UKBouldering.com

Grampians Access - Parks Vic Draft Management Plan (Read 3663 times)

monkey boy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1145
  • Karma: +65/-0
Vertical Life Magazine have written a great article about the Parks Vic draft plan for management of the Grampians, to be blunt if this plan goes through bouldering will cease to exist in the Grampians, neither will hard sport climbing and the quantity of trad and other sport climbing will be severely diminished.

The article isn't too long and really well written. At the bottom it has various ways you can register dissatisfaction with the plan, the easiest being to join Mike Rockell's submission. His 33 page submission questioning the plan is really well put together from a cultural, historical and natural point of view as well as being able to maintain access to more climbing areas.

The Grampians is a truly wild and incredible space and access if not challenged is going to go to those who can afford to walk a path, which is essentially a motorway through the heart of the Grampians stopping at services along the way. Not only will climbing be hugely reduced but exploration and enjoyment of the wild too.

https://www.verticallifemag.com.au/2021/01/the-future-of-climbing-in-gariwerd-grampians/


spidermonkey09

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1647
  • Karma: +124/-1
That is a profoundly depressing document. I'm glad I have had the fortune to visit once but it sounds like its approaching game over for climbing in Vic.

Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 9491
  • Karma: +492/-8
It's a sickening state of affairs. Amazing how the cultural heritage of one group has been weaponised against the cultural heritage of another.

remus

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1618
  • Karma: +70/-1
Thanks for the link Monkey Boy. It makes sad reading though, as far as I can tell parks victoria have no interest whatsoever in working with climbers and are quite happy to fuck them over for no reason whatsoever.

Davo

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 410
  • Karma: +23/-4
A grim read indeed. Have emailed and asked to be added to the submission

Dave

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 10930
  • Karma: +599/-20
It's a sickening state of affairs. Amazing how the cultural heritage of one group has been weaponised against the cultural heritage of another.

Well put like that it does sound a bit ridiculous, possibly the oldest culture in the world vs 50 years of colonial recreation. Having done quite a bit of reading on aboriginal culture I would like to think if climbers and aboriginals were to spend some time out in the country together they would find a lot of common ground, but clearly there's a lot more going on, seemingly combining attempts to reconcile the guilt of extermination and oppression with the marketisation of the landscape. Messy.


Duncan campbell

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 448
  • Karma: +23/-2
Agree wholeheartedly with this JB. Climbers and aboriginal people have a lot of shared views over this. We both love gariwerd and want to protect it as best we can.

PV seem to have fucked this time and time again which make me think that there is more going on like you said. It wouldn’t be that hard to get a few climbers and traditional owners together to figure out what was acceptable and what wasn’t. I loved viewing the traditional cultural sites when I was there and read a bit on the subject and was appalled by how we treated them. I don’t believe that banning climbing over ragging around in 4x4s is going to solve that though

Edit: I am lucky enough to have been to Australia twice and so will never go again but have sent an email to PV in the hopes that others can experience the sweet feeling of taking the victory lob off the top of serpentine!

T_B

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2852
  • Karma: +135/-5
What a mess.

Does Oz have anything equivalent to the BMC?

It strikes me that would be helpful. I thought the article was overly defensive. He starts off by conceding that climbers’ actions have resulted in many of the issues, then writes a whole paragraph justifying chalk use and accuses ‘walkers’ of causing the graffiti at Hollow Mountain Cave.

It doesn’t sound like there’s much real dialogue going on.

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3556
  • Karma: +278/-23
It doesn’t sound like there’s much real dialogue going on.

From what I've read, I get the impression that Parks Victoria don't really do dialogue

and accuses ‘walkers’ of causing the graffiti at Hollow Mountain Cave.
I take your general point that saying "we're culpable" and then making excuses/reasons can seem poor, but I'm not sure why you drew that out for comment. The fact that it's common there but not at other climbing areas that aren't next to a popular tourist track would point the finger at non-climbers. If you ban climbing at impossible roof it wont make there be fewer beercans and fires!

In any case, I emailed Parks Vic. I figured that given I've only been there for one extended trip it was best to own my lack of local expertise and address it more as a plea for engagement with local climbers on how to allow access to the world-class areas in a responsible and sustainable way.

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3556
  • Karma: +278/-23
I'm glad I have had the fortune to visit

Yeah I f*ckin hate people on insta saying they're #thankful and #grateful but on this one I'm both!

Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 9491
  • Karma: +492/-8
It's a sickening state of affairs. Amazing how the cultural heritage of one group has been weaponised against the cultural heritage of another.

Well put like that it does sound a bit ridiculous, possibly the oldest culture in the world vs 50 years of colonial recreation.

Yeah, obviously, this is all about a cheap surface reading of cultural value. It's the leveraging of guilt culture paternalism. One culture’s interests trumping another’s on principle of antecedence, without any other measure of value.  Climbers are just an easy group to throw under the bus in service of a confected mea culpa. I don’t know the specific ‘aboriginal’ cultural significance of Taipan Wall. I do know it's of unparalleled significance to rock climbers. To my mind this is equivalent to banning Everest to mountaineers.

