this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
169 points (95.2% liked)

World News

38659 readers
2138 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
quinten@lemmy.world
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
169
For years tourists have ridden boats through this sacred Australian natural wonder. A new ban will stop them in their tracks (www.cnn.com)
submitted 6 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Horizontal Falls are one of Australia’s strangest natural attractions, a unique blend of coastal geography and powerful tidal forces that visitors pay big money to see up close.

But all that is about to change.

Located at Talbot Bay, a remote spot on the country’s northwestern coastline, the falls are created when surges of seawater pour between two narrow cliff gaps, creating a swell of up to four meters that resembles a waterfall.

For decades, tours have pierced these gaps on powerful boats, much to the dismay of the area’s Indigenous Traditional Owners, who say the site is sacred.

It’s not the only reason the boat tours are controversial. In May 2022 one boat hit the rocks resulting in passenger injuries and triggering a major rescue operation. The incident led to calls to halt the tours for safety reasons.

Although the boat trips have continued, the concerns of the Indigenous Traditional Owners have now been heeded, with Western Australia, the state in which the falls are situated, saying they will be banned in 2028 out of respect.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] minesweepermilk@lemmy.world 47 points 6 months ago

I am a non-Aboriginal Australian who lived in a remote community for many years and I can tell you that when white people go somewhere where we are not the dominant culture we struggle. People being told they need to ask permission to go to the beach, or go camping in a certain spot really rubbed so many people the wrong way. Yet if a kid walked into their yard, that kid would get scalded. What if this were compared to a farmer who has a popular waterfall on their property and they stop letting the public go there. They wouldn't need a reason to give, but they would probably say safety or disrespectful behaviour, because there would be backlash from people who felt they had the right to go there. This will outrage white people because it inconveniences them.

Aboriginal Australians had their land stolen and have had to unfairly use the systems of the culture that stole that land to try and reclaim it. It is taking time with court cases and education, and sometimes, they have a small win. So many people only want Aboriginal cultures to be seen and not heard. Respect means saying an acknowledgement of country, and dusting your hands of that. So much pearl clutching when a genuine concession is made. If you want to go anywhere on someone else's property then open your house to the public.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 41 points 6 months ago

I love this line:

Critics fear ban will reduce visitor numbers

It's sort of like...yes, that's the point. You don't want stinking tourists at a holy site.

[–] supercriticalcheese@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

Remote doesn't even approach it.

I thought to myself, I been in Western Australia. Let me see how far is away from Perth it is, result is about 2200 km or 24h of non stop driving to get in the vicinity.

Nearest road is more than 30 km away

[–] whoreticulture@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Good news!! Not everything needs milked for profit.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Safety? Sure, I'll bite.

It being "sacred"? C'mon. Any place that looks unique and had ancient folks living by it is probably going to be considered sacred to them, from Everest to Niagara Falls to the Giant's Causeway.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 39 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

I don’t understand your point, it makes perfect sense for ancient cultures to have spaces considered sacred around them.

Are you casually suggesting that a culture that has lived in an area far longer than anyone else doesn’t have the right to consider parts of the landscape around them sacred?

Just because the land was stolen from indigenous cultures doesn’t mean they don’t still rightfully have a claim on it. At a bare minimum they should be able to demand preservation of the sacred places among the land stolen from them.

If you want to come after “people trying to make everything into sacred spaces” or something, sure, let’s talk about the way churches can completely dodge taxes and other laws that the rest of us have to adhere to (at least in the US), why waste your breath saying “c’mon” about a devastated indigenous population protecting a beautiful and highly unusual natural feature?

As a last point, do you honestly NOT understand how this place or Everest or Niagra Falls or the Giants Causeway are sacred places? You don’t have to subscribe to spirituality of that culture or even believe in god at all to understand when a place is sacred. Do you look at a place like Niagra and think “meh, just another place who cares”? Do you think the tallest mountain in the world should have so many tourists shuffling along to climb to the top that the mountain is inundated with trash?

When an indigenous culture identifies a place as sacred, those are the people that know that land better than anyone else and have passed down a culture of stories born out of that landscape, we should listen.

