Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Uluru ethics

climberman

5-May-2008
7:26:20 PM

so much 'I want for me' so little 'I think about others'

it's not like folks on here don't get to go to the top of big rocks pretty f'n often compared to the average mug


tnd

6-May-2008
11:57:40 AM

On 5/05/2008 evanbb wrote:
>And did you climb it Mike? I hear it's a total sandbag.

He's there this week so expect a trip report soon...


bigmike

5-Jun-2008
12:13:26 PM

On 6/05/2008 tnd wrote:
>On 5/05/2008 evanbb wrote:
>>And did you climb it Mike? I hear it's a total sandbag.
>
>He's there this week so expect a trip report soon...

So ... a bit of a discourse, for anyone who's interested. (If you're looking for the short answer, it's on a separate line half way down, scan away!)

If truth be told, my feeling before the trip was that I wasn't going to climb UIuru.

The first time I heard about the debate was in the mid-90s. And the sense I got was that Australian sensibilities were shifting ... the "Sorry Day" march across the Harbour Bridge (before I moved to Aus), the pressure put on Howard, Midnight Oil at the Olympics, and now the apology by the Rudd Government, etc etc, seemed to support this perception.

So I thought any research on the issue (I also polled a bunch of colleagues at work, and asked heaps of others for their opinion) would confirm my feeling that it was no longer considered appropriate to climb.

Well, as the result of this poll shows (and to my surprise), I was wrong. Ditto with colleagues, people at parties, and the like. People were very evenly divided. The up side of this was that it gave me a chance to reappraise my thinking. The responses were a challenge to, not the expected confirmation of, my initial thoughts.

In my experience, the most vociferous arguments were from the "do climb" camp. Earlier on in this thread I noted that, while the vote was running 50/50, there wasn't much comment from the "don't climb" side. (Deadbudgy being one stand-out exception). I think the sense there is that it's difficult to appeal to sentiments that don't exist, and easy to have a go at arguments that can be painted as soft, bleeding heart, etc. Are there any left-wing "shock jocks" on radio? It's much harder to do.

Still, I set off for Uluru very much undecided. I felt that the better option would be not to climb, but couldn't guarantee that I wouldn't get "the urge" when standing at the base.

Well, I didn't climb it.

I've been to a fair few places of natural beauty in my life, but I was unprepared for the impact of Uluru. No matter how many times I saw it during my stay, it always seemed to change - the features, the angles of the light, etc. It just never got "old". It's a special place, and it was only after I left that I realised I had never actually touched the rock.

The clincher for me was the tone of the message from the indigenous people. They didn't TELL you, or threaten you ... it was a gentle request. And the words on the sign at the base of the route seemed to make sense - that Uluru wasn't a place for climbing, it was a place for listening and for reflection. Looking at the noisy groups of people swarming up a polished slab, french-freeing on a big railing all the way, well, it didn't seem that appealing.

I have to say I had a sense of frustration when I left. I felt that I hadn't got my head properly around the place, that I hadn't seen enough, that there was something left undone. Maybe that would have been cured by climbing it?

I don't think so. But even if that was the case, well, maybe it's better that way.

Access T CliffCare

5-Jun-2008
12:18:32 PM

Beautifully said Big Mike!


Organ Pipe

5-Jun-2008
12:44:09 PM

On 5/06/2008 bigmike wrote:
>it was a place for listening and for reflection.

Beautifully put Mike.


hangdog

5-Jun-2008
1:14:11 PM

oh no! i am choking up. i think i need a hug.


Phil Box

5-Jun-2008
1:28:58 PM

On 5/06/2008 bigmike wrote:
>So I thought any research on the issue (I also polled a bunch of colleagues
>at work, and asked heaps of others for their opinion) would confirm my
>feeling that it was no longer considered appropriate to climb.

This bit in your post seemed to indicate that you weren't able to hold an opinion of your own and that only researching others opinions would inform you of what you would ultimately be thinking.

I'm sure I am reading this wrong though.


BigMike

5-Jun-2008
1:59:59 PM

On 5/06/2008 Phil Box wrote:

>This bit in your post seemed to indicate that you weren't able to hold
>an opinion of your own

Yes, it's true, I can only go by the opinions of others!

Actually, what I was trying to say was that I thought the opinion I had initially formed - before coming to Australia - had majority support. Instead, I found that people were much more evenly divided on the issue.

So, it was an interesting process to ask people for their motivations. Perhaps their arguments would prove persuasive.

james

5-Jun-2008
3:02:50 PM

On 5/06/2008 Phil Box wrote:
>This bit in your post seemed to indicate that you weren't able to hold
>an opinion of your own and that only researching others opinions would
>inform you of what you would ultimately be thinking.
>
>I'm sure I am reading this wrong though.

I'm not trying to make any comment on whether to climb or not to climb.... But BM is a Pom (correct me if I'm wrong) so didn't grow up with the same exposure to Australia's social history that (most of) the rest of us did. talking to a range of other people beforehand strikes me as a pretty damn respectful way to approach things, rather than risk coming across as an ignorant immigrant.


evanbb

5-Jun-2008
3:22:02 PM

On 5/06/2008 james wrote:
>I'm not trying to make any comment on whether to climb or not to climb....
> But BM is a Pom (correct me if I'm wrong) so didn't grow up with the same
>exposure to Australia's social history that (most of) the rest of us did.

