Ayers Rock: closing the climb

The climbing of Uluru / Ayers Rock willl be banned for "cultural reasons" from October 26, 2019. The traditional owners, the Anangu people, say that climbing the rock is offensive to them. It is a men's sacred area. So, the motivation for banning climbers is thus the somewhat secret religious beliefs of the Anangu men.

While there are many reasons why we may feel sympathy with the views of the local Aboriginal people of Uluru, is it really fair that their religious beliefs (Tjukurpa) should be imposed on everyone else? It does not appear that the climb, as a rule, prevents them from practising their beliefs. So how far should their desire not to be offended go?

In the Cultural Centre at Uluru (there is no Visitor Centre), there is a wealth of information provided on the Aboriginal cultural and religious aspects of the Rock. It is said that according to the Anangu religion, every cave and crevice in the Rock can provide moral guidance. There is also some information available on the geological origins of the Rock, but these are qualified by the comment that "the Aboriginal people have an alternative explanation". The impression given is that the Aboriginal mythological explanations have equal, or even superior validity to scientific ones.

The Dreamtime stories may seem like a harmless set of quaint creation stories and morality tales, using native animals instead of vengeful gods. But they are taken seriously and believed to be literally true by the Anangu. This is indicated in a statement made by the former chairman of the Park Management board, Sammy Wilson. Explaining the shape of a particular rock formation to the BBC Wilson said "our ancestors are literally set in stone". In the same documentary a little girl said that she could not go on the Rock because " it will make us sick if we step on the dreaming".

So, in accepting that Uluru is sacred, we are endorsing a fundamentalist creationist ideology. We should also note that both the mythology and the practices are highly gender-specific. There is no gender equality in this culture. The adherence to the religion explains why, in the tourist information available, the geology of the Rock is downplayed in favour of the cultural creationist mythology.

The effect of the emphasis on culture and religion is to neglect the geological significance of the site. In fact, the Rock is the remnant of layers of eroded granite, 2.5 km thick, laid down about 500 million years ago. The layers which now form the Rock were tilted from horizontal to vertical about 300 million years ago, during the Alice Springs Orogeny. The Rock, the world's biggest monolith, penetrates possibly six kilometres into the ground. There is surely nothing else in the world like that. The Rock has global geological significance.

There is a Fact Sheet on the geology at the Cultural Centre at Uluru (one of twenty-one Fact Sheets). There is also some mention of geology in the video display. But information on the geology is limited.

It is not stated whether the layers of the rock, that we now see as vertical, increase in age from east to west, or west to east, as we move across the Rock. Moreover, there is no attempt to explain or graphically represent, how a rock 6 km long and 2.5 km high, came to be rotated by 90 degrees. The Aboriginal mythology is interesting, but surely not as relevant and interesting as this.

Australia is the oldest continent on earth. Mountains have been eroded to dust and gravel, then re-formed into rock, which has then itself been eroded and exposed. The time scale is mind-boggling. This is Ayers Rock. It is the science of the Rock that makes it truly awe-inspiring.

There was past mistreatment of Aborigines, including at Uluru. They were unfairly forced from the land. We do need to expunge all manifestations of racism. It is important that all aspects of Aboriginal culture be studied and preserved for posterity. But the climbing of the Rock does not threaten this. Nor does it prevent the practice of the Aboriginal religion. In past decades, climbing the Rock was not considered an issue. Climbing the Rock is not "racist".

Apart from the religious sensitivities, the other reasons given for the closure of the climb seem spurious. It is not plausible that human footprints pose a risk of serious damage to the 500 million year old Rock. The rock is incredibly hard. Any minor effects could be easily repaired. If safety issues are such a concern then measures could be taken to increase safety. If litter is such problem then it could be addressed, and cleaned up. If climbing is to be deterred, then a charge could be introduced to climb, the revenue from which could be used to address the other issues.

The claim that less than 20 percent of visitors climb the Rock seems doubtful. Many who want to climb are dissuaded or prevented because the climb is closed due to unfavourable weather conditions. Over decades, some people have died on the climb. If that is sufficient reason to ban it then countless other public places where people have died should have prohibited entry. We should just manage the risk. Why not build a chairlift? It could be done on the northeast side without affecting the sunrise or sunset views.

The Rock is in a National Park and should therefore belong to all the people of Australia. By enabling a small minority to have veto rights over the climb, the rights of all Australians are infringed. Uluru is a World Heritage Site. Visitors from all over the world are also denied their rights.

The Parks Australia Fact Sheet on World Heritage is instructive. It says that the listing "confirms the validity of Tjukurpa". Validity? This highlights a serious problem. We are apparently now officially no longer able to distinguish between myth and reality. All societies have their traditional creation myths. None has any scientific validity. They are not "valid". Other creation myths are not elevated to such official status.