[–] RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Too fucking bad. Religion is a mental illness.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 months ago

So is our pathological disregard for destroying our most precious natural spaces, and I will take belief in a higher power as a mental illness over utter destruction of the only planet we have.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I don’t understand your point

Maybe I was too subtle then. To spell it out more clearly: I don't think the majority of places that any ancient culture considers sacred should be blocked from the public. I can understand not wanting folks traipsing over burial mounds that were actually built by their ancestors, but if someone is going to say "No you can't go to Niagara falls!", because their 35th great grandpa thought the view was divinely inspired, that's just dumb.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It is the privilege of the oppressor to decide when history begins.

I'm paraphrasing a fictional character from a book, but the point stands.

You're saying that their history and beliefs don't matter because it infringes on a public good, but you leave out the context where these "public lands" were stolen from the indigenous people through a multigenerational campaign of genocide, and racial subjugation.

So... you find this meager apology and repatriation of some sacred lands to the wronged party here to be intolerable, and unjust?

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I can understand not wanting folks traipsing over burial mounds that were actually built by their ancestors, but if someone is going to say “No you can’t go to Niagara falls!”, because their 35th great grandpa thought the view was divinely inspired, that’s just dumb.

What if their 34th, 33rd, 32nd, 31st, 30th, 29th, 28th, 27th, 26th, 25th, 24th, 23rd, 22nd, 21st, 20th, 19th, 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th, 14th, 13th, 12th, 11th, 10th, 9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st great grandpa along with their father too all see a place as sacred to their culture?

Are you suggesting that because a place was declared sacred long ago that it has some kind of statute of limitations on being sacred that expires after a certain amount of time? Or, using the US an example, are you suggesting that because the native peoples and cultures that lived here before Europeans invaded were subject to a genocide and mass land theft that their claim to a place being sacred is now forfeit? What are you actually saying?

Your argument is nothing more than a hollow appeal to being willfully ignorant, and crucially you utterly fail to realize how vitally important indigenous cultures have been to preservation of precious natural spaces all over the world. Without indigenous people defending the lands they consider sacred there would be an unbelievable amount more of irreversible ecological destruction wrought by modern capitalism by this point and that is just simply a fact. If you don't care about the preservation of beautiful, natural spaces... well then I am damn happy there are indigenous land protectors out there who are devoted to pissing people like you off by refusing to let the cultural context of the landscape around them be erased by lazy people who can't be bothered to understand history or environmentalism.

Sure, if you want to consider native beliefs silly or dumb, whatever, I could care less but you are just factually wrong if you don't understand the immense material benefit to us all (and our children) from indigenous cultures defending the preservation of our most beautiful and rare natural landscapes.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You've decided that you have the right to impose your view over the views of the people who have traditionally lived in these places. You have decided that your view is the one that matters and damned those who have always occupied a space.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

That is what it boils down to doesn’t it.

Sometimes you can get these fools mad enough by simply asking them to explain their logic that they just come right out and say it which is always funny. It’s like keeping this mask on of empathy and understanding for others is an uncomfortable burden that they just have to rip off when they get mad enough because they can’t take one more second of it.

These people always seem so self righteous and oddly relieved in the moment they finally rip their mask off and stop pretending to care or have empathy. It is like watching someone rip off a N95 in relief after they walk outside into an open space where they can safely take their mask off after being inside a crowded space for hours.

[–] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz -3 points 6 months ago

Irish person here: Giant's Causeway isn't a sacred place. It's a bunch of igneous rock. And, get this: nobody lives or ever lived on Everest. You know whose view is ruined by rubbish on Everest? The people paying to go there.

This is an utter waste of human energy.

[–] whoreticulture@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ancient folks? Indigenous people are still around, you just don't give a fuck about them, and you don't give a fuck about their most sacred places.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Wow people actually downvoted you over pointing out that they exist and have rights.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (5 children)

I feel the same way. If I'm going to be an atheist, I can't draw the line at which primitive superstition is nonsense. Either they all are or none are.

I get it, it's a natural wonder that nobody at the time could comprehend. That doesn't make it "sacred".

Banning it for safety? Sure. This is why we can't have nice things.

[–] HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 6 months ago

And beyond safety banning for obnoxious destruction of the peace.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 7 points 6 months ago

This is literally their area(well 50% state gov). Just because you are atheist doesn't mean you can go into their place & do what you want. Would you do a burnout in a church? Would you break a foreign countries laws because they aren't yours? Being atheist doesn't absolve you from humanism or courtesy.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Strip the supernatural aspect out and just call it "important to the local culture".

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

Strip the supernatural aspect out and just call it “important to the local culture”.