Davo

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 410
  • Karma: +23/-4


Edit: I am lucky enough to have been to Australia twice and so will never go again but have sent an email to PV in the hopes that others can experience the sweet feeling of taking the victory lob off the top of serpentine!

Nice way of mentioning you have done Serpentine! I am very jealous

monkey boy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1145
  • Karma: +65/-0
What a mess.

Does Oz have anything equivalent to the BMC?

It strikes me that would be helpful. I thought the article was overly defensive. He starts off by conceding that climbers’ actions have resulted in many of the issues, then writes a whole paragraph justifying chalk use and accuses ‘walkers’ of causing the graffiti at Hollow Mountain Cave.

It doesn’t sound like there’s much real dialogue going on.

They don't really have equivalent of BMC, each state has it's own climbing club but the one in Victoria didn't really exist until a few years ago. They also have Cliffcare which is a little like access fund but much smaller and they don't have the financial backing to do much against all the government money given to traditional owners and parks vic.

The biggest shame is that preservation, climbing and even development of tourism can exist there is done correctly but parks vic don't seem bothered about climbers, probably because the amount of money we bring to the area is much smaller than tourists. I think a lot of people will end up leaving the area if the plan is accepted and this will have a big impact on it.

teestub

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1807
  • Karma: +137/-4
  • Cyber Wanker
To my mind this is equivalent to banning Everest to mountaineers.

There are worse ideas!  Can’t imagine there being quite so large queues on K2.


When this comes up I always think about Hollow Mountain Cave, are any areas of that restricted? Seems like if anywhere would have had cultural significance, it’s that place.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 10930
  • Karma: +599/-20
Quote
Yeah, obviously, this is all about a cheap surface reading of cultural value. It's the leveraging of guilt culture paternalism. One culture’s interests trumping another’s on principle of antecedence, without any other measure of value.  Climbers are just an easy group to throw under the bus in service of a confected mea culpa. I don’t know the specific ‘aboriginal’ cultural significance of Taipan Wall. I do know it's of unparalleled significance to rock climbers. To my mind this is equivalent to banning Everest to mountaineers.

I don't really agree with that interpretation, unless it is aimed at the park authority rather than the broader stakeholders?

I've done a fair bit of reading on aboriginal culture and the Australian landscape - far more than I have on the climbing there - and one of the most obvious insights was that Taipan must have been one of the most sacred sites for many, many miles. It doesn't really seem plausible that a highly particular and visible landscape feature such as this would not have been incorporated as a central element of that sacred landscape. But my understanding is that this knowledge was almost completely lost through simply shooting the holders like cattle. Those that survived retain only the scraps of a wealth of detailed cultural knowledge that one anthropologist compared his insights into as 'being permitted to peer through the keyhole of a cathedral'.  The idea that this culture is only being valued over climbing due to antecedence is I'm afraid, pretty crass, and it's hard not to see it as another example of white privilege and the colonial trampling these people have received. You could compare it to exterminating climbers and then basing any subsequent estimation of landscape value to climbers purely on where the bolts are, ignoring the obvious bigger picture.

So I think there absolutely solid grounds for both genuine remorse and reconciliation and recognizing the significance of these features. I don't agree for a second that automatic bans on access are right or proper or that Parks Victoria are handling this well. But it's not at all surprising to me that, in the context of their culture, the first and perhaps only thing those native people who remain would really look for is control over access to the land. I'm a great believer that climbing often promotes meaningful connections to place but how often does that really extend beyond tourism?


Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 10930
  • Karma: +599/-20
When this comes up I always think about Hollow Mountain Cave, are any areas of that restricted? Seems like if anywhere would have had cultural significance, it’s that place.

Agreed. And yes it's all banned to climbers, but you can still walk there.

Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 9491
  • Karma: +492/-8
Quote
Yeah, obviously, this is all about a cheap surface reading of cultural value. It's the leveraging of guilt culture paternalism. One culture’s interests trumping another’s on principle of antecedence, without any other measure of value.  Climbers are just an easy group to throw under the bus in service of a confected mea culpa. I don’t know the specific ‘aboriginal’ cultural significance of Taipan Wall. I do know it's of unparalleled significance to rock climbers. To my mind this is equivalent to banning Everest to mountaineers.

I don't really agree with that interpretation, unless it is aimed at the park authority rather than the broader stakeholders?

I've done a fair bit of reading on aboriginal culture and the Australian landscape - far more than I have on the climbing there - and one of the most obvious insights was that Taipan must have been one of the most sacred sites for many, many miles. It doesn't really seem plausible that a highly particular and visible landscape feature such as this would not have been incorporated as a central element of that sacred landscape. But my understanding is that this knowledge was almost completely lost through simply shooting the holders like cattle. Those that survived retain only the scraps of a wealth of detailed cultural knowledge that one anthropologist compared his insights into as 'being permitted to peer through the keyhole of a cathedral'.  The idea that this culture is only being valued over climbing due to antecedence is I'm afraid, pretty crass, and it's hard not to see it as another example of white privilege and the colonial trampling these people have received. You could compare it to exterminating climbers and then basing any subsequent estimation of landscape value to climbers purely on where the bolts are, ignoring the obvious bigger picture.

