Climbing banned on Uluru

I find it interesting that certain places have successfully managed to prevent people from climbing for spiritual/cultural reasons, such as Uluru and Mt. Kailash, whereas others seem to be less successful (e.g., Devil's Tower).  Why do you think this distinction exists?  What role do we have as climbers?  

El Duderino wrote:

it's not climbning, it's walking up a side of Uluru, along a chain link.

It's pointless and dumb, fat people have heart attacks doing it. It's in the middle of the desert and only served to fund tourism companies with  big bus loads of tourists. 

Squeak wrote:

it's not climbning, ...It's pointless and dumb,

 Maybe so, but

1 it is a big rock

2 many people want to go to the top

3 indigenous people don't want them to

It is similar to Devils Tower in those ways, and to many it will be seen as a victory and a rallying point.

brian n wrote:

 Maybe so, but

1 it is a big rock

2 many people want to go to the top

3 indigenous people don't want them to

It is similar to Devils Tower in those ways, and to many it will be seen as a victory and a rallying point.

4 The law doen't want you climbing it either   

Is Devils tower on land owned and maintained by indigenous people?   

Uluru is, and it's custodians, rangers and caretakers are indigenous.

Tour operators and tourist accommodations operate under licence. They have been asked for years to discourage people from walking up Uluru. There are signs in place asking people not to and explaining why. 

The polite conversation was obviously falling on ignorant, arrogant, deaf  ears.

So now the law has been past to stop it. GOOD. 

Neither Mt. Kailash nor Uluru are in the US. Devil's Tower is. 

There might be some significance there.

Basically, someone's religion is restricting others from a public resource. This is unacceptable.

The DT situation was a nice compromise but, in the context of of modern times, all people of America own the rock and should have equal access.

Uluru is not a public resource. The land belongs to the indigenous people. 

Adrienne DiRosario wrote:

Uluru is not a public resource. The land belongs to the indigenous people. 

Then that debate is settled it's theirs to do with as they please.

Tradiban wrote:

Basically, someone's religion is restricting others from a public resource. This is unacceptable.

The DT situation was a nice compromise but, in the context of of modern times, all people of America own the rock and should have equal access.

Right! We didn't kill off tons of Native Americans and put the rest in crappy reservations, so they could have a say in how we use their land.  

trailridge wrote:

Right! We didn't kill off tons of Native Americans and put the rest in crappy reservations, so they could have a say in how we use their land.  

Yes, that happened and nothing will ever make up for it. However, DT is public land and is a resource for everyone. All people are welcome to worship in their own way, some meditate or ritualize at the base and others choose to climb it. Both can exist simultaneously.

Tradiban wrote:

Yes, that happened and nothing will ever make up for it.

So why even try, right?

Tradiban wrote:

Yes, that happened and nothing will ever make up for it. However, DT is public land and is a resource for everyone. All people are welcome to worship in their own way, some meditate or ritualize at the base and others choose to climb it. Both can exist simultaneously.

You think that. In the context of "modern times" native Americans can't be easily herded, killed or persecuted anymore. They are gaining wealth and political power rapidly and one day you may wake up and your climbing area is closed because "public" land has been restored to "indigenous people" In the case of Uluru one too many disrespectful people probably scratched their name in it or tossed their banana peels and boom! 

simplyput wrote:

So why even try, right?

Well, there's a concept we have here in America called "law". Maybe you've heard of it? The government fought a dirty war way back when and they won. Now the government owns the land and at least in theory the people control the government. If native Americans want to fight for ownership of said land they are free to do so using legal means. Regardless of your feelings on the subject the law clearly states that this is public land now. The rule of law is what makes us a civilized society, without it we decend into chaos. There have been many moral mistakes along the way but respect for the law is the glue that binds it all together.

simplyput wrote:

So why even try, right?

Unfortunately for yours and my morals we live in a society glued together by law. If any group would like control of a thing they can use the legal system to do so or they can buy it. Currently, DT is public land owned by a public government meaning the public gets to choose how to use it, not some specific interest group.

trailridge wrote:

Right! We didn't kill off tons of Native Americans and put the rest in crappy reservations, so they could have a say in how we use their land.  

Who is "we" ?

Are you confessing to murder?

Tradiban wrote:

Well, there's a concept we have here in America called "law". Maybe you've heard of it? The government fought a dirty war way back when and they won. Now the government owns the land and at least in theory the people control the government. If native Americans want to fight for ownership of said land they are free to do so using legal means. Regardless of your feelings on the subject the law clearly states that this is public land now. The rule of law is what makes us a civilized society, without it we decend into chaos. There have been many moral mistakes along the way but respect for the law is the glue that binds it all together.

Clearly obeying the law of the rulers got this country started.  "Civil disobedience" - maybe you've heard of it?  But I do line in fear of "decend" - ing.

Eric Engberg wrote:

Clearly obeying the law of the rulers got this country started.  "Civil disobedience" - maybe you've heard of it?  But I do line in fear of "decend" - ing.

You are going to have to expand on that thought. What does civil disobedience have to do with this?

Isn't this place in Australia and therefor not subject to US law or actually even US history with Native Americans?

EDIT:

Whoops, I guess we're talking about Devil's Tower.  Never mind, carry on with your pointless efforts to convince strangers your opinion matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru

Tradiban wrote:

Well, there's a concept we have here in America called "law". Maybe you've heard of it? The government fought a dirty war way back when and they won. Now the government owns the land and at least in theory the people control the government. If native Americans want to fight for ownership of said land they are free to do so using legal means. Regardless of your feelings on the subject the law clearly states that this is public land now. The rule of law is what makes us a civilized society, without it we decend into chaos. There have been many moral mistakes along the way but respect for the law is the glue that binds it all together.

Unfortunately the "Law" may be the undoing of your stated "public land under the law" argument. The "white man won by conquest, case closed" argument is not that simple, the Government entered into multiple legally binding agreements with the tribes. Most of which they (the government) later broke, but those documents to this day are legally binding and as such the tribes have legal recourse under "the law".

Were it a simple case of "to the winner go the spoils" the tribes would have disbanded years ago. As it is now there are places in this country that Federal, State, County and City "laws" do not apply. JB

Dave Kos wrote:

There are no places in the US where Federal law does not apply.  Indian reservations are under Federal jurisdiction.

Example: If someone commits murder on a reservation, they can be prosecuted by the feds under federal code.

Perhaps my blanket statement was over simplified........... There are Indian casinos that are in violation of Federal and State building Codes because they have no jurisdiction on Tribal land. Eminent domain does not apply to Tribal lands......the list goes on.