That's pretty much exactly what "sacred" means, yes. For the average westerner, religious or not, the term "sacred" smells of holy water created by someone in a fancy dress mumbling and waving their hands while for others it simple means "place of significance that should be honoured". These kinds of terms don't easily translate between cultural barriers even if everyone is, on the face of it, speaking the same language, see also e.g. the Native American use of the word "medicine".

Metalheads call the site of the Wacken Open Air festival "Holy Ground", and they have all the right in the world to do it. On the part of the people of Wacken you can be sure that they won't build anything on it, it's gonna stay a pasture -- a very well maintained one, the water management system is extensive to make sure rainfalls during the festivals won't turn it into a mudpit. Maybe, in case the villages around it grow together more, make some pathways through it and plant trees along the paths, but they certainly won't put a mall there. The vast majority of Wackeners, even if they don't partake in the religion of metal, don't mind a bit selling beer to the pilgrims so the site gets respected, just as the metalheads respect the site: They're cleaning it up perfectly each and every year. Right now it might seem a bit mundane, it's thinkable (if Wackeners weren't Wackeners) that someone would put a mall there, but give it 100 years of continued yearly ritual use and it'll become unthinkable.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Our Abrahamic concept of “religion” bundles together a lot of tendencies that aren’t necessarily linked, anthropologically. If we translate another culture’s relationship with some natural phenomenon as “sacred”, that doesn’t mean it has the same specifically religious connotations for them that the term would imply in our culture. And it doesn’t mean that our attitude toward religion should carry over to their relationship with their environment.

[–] richmondez@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Does the relationship invoke supernatural forces driving the phenomena? Then it's superstitious nonsense and has nothing to do with abrahamic religions other then them also invoking superstitious nonsense. Does someone own the land and want to keep people out for idiosyncratic reasons? Fine, rule of law says they get to control the land for whatever reasons they want. Is it public land? Then only safety concerns or preventing the degradation of a natural wonder should affect who can visit and for what purpose.

[–] metaStatic@kbin.social 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

that's the thing, we need to invoke superstitious nonsense to strong arm the colonial government into respecting the land they stole. do the elders believe it? who cares, get off my lawn.

[–] richmondez@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Then petition to get it made a heritage site or something, get controls put in place to stop obnoxious and abusive use of it such as the reckless rafting trips such that the area isn't been degraded for future generations, but if it's open to anyone to enjoy it should be open to everyone to.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Does the relationship invoke supernatural forces driving the phenomena?

Not necessarily. And even if, that doesn't mean that those supernatural forces are considered to be real in the same sense that some Christians might consider prayer to have a physical effect.

Somewhere in some Asiatic mountains don't remember where there's a tribe which practices slash-and-burn agriculture. Western visitors were worried, telling the tribe "we've heard of many tribes doing slash-and-burn, it depletes the earth over time, there's other ways to do it". The tribefolk said: "We've been doing this for at least a thousand years in this small area and never had a problem, look around you, things are lush, our harvests are plentiful". They invited the westerners to look all over the place and see for themselves, but not enter some specific sacred place.

That sacred place? The whole reason why the scheme worked: It was left untouched, completely to itself, a refuge for nature, meaning that each time an area would be burned, it was very quickly re-populated from that very place. The site of the site didn't really matter, all that mattered was that it's there, and that it was taboo to disturb. Is it supernatural? You might say no, a Daoist might say yes -- I got that story from a commentary seminar on the Dao De Jing, as an example of what the text meant with the "eternal feminine". The physical representation might be physical, but without the supernatural principle, physics wouldn't exist in the first place.

And we have these kinds of places here in the west, too. Though we generally let the appropriate kind of priests (ecologists or adjacent folks) enter it to commune with the spirits there.

[–] richmondez@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Except you have a false equivalence, we don't have sacred sites that are left undisturbed so as to keep the forest spirits happy and the scientists who go there are not communing with anything. Your parable of the sacred site functioning as an ecological reservoir doesn't change the fact that the local people's reason for leaving the area alone was wrong unless it was specifically understood that it was a reservoir for biodiversity and not some supernatural explaination involving spirits.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

the local people’s reason for leaving the area alone was wrong unless it was specifically understood that it was a reservoir for biodiversity

It was understood as the sacred source of life. People by and large aren't stupid, just because not everything is coated in a veneer of materialist jargon doesn't mean that interrelations aren't understood. It's a specifically western trait to be so adamant about that distinction, making it a hard delineation people don't want to think across, want to keep separate, and that has something to do with the church retreating to matters of the spirit when science figured out how to explain the material world better than Aristotle. That left a deep scar in our collective psychology and frameworks that's still not even remotely healed.