So I think there absolutely solid grounds for both genuine remorse and reconciliation and recognizing the significance of these features. I don't agree for a second that automatic bans on access are right or proper or that Parks Victoria are handling this well. But it's not at all surprising to me that, in the context of their culture, the first and perhaps only thing those native people who remain would really look for is control over access to the land. I'm a great believer that climbing often promotes meaningful connections to place but how often does that really extend beyond tourism?
It's entirely aimed at the park authorities. It strikes me that entirely legitimate grievances have been, as I said, weaponised out of convenience or deeper antipathy. Clearly this has not been justified entirely on the basis of 'who was there first', but equally clearly the value of sites to climbers has not been taken at all seriously. Diminishing climber's interest on the basis of 'white privilege' ignores the fact that white privilege is just shorthand for the abuse of power against the powerless. Yesterday that was the aboriginal people, now it's the climbers. Yesterday's oppression effectively used to justify today's. Setting minority groups who ought  to have shared interests against each other  as cover for illiberal authoritarian overreach.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 10930
  • Karma: +599/-20
Hmm. I'm not sure the oppression suffered by the two parties here really bears comparison. Try looking at this from the perspective of an aboriginal. What would their priorities be? How would you convince them that climbers are the good guys they have lots in common with rather than just more bad white guys who feel entitled to trample freely across your heritage? One of the most central compenets of aboriginal culture is the way access to land was granted. There was never any blanket freedom to roam, it was based on a system of rights conferred by birth and subsequent negotiated reciprocal arrangements. The big difference with western modes is that this was not done by areas but by paths, but access was something earned.

I really think relying on your gut feelings of right and wrong here are a part of the problem not the solution. Those feelings are not relevant outside of the context they were developed in and It's that attitude that has got us where we are.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20457
  • Karma: +635/-11
Its worth considering that traditional owners culture and values are really different from western ones.... just massively different. Comparing them is not straightforward..


Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 9491
  • Karma: +492/-8
JB - I'm not suggesting there's equivalence, just that two wrongs don't make a right.
I don't think it's so much a case of gut instinct, more of looking at the value of a site on the basis of first principles. The cultural utility of the area is maximised by a settlement fairly weighting all valid interests. The current proposal doesn't look anything like that to me, but I accept my opinion is biased and I have no great understanding of aboriginal value systems. I'd be interested to know what you think a fair settlement would look like.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2021, 02:19:13 pm by Bonjoy, Reason: Tortology »

spidermonkey09

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1647
  • Karma: +124/-1
Interesting discussion. I think I fall somewhere between the two viewpoints. My main issue is the way Parks Vic are cynically scapegoating climbers as a way to give 'concessions' to traditional owners while blazing a massive new trail through the park to support increased tourism. Its unbelievably two faced. I have no beef with traditional owners at all for accepting the offer of increased/total control over their land, its probably what I would do.

The ultimate problem is that this policy will result in less access for everyone; climbers especially, but also bushwalkers and regular tourists. I have no problem with certain sacred places being out of bounds but huge swathes being off limits feels really wrong to me, especially when combined with climbers being disproportionately targeted compared to other user groups.

To me, this is a corporate power grab dressed up as a concession to indigenous people. I agree 1000% indigenous people need concessions, and lots of them, but I don't think this policy is good for anyone apart from Parks Vic in the long run. Does anyone seriously think Parks Vic or any government body have indigenous peoples interests at heart? Anyone who has spent any time whatsoever in Australia will know how deep seated racism is there and it goes right to the heart of Australia's institutions. They see this is a way of dealing with indigenous requests and bulldozering their way to a bigger profits, handily removing a user group who they see as freeloaders because they don't use their paid facilities.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4813
  • Karma: +505/-27
Hmm. I'm not sure the oppression suffered by the two parties here really bears comparison. Try looking at this from the perspective of an aboriginal. What would their priorities be? How would you convince them that climbers are the good guys they have lots in common with rather than just more bad white guys who feel entitled to trample freely across your heritage? One of the most central compenets of aboriginal culture is the way access to land was granted. There was never any blanket freedom to roam, it was based on a system of rights conferred by birth and subsequent negotiated reciprocal arrangements. The big difference with western modes is that this was not done by areas but by paths, but access was something earned.

I really think relying on your gut feelings of right and wrong here are a part of the problem not the solution. Those feelings are not relevant outside of the context they were developed in and It's that attitude that has got us where we are.

I have no knowledge of the issue other than reading the Vertical Life report linked above..
Genuine question - where are the Aboriginals' voices in this? I'm hearing a lot from Parks Victoria and nothing from aboriginals. Why do aboriginal people need Parks Victoria to speak for them in this case? Why could a dialogue not be set up between climbers groups and the Aboriginals, if respecting their culture and heritage is the issue here.

SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 26726
  • Karma: +552/-10
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix
Was banning climbing Ayer's Rock / Uluru a precursor to this perhaps, the stick now being wielded "climbing on aboriginal sites is bad". I don't think so, but you can't help but wonder.

Cave Rock at Tahoe has now had climbing banned since the 1990s due to ancestral claims.

habrich

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3983
  • Karma: +173/-21
Climbers are just an easy group to throw under the bus in service of a confected mea culpa.

Exactly. It is politics. Virtue signalling on indigenous issues plays well with the urban left. Climbing is not a big sport in Australia so climbers are easily ignored.

