Should you climb Uluru/Ayers Rock or not?
 

After a discussion in another thread I tried to do a bit of research on what the Aboriginal position on climbing Uluru/Ayers Rock really is, and why they don't ban it totally. I found this interesting article which deals with an occasion when the local Aborigines tried to stop tourists climbing the rock for a period of 3 weeks as a mark of respect for one of their elders who had died recently

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/22_03.htm

A quote from that article: "Mr. Denis Burke personally flew to Alice Springs to urge traditional owners to allow tourists to climb the rock even though it was closed as a sign of respect for the passing of a great man, a man who had encouraged the two cultures to work together for the benefit of all. The man, who cannot be named for cultural reasons, was also a strong supporter of the compromise that allowed visitors to climb Uluru ? but only after being told they did so against the wishes of the traditional owners."

The impression I get is that allowing tourists to climb the rock is very much a difficult compromise for the local Aborigines, that the present policy is to discourage climbing as much as possible, without totally banning it - an act which would harm the tourist industry.

The plan is that eventually word will spread, there will be a consensus that climbing the rock is bad, and tourists will one day come to Uluru just to see and walk around the rock, without wanting to climb it. Only then will the Aborigines ask for an outright ban, which in theory will not have any negative effect on tourist income (because no-one will want to climb it anyway).

In other words, the Aborigines would prefer to ban climbing the rock if they could, even if it meant losing out on their 'cut' of the tourist income. The fact that they haven't is really a concession to the tourist trade and the companies that run it. This reinforces my view that tourists like me should visit the rock but not climb it.

>>>>>>This reinforces my view that tourists like me should visit the rock but not climb it.<<<<<<

I'm with you on this one, Stevelondon88. I briefly skimmed through the other recent thread in which this issue was discussed.

Perhaps Australian Aborigines don't have a right to ban tourists from climbing Uluru, and maybe Aborigines should cooperate with the rest of Australian society and accommodate the wants / needs of "mainstream" society.

But, by the same token, I cover my head when I enter a Catholic church in a country in which that is the custom, I take my shoes off when I'm visiting a mosque, and my husband wears a yarmulka when we visit a synagogue.

The people of Swaziland, Africa hate the idea of anyone intruding into the hillside cave in which their kings had been buried. When I was growing up in Swaziland, white people respected Swazi tribal sensitivities, and kept out of the royal burial cave.

In recent years a group of First Nations people in Canada has let it be known that Castle Mountain in the Rockies is sacred to them, and they would prefer that no one climbed it. I climbed it before I knew that, but would not climb it today.

Whether or not Australian Aborigines have a right to keep me off Uluru, I know they don't want me to climb it, and I intend to respect their feelings.

I'm in complete agreement - if the Aboriginals would prefer that we not climb it - then I will not. I wonder if those who choose to climb the rock know how many have fallen while attempting the climb and have died.

Did you also know that the Aboriginals do not want you want completely around the rock as there is an area there that is also deemed sacred?

I truly wonder how much of the tourist dollars that come into Uluru and Yulara that actually find their way to the Aboriginals.

Climbing that big red bugger is very, very dangerous. Beats me why the devil anyone would want to, when the walk around it is very special!

I would dearly love to climb Uluru, but we decided to accede to the Anangu wishes that tourists do not desecrate their sacred site. To climb The Rock would be highly disrespectful of its owners, who clearly do not want climbing, but were compelled to accept the fact that nobody would be banned from doing so. Instead, take a guided walk around Uluru, with an Anangu guide. You will learn a great deal and see The Rock for what it has represented to people who have inhabited the region for many thousands of years.

Then, go over to Kata Tjuta and take a hike through the Valley of Winds. Hopefully that will satisfy anyone's need to climb amongst the rocks of the Red Centre.

Here is the request not to climb Uluru, which is posted on the official government Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) Web page:

Please Don't Climb Uluru

Nganana Tatintja Wiya - 'We Never Climb'

The Uluru climb is the traditional route taken by ancestral Mala men upon their arrival to Uluru. Anangu do not climb Uluru because of its great spiritual significance.

Anangu have not closed the climb. They prefer that you - out of education and understanding - choose to respect their law and culture by not climbing. Remember that you are a guest on Anangu land.

