Recently we walked around Uluru, a place of great cultural significance to the Anangu people who continue to live nearby and care for it's many sacred spaces. It's an amazing experience; it has so many facets, the many thousands of images shot by tourists don't quite capture it's majesty and beauty.
Which brings me to the core of my post. in the last 100 years or so Uluru has been transformed from a home to a tourist Mecca for thousands. It's made quite clear to those visiting that that the traditional owners would like you to show some respect for their cultural values by not photographing certain areas (clearly sign posted) and not walking on the rock. Climbing up the rock is a long standing practice of tourists dating back to the 70s.
Despite this, many continue to tramp up the path using a chain placed along the back of the rock. I asked a couple who had just returned from thier climb why they choose to do so when it was so clear that the Anangu prefer you didn't. I received a very terse reply from the man "it's my right to do so and I will do it whenever I choose'' his companion stated "I showed respect, I did not damage anything and the view is spectacular from the top". I replied that there were helicopters if you wanted an aerial view, and how would they feel if a group of invading people decided to use St. Paul's cathereral as something to climb on. To which they made it quite clear my presence was not welcome.
I have to confess at this point that I have climbed Uluru, when I was a child traveling on holiday with my parents in the 1970's. I was young and like every white male felt the need to ascend to the top of a mountain to feel a since of mastery and achievement. I left knowing nothing of its history and the people who have lived for millennia in its presence. I would not climb it now, I guess age and education have enabled me to understand that just because you can do something does not mean you should.
Rights vs respect. I pondered on those 2 concepts as we set off on our walk. I wondered what foundation their rights were based upon, the idea of rights has quite a short history of little more than a few hundred years dating back to the 18 th century. I suspect might rather than right might be closer to the truth. The tragedy is that the traditional owners ask so little given how much they have lost, and how unwilling so many are prepared to show a little humility.
The bigger question remains Why does it remain an option? It's causes confusion and conflict and I think it's well overdue to simply remove it as an option.