I have been following this tragic situation closely for years (everything Simon Carter has written on the subject is excellent) both because the Grampians are an amazing place and also because the same things are starting to happen in western Canada too, with the same political dynamic. Recently I learned from a very strong young kiwi climber that similar trends to what is happening in the Grampians (compounded by poorly drafted liability law) have long since made climbing in much of NZ, especially on the north island, dysfunctional, with most of the better accessible cliffs now closed. He relocated to Canada as he saw no point in being a climber in NZ any more.

Be thankful, Brits, that you are such a mongrel group that teasing out an oppressed indigenous minority to politicise will never be easy. Though ... those Scots?


SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 26726
  • Karma: +552/-10
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix
Has the impact on international tourism been largely ignored /overlooked?

Although there are other climbing places in Australia (although this could well set a precedent for anywhere not distinctly suburban) Arapiles and the Grampians are definitely the prize jewels for international climbers, and I doubt anyone would ever bother going on a climbing trip there without full access to both. Or are the numbers too low for them to care? A couple of thousand tourists a year coming to Oz for climbing? Or less than that?

spidermonkey09

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1647
  • Karma: +124/-1
Climbers are just an easy group to throw under the bus in service of a confected mea culpa.

Exactly. It is politics. Virtue signalling on indigenous issues plays well with the urban left. Climbing is not a big sport in Australia so climbers are easily ignored.

I have been following this tragic situation closely for years (everything Simon Carter has written on the subject is excellent) both because the Grampians are an amazing place and also because the same things are starting to happen in western Canada too, with the same political dynamic. Recently I learned from a very strong young kiwi climber that similar trends to what is happening in the Grampians (compounded by poorly drafted liability law) have long since made climbing in much of NZ, especially on the north island, dysfunctional, with most of the better accessible cliffs now closed. He relocated to Canada as he saw no point in being a climber in NZ any more.

Be thankful, Brits, that you are such a mongrel group that teasing out an oppressed indigenous minority to politicise will never be easy. Though ... those Scots?

Responses like this make me want to close every cliff in the Grampians and give the traditional owners the metaphorical keys.  :thumbsdown:

Australian government bodies motivated by pleasing the urban left?! I've heard it all now! The problem is that PV's approach here will result in more climbers ending up believing the above bull.

r-man

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Glory lurks beneath the moss
  • Posts: 5015
  • Karma: +193/-3
    • LANCASHIRE BOULDERING GUIDEBOOK
Was banning climbing Ayer's Rock / Uluru a precursor to this perhaps, the stick now being wielded "climbing on aboriginal sites is bad". I don't think so, but you can't help but wonder.

Cave Rock at Tahoe has now had climbing banned since the 1990s due to ancestral claims.

Worth noting though, Gariwerd / The Grampians national park comprises an area of roughly 1,700 sq km. That makes it slightly bigger than the Peak District national park. They are not just talking about banning one or two sites, but the majority of climbing in that huge area.

It seems hard to understand* why such sweeping bans are needed, and why climbers in particular have been singled out. Bolts, chalk and vegetation damage seem a) easy to limit and control and b) miniscule in impact compared to the huge landscaping project currently being undertaken to bulldoze a new 160km trail through the park, complete with campsites and toilets along the way. More about that here: https://www.parks.vic.gov.au/projects/grampians-peaks-trail

*Unless of course Parks Vic is not being honest about the reasons for the bans.

Climbers clearly love and respect this place. Why can't they get together with the traditional owners and find common ground? Why don't Parks Vic allow climbers to participate in the discussions?

Anyway, on the off chance that Parks Vic will listen, here's the facebook link to a climbers' response which seeks to engage with the new management plan. It seems very reasonable, and all you need to do is add your name by leaving a comment.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/grampiansbouldering/permalink/3781042105313652


Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 10930
  • Karma: +599/-20
Genuine question - where are the Aboriginals' voices in this? I'm hearing a lot from Parks Victoria and nothing from aboriginals. Why do aboriginal people need Parks Victoria to speak for them in this case? Why could a dialogue not be set up between climbers groups and the Aboriginals, if respecting their culture and heritage is the issue here.

AFAIK PV are being directed by then rather than speaking for them, but I don't know any details.

A dialogue has been set up: https://gwrn.org.au/ and looks encouraging. Here's their statement on Taipan:

Quote
We wished to give an update on our involvement in providing information to the Gariwerd Traditional Owners (GTOs) regarding their decision making in relation to protection of cultural heritage and climbing recreation at Taipan Wall.

What we’ve been doing

The GTOs have been very interested and engaged in learning more about how climbers use and access the Taipan Wall area. This special site contains important cultural values and is also a premium site for rock climbing. The intent is for the three organisations to gain information about rock climbing activities at this site to determine where these activities can resume in a way that ensures protection of cultural heritage.

GWRN has been on two site visits to Taipan Wall. The initial meeting involved representatives from all GTO groups, and Parks Victoria (PV), who provided information relating to the recent cultural values assessment. This visit established where the values are and enabled informative discussions about climbing activities at this site. GWRN provided a broad overview of climbing at Taipan Wall, for example describing Taipan’s significance to climbers, the number and nature of climbs, approaches, frequency and pattern of usage.

