World

10° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Climbers may be barred from Uluru

By Rob Taylor, Reuters

Tourists use a chain to climb the world's largest monolith Uluru (Ayers Rock), about 220 miles from the central Australian town of Alice Springs. Many tourists climb the rock, although the Aboriginal owners request that visitors respect their sacred site and view it only from the ground.

Tim Wimborne / Reuters

Tourists use a chain to climb the world's largest monolith Uluru (Ayers Rock), about 220 miles from the central Australian town of Alice Springs. Many tourists climb the rock, although the Aboriginal owners request that visitors respect their sacred site and view it only from the ground.

An Australian government proposal to stop people from climbing the famed Uluru, in deference to the wishes of indigenous people, sparked debate today with lawmakers opposing the plan.

A draft management plan for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park called for a ban on people climbing the 348-metre (1,142 ft) rock, which is sacred to local Aborigine people and visited each year by 350,000 people, half of them from overseas.

The plan for Uluru, formerly known as Ayers Rock, could be implemented within 18 months, but must be approved by national Environment Minister Peter Garrett after a two-month public consultation, a spokesman for Garrett said.

"Kevin Rudd must veto any plans by Peter Garrett to shut down Australia's world-famous Uluru climb," said conservative politician and environment spokesman Greg Hunt.

"Visitors from around Australia and the world would be stopped from completing the majestic and exhilarating journey," Hunt said.

The world heritage-listed rock, famed for its shifting red-ochre colours, is a top tourist drawcard and is climbed by more than 100,000 people each year, despite its central desert location and against the wishes of indigenous people.

"You can't go climb on top of the Vatican, you can't go climb on top of the Buddhist temples and so on and so forth," local elder Vince Forrester from Mutitjulu township told state radio.

Forrester said traditional owners of the rock, which is 9.4kms (5.8 mls) in circumference, have wanted the climb closed since the park was placed in indigenous hands in 1985. The monolith features strongly in indigenous creation myth.

"Obviously you have to respect our religious attachment to the land too, so we're saying please do not climb Uluru. We've said it in all languages," Forrester said.

But outback Northern Territory Tourism Minister Chris Burns said his government did not back the indigenous proposal.

Hunt said the national government should not contemplate the closure of the rock at a time when Australia's tourism industry was under threat from the global financial crisis.

"Big Brother is coming to Uluru to slam the gate closed on an Australian tourism icon, the climb," he said.

But people responding to the state ABC radio website were divided, with some saying it was a "denial of the rights", and others calling for more respect of sacred areas.

"About time. We would be horrified if people were allowed to climb all over our churches or sacred sites," wrote Lilly.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Respect the wishes of...
[info]smarttog wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:56 am (UTC)
The Nguraritja tribe, it is about time the traditional beliefs of the original settlers of Australia where fully respected. Just as much as other religious beliefs are.

you wouldn't expect visitors to start climbing St Pauls.
Climbers may be barred from Uluru
[info]rb484 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 08:10 am (UTC)
Maybe someone should tell Mr Forrester that you can go on top of Notre Dame or ascend the Whispering Gallery in St Paul's Cathedral?
It is a rock
[info]tovasco wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 08:24 am (UTC)
It isn't St Pauls, it is a rock. Created by chance by nature. Incidentally you can climb all over St Pauls, but on the inside. Why don't the local people do guided tours so visitors can learn about their beliefs? That would seem the logical way to do things.
Uluru
[info]mdshort wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:39 am (UTC)
Uluru is not a monolith. It is just a prominent exposed tip of a substantial underlying substrata. Other prominences of the same strata include nearby Mt Connor and Kata Tjuta. Uluru is not one giant boulder as popular myth has people believe; and

even if we get over the monolith misnomer problem, we come up with a second fact that undermines Uluru's claim at Worlds Greatest status. Uluru is not even the largest rock exposed over the surrounding country. Mt Augustus in Western Australia is much larger.

People need to get over the need to 'conquer' objects. Surely, the opportunity to view Uluru is sufficient reason to visit it. Whilst I don't subscribe to any form of superstitious claptrap, be that miraculous stories of sons of god being born of virgins or worlds formed by giant coloured serpents, there are sufficient conservation reasons to support the removal of climbers from the rock.
[info]nexus_20 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:53 am (UTC)
I disagree, all wacko belief systems, being indigenous or those such as Christianity, do not have any right to be protected. Its a nonsense. I'd gladly see us marching over any church, mosque or synagogue.
[info]zahradelaplata wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 03:48 pm (UTC)
Ah, yes, the logic of the respecting, saving Reason, right? See, atheism is just another belief, and has its dogmas, and its fundamentalists. "If they want to believe, we are going to make them to stop. We'll desecrate all their symbols, unveil their women, rip apart their places of worship. After all, we are doing it for their own good." See, the same kind of mindset of the Inquisitors... Bravo! Keep talking and showing your true colors. *shesh* So much for being different from religious zealots...