Consider psychosomatics: It's a discipline all of its own only because people first decided to make a harsh distinction between psyche and body and analyse them independently of each other, the more reductive the better, while in truth it's a deep interrelationship, so now we need a third thing to somehow connect them up again. The same is true about cultures and the places they live: In reality, there's no boundary between the two, so you get ecology to somehow connect them up again. The difference between that tribe and us isn't the level of understanding about what's happening, but them not having had the hare-brained idea to see themselves apart from nature in the first place.

As to ecologists communing with spirits: If you talk to an animist, yes they very much are. Doesn't matter what the scientists believe they're doing, they're still doing communing with spirits stuff. If you don't think so then you're using another idea of "spirit", that's all.

[–] richmondez@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You insisting they are the same doesn't make it so, an ecologist studying the effects of leaving an area fallow or untouched leads to greater understanding and allows optimisation and application to other areas. Believing the spirits reside in a particular grove does not allow the same and confers no greater understanding because the basis for the practice is incorrect even if the practice itself is sound. But sure, you tell yourself that they do to justify holding onto supernatural explaination despite the fact they have little corelation to reality.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But sure, you tell yourself that they do to justify holding onto supernatural explaination despite the fact they have little corelation to reality.

Are you expecting that everyone looking at their fields come up with the whole backlog of western philosophy and science before you allow them to come up with conclusions that are in perfect alignment with their observations? Is it immoral to conclude "things fall down" without simultaneously explaining the movement of the planets?

Then, western science itself is not at all free from supernatural explanations: Because at the end of it, we don't know everything, either. The tribe has an understanding of ecological interrelationship, but preciously little about chemistry and none about quantum physics, while we have preciously little justifications for choices such as disliking Boltzmann brains: Yes, that is a supernatural belief. "The universe dreaming itself, that'd be silly".

So not just is your stance here hypocritical because science itself holds on to supernatural concepts at the edge of our understanding, it's also arrogant as that kind of attitude makes you prone to ignore perfectly correct insight just because it's expressed in a language you don't like.

[–] richmondez@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is a bit more than just a language difference and shows just how little you really know or understand the differences between supernatural belief and scientific method.

Let's take your example of the observation (not conclusion) that things fall down. Let's say you have your conclusion that the spirits of the earth always pull things down for reasons. I have the conclusion that it's because mass attracts mass due to gravity. Based on the one observation we have the same evidence supporting our theory's so how do we tell them apart? Well if gravity is true we have all kinds of predicted phenomena that should also happen, it also explains why the sun and moon behave as they do. What does the spirits of the earth theory predict... nothing other than things fall down. It's useless for being able to predict other phenomena, it wouldn't even predict things would fall down on other planets as they might not have pull things down spirits and we might not even have asked why the spirits pull things down.

Also, it isn't "western science" which again betrays some kind of nationalistic agenda on your part. It's just science and anyone can do it, it doesnt belong to "western" countries.

As for "supernatural" explaination in western science, you act like every random hypothesis is taken seriously... They aren't, they are picked apart for lack of predictive power, unless a hypothesis makes hard predictions of how the world would work if it were and weren't true it's pointless as it can't be tested or used in any meaningful way. The "boltzman brain" you mention is just a thought experiment and isn't even a serious scientific hypothesis. Scientists as a whole know and accept they don't know everything, otherwise they wouldn't be wasting time doing science would they?

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

just how little you really know or understand the differences between supernatural belief and scientific method.

It is you who hears the word "spirit" or "sacred" and goes straight for "those people can't look at things in a scientific way". Meanwhile, elsewhere, people engage in cargo-cult science, coating their magical thinking in technobabble. It's not the language that makes the method.

It’s useless for being able to predict other phenomena, it wouldn’t even predict things would fall down on other planets as they might not have pull things down spirits and we might not even have asked why the spirits pull things down.

True. Limited amount of experimental data only allows a limited theory and limited extrapolation. It's not the amount of accumulated data that makes the method, either. You should be more worried if someone watched an apple fall and, with no further information such as centuries of observational data about the movement of planets, concludes "that is why the planets move that way". It would be correct, but it would still be an unjustified leap.

