Calls to ban Wollumbin climb

[loomer]

A popular Australian destination faces calls for an Uluru-style ban from Indigenous elders

On the back of the climbing ban at Uluru, Indigenous activists have turned their attention to a new destination they want closed to hikers.

Camilla Theakstone
news.com.auNovember 3, 20192:50pm

Indigenous activists have called for a popular hiking spot to be closed to hikers, on the back of Uluru’s climbing ban late last month.

[Wollumbin] in the Tweed ranges in northern NSW is considered a sacred site for the traditional owners, the Bundjalung people.

The mountain, which is also known as [Mt Warning], is also hugely popular with tourists, especially hikers.

But there’s a renewed push to have access to [Wollumbin] shut off.

Bundjalung Elder Robert Corowa said the recent closure of Uluru’s climb gave him and his community a new sense of hope that their campaign will be successful.

“I am very motivated by what I’ve seen at Uluru … we’ve been trying to pull the chains down and stop people climbing it for years,” Mr Corowa told The Courier-Mail.
[Wollumbin] attracts an estimated 100,000 visitors annually and is a popular hiking spot.


He claims visitors to [Wollumbin] show disrespect and traditional owners are left upset by how the sacred spot is treated.

Mr Corowa said he has witnessed tourists defecate on the mountain.

“I’m ashamed to go there … it makes me really sad to watch people climbing it. I don’t want to let people think they’ve got the right,” he said.

But [Wollumbin] is a popular tourist attraction in the region, attracting up to 100,000 visitors annually.

Rainforest Park Manager Mark Bourchier said he was concerned the closure would impact tourism to the area.

“If we go shutting the mountain, I can see there would be way less visitors to the area,” he told The Courier-Mail.

The Uluru climb closure has encouraged Indigenous activists to target [Wollumbin] for a ban on tourists.


The Tweed Shire Councillor Warren Polglase said the discussion surrounding [Wollumbin]’s closure had been mentioned in council for years.

He believes now that serious action could be taken, in light of the closure of Uluru.

On October 25, the climbing track on Uluru was officially closed – something traditional owners had been pushing for.

The Anangu people celebrated the closure at the base of the rock to signify to new visitors that it was no longer available – or lawful.

But it proved a contentious issue, gaining global headlines and heated political debate.

A new sign was erected at the base of the rock to inform visitors of the new policy. It read “This is our home,” and “Please don’t climb”

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-u ... 073e2f6be7

A little bit of local colour. I'd be thrilled to see the climb closed, myself, as it's both just and a necessary part of decolonization and the process of unsettling the settler-centred view of the Australian landscape. Please note I have edited the source to refer to the mountain by its proper name, which is Wollumbin, because News is a joke. Those edits are marked [accordingly].

[Broomstick]

My perspective is that native sacred spots should be treated with the same respect as a western-style church or cathedral. I don't know what that's such a leap for people, other than people being ignorant assholes. Or bigoted assholes.

[loomer]

My perspective is that native sacred spots should be treated with the same respect as a western-style church or cathedral. I don't know what that's such a leap for people, other than people being ignorant assholes. Or bigoted assholes.

It starts with a W and rhymes with 'light lemme see'.

[Darth Yan]

My perspective is that native sacred spots should be treated with the same respect as a western-style church or cathedral. I don't know what that's such a leap for people, other than people being ignorant assholes. Or bigoted assholes.

Agreed. There are loads of other places to go climbing and have fun. You don't need to climb all over sacred spots to do so

[mr friendly guy]

I must admit, I have never heard of this particular sacred spot, but its it sacred to them, then I don't get to climb it without their permission, nor does anyone else.

[Darth Yan]

As I said earlier, there are other places to climb.

Things like Water Infrastructure projects are more complicated though. People have been uplifted from their homes for things as mundane as a highway, and in that you can argue that it benefits the common good. Desecrating a site so people can have fun is just......no. That's just stupid.

