It's a sickening state of affairs. Amazing how the cultural heritage of one group has been weaponised against the cultural heritage of another.
It doesn’t sound like there’s much real dialogue going on.
and accuses ‘walkers’ of causing the graffiti at Hollow Mountain Cave.
I'm glad I have had the fortune to visit
Quote from: Bonjoy on January 20, 2021, 08:37:21 amIt'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.
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!
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.
To my mind this is equivalent to banning Everest to mountaineers.
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.
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.
QuoteYeah, 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?
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.
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.