By giving official sanction to Aboriginal religious and superstitious beliefs, we are violating basic tenets of reason, rationality and secularism. It is not a question of imposing "western values" in their stead. Being able to distinguish fact from fiction is an essential aspiration, on which all we all depend, and on which all human progress relies. Despite what relativists may claim, scientific knowledge is universal, not culturally specific.

Government Aboriginal policy in Australia has failed over many decades, including at Uluru. Aboriginal communities suffer significant economic and social disadvantages, such that we still seek to "close the gap". Why is the issue so intractable?

Aboriginal culture is superbly adapted to survival in a harsh and dry environment. Cultural knowledge, stored in songlines and verbally transmitted, enabled success in the constant daily quest to provide sufficient food and water to stay alive. What happens to this traditional culture when food and water are provided, without the traditional effort required? The result is a reassertion of traditional beliefs. The cultural factors that may contribute to the perpetuation of disadvantage in Aboriginal communities are almost never discussed.

The definitive exposé of the situation is given in The Dystopia in the Desert: TheSilent Culture of Australia's remotest Aboriginal Communities, by Tadhgh Purtill. There exists a dystopian tripartite standoff between three entities: the Aboriginal communities, the agencies that service them, and the government. Each has their own mutually contradictory agenda, self-interest, and worldview: their own separate "truth".

A typical illustration of how this plays out is in reference to the term "empowerment". All agree it is a good thing. The government assumes it means developing capacity within the communities for economic and social advancement. After this is achieved, "the gap" will be closed, and the need for a high level of welfare support perhaps reduced. The Aboriginal communities tend to see welfare as an entitlement, and assume that their "empowerment" means their increased ability to practise their traditional culture without the necessity to abide by whitefella requirements. The service regime is in the middle, mostly well-meaning, but forced into expedience by often irresolvable dilemmas and is subject to moral hazard.

It is a difficult, intractable, and there are no easy solutions. But one thing Purtill is clear about: the denial, the turning of blind eyes to real issues, and the acceptance of mutually contradictory "truths" are the major contributors to the continuation of the "dystopia". A key aspect is the traditional resort to superstitious explanations, which inhibit proper accountability. A society thoroughly wedded to ancient superstition cannot readily adapt to the requirements of modernity.

This is likely the reason that welfare and educational outcomes under the missionaries were often much better. The missionaries attempted to replace one set of fictitious myths with another set of fictitious myths, but at least they probably tried to discourage the more counterproductive superstitions. Now we do not. We encourage them.

The systemic failure of government Aboriginal policy is now epitomised by the decision to accede to the request to close the Rock to access. The ban will be seen as a legitimate "empowerment" of the local Anangu. But the dystopian issues are relevant. The Anangu at Uluru live in Mutitjulu.

It was the alleged sexual abuse of children in Mutitjulu that led to the Northern Territory Intervention by John Howard in 2007. The police and army were sent in. The operation cost $587 million. The ABC's Four Corners team at the time found significant societal dysfunction at Mutitjulu, but no one was ever charged. Ten years afterwards, the community said that the intervention had left the men feeling hurt and that nothing much had changed.

Mutitjulu is home to about 300 people and is situated a few kilometres east of the Rock. Most visitors to Uluru would not know is it there. It is sign-posted but not listed on tourist maps. A permit is required to visit. It is in the name of these people that climbing the Rock is being prohibited. The Rock can be viewed from the ground and photographed, but the climb is the only way the Rock can actually be accessed.

The climb should not be banned. To pretend that their myths are true, does not benefit the Anangu. It divorces them from reality. The creationist beliefs are more pervasive than other fundamentalist beliefs, and harder to compartmentalise. It is a spiritualism that is hard to reconcile with modernity. It is a cultural loyalty that must inevitably lead to a degree of epistemic confusion. The veneration of such superstitions is counter-productive and actually serves to perpetuate their relative disadvantage.

To climb the Rock is a natural human aspiration. The views from the summit are extraordinary. The climb is an exhilarating physical experience. It is the best way to appreciate fully the surrounding landscape, geology and geomorphology. To the visitor informed of the geology, the Rock is truly a source of inspiration, awe and wonder.

Now, we are denying the wishes of about a hundred thousand people per year who would climb the Rock, which really does no harm to the Rock or to anyone, in favour of the spiritual perceptions of the maybe 300 people who live at Mutitjulu, a closed community. The value of the site as an attraction has been reduced, and its full tourist potential has been neglected. This is a loss to the community and to Australia.

Some may celebrate the ban. Others mourn the loss of something also sacred to them, but in a different way.