Also, Anangu traditionally have a duty to safeguard visitors to their land. They feel great sadness when a person dies or is hurt.

If you visit the Cultural Centre you will learn more about the significance of Uluru in Anangu law and culture. Please do this before you decide whether to climb.

Source:
http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/uluru/no-climb/

After years of travel I find a real sadness as I become more aware of the history of countries colonized by outsiders and the subjugation and/or annihilation of aboriginal people who respected the land.

We could have learned a lot from them but instead we tried to "civilize" them.

Go see Uluru, but don't climb. I'm really happy to read this thread and the comments. We will not be going there on our trip in April, but I wouldn't climb the rock if we did.

Climb the rock. It's worth every moment and the aboriginal's do make money from the exercise. While I'm acutely aware of history and its importance I also understand that this is a "rock" place on the earth by mother nature. It can not be owned by the people who simply saw it first.

Its a shame, Alchemy, that you have not attempted to view this issue from any other cultural viewpoint than your own.

Hi,
this is a topic that comes up frequently on various Travel Forums.
I admit, I have climbed Uluru, long before the land was handed back to the Aborigines and before we all became aware of it's significance to them.
I would not climb Uluru now.

Over the past 8 years I have taken 100's of people to the area and on checking my records, it's just over 5% of them during the past 2 years who insisted on climbing.

Interesting is that of those the majority were Australians!
I always take my tour participants to the Cultural Centre first, before driving to the Rock and it's interesting to see that most people who came with the intention of climbing then change their mind.

Alchemy

I continue to be impressed with the answers to this question. I don't think money is not the issue for the aboriginal people and their needs have been overlooked for too long.

There are many monuments in countries around the world we would not think of mounting out of respect ... but there are always those who do.

A correction on the above response that I'd like to read:

I continue to be impressed with the answers to this question. I don't think money is the issue for most aboriginal people "whose rights" have been overlooked for too long.

There are many monuments in countries around the world we would not think of mounting out of respect ... but there are always those who do.

Climb if you want to. No group should "own" a national asset. Would you refuse to swim on Bondi Beach or snorkel on the Reef if asked not to by alledged ancestors of the people who arrived here first?

Just to toss this out here, though I am bound to be taken highly to task. But I have done some thinking on this. I am not sure if most of the above posters are American or not. But in my opinion, a sacred space is a sacred space. What if 100 years from now, someone wants to charge $100.00 for people to get to hike down into the "footprints" of the WTC? With the proceeds going to help the decendants of people who perished? To my mind that gives a bit of perspective to the whole "should you climb or not" issue. Sure you could justify it as the proceeds are going to a just cause, but it would indeed cause deep offense to many many people. I guess it just depends upon your point of view. For me, I wouldn't climb it.

I'm Canadian. MPoll's comment doesn't surprise me, but saddens me. If the writer took a look around his/her own country, he/she would find that many groups and individuals own "national assets."

Recently my husband told me he read that of aboriginal people, Australia's have been among the worst treated. I am reading "A Traveller's History of Australia by John Chambers in which he says:

"For nowhere else in the whole history of the world has there been a greater difference in two civilizations at first contact. The late 18th centry Aborigines had an Old Stone Age culture, while the Brtish settlers were citizens of what was at that time the world's first and only industrialized nation.... and goes on to say "The tensions generated in the first encounters between the races continue to the present day."

We can help by being sensitive to the fact that if any one is "owner" of national assets" the aboriginese are, wherever they may be.

While this may be a sombre topic for this wonderful travel talk, I'm glad to have read it and appreciate the sensitivity with which it has been discussed. Travel is broadening; travel is knowledge.

Don't climb it.

The references to Aboriginals "owning" Uluru are as far away from the truth as you can get. Aboriginals do not think they "own" any part of the earth.

Walk around it, it's a beautiful walk. IMHO Uluru is a bit like the Statue of Liberty - the view of it is much better than the view from it.

Pumblechook

Further to your comments, in my Australian reading I am told -- if it be true -- that the aboriginal people of Australia did not accept the concept of ownership of land. Tribes(?) had their territories but for the most part they did not strictly enforce this concept either.

Because of this, individuals did not own land and thus, to their credit, the divisions within their tribes were based on age rather than riches.

Michi, I don't know what Educational/Anthropological background John Chambers has but his books cross some strange borders such as "What Style Is It?: A Guide to American Architecture" on to
Echocardiography: A Practical Guide for Reporting" so I am not sure I would put too much weight on what he says in his book.
If I were to read a book on the history of the Australian Aborigine I would be looking at those written by the Brandt family who not only lived with the Aboriginies for years but were Anthropologists to boot or perhaps something written by Ion Idriess who also lived with them and spent most of his life writing about them and the country they came from.
There were something like 300 tribes of Aboriginies in Australia at the time of the British arrival and I doubt that the statement that " For nowhere else in the whole history of the world has there been a greater difference in two civilizations at first contact" is all that accurate because you could apply that to most of the African continent and the South American countries and to this day Papua New Guinea.
The Aboriginies were nomads and hunter- gatherers, they did not have settlements as such and therefore ownership was never an issue. When food was plentiful they stayed where they were and when it was scarce they moved on. There were over 300 dialects. Some Aboriginies came from the northern islands and others from a land bridge from Asia. There is evidence that they were not the first people here but what does that really matter anyway?
I would like to understand your statement that the Aboriginals were the worst treated. History shows that there has been a lot of mistreatment of people over the years and the Aboriginals are not one of the forerunners by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps the Jews in WW2 or the Australians in the camps run by the Japanese - the Korean women sex slaves, the Zulus, the American Indians,The Incas of Peru would be somewhere near the top and so on and so forth, these people could vie for that 'honour'. You cannot change what has happened throughout the world. What exactly is it you think we should do about what has passed? What precisely are the "needs" that have been overlooked for such a long time? If we are to discuss a complex issue then lets do it - lets have the answers and while everyone is at it, please define what exactly is an Aborigine and at what stage does one become one and another does not.

Dear Readers,

I regretted not being able to edit out the remark about the treatment of the Aboriginese of Australia, because it would be misunderstood. On another talk board it is possible to delete or edit a message after it has been posted. The statement was neither mine nor my husband's nor John Chambers'.

There is no quarrel between John Chambers and lizF's comments about the Aboriginese and their way of life as nomads, hunters and gatherers prior to colonization and first contact. Unfortunately, I could not quote enough for better understanding. It does in fact, almost sound like Liz quoted from him. But I think lizF got off topic in her comments about cruelties of the world; man's inhumanity to man. We are only too well aware of those. What should we do about what has passed? Learn from it. Make it right or make changesif you can. Australia and Canada are not perfect but they are two countries that have made profound changes in human rights.

Liz says "If we are to discuss a complex issue then lets do it - lets have the answers and while everyone is at it, please define what exactly is an Aborigine and at what stage does one become one and another does not." I realize now this is not the place for complex issues for the above reasons and who's to say what are the real answers.

I stand to be corrected but I think Aboriginal with a capital "A" refers to Australia. In other places such as Canada our First Nationals people are considered aboriginal people with a lower case "a." Aboriginese I think refers to an aboriginal person, and aboriginals are first people, original people before colonization. But a lot depends on the writer. What is your understanding Liz?

I have found the Australian talk wonderful and regret any anxieties caused.

lizF Please note I changed the word "needs" immediately following one posting to ?righ

Perhaps what LizF was getting at was the issue of classifying mixed-race people as "Aboriginal" for the purpose of special assistance programs (e.g. "Abstudy" grants for higher education), given that many are physically indistinguishable from someone of European descent. That problem has been solved by the simple rule that if you identify as Aboriginal, you are Aboriginal (or "Koori", as many prefer).

Incidentally, while the great majority of Koori were hunter-gatherers, not all were. Evidence has just emerged that a community in Victoria built permanent dwellings of stone, farmed and smoked eels and traded them with neighbouring peoples.

I think there is little doubt that an especially wide cultural gulf separated European settlers and native peoples in Australia, especially insofar as the concept of "ownership" of land and domestic animals was quite alien to the latter. Not surprisingly, slow-moving and tasty cattle and sheep were therefore considered fair game (pun intended), leading to sometimes vicious reprisals by settlers.

No, we can't change the past, but we can recognise that to some extent we are all the products of the past - descendants of early British settlers like me, and descendants of the original inhabitants alike. The benefits of those events were spread unevenly, to put it mildly.