Following this, GWRN prepared an initial draft report detailing the distance of the cultural places that have been identified from existing climbing activity, including whether a cultural place is touched by an activity. “Climbing activity” includes climbs, approaches, access tracks and descents. The initial report has been discussed with the GTO groups on several occasions.GWRN requested a follow-up site visit last week to clarify some outstanding questions and explain aspects of the information in the report. This visit was attended by representatives from each of the GTOs, signalling strong support for this process as a test case for how things can move forward.

GWRN is in the process of finalising a report to present to the GTOs to support and inform their decision making and planning with PV. Given the sensitivity of the cultural values outlined in the report, GWRN has agreed to only provide a copy of the report directly to the GTOs.

We continue to experience a positive and collaborative relationship with the GTOs. Together we acknowledge the difficulty of this work, and the time and commitment it takes to create a robust framework for collaboration in this space.We recognise the immense strain and uncertainty the current situation places on many in our community. We are all in uncharted waters. GWRN is engaged in work that we hope can become a template for others – but it needs time and space to take form.As the recreational use assessment process is worked through we have the following messages for those who would like to demonstrate support for the work the GTOs and GWRN are doing.

Be Patient

The Traditional Owners are actively engaged in trialling and developing a granular, site by site recreational use assessment process to inform themselves of what actions they can reasonably take to protect cultural values and allow climbing activities to continue.

Site visits are a very time consuming activity. Over the past few months, the three GTOs have dedicated substantial resources at all levels of their organisations to these activities and their engagement with GWRN. The recent site visits and discussion regarding potential for co-existence of climbing and cultural heritage are a positive step, and being patient will enable this process to continue.

Traditional Owner groups cannot be compelled by any government agency or politician to engage with climbers or their various representative groups. Traditional Owners have a right to self-determination and informed decision-making in relation to their cultural heritage.

Be Respectful

The climbing community has shown immense respect over the past two years toward requests regarding closures, and toward the recent requests regarding temporary closures at Taipan Wall and Bundaleer. Many individuals, climbing clubs and organisations have stated a desire to help protect and respect cultural heritage. It is challenging but crucial to the success of our efforts that the community continue to demonstrate that commitment. Doing this will help protect cultural heritage, and help us all come to a deeper understanding of our true history to create a shared future.

The GTOs are acutely aware of the uncertainty and distress the climbing community is feeling and are committed to finding a path forward. Despite very limited resources, they are investing significant time to find out what they don’t know about climbing to look for solutions. Please respect their efforts by respecting their requests to avoid certain areas.Any disrespect of the temporary closures whilst the current recreational use assessment process is being worked through could compromise it and the possibility of future site visits. If trust in this process develops we hope that it expands far beyond GWRN.The long-term implications of this process shutting down completely at this time are worth reflecting on before deciding on what personal actions to take.

Be curious. Be kind

Our personal experiences repeatedly remind us that the process of reconciliation is difficult and confronting, especially when there is fear of loss or during times of change. We have avoided these conversations for centuries, and yet, the problems of history for our society and for Aboriginal Communities and Nations don’t seem to go away. What has happened in the past continues to play out before us. The only way we can change the story is through doing something different, and one pathway forward is reconciliation.

What might we need to find out about law, history and current Aboriginal society in order to play our part in informed and constructive discussion? How do we learn to sit in the discomfort of uncertainty and loss whilst holding hope that change can lead to a better place for all of us?

These are not easy questions to answer nor is it a place to want to be. It’s hard work, and we are all individually grappling with these questions. Karen Mundine, the Chief Executive Officer of Reconciliation Australia, describes how it feels to be engaged in this process:

“Reconciliation isn’t a single moment or place in time. It’s lots of small, consistent steps, some big strides, and sometimes unfortunate backwards steps …”

In taking consistent and small steps, we hope you will support the respectful dialogues that are now taking place.


Quote
more of looking at the value of a site on the basis of first principles. The cultural utility of the area is maximised by a settlement fairly weighting all valid interests.

Yeah that makes perfect sense from our perspective. I'm afraid that I've no idea what their idea of a fair settlement would be in the context of their culture and the situation now, but I suspect they might feel they know a little more about sustainable utility than us.

However the real question of reconciliation is what 'fair' looks like in the context of the reasons why there are now more of them than us:

Quote
at least 311 frontier massacres over a period of about 140 years had been documented, revealing "a state-sanctioned and organised attempt to eradicate Aboriginal people

Quote
"For myself, if I caught a black actually killing my sheep, I would shoot him with as little remorse as I would a wild dog, but no consideration on earth would induce me to ride into a camp and fire on them indiscriminately, as is the custom whenever the smoke is seen. They [the Aborigines] will very shortly be extinct."
Victoria 1850s, but this is far from ancient history.

Quote
1924. Bedford Downs massacre: a group of Gija and Worla men were tried in Wyndham for spearing a milking cow on the Bedford Downs Station. When released from the court they were given dog tags to wear and told to walk the 200 kilometres back to Bedford Downs. On arrival they were set to work to cut the wood that was later used to burn their bodies. Once the work was finished they were fed food laced with strychnine by white station hands and their writhing bodies were then either shot or they were clubbed to death. The bodies were subsequently burned by the local police.

