UKH

I thought this was a thought provoking article linking the notions of ‘summiting’ ‘conquering’ of mountains as imperialist projects for the western middle and higher classes, while commenting on the significance of the ban on Uluru. 
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/10/27/the-significance-of-this-weeks-ban...

Claptrap! With the caveat that honey-pot summits can have an adverse environmental impact I find the implication that "upper middle class" explorers are "penetrating" nature offensive.

I think it's simpler than that. If you disregard how you might get there (the cost of being a tourist meaning most people have a bit of money and might well be middle class), Uluru looks amazing and if you're unaware of any reason why you shouldn't go up it, why wouldn't you want to see what it's like at the top? Everyone has different reasons (curiosity, challenge, just being high up, views, etc), but I guess that would be a boring article. Sometimes the truth is, well, boring.

I think it may be better not to comment directly on the Bellends of Caledonia article.

While I understand and sympathise with the aboriginals I do wonder how far such accommodations should be extended. For example, I could start a religion or philosophy which regarded the Buchaille as sacred and ask people not to climb it. You may regard that as ridiculous as I live 120 miles away and the "religion" hasn't existed for very long but where does one draw the line? Who has the right to stop people responsibly exploring a piece of land?

Your new religion conflicts with my new religion which demands an annual devotional climb on the Buchaille.

To be honest with all that the Australian government has done to the aboriginal people of Australia, if they ask toursists to keep off of their sacred rock its the least the Australians can do

So how do you feel about the move to ban climbing access to many of Australia’s best crags for the same reason?

FWIW I would prefer to enjoy looking at the rock from the ground, but I feel the same way about Everest too

Well, considering aboriginal culture existed for 40,000 years and was wiped out in 300 (and aboriginal people continue to exist in pretty awful state of affairs), I think the least that can be done is respecting their wishes to not climb one of their most sacred sites. 

A better analogy might be if the Vatican was invaded by a foreign power, all the Catholics murdered, displaced or dispossession, then the Basilica turned into a gym.   

In the current situation in Victoria (to which I assume you are referring) it is not obvious if the bans are being suggested by the traditional owners, or by overzealous Park Victoria officials. So you might not be comparing like with like.

So what you're saying is that whether someone else's religious sensitivities should be respected or not depends on how we have behaved towards them in the past? If we'd been less violent and paid them for the farmland etc, etc it would be ok to climb?

Ir can we dispense with the breasbeating aspect altogether and just say we shouldn't intrude on other people's sensitivities in which case we return to my question of where you draw the line?

I'm saying you have to consider the past actions of the parties involved, which has a bearing on how you view and deal with the current situation. I think most sensible people looking at that particular situation, wouldn't consider a ban on climbing Uluru unreasonable, given its status to Aboriginal culture (whats left of it anyway), and how poorly Europeans have historically treated natives.  

 > Ir can we dispense with the breasbeating aspect altogether and just say we shouldn't intrude on other people's sensitivities in which case we return to my question of where you draw the line?

I think its an almost impossible question to answer TBH, as its so subjective and depends upon the situation.  I guess it calls for sensible diplomacy on both sides. 

OK, so if the locals hadn't cited religion as a reason but just said, "we don't want other people crawling all over our rock" that would have been reason enough?

I'm undecided about the whole thing by the way. I'm trying to establish son sort of principle, not lay a debating trap 😊.

Me neither! I don't know what the answer is in all cases (or if there is a sensible principal to abide by), but to me that case seems reasonable clear.  

This 'slippery slope' argument isn't as clever as you think it is. Of course there are some things that 'intrude on other people's sensitivities' that we, as a society have decided are necessary or important and we should continue with. Examples include giving the children of Jehovahs Witness's blood transfusions and banning extremist preachers. There are also some things that 'intrude on other people's sensitivities' that we've decided we shouldn't do, such as hate speech or throwing pigs heads at people. 

There isn't a neat formula to distinguish between things that we should allow and things we shouldn't, but as a starter, here is a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider: how many people are affected, how important is it for the affected people, what is the cost to everyone else, and what is the historical context.

Now, these lines are often fuzzy and I don't think that discussion or debate over where they lie is a bad thing. But I do want to point out that your facetious 'my religion says the Buchaille is sacred' example isn't a slam dunk by any means (why don't you try applying that list I gave above to it). I also think that for examples like these, involving a group of people who have consistently been persecuted and ignored, it's very important to listen to the people involved about how they are affected by the issue, rather than to think about real or hypothetical costs to oneself.

Which is pretty much how the Catholic church acquired said wealth in the first place. 

