger than me claiming a greater connection to country than me. SBS, please, mate. WT *$&# is a new age custodian. Really. Follow your thinking through. Think about the idea of ownership. We, and I, say ,I own my block of land that I built my Mudbrick house on. What It actually means is that I own the title to the block of land that I built my house on. When humans migrated out of Africa and eventually found themselves in a landscape that was amenable to flourishing, ownership was not in the thinking. If people want to talk about 'ownership', you can confidently disregard them as not being up to speed if this includes descendants that talk of rights beyond their right to live or die at the whim of the elements. Nobody has rights, unless agreed upon with other human beings.

Because Indigenous people never ceded ownership of their land during the colonial period, Indigenous people still own the land. It has nothing to do with migration from Africa, anyone’s age or any other red herring; nor does it have anything to do with degree of 'Aboriginal blood,' whether modern Indigenous people drive motor cars or any other smoke and mirrors distraction.
That’s not opinion, that is the high court ruling.

If an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander wishes to apply for Native Title over their land there is a lengthy legal application process and, at the minimum, the group claiming ownership have to demonstrate a continued cultural connection to the land and descent from the original traditional owners. If successful, they have rights over that land - including access.

Freehold land is not,never was and never will be subject to Native Title claim, as every hysterical objection to this process in the last 30 years has borne out. Your mud brick house is safe.

It is 2017. None of this is new and you are completely out of order. Your opinion on 'ownership' is completely false. If you read any account of the colonial period, and any following description of how Indigenous people regard their land you will see as complete a description of 'ownership' as is possible. This is a reductio ad absurdum argument that seems to conclude that because Indigenous people didn’t have real estate agents and property deeds over their land they didn’t regard it as owned.

Your arguments are insular, incorrect and insulting to a section of population who stand to benefit by the self-determination that Native Title brings.

All houses in Australia sit within Indigenous nations, that’s what Mabo revealed.

[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. 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. The 'nations' concept is a construct by professional aborigines to give themselves a legitimacy as self appointed spokespeople for the aboriginal people that otherwise would not exist.

[north-north-west]

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. 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. The 'nations' concept is a construct by professional aborigines to give themselves a legitimacy as self appointed spokespeople for the aboriginal people that otherwise would not exist.

That does not de-legitimise their claim to the land nor their connection with it.

[peregrinator]

. . . a construct by professional aborigines . . .

Constructs imagined by professional and/or possibly not quite professional European settler colonialists are of course not designed to give legitimacy to anyone.

There were some deals that were considered commencing from 1788, but only one party to these had gunpowder.

[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? I have plenty of examples of the opposite. the Aboriginal people had, and still do have, an extensive protocol for managing access, use and movement across their land. When settlers arrived they often learnt or made use of these protocols which required negotiation with senior people of the clan or language group who certainly did have the authority to manage access. What's more, on lands under management by Indigenous people, elders and senior member still have the authority to grant access and also have "...the authority to make such a deal" - as the recent Uluru decision makes clear. They never ceded this authority to control their land. They are merely continuing to exercise an authority over their land that they have presumably practiced for generations, if not millennia.

The 'nations' concept is a construct by professional aborigines to give themselves a legitimacy as self appointed spokespeople for the aboriginal people that otherwise would not exist.

Yes, Aboriginal people now are asserting their rights and using terminology that people do not like but, as previously described, has been used since at least 1996 to describe their traditional lands.

"... for the aboriginal people that otherwise would not exist" that is the core of it. their 'legitimacy' to exist did not stop in 1788 - the High Court Mabo ruling explicitly paved the way for legal legitimacy for Indigenous Nations of Australia - in effect they never ceased to exist, so their legitimacy was never in question.
Whether you find them legitimate or not is irrelevant because they are legitimate to the Traditional Owners and they are legitimate in Australian law.

Climbing Uluru was once just offensive but in 2018 might be an offence under law. Presumably under the tort of trespass.

[Hallu]

There is no debate here. When you migrate to a land devoid of people, inhabit that land, don't abuse its resources, and teach to respect it, for thousands of years, it's yours. Anyway we're just talking about Uluru there. When you visit Monument Valley and realise some bits you can't visit, you don't tell the Navajos "hey are you sure this is your land ? Can we debate this ?". There are places I can't visit in France. Some are rock art caves like Lascaux, others are certain regilious buildings, some are nature reserves. It's fine...

[potato]

There is no debate here. When you migrate to a land devoid of people, inhabit that land, don't abuse its resources, and teach to respect it, for thousands of years, it's yours. Anyway we're just talking about Uluru there. When you visit Monument Valley and realise some bits you can't visit, you don't tell the Navajos "hey are you sure this is your land ? Can we debate this ?". There are places I can't visit in France. Some are rock art caves like Lascaux, others are certain regilious buildings, some are nature reserves. It's fine...

x2

[puredingo]

There is no debate here. When you migrate to a land devoid of people, inhabit that land, don't abuse its resources, and teach to respect it, for thousands of years, it's yours. Anyway we're just talking about Uluru there. When you visit Monument Valley and realise some bits you can't visit, you don't tell the Navajos "hey are you sure this is your land ? Can we debate this ?". There are places I can't visit in France. Some are rock art caves like Lascaux, others are certain regilious buildings, some are nature reserves. It's fine...

That sort of logic is easy enough to apply here on this continent but what about Europe or the other parts of the Americas...how far do you turn back the clock before you can lay claim to ownership of lands?

Imagine if one day they discover a race of people who pre-date the current Aboriginal and those people were driven into extinction...wouldn't that throw a few ownership spanners in the works? ( probably not, come to think of it)