June 1926. Forrest River massacre: Western Australian police constables, James Graham St Jack and Dennis Hastings Regan led a month long punitive expedition against Aboriginal people living in the Forrest River region. After the local mission station reported around 30 people missing, a police investigation was organised. This investigation found that at least 16 Aboriginal people were killed and their remains burnt in three purpose-built stone ovens. The police investigation led to a Royal Commission the following year. During the proceedings of this commission, the suggestion of the evidence of a native being equal to that of a white man was openly mocked. Despite this overt attempt to protect the perpetrators, the Commissioner still found that somewhere between 11 and 20 people were killed and St Jack and Regan were subsequently arrested for murder. Instead of going to trial, the men were brought before police magistrate Kidson who, in spite of the findings of the two previous investigations, deemed that the evidence was insufficient to go before a jury. Regan and St Jack were released and the Premier, Philip Collier, even re-instated them to their previous positions in the Kimberley.

Citizenship and the vote was only granted in 1967.

What land is being returned to them is a fraction of what they had, and boils down to the bits we can't use. And, yes, I suspect some politics and exploitation is involved as usual. But the idea that we'll all agree to open access seems incredibly naive. The good old British Empire, eh?

SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 26726
  • Karma: +552/-10
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix
What land is being returned to them is a fraction of what they had, and boils down to the bits we can't use.

Surely all of it was their's at one point?

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 10930
  • Karma: +599/-20
Of course, though split between tribes who weren't always on good terms.

SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 26726
  • Karma: +552/-10
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix
Right enough. Echoes of situation in SA too.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 10930
  • Karma: +599/-20
I had a similarly short trip to SA not long after my day trip to Taipan. Driving over the top to Silvermines we passed two lanky guys striding across the scrub in what appeared to be full Zulu warrior get up. No idea who or why but it suddenly felt very much like Africa. Shame there's not much chance of the equivalent happening in Victoria.

SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 26726
  • Karma: +552/-10
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix
Silvermine crag or boulders? Some tribes do initiation ceremonies where they need to dress up in traditional gear. Not likely Zulu though, unless doing the ceremony a long way from homelands in Kwazulu Natal.

habrich

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3983
  • Karma: +173/-21
Australian government bodies motivated by pleasing the urban left?! I've heard it all now!

I am surprised you are so triggered by this. Nothing I wrote is inaccurate. The left in countries like Australia and Canada are predominantly urban, they do claim to care about indigenous issues, and policies relating to indigenous issues are manifesto items in elections. On the other hand, policy is rarely substantive. There is plenty of lip service to slogans like "it is their land", but in cities like Melbourne with some of the priciest real estate on the planet, much of it owned by the middle-class left themselves, proposing to actually give the land back would be electoral suicide. Meanwhile Australia and Canada maintain high rates of skill-based immigration, supported across the political spectrum, which continue to dilute indigenous groups' influence and share of the economy. In British Columbia, net immigration every year is roughly equal to the entire on-reserve indigenous population. 

So instead there is virtue signalling: setting up yet another independent commission for reconciliation or something like the outdoor museum creation which is effectively happening in the Grampians. Do you think a socioeconomically-disadvantaged aboriginal family in the Melbourne suburbs really give a shit about some piece of bush hundreds of kilometres away being given a cultural site designation? The main beneficiaries of PV's actions are bureaucrats whose jobs are secured and a few archeological consultants - the ACAV guys frequently highlight that one single consultant has a sweet gig with PV to pronounce on all these cultural designations.

When I was working in climbing access here I got caught up in an issue not dissimilar to the Grampians situation: the secret transfer of some public land, with cliffs with many classic single-pitch routes, to a local First Nation group, without any prior consultation with outdoor recreation groups. As past of my engagement I spoke with a local FN guy who told me bluntly that 1. the transfer was stupid and irrelevant to him 2. what his family mainly cared about was the nation's tribal council, based 60km away, disputing his family's use of their home site, on which they wanted exclusive use, but which in the feudal reality of these entities is in fact held awkwardly in common. None of this helped at all with resolving the loss of climbing land, because that land decision was being made by white people in government patriarchally doing what they judged to be meaningful for the "natives".

In summary this stuff is messy and often not what it seems.



habrich

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3983
  • Karma: +173/-21
Genuine question - where are the Aboriginals' voices in this?

The land council for the Traditional Owner group based out of Horsham (town closest to the Grampians) has this substantial strategy document. They care about lots of things, like - no surprise - jobs and schools. In relation to the Grampians and Arapiles, there is mention of joint land management and protecting rock art, and selective quoting could support several interpretations of intent on those topics, but I can't find anything that suggests as draconian a policy as being carried about by PV.

A side-question which I wouldn't attempt to answer for Victoria is whether a tribal council's key concerns would be aligned with the regular tribal members' concerns? I do know that here in BC a majority of people who identify as indigenous and have association with a specific "nation" actually live off-reserve, often in a city far away, and are not active in that nation's politics, which - a further complication - is often decided by a mix of elected and hereditary chiefs. So the headline priorities of a nation may not reflect the majority of its members at all.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 10930
  • Karma: +599/-20
Good link, thanks.