But the problem here is even deeper. You don't show respect for people who had their lands stolen (by people coming from the UK, actually), and who was killed and alienated since the white man set foot in their little corner of the world. What you are saying is basically add to their cultural genocide. Or are you one of those who think that the Western civilization is the best thing that could have happened to the world? Sorry, many of us don't think so. Then some ask why the dark skinned hate them... that's being self absorbed and oblivious.
More Than a Rock
[info]rb484 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:43 am (UTC)
If Uluru was simply a rock, there wouldn?t be any problem. The problem lies in the fact that as it is one with cultural and religious significance and as such is similar to any man-made religious building. However, since believers and non-believers are allowed access to churches, mosques or temples, I fail to see why the same should not apply to Uluru.

As for informing tourists as to Aboriginal beliefs, there?s a cultural centre at the base of the rock and any tour guide will tell you in great detail about its significance.

Finally, we aren't going to get over "the need to conquer" anytime soon and if we ever do, we'll all be the poorer for it since we will also lose the motivation to conquer disease, poverty, war, etc.
Re: More Than a Rock
[info]dharmabumuae wrote:
Friday, 10 July 2009 at 09:36 am (UTC)
Unlike Churches, Mosques, temples etc. Which were built and designed to be entered; in fact to undertake the role they were constructed for this was/is usually essential. Uluru is not man made, and the significance of it is in it's sheer presence, which everyone is allowed to participate in. Traditionally, and here we are talking traditions that are 10's of thousands of years old, it is taboo to climb the rock.

And unlike many Mosques and temples, unbelievers are allowed to experience it in the same physical manner as those who are.

I agree "we" will not get over our need to "conquer" things it is part of our genome, and I agree that to is a good thing, however one would hope that as we can still or rather start to do so in a way that is more sensitive and respectful manner.
Get VB to sponsor Uluru.
[info]bongo_stardog wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:23 am (UTC)
When I was there the local aboriginals were so paralytic from alcohol I doubt if they were even aware of Uluru. I'm sure if there was an charge to climb it and the money went to the local tribe the protestations would disappear faster than a can of Victoria Bitter.
Re: Get VB to sponsor Uluru.
[info]mdshort wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 05:49 pm (UTC)
These remarks only show the gross ignorance of its maker. Visit the High Street of almost any English town on a late weekend night and you'll see aggressive binge drinking. To stereotype this behaviour as representative of the whole of England would be just as ridiculous and ignorant as what you have tried to do here.

Get a grip! Yes, there are many social problems existing within Aboriginal settlements but the root of many of these problems are symptomatic of their poverty and of the abuses suffered by these people throughout the ages; dispossession, disease and disregard of culture being just some of them.

Notwithstanding this, one of the principal concerns facing Uluru is the destruction of its sensitive habitat by those wishing to climb the rock. This alone is good reason to review the climbing of Uluru.
Respect
[info]cunningtourist wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:46 am (UTC)
Yes, this place should be respected. The mass tourism, in itself, is degrading.
Stop the Newspeak
[info]timonsays wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 12:03 pm (UTC)
Reading the Independent becomes ever more wearisome as it keeps trying to change the English language.

1. It is not 'Uluru'. Why are you now using this cretinous name? It is AYERS ROCK.

2. Height is measured in FEET, not metres. We defeated Napolleon, remember?

3. Distance is measured in MILES, not kilometres. Or can we expect the Independent to start printing articles in French next?

As for the sustantive issue in this report, the difference between climbing a rock as opposed to a church is that the latter would be damaged whereas the former will not be. It is a ROCK for goodness sake!
Re: Stop the Newspeak
[info]vangryman wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 12:46 pm (UTC)
timonsays. 1/Uluru is the original name for it, as Mumbai is no longer (& was never really) Bombay.
2/ Metres & kilometres are also a measurments. We may have defeated Napolleon but we no longer rule the world! 3/ Churchs of significance are made of stone (rock) and therefore no more/just as damagable as rock.
Re: Stop the Newspeak
[info]rb484 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 03:03 pm (UTC)
Distances in Australia are measured in kilometres and have been for many years now. Seems appropriate to use that measure in the article then, Napoleon or no.
arrogant Westerners
[info]hfakos wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 01:21 pm (UTC)
I am an atheist; however, it does not prevent me from acknowledging that some (most) people find comfort in religious ideals and symbols, and that I should respect that as long as it does no harm to me. Most comments on the topic so far have been no more than arrogant ranting of ignorant Westerners. The aboriginals arrived in Australia way before white people, they discovered Uluru and made it part of their belief system; they have a legitimate claim on it. You Westerners are not the arbiters of what can be 'legitimately' considered sacred. It's a rock to you, so what. You don't live there, you are not indigenous to that area so why don't you just bog off. The Kaaba stone is also just a rock, does it mean you have the right to do with it whatever you want? St. Paul's bones are just bones, the Turin shroud is just a piece of cloth, still no one suggests trampling on them. You might be ALLOWED to visit the Vatican and the Whispering Gallery, but it is not your inherent RIGHT; it is courtesy of the relevant religious authorities running these sites. If the aboriginals decide they don't want to grant you climbing rights on their religious site so be it, get over it Brits. I feel sorry for bullies who can only feel satisfaction if they dominate others; it's usually a sign of a serious inferiority complex. People here get riled up if one uses meters instead of feet, but they want to have the right to piss on others' important symbols. Take a reality check, the British Empire is gone and you are a small island inhabited with people who have the worst record of learning foreign languages/cultures, at least in Europe. A little more humility and tolerance towards others would not hurt you. Unless you only want to be known on the continent for your football hooligans and binge-drinking stag parties.
Re: arrogant Westerners
[info]rb484 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 05:34 pm (UTC)
If you want to start talking about rights of access, then you should be aware that a condition of Uluru being returned to the aborigines was that tourists were still allowed to climb it. If this wasn't acceptable, the aborigines had it in their power to decline the Australian government's offer and hold out for something better.