Was lucky enough to visit last year, would have loved to climb but respected the requests not to. The aboriginals have made many concessions in allowing tourists access to spiritual sites in the area, so respecting a few small no go areas is fair enough in my view. 

I am not an overly spiritual person, but some places round the rock did have a special feeling and I have no regrets that we didn't climb. Other sites we visited also had restrictions for tourists which in no way reduced our enjoyment. 

Yes, I cant argue with that. But we like to fool ourselves we are all a bit more civil these days?

Well, apart from all the people who evidently aren't (ISIS etc.)

Ok, so there are lots of different things to think about and in the end you don't know how they should all be assessed.

My sister climbed it with a friend of hers maybe 10 years ago on an organised trip - in flip flops, of all things!

For me, I'd still like to go and visit it, but I think I'd be disappointed not to be able to climb it, although that's mainly out of annoyance that my sister has.

I'll admit to also feeling a bit annoyed that I was a year, or two, too late to be allowed to climb the main temple at Chichen Itza. Much as I enjoyed being there, I would have liked to have seen the view from the top, to get a better sense of the scale of the site. The reason that was closed was partly due to damage from visitors - either graffiti or chipping bits off as souvenirs - and partly due to the safety aspect, as there's no guard rails at the top.

I have particular views on religion in general but I have much more particular views on the type of person that wilfully defaces/damages ancient monuments.

By and large, I’m not a big fan of people using made up crap to stop other people from doing stuff.

Yes, this was what was/is making me a little uncomfortable about the whole thing and I wonder how many genuinely care about the whole thing or even follow the beliefs that make Uluru "sacred" in some way.

At the same time I don't like to see beautiful places in remote settings get trashed and commercialised so in some respects I quite welcome the ban and if local people really do care about the place then fair enough. I think I'd rather see a compromise where there is no camping allowed in the vicinity and anyone who can walk for a day to reach the place can climb it.

Thank you to all those that have commented.

What initially strikes me is that the author’s notion of ‘universalism’ is alive and well on this forum.  However the amount of likes to ‘Ratking’s’ post  suggests universalism is perhaps only shared by the vocal few.

The silent majority give me some optimism at least, because what a desolate and hopeless place the world would be if everybody shared the same world view.

I've been thinking about this on and off throughout today, and I reckon that if someone holds something to be sacred, then it should be taken seriously, even if I don't share the same beliefs. I've been trying to think of examples to compare it to my experiences which I've been struggling with because I'm a fairly hardcore atheist, but I think respecting the dead is about as close I can find. So what I've been trying to compare it to is how I'd feel if someone wanted to dig up my grandmothers grave just to take a look or whatever. Obviously I'd be completely against it and I'd want them to stop, even if there isn't a completely rational argument against it. That's my take on this.  

Had a very similar experience a good few years back, was talked out of going up the rock (with the aid of a very strong 'cigarette') I had no idea before I went it was considered offensive. Promised to walk around instead and did so. I'm not prone to flights of spiritual fancy but it was as close to a religious experience I've had as an adult. Camera was broken too and met no-one en route. Without any distractions  it was a rather joyous morning's walk. 

What about if you'd had your grandmother's ashes sprinkled on a hill, and then wanted to stop others walking there as a mark of respect?

I see that mount Athos in Greece has banned women (and all female animals) from climbing it on religious grounds, Greek orthodox monks. This has been for 1000 years and I think similar in some ways to Uluru?

Just in case you were including me in your (rather assumptive) silent majority, I thought the article was claptrap.

I’ve walked round it, twice. Having now seen videos on YouTube of people going up it I’m glad I didn’t. The walk round is fabulous, religion aside the walk up looks dull.

don't you think that's a very egocentric analogy; comparing the wishes of one person's recent concern against the wishes of many form a long held cultural standpoint?

shall we say: if a group of people sprinkled the ashes of their grandmothers on a hill, had been doing so for many hundreds of years and didn't walk on this hill any other time.... - possibly?

Your new religion conflicts with my religion which believes that the Buchaille should be climbed annually metaphorically only. 

That's not a great analogy because the Catholics actually built the Vatican, the Aborigines didn't build Ayres Rock and furthermore, anyone can visit the Vatican regardless of their religion.

It's not made up crap though is it, especially in the case of the aboriginals. Although you may want to see it as a religion, it's more a history and tradition, having no written history the aboriginals use oral history to remember olden time, traditions, family members, past deeds and mis-deeds. these areas important as our Magna Carta, and ancient libraries, Uluru forms part of the aboriginal history and tradition, so why shouldn't they lay claim to it, and do with it what they will?

Would you think it OK to go bouldering on Stonehenge?

I wouldn't admit to having done this as a student...

I just don't get it. I have not read the article yet (as the conversation has long moved on beyond it), but I don't see what's the problem with not "climbing" (well, more like walking up) Uluru? Especially with the UKC crowd? Just imagine somebody was putting up a sport route up your favourite trad crag. Or a DT venue at the same. I can just imagine the shitstorms that would have generated here - all the "bolting" discussions come to mind.

Just respect the locals, no? It's not that hard. Chalk or no chalk on Elbsandstein, trad or sport, Grit, whatever. It's the same. Respect the traditions. Most of the climbing traditions and ethics are just few decades (or around hundred years at most, if you count Paul Preuss and the Mauerhakenstreit dispute) old anyway, these guys have been there much longer...

And it's not even a proper climb, we are talking about a bl**dy easy walkup with chains and steps.

Interesting that everyone on here seems to regard the indigenous people of Australia and their wishes as one monolithic block, even though they are made up of 100's of tribes and languages (see also; every time Africa comes up). Saying that aboriginals all want climbing on Uluru banned is as disingenuous as saying all Irish are strict catholics or that all climbers want to summit Everest.

Worth considering Everest: also regarded as sacred by the locals, also not traditionally climbed by the locals for pleasure, also no formal historic injunction against climbing it. The big difference being that the locals have managed to monetise it.

are you suggesting there are some aboriginal tribes who still want people climbing on Uluru?

I would imagine that tribes will have people of differing opinions. Exactly the same as with groups of European people, or any people... had that never occurred to you?

By way of comparison, there is a similar situation with the Devil's Tower in Wyoming which is regarded as sacred by indigenous people. However this is managed by a ban on climbing at specific times only and outside of this climbers have access which could be regarded as a sensible compromise between competing rights. Whilst some indigenous people want a ban for spiritual reasons some climbers have stated it is their spiritual belief that they must climb the tower!

Essentially an outright ban allows one group to impose it's religious beliefs on others and whilst the 'they were there first' rationale has some merit you can't turn the clock back and the non indigenous people aren't going away. Certainly if the tables were turned and if for example, the indigenous people of the UK (whovever they may be) were to try and exclude immigrants from Stonehenge it would not be received sympathetically (to say the least!).

More info on the Tower arrangements here (after the bird ban stuff)

https://www.nps.gov/deto/planyourvisit/currentclimbingclosures.htm

But you have no proof of this? I would imagine they all think white people should stop trampling all over their ancestors memories, so who's right?

We can all imagine stuff, it doesn't make it the truth.

Supposing we imagine that all the aboriginal groups involved, wanted the rock closing to walkers, would that be enough for you?

And what do you say to the bolting analogy, that people should simply be allowed to do what they want, no matter what the tradition is, because they want to?

No; we don't.

Uluru could be - indeed, already is - 'monetized' by the local people. Nevertheless, they still don't want people climbing it.

that was the hope in 1985, but it hasn’t happened. Very few of the businesses servicing tourists are aboriginal owned and very few guides/park rangers are from the local tribe. Stark contrast to local Nepali involvement in Everest tourism.

Dieu Merci that it's not in France or it would have a telepherique and a refuge on top. 

But seriously, tourists are on the whole stupid and selfish and most will only want to climb it for the bragging rights then drop their litter and use it as a toilet. 

Wow. You think they’re racist too? The stipulation is banned to non indigenous....I don’t think they’re insisting  on a colour bar.

650,000 indigenous Australians. Pretty safe bet that they aren’t all religious fundamentalists.

Supposing all the Druids wanted Stonehenge closed to non druids, fair enough?

I am not aware of any continuously surviving Druidic traditions back from the 3000 BC times, are you? 

BTW, really nice of you to paint the locals who do oppose tourism on Uluru as "religious fundamentalists"

Is anyone asking to bolt Ayres Rock?

I went up it in the 70's. It had recently rained and there were lots of pools of water, in which were loads of primitive beasties swimming.

Just thought I would share that. 

There was no 'no climbing the rock' stuff at that time. There had just been an article in Mountain about climbing on it. 

There was a small jail there however! 

Errrr!!!!

It's Halloween on Thursday.

Not so difficult 

I would probably make a distinction between Neolithic/Bronze Age culture (Stonehenge, 3000-1500 BC?) that we don't really know that much about, much more recent immigration of Celtic (Druidic) traditions like the Samhain (500 BC?), later Christian appropriations (how related it really is to Samhain is somewhat debatable) and finally modern "shopping" traditions like the Halloween

I kind of see your point and have debated this in my head a fair bit. But we do have to accept these guy's cultural heritages (Calling it a religion cheapens their beliefs I think) have developed over something like 10,000 years, the significance developed over millennia not a few years, then we came along and crapped all over it in 300 years. Giving back Uluru is a small concession in the grand scheme of things. Aussies have most of Australia and get away with keeping it by putting in a token signpost here and there recognising the 'custodians of this land'.

Winter solstice anyone? :P

Hoist on one's own petard! (What's a petard?) 

More like 50,000.

I am really finding this thread very strange, for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would not accept the aboriginal request not to walk up Uluru.

It means a lot to them, just respect it, no big deal. 

Haha, true. Buts what's a few 10's of thousands of years between cultures. 

Apparently  the advice is that you should never go full petard.

<*Swerve*>

Step one in undermining cultural claims  - Choose a completely different name to the indigenous one and make sure it gets into common usage.

Are you pandering to the Welsh?

Er........  do you mean that lot in Cymru?

My point was both groups hold each structure/location sacred, and there are actions that are not be considered acceptable at either. 

And anyone can visit Uluru, it the climbing bit that's in contention.

I feel we're entering hair splitting territory!

Just an aside that we don't really know how old the current Aboriginal religious traditions actually are.  Yes, the traditions say that they go back to "the Dreamtime", but that does not mean that they do.  We really have no way of telling whether they were invented 400 years ago or 1000 or 10,000.  

If we think how much European religions and cultural traditions have changed over 10,000 years, we can't just assume that other cultures have stayed static. 

Yes, where Mount Snowdon is located

Oh yes - the place with the fantastic little train ride to a café?

They couldn't "traditionally climb it". It took technology they didn't have.

What's with the sudden fashion on UKC for class-war and middle-class guilt?

I wouldn't call it sudden.

We do know that they have oral histories that accurately record astronomical phenomena and other events from hundreds, even thousands of years ago.  Stories that have been told and remained essentially unchanged for longer than our culture has existed.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/16/indigenous-australia...

No I'm not splitting hairs, there's a clear difference between a man made structure which the people who built it clearly own and a geographical feature which was there millions of years before any humans came along. Also to say you can visit Uluru is a bit like saying you can visit the Vatican but you can only stand outside and look at it.

I'm not unsympathetic to the Aborignes (can we still say that?) claims to the rock, nor am I a fan of the Catholic church but I don't think its a good analogy. I do think some sort of compromise would be in order, see my post above about the Devil's Tower.

That's been the case on here as long as here has existed, there's nothing sudden about it.

I'm pretty sure it is frowned upon to climb up it.  And tbh, even if they do tolerate the first few to do it I think they might get a bit more militant after a few tourists have taken a dump on the roof.

I’ve been to the top of St. Peter’s basilica. Lovely view. Nobody frowned at me, they smiled and sold me a ticket.

Did you have a dump while you were up there?

No. That cost extra.

Well, after all, it's a "private crag" (or rather tribe owned land). So they can do pretty much as they want. The original government promise from '83 included closure of the hike to the top (later rescinded).  Do you think "a compromise would be in order" as well re: antisocial activities at e.g. Bowles Rocks (just a recent thread comes to mind)? Most of the calls for the closure resurfaced after recent antisocial behaviour by tourists there. Blame Instagram

Yes, a compromise would be nice, but a compromise needs the consent of both parties, as well as decent behaviour from the other party. Personally, I couldn't care less. It's not even a climb, it's a hike to the top via a chain just for the sake of it. Being the only prominent feature around in the bush, it's not like you have any spectacular views from the top anyway, as you can't see the actual Uluru if you stand on top of it 

Are there any other routes on the rock ? I have a vague memory of reading an account of a first ascent in an old Mountain. I presume any such routes are also banned but were they ever popular?

I remember the same article: the climb described took the 'Kangaroo's Tail' feature I think.

However, climbing has always been banned on Uluru so far as I know; and the climb described in the article was done illicitly.

Edit: see e.g. http://www.chockstone.org/Forum/Forum.asp?Action=DisplayTopic&ForumID=1...

I think you mean Tonypandyering to the Welsh

Me neither. This thread contains a display of some incredible ignorance.

Such interpretations, linking to specific astronomical phenomena and historical events, are usually wildly speculative.    Of course if you listen to enough oral history and look through enough historical events, then it is possible to propose matches, but then it's nearly impossible to corroborate any claims.

We simply don't know how much the stories have changed. 

Edit to give an example:  Such claims are similar to arguing about Brits:

"There is an ancient tradition about Noah's Flood; and we know that at the end of the ice age sea-levels rose, and this flooded the plain that is now the North Sea, cutting off the UK from mainland Europe; therefore let's speculate that the stories of Noah's Flood are a cultural-tradition retelling of that historical event".       Not totally impossible, but ...