We love having you comment here at Pure Poison but it’s a little bit difficult for discussion to continue uninterrupted on specific posts when off-topic comments land in the middle of them. So each day we’ll launch an open thread where you can leave comments that don’t quite fit on one of the other posts. Remember that tip-offs can be made here.
Have at it!
71 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
RobJ @ 48 – That is how I see it too. The fact that the ‘rock’ is painted and has held tribal (religious?) ceremonies for thousands of years should not make it any less important to those who follow those traditions.
I’m not saying Mungo man should have more rights, or indeed any, Rob — what I’m saying is that the Aborigines have no right to claim ownership of the land or, as in this case, the rock, based on their being the “First Australians”, because they clearly weren’t.
Its not as though people are trampling over a grave site, the contention is that part of the path up the rock crosses over the path where Mala man walked in the Dreamtime, climbing the rock is no more disrespectful than people climbing on the roof of the Vatican, entering the pyramids of Egypt, or visiting any one of the thousands of sites around the world that are sacred to either a religious or cultural group.
what I’m saying is that the Aborigines have no right to claim ownership of the land
GavinM: aboriginals land rights has nothing to do with mungo man or pygmies possibly being in australia before them, and everything to do with being dispossed of their land when europeans arrived. if occupation = ownership (and it did because that is how Britain ‘claimed’ australia), then aboriginals have every right to claim ownership of the land. they had occupied this country for several tens of thousands of years.
the National Indigenous Times bloke writing in crikey today equated climbing the rock with climbing the Australian War Memorial. maybe that’s a better analogy…for those who are into analogies.
The current set of rules should apply so people have the ability to make the choice as to whether they want to climb it or not. I personally am not going to drive to the middle of nowhere and not climb it – purely practical matter. It’s a rock plain and simple. Formed through geological means over millions of years. No one is responsible for creating it, so it is not like something of man made significance. Personally, it should be owned by the people of Australia. But the local community there knows the importance of tourism in driving the local economy. One would hope that if this became the rule then their community would not be financially worse off.
“climbing the rock is no more disrespectful”…..to you, clearly there are Aboriginal people who think it is disrespectful, like wearing shoes in a mosque, you aren’t going to damage it so why should you take them off?
I am not sure I quite fathom what Mungo man has to do with anything. He was either out competed or interbred to become us 40k years ago. There are no more neanderthals either.
Isn’t it like going to someone’s property as a visitor, and them saying, “I’d rather you didn’t climb that tree” and you doing it anyway?
Your host might smile and say it’s OK, no damage has been done, but there’s no doubt that you’ve shown a basic lack of respect.
The point of raising the existence of Mungo man — i never mentioned pygmies incidentally — is that we are constantly told by aborigines and their advocates that their claim to ownership of the land is based on them being the first Australians…This clearly isn’t the case and therefore any claims made on that basis are unfounded.
As to climbing Ayers Rock, it’s a rock – nothing more, it belongs to all Australians not to one small group, yes the aborigines were dispossessed of their lands – unfortuneately that’s what Colonialism is all about, the same thing happened in every country that Europeans colonised during those times — we can’t change history.
““climbing the rock is no more disrespectful”…..to you,….”
Yes Rob, and there are probably people who think its disrespectful to allow tourists to tramp through the pyramids, but if you went to Egypt who here wouldn’t enter them ? It’s the same with every culturally significant site in the world that is open to tourism.
Sorry confessions, not that I’m heavily into analogies, but the war-memorial / Ayers Rock one isn’t really that appropriate…The war memorial is a purpose built building to remember the deeds and names of those who fought and died for this country, the rock is a natural feature that just happens to be there. Incidentally you can climb up to the roof of the one here in Melbourne.
Hello Yuwalk,
You left out the third possibility of why Mungo man no longer exists — that being they were dispossessed of their lands and wiped out by the newly arrived aborigines.
“There are no more neanderthals either.”
I’m not so sure of that — have you ever seen the Collingwood and Richmond cheer squads ?
“that being they were dispossessed of their lands and wiped out by the newly arrived aborigines. ‘
Got any evidence of this? If Mungo Man happened to be extinct when Aboriginals came to this land then their claim in effect is correct. regardless they were here before white man, this is indisputable.
“The war memorial is a purpose built building to remember the deeds and names of those who fought and died for this country”
I would be within my rights to claim that I was a pacifist (I’m not, I’m just making an example) show no respect whatsoever for any war memorials, spit on them if I was a real arsehole and your protsets would mean nought! No doubt I’d get arrested for spitting on a war memorial but in fact I’d be no worse than people who disrespect Aboriginal wishes regarding Uluru.
No Gavin, we are told by aboriginals that their claim to land ownership is based on the fact that law recognised Australia as terra nullius. as i’ve already said, this was not the case as aboriginals had occupied australia for tens of thousands of years before European arrived, hence the high court ruling on Mabo.
“I would be within my rights to claim that I was a pacifist (I’m not, I’m just making an example) show no respect whatsoever for any war memorials,..”
Yes, you do have that right — that’s what living in a free country means and is the reason why all Australians have the right to climb on Ayers Rock. As far as I’m aware there are state and federal laws around vandalism and offensive behaviour, and I suspect that they also apply to the rock. Spitting in public for example is an offense, although I suspect its rarely enforced.
“Got any evidence of this? If Mungo Man happened to be extinct when Aboriginals came to this land then their claim in effect is correct.”
No, that’s why I said it’s a “third possibility” … it’s another theory, academics and scientists express them all the time, and the aborignal claim to be the first here is clearly not correct, Mungo was here first and aboriginals were immigrants to this land.
“regardless they were here before white man, this is indisputable.”
I’ve never claimed otherwise – unfortuneately the age of Colonialism didn’t care much about who was there first.
“unfortuneately the age of Colonialism didn’t care much about who was there first.”
Thankfully that age has passed and we now recognise Aboriginals as the first inhabitants of this land.
“and the aborignal claim to be the first here is clearly not correct”
Assuming that the scientists are right about Mungo Man which in your own words is a theory, a possibility. In law (and that’s what counts) we recognise them as the original inhabitants, why wouldn’t we?
aboriginals were immigrants to this land.
i didn’t realise this was in dispute? anyone who ever lived in Australia technically had come from somewhere else. The reason aboriginals say they are the first australians is they have occupied this country for tens of thousands of years (there is some evidence of occupation dating back 60,000 years), and in the context of contemporary australia, it is a statement of fact in that they are the original inhabitants.
“No Gavin, we are told by aboriginals that their claim to land ownership is based on the fact that law recognised Australia as terra nullius.”
International law recognised the land as Terra Nullius confessions, but aboriginal law claimed it as theirs by right of being the first Australians.
I’ll put the link to the site below this part quote so you can see it in full context — it could be a little misleading if you just read it as I’ve put it here:
“….The foundation of all property rights in Australia is built on this shaky basis – this lie about the first Australian people and their land….”
http://reconciliaction.org.au/nsw/education-kit/land-rights/
“and in the context of contemporary australia, it is a statement of fact in that they are the original inhabitants.”
So we ignore evidence and just go with what we deem appropriate for our contemporary society as the truth do we ? Interesting. What other historical truths should we ignore in the interests of convenience ?
“Assuming that the scientists are right about Mungo Man which in your own words is a theory, a possibility.”
Not quite Rob, I said that there are different theories about wether they were here at the same time – the evidence shows that Mungo was definitely here before.
GavinM: mungo man came from a genetic lineage that no longer exists anymore, ie extinct. that this being existed at some point in history does not detract from aboriginals claiming to be the first australians and original inhabitants. to what benefit is it to claim that this extinct species has any entitlements in contemporary society? none.
confessions, as I said above somewhere I’ve never suggested that they do have any entitlements or rights, what I’ve said is that the fact they existed proves that aboriginals are not the first Australians.
and Gavin, as i’ve said before in the context of contemporary colonisation of australia, aboriginals are the original inhabitants, the first AUstralians.
“as i’ve said before in the context of contemporary colonisation of australia, aboriginals are the original inhabitants, the first AUstralians…”
I think we might have to agree to disagree on this confessions — I can’t see how they can be called the first Australians in any context given that they aren’t.
All this has taken us a fair bit away from the original topic though, which is my fault — apolgies for that
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All