I used the phrase 'conflicting truths' over on the Trump thread which attracted some criticism. This is a perfect example. I don't disagree with any of the perspectives put forward - all of them based on verifiable facts - but none of them are the whole picture.

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3556
  • Karma: +278/-23
 :offtopic:
I used the phrase 'conflicting truths' over on the Trump thread which attracted some criticism. This is a perfect example. I don't disagree with any of the perspectives put forward - all of them based on verifiable facts - but none of them are the whole picture.

My bold. Perspectives based on facts are not the same as truths! (For starters, perspectives based on facts can often later be proven to be false by other facts)

spidermonkey09

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1647
  • Karma: +124/-1

I am surprised you are so triggered by this. Nothing I wrote is inaccurate. The left in countries like Australia and Canada are predominantly urban, they do claim to care about indigenous issues, and policies relating to indigenous issues are manifesto items in elections. On the other hand, policy is rarely substantive. There is plenty of lip service to slogans like "it is their land", but in cities like Melbourne with some of the priciest real estate on the planet, much of it owned by the middle-class left themselves, proposing to actually give the land back would be electoral suicide. Meanwhile Australia and Canada maintain high rates of skill-based immigration, supported across the political spectrum, which continue to dilute indigenous groups' influence and share of the economy. In British Columbia, net immigration every year is roughly equal to the entire on-reserve indigenous population. 

So instead there is virtue signalling: setting up yet another independent commission for reconciliation or something like the outdoor museum creation which is effectively happening in the Grampians. Do you think a socioeconomically-disadvantaged aboriginal family in the Melbourne suburbs really give a shit about some piece of bush hundreds of kilometres away being given a cultural site designation? The main beneficiaries of PV's actions are bureaucrats whose jobs are secured and a few archeological consultants - the ACAV guys frequently highlight that one single consultant has a sweet gig with PV to pronounce on all these cultural designations.

When I was working in climbing access here I got caught up in an issue not dissimilar to the Grampians situation: the secret transfer of some public land, with cliffs with many classic single-pitch routes, to a local First Nation group, without any prior consultation with outdoor recreation groups. As past of my engagement I spoke with a local FN guy who told me bluntly that 1. the transfer was stupid and irrelevant to him 2. what his family mainly cared about was the nation's tribal council, based 60km away, disputing his family's use of their home site, on which they wanted exclusive use, but which in the feudal reality of these entities is in fact held awkwardly in common. None of this helped at all with resolving the loss of climbing land, because that land decision was being made by white people in government patriarchally doing what they judged to be meaningful for the "natives".

In summary this stuff is messy and often not what it seems.

I was particularly exercised by your sentence 'teasing out an oppressed indigenous minority to politicise.' That doesn't strike me as approaching the topic of reconciliation in particularly good faith. Oppression of indigenous Australians doesn't need teasing out, in the sense that its hard to see and niche; its abundantly obvious and present across the society. I start from the view that reconciliation is necessary and should happen; my quibble is around the best way to achieve this. I perceived your comment as suggesting that its not really a big deal.

That said, I agree that policy is rarely substantive; that includes this proposed policy from Parks Vic. I don't disagree with much at all in your second paragraph. I don't like the way you frame it though; I think virtue signalling is an awful term mostly used by those on the right to excuse any kind of steps in a progressive direction on the grounds that they don't go far enough, while simultaneously offering no proposals of their own. This is particularly galling when in Australia the government is profoundly right wing.

In summary, I absolutely agree its a complex issue but how we frame it is important. I would also agree with Alex that these are perspectives, not truths.

danm

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 695
  • Karma: +98/-1
One of the things that really shocked me when I visited Oz, and to some extent tainted my experience, was the deep visceral racism I encountered. Some of the people who expressed these views were friendly climbers who were well educated and travelled. Over a few campfire beers one evening the topic of "Abo's" came up and let's just say it was an instructive listen. It's only 20 years ago but it was not uncommon then to hear indigenous people being talked of in terms of something less than human.

Anyway, I'm yet another white guy giving my opinion, and there's too much of that already. Climbing may be on hold for now, but I can't help feel that the long overdue process of climbers talking directly to the traditional owner groups (whatever you feel about their true ownership or right to represent the indigenous owners) is a good thing.

Regarding the example of aboriginal heritage families in Melbourne - any examples of the climbers groups who have offered to engage with those people, take them back to their heritage landscape and teach them to climb and cherish it the way we do, whilst learning more about their relationship with the land? I think that would be a really good place to start building a proper, non-woke relationship.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20457
  • Karma: +635/-11
One of the things that really shocked me when I visited Oz, and to some extent tainted my experience, was the deep visceral racism I encountered. Some of the people who expressed these views were friendly climbers who were well educated and travelled. Over a few campfire beers one evening the topic of "Abo's" came up and let's just say it was an instructive listen. It's only 20 years ago but it was not uncommon then to hear indigenous people being talked of in terms of something less than human.

Anyway, I'm yet another white guy giving my opinion, and there's too much of that already. Climbing may be on hold for now, but I can't help feel that the long overdue process of climbers talking directly to the traditional owner groups (whatever you feel about their true ownership or right to represent the indigenous owners) is a good thing.