[loomer]

As I said earlier, there are other places to climb.

Things like Water Infrastructure projects are more complicated though. People have been uplifted from their homes for things as mundane as a highway, and in that you can argue that it benefits the common good. Desecrating a site so people can have fun is just......no. That's just stupid.

Perhaps you'd like to weigh in on the Djab Wurrung trees and the weighting you'd give to public infrastructure over Indigenous land rights and cultural heritage?

[Darth Yan]

Honestly I really don't know. There were similar controversies in America. Some Natives were alright with developments, others were opposed, and even the article you mention describes how some Indigenous groups were fine with the development. At the very least the Indigenous people should be invited to the table to discuss matters AND given real consideration in the matter. That's only fair. If they weren't invited or only invited to be told "that's nice now shut up and let the big boys talk" then no. I'd oppose it for THAT reasons. At the VERY LEAST there should be real compensation if you insist on going through with it rather than a piffling half measure

My point was that there's a difference between tearing something down for reasons like infrastructure and water vs desecrating a site because you want to have a fun day. The first one COULD potentially be spun as for the common good (Again loads of normal people might get uprooted for the sake of a highway). There's no reason whatsoever to desecrate holy sites because you want to engage in rock climbing. That's just crass.

[The_Saint]

.....
At the very least the Indigenous people should be invited to the table to discuss matters AND given real consideration in the matter. That's only fair. If they weren't invited or only invited to be told "that's nice now shut up and let the big boys talk" then no. I'd oppose it for THAT reasons. At the VERY LEAST there should be real compensation if you insist on going through with it rather than a piffling half measure.....

And there you have part of the problem. It's a whole discussion topic/news item in it's own right but there is no recognition of indigenous people in Australia's constitution and hence no recognition of any body providing an advisory role at the Federal role to parliament. (To note there have been multiple attempts to change this and it is an ongoing fragment of political debate in Australia but the incumbent government is determined to keep 'kicking the can down the road' for as long as possible). At state level most state governments have slightly better arrangements with the state indigenous representative bodies but usually little more than lip service unless there's some easy and cheap political point scoring available and that's unlikely to ever happen with the Liberal party as positive moves for indigenous affairs would a) likely cost money that the LNP would never spend and b) usually prevent some development and the LNP would never let big business lose out on making a profit.

[Broomstick]

I'm assuming there's also the additional obstacle that "the indigenous people" are not monolithic - there are multiple groups with multiple viewpoints, and within each group the individuals will also have differing views. An example is the Djab Wurrung tree controversy linked upthread where apparently different groups had different viewpoints (for/against) the infrastructure project. You then have the question of who has a legitimate stake in the disagreement, questions of deception and/or corruption, and whether or not a decision has to be unanimous (in which case one dissenting group nixes a project or agreement) or if it will be majority rule.

Personally, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution but as I am not Australian I recognize that it's up to Australians (of all sorts) to settle these questions. It's not like my nation has a stellar record in dealing with the Natives.

[The_Saint]

Very much the case that there's no unified voice and the smaller local voices are split between those who are just out to fight for any indigenous rights they can get and those who try and be pragmatic.

The closest we've comics the "statement from the heart" the other year where indigenous groups from all over Australia met at Uluru to develop common goals but even after that both the government just ignored it and there were other indigenous groups that considered it a sell out.

[Darth Yan]

I presume you're indigenous? Just asking.

Native Americans are similarly divided. Some are assimilating into the mainstream US culture others aren't. It makes finding a single unified solution difficult.

[The_Saint]

I presume you're indigenous? Just asking.

Native Americans are similarly divided. Some are assimilating into the mainstream US culture others aren't. It makes finding a single unified solution difficult.

I'm not though one might say that I'm indigenous to "modern Australia" being born here (my genetic heritage is British/German). I guess I could be labelled as sympathetic and pragmatic when it comes to dealing with indigenous affairs.