Irrespective of who arrived in Australia first, the present reality is that the two races now have to co-exist and that requires give and take on both sides; in the circumstances a return to the situation that prevailed before the first white settlers arrived may not be possible.
Re: arrogant Westerners, rb484
[info]hfakos wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:50 pm (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the bargaining power of the aborigines is/was comparable to that of the Australian government? How come they (natives) did not have it in their power to avoid being kidnapped from their parents/families and sent to be re-trained to be nice little white people?

It's also rather revealing that you talk about the 'condition of Uluru being returned the aborigines'. Why do you think late-comer settlers who took away Uluru from the locals in the first place have any right to dictate conditions on its return? I steal something from you and then I impose conditions on returning the stolen goods to you. I think not. Why isn't it enough to watch that rock from a short distance?

In general, I agree with you that the two races have to co-exist. Unfortunately, the balance sheet is rather unfavorable for white folks to take the moral high ground, so they should show more tolerance. Especially, when it comes to deeply meaningful native symbols. Why do Westerners always want to conquer things? I guess 500 years of bad and bloody habits die very hard.
Re: arrogant Westerners, rb484
[info]rb484 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:56 pm (UTC)
Firstly, the bargaining power of the aborigines hasn?t always been on a par with ?white fella? but that doesn?t mean that nowadays their voice is not being listened to; if it was not there would be no recognition of aboriginal land rights and no general disgust at a now long discontinued policy of removing aboriginal children from their parents. Watch ?Rabbit Proof Fence? and ?Australia? before you come back to me on this point.

Following on from this and addressing the fundamental issue of whether the aborigines actually have rights in the legal sense, just because someone once owned something which was then taken over by someone else doesn?t mean they can come back at a later date and demand its return. If that were the case Britain could start asserting land rights over parts of France, or Germany over Western Poland, or Jordan over Israel, for example. This being the case, I think the aborigines are doing rather well and the imposition of a condition for commercial reasons that ultimately benefits everyone is a small price to pay.

Regarding your rather bold assertion that it?s only Westerners who want to conquer things, I suggest you look at numerous other global examples of aggressive rivalries between different peoples and races, starting with the conduct of the Japanese in the Second World War and then proceeding to the excesses of Pol Pot. It?s not just Westerners, it?s everyone. And as stated earlier, the desire to conquer also encompasses the desire to conquer, disease, poverty, etc, and we would all collectively be worse without that.

And finally, the reason why it is not enough to admire Uluru from a short distance is because there is a fantastic view from the top. It?s that simple.


Re: arrogant Westerners, rb484
[info]supacruze wrote:
Thursday, 13 August 2009 at 11:15 am (UTC)
To all the white folks: I am white. I was born in Melbourne to British parents and I have lived in the USA for a year. Been to NZ, got rellies in the UK and the USA. I am as Caucasian as you can get. I have lived in OZ all my life so I know the white folks stance. Let me tell you something.
I do not give a flying f*ck about our attitude, our policies, and our religion. You only have to imagine what it would be like if a stranger decided to move into your house, have sex with your wife, move your children to other families and schools, indoctrinate you with a new religion, a new language, new food and clothes. All without your consent. Either we are a 'winner takes all' society, or we believe in the UN declaration of human rights. Wikipedia 'Mount Kailash' and you will find that this mountain has been sacred for thousands of years, long before you and your pale ancestors were born, and it has NEVER been climbed. By ANYONE. EVER. If any one was caught scrambling on the roof of the Vatican or St Paul's Cathedral, they would be arrested. The NAME of the ROCK IS ULURU and has been for thousands of years. Ayer never owned it. It is the spirit of this nation, this land. So all you cute whiteys can go back to Stonehenge and eat your fish and chips. Mark my words: Climbing on ULURU WILL BE BANNED.
Raised walkway
[info]leamutt wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 03:00 pm (UTC)

Could a raised walkway be put into place, this will stop erosion which is a real threat and also prevent the feet actually touching the abo sacred rock?
[info]mwreid wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 04:24 pm (UTC)
We went- listened to the locals and chose not to climb it as a result.


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date