Regarding the example of aboriginal heritage families in Melbourne - any examples of the climbers groups who have offered to engage with those people, take them back to their heritage landscape and teach them to climb and cherish it the way we do, whilst learning more about their relationship with the land? I think that would be a really good place to start building a proper, non-woke relationship.

Good post Dan. Summarises a lot of how I’ve felt visiting Oz and seeing the relationship between Europeans and Traditional owners. I’ve mainly been to the North where the indig population is much higher as a percentage - and been lucky enough to work in Arnhem Land (a huge indig area/reserve). The cultural differences between the two populations are just immense - and even the way we (Europeans) expect the Traditional owners to use the frameworks of governance (like national parks - and national park management structures) we have imposed is inherently colonial and probably racist.

I’m utterly unqualified to say any more really - just a white Europeans observations.

SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 26726
  • Karma: +552/-10
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix
We ain't European no more.

spidermonkey09

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1647
  • Karma: +124/-1
Dan, I absolutely agree with your first paragraph. I had similar experiences around campfires which left me open mouthed in horror and disgust at what was being said. Working on a farm in WA, the farmer openly referred to aboriginal people as c**ns and made "jokes" about sterilising and even killing aboriginal trespassers on his land with tainted weedkiller. Needless to say I didn't work there long! When I was working in Kalgoorlie, a mining town in WA, a young aboriginal boy was run down and killed in a police chase, sparking riots. It really can't be overestimated how bad racism is in Australia . It's the main reason I decided I didn't want to live there.

I absolutely agree that the process of climbers talking to the indigenous community should happen, but my main problem with this proposal is that isn't what is happening. Parks Vic have positioned themselves as an intermediary between the two parties and are exploiting it for their own gain. Akin to a middle man in a business deal skimming the bulk of the settlement off the top. I have total faith that climbers and the indigenous community could work a settlement out; but the bureaucracy of PV is the barrier to that.

Hopefully the formation of (overdue) outreach groups will eventually lead to such a settlement. As you say I am totally unqualified really being a European white guy. Off topic, but I'm jealous you've been to Arnhem Land TT, I bet that was an incredible experience.

I'm sure JB and others have loads of reading recommendations on the topic of indigenous culture (keen to hear about these) but The Songlines by Bruce Chatwin is a great place to start if anyone is interested.

SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 26726
  • Karma: +552/-10
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix
Or watch this and weep at the injustice of it


ali k

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 693
  • Karma: +30/-1
It really can't be overestimated how bad racism is in Australia.
My first interaction with an Australian on home turf was the guy working at the hire car place at the airport who made some pretty offensive comments about the Chinese when we told him who we’d flown with (China Air). Can’t remember exactly what he said but I do remember being shocked that he openly said it to someone he didn’t know, let alone a customer. Quite a young guy as well.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 10930
  • Karma: +599/-20
Quote
I'm sure JB and others have loads of reading recommendations on the topic of indigenous culture (keen to hear about these) but The Songlines by Bruce Chatwin is a great place to start if anyone is interested.

Songlines is definitely the place to start, I think should be required reading for any visiting climber. It has its issues but I'm afraid I'm still looking for a better overview of aboriginal culture.

Critically it has come in for plenty of stick over the years, mainly for the facts that Chatwin's total time in Oz amounted to just nine weeks, relied almost completely on second hand knowledge, and the misunderstanding that it is a straightforward travel book rather than - as Chatwin referred to it - a novel in the tradition of the Greek dialectics. So time has rendered him simultaneously as a dilettante bullshitter and a thief of sacred knowledge.

There's a fantastic long essay examining the book on it's 30 year anniversary here: The Crankhandle of History (registration required I'm afraid). It also explains why my efforts to get hold of Chatwin's principle source text by Strehlow didn't get very far.

Other related general interest books on Oz with aboriginal content are Tracks by Robyn Davidson and In Tasmania by Nicholas Shakespeare. Tracks should also be required reading - Davidson was one of the 'incredible women' Chatwin met in Alice Springs and had far more direct contact with Aboriginals than he ever did. The book was made into a film a few yeasr back which is well worth seeing but fails to fully convey the transcendental moments of being deeply alone in the desert. In Tasmania is a little over-long but will leave you very well informed of Tas's present and past. (Shakespeare also did such a thorough job of Chatwin's biography that it is unlikely anyone will attempt another, however the nine weeks in Oz researching The Songlines are passed over with disappointing swiftness.)

The Greatest Estate on Earth is a weighty tome putting forward the argument that, pre-colonisation, Oz was a wild landscape. Instead, he posits that it was a managed landscape almost entirely shaped by the aboriginals. Gammage is a historian and has attracted scepticism, which seems mainly due to stepping out of his silo and onto the toes of ecologists and anthropologists. He attempts to win the argument through sheer weight of historical evidence, making the book rather dry and repetitive at times but the insights are worth persevering for.

The Last of the Nomads, Pleasley. An expedition-style account of the 'rescue' from drought of the last two aboriginals thought to still be subsisting in the western desert in 1976. In fact the Pintupi 9 were still living a stone age existence up until their first contact with the west in 1984, but a fascinating story nonetheless.



 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2021, SimplePortal