Also, it isn’t “western science” which again betrays some kind of nationalistic agenda on your part. It’s just science and anyone can do it, it doesnt belong to “western” countries.

Indeed, science doesn't belong to the west which is precisely why I specified "western science": You can do science without following the western (actually, European) course of first imposing the mind/body dualism etc. That's what I've been trying to tell you all the time. Insisting on that kind of delineation is a particularly western scientific mindset, not a neutral scientific one.

The “boltzman brain” you mention is just a thought experiment and isn’t even a serious scientific hypothesis.

The Boltzmann brain is a heuristic: Every time statistics say that some theory would imply that the most likely reason for why we observe phenomena is that it's all dreamt up by a Boltzmann brain physicists discount that theory. It is, thus, a negative hypothesis, but a hypothesis nontheless and indeed a very serious one. The reason physicists don't like to investigate in those directions is because they think it's unsatisfying. But that's not a scientific measure. Similar things are valid for preferring beautiful over messy maths etc: There's no reason why the fundamental maths of the universe should look beautiful to us as our sense of beauty evolved for completely different reasons.

[–] richmondez@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why should I be concerned if a leap of intuition led to the conclusion things falling and movement of the planets were caused by the same thing? Doesn't matter how a hypothesis was postulated, what matters is that it can be tested and falsified. That is the important thing, not who cane up with it and why. This is what you are utterly failing to grasp, it doesn't really matter what axioms are assumed or what leap of logic or faith or whatever leads to the hypothesis. Spirits aren't testable of falsifiable. Same issue with boltzmann brains which is why they aren't taken seriously apart from as a foil to show how incomplete our understanding still is.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Why should I be concerned if a leap of intuition led to the conclusion things falling and movement of the planets were caused by the same thing?

Because if you accept it without proper argument (and that is what I take "conclusion" to mean) you're not doing science. It would not adhere to the scientific method. I think you should stop trying to lecture me about it.

Doesn’t matter how a hypothesis was postulated, what matters is that it can be tested and falsified.

Indeed, you can take another stone and it will also drop to the ground: Testable, falsifiable. Things, indeed, do fall down. Nature indeed replenishes from the sacred site, that's also testable and falsifiable, they probably did test it at some time and then went "ohfuckohfuck". As one can be directly observed it's physical, as the other can't it's spirits. Further investigation then could conclude that the spirits are actually tiny stuff you need a microscope to see, but the people don't have microscopes also that wouldn't mean that it's not spirits, but that spirits are tiny things you see with a microscope: Why change the term?

This not changing of terms also has precedence in western science btw: "atom" means "undivisible thing" (from Ancient Greek ἄτομος, "I cannot cut"). Does it mean that physicists are not able to tell neutrons, protons and electrons apart?

Nothing, whatsoever, about not even having a concept of materialism precludes one from employing the scientific method. Science is not a set of beliefs or insights, it's a method. And, as you yourself said: Everyone can do that. I'm saying: Just because a tribe didn't do as much science as Europe from Antiquity to Modernity you shouldn't assume that they're talking mumbo-jumbo. They may know shit about quantum mechanics they certainly know a lot about how their environment works.

Another example would be the agriculture of Australian Aborigines, which is so far-out when it comes to techniques that it didn't register as agriculture to the settlers, they thought Aborigines are hunters and gatherers. Sure, they hunt and gather, but within an environment they had shaped such that stuff grew where it was convenient, and animals lived were they were easy to hunt. You don't get to that level of ecological engineering without understanding things and interrelationships, that means they did science, even if your tunnel vision can't recognise it.

[–] richmondez@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Except spirits doesn't mean tiny physical things, it refers to things outside of the physical that cannot be measured or quantified by definition. If spirit was just their word for biodiversity that would be fine but then we'd be talking about sites being biodiverse and not sacred because we'd have established that sacred isn't the correct translation. You keep repeating the same baseless justifications for spiritualistic and religious practices to be treated like some kind of science but they aren't and never will be. They are ritualised behaviours that are successful only because the competing alternatives lead to the collapse of the populations practicing them and would fare less well in alternative environments. We are done here, there is nothing more productive to be gained from you repeating the same misunderstanding of science.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 1 points 6 months ago

This isn't public land

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

So what you're really saying is that they don't deserