https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50151344
I always thought there is a ban to scale the sacred rock. I can only imagine the amount of waste visitors generate there...
Honestly, I'm not really fine with this decision (as an Australian citizen).
First of all, this is about nature. While this may sound idealistic but at least in theory nature - or at least special natural places - shouldn't be owned by anyone. And many of those special places are sacred to the indigenous people. If we shut them all down, things would get a little boring here.
The indigenous people argue that this is about respect for a sacred place. However, there are masses of tourists visiting churches, temples, mosques. You can even climb many of them.
I think nobody would have an issue if the rock would shut down due to religious ceremonies. A total ban though ...
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
10-25-2019, 08:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-25-2019, 08:18 PM by JJ_SO.)
A religious place like a church doesn't need to be a sacred place - it's built by humans, sometimes on a former sacred place. At worst, if all the church climbers you're fantasizing about, would have torn the church down, you could just rebuild it in some hundred years. The rock however is not supposed to be rebuilt, all damage done to it cannot be rebuilt. How big is Australia? And compared to that, how small is that rock? Why do the tourists need to trample over a sacred place at alle times? just for the view? For the selfie? to dispose waste? To poo on it? Is it really that hard to understand that one tourist or hundred are no problem but a couple of thousand is a different story?
I heard and read that too, this "all Australians should be allowed to walk on that rock" - none of the white Australians were ever invited by the "indigenous people" who just refused to extinct properly. I think, they've been taken a lot of their culture already - is it necessary or does it make you happier when that bit of rest respect is also erased? And your Australian citizenship is how old now? You really dare to tell them what they have to be fine with? I'm very disappointed.
10-25-2019, 08:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-25-2019, 10:34 PM by Klaus.)
Sorry to say but we are all from Africa - including the Australian indigenous people.
It's like arguing that you have more rights in a natural place because you have been there first.
I reckon you also would have an issue if the Catholic church argued that the Zugspitze shall be closed for religious reasons.
(it's already bad enough that Christian crosses are disfiguring mountain peaks in Europe)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Yeah the hell with preservation! Trumpian stuff ;-)
10-25-2019, 08:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-25-2019, 08:59 PM by Klaus.)
(10-25-2019, 08:28 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: Yeah the hell with preservation! Trumpian stuff ;-)
A ticket system would have solved this. There are other natural sites which require tickets in order to preserve the place.
You could also have people required to carry poo bags for helping to protect the place.
If the main argument was preservation, it would have been a different discussion anyway. There are natural places that are off-limits for good reasons.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
The combination of overpopulation, cheap flights and social networks is not pretty. Tourists flood every possible place published on blogs/instagram/etc.
A solution to such tourist floods is to enforce a maximum number of people in the area, similar to what's happening with Lord Howe Island in Australia (and also in some US national parks).
(10-25-2019, 08:28 PM)Klaus Wrote: Sorry to say but we are all from Africa - including the Australian indigenous people.
It's like arguing that you have more rights in a natural place because you have been there first.
I reckon you also would have an issue if the Catholic church argued that the Zugspitze shall be closed for religious reasons.
(it's already bad enough that Christian crosses are disfiguring mountain peaks in Europe)
First, Zugspitze nerv was a sacred place for Bavarian tribes - not for thousand, not for hundred, not for one year.
Second, I would like to hear the reaction of people in Australian churches, when some indigenes walked over the altar and left their waste and biological disposals between the benches or in the pulpit.
And third, we're all from Africa, but it was the British nephews from their "African" grandfathers disposing their criminals and unwanted people to a freshly discovered continent with a small population of other "African" people. Let them deal with firearms, knifes and sabres, biological weapons a.k.a. diseases, dogs and alcohol.
There's really no other rock in Australia to climb, walk and poo on? poor country...
Uluru wasn't created by the indigenous people. It was there long before they arrived (was it an altar back then already?) and it'll still be there when humankind will be gone.
By modern standards, the indigenous people suffered a lot from colonization and it'll be difficult if not impossible to repay that debt. It should be done for the right reasons though.
The closure is irrelevant for their state in Australian society.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
I don't know the situation in AU, but here in the states Indian Reservation are controlled by the tribes. If the tribe decides to close given area for public use it will be closed. There are cases where the reason is preservation and there are cases with political motivation in the spirit of "enough was taken from us". I respect their decision regardless the reasons, after all it's their land. Given the popularity of this location I would think AU Parks & Recreation would work closely with ingenious people to make it accessible in more regulated fashion.
I find it overwhelming being between so many people in the outdoors, it defeats the purpose.
|