I was actually just discussing what a disadvantage for the aboriginal cause this is last night. All through primary/high school we had aboriginal culture rammed down our throat, with no consideration for quality or meaning. This culminated in having to study The Worst Book Ever Written (Sally Morgan's 'My Place') for a full term, mostly because it was an aboriginal work. I fear, as has happened with me, a general 'glazing over' when exposed to koori issues, since they've been so forced in the past.

Just like my stance on religion after attending a Catholic high school.


tnd

5-Jun-2008
4:47:31 PM

On 5/06/2008 james wrote:
>
> (snip)But BM is a Pom
>
Ho ho, a bit off there sport, I'll leave the big fella to put you right. Suffice to say he has plenty of experience of the problems that can exist between original inhabitants and newcomers.


tnd

5-Jun-2008
4:51:04 PM

On 5/06/2008 evanbb wrote:
>...I was actually just discussing what a disadvantage for the aboriginal
>cause this is last night. All through primary/high school we had aboriginal
>culture rammed down our throat, with no consideration for quality or meaning.
>This culminated in having to study The Worst Book Ever Written (Sally Morgan's
>'My Place') for a full term, mostly because it was an aboriginal work.
>I fear, as has happened with me, a general 'glazing over' when exposed
>to koori issues, since they've been so forced in the past.
>
>Just like my stance on religion after attending a Catholic high school.

Have to sympathise with this view. Trying to over-indoctrinate children can be counter-productive. Why can't educators just present the various views and guide their pupils' thinking, rather than preach?

Having been schooled in the Emerald Isle, I can definitely relate to the Catholic sentiment!

gfdonc

5-Jun-2008
10:46:12 PM

I think the rock etchings underneath Manic Depressive are reflective of the kulcha today.

climberer

10-Jun-2008
3:47:39 PM

Good on you BigMike; I'm pleased that you enjoyed your visit without clambering all over the thing. I did the walk around and found that a great way (and much more peaceful) to appreciate the size of the rock and the changing light, shadows and undulations.

You don't have to believe in other cultures' beliefs in order to respect them. I don't believe in or worship Vishnu or Shiva but when I was in India I took my shoes off/covered my head/did whatever else was appropriate in temples - it's just respectful to do so. Similarly, I don't fully understand Aboriginal people's relationship to Uluru (not 'Koori' BTW; that applies only to Vic and southern NSW) but I respect their request that we not climb it. How would we like it if people behaved inappropriately in places sacred to Australians such as churches or, I dunno, ANZAC Cove? Sure, there's no law against it but we would find it disrespectful. It doesn't hurt to show respect for cultures and beliefs different to your own and you might actually learn something in the process.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

14-Jul-2009
1:47:57 PM

~> bump ... of sorts.

The Uluru ascent: steep, strenuous and set to be sanctioned.

The deadline for submissions on the draft management plan is September 4.


evanbb

14-Jul-2009
2:16:44 PM

On 14/07/2009 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>~> bump ... of sorts.
>
>The Uluru ascent: steep, strenuous
>and set to be sanctioned.

This could get very interesting indeed. I've been following the debate on a couple of other fora and there's some pretty passionate views out there.

patto

14-Jul-2009
2:52:54 PM

On 14/07/2009 evanbb wrote:
>On 14/07/2009 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>>~> bump ... of sorts.
>>
>>The Uluru ascent: steep, strenuous
>>and set to be sanctioned.
>

I think to the bigger issue is the misuse of the english language and the word 'sanctioned'!!!

sanc·tion (sngkshn)
n.
1. Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid. See Synonyms at permission.
2. Support or encouragement, as from public opinion or established custom.
3. A consideration, influence, or principle that dictates an ethical choice.
4.
a. A law or decree.
b. The penalty for noncompliance specified in a law or decree.
5. A penalty, specified or in the form of moral pressure, that acts to ensure compliance or conformity.
6. A coercive measure adopted usually by several nations acting together against a nation violating international law
>This could get very interesting indeed. I've been following the debate
>on a couple of other fora and there's some pretty passionate views out
>there.

'Sanctioned' climbing does not equal banned climbing!!!


ajfclark

14-Jul-2009
2:57:52 PM

On 14/07/2009 patto wrote:
>5. A penalty, specified or in the form of moral pressure, that acts to ensure compliance or conformity.

I thought it odd when I read the article but assumed my understanding of English was at fault but using the definition listed above, climbing is already sanctioned at Uluru isn't it?


MonkeyBoy

14-Jul-2009
3:59:43 PM

Its my understanding that a governing body can put in place restrictive sanctions, however the headline of the article does use the word in unusual and not entirely clear way.

Just to throw my 10c into the original thread I have visited and not climbed and did not feel I was missing out on anything.

psd

14-Jul-2009
4:54:39 PM

On 14/07/2009 patto wrote:

>I think to the bigger issue is the misuse of the english language and
>the word 'sanctioned'!!!

I think anyone who knows their climbing films will realise that the true meaning of the article is that Clint Eastwood will hunt you down and kill you if you try to climb it.

There are 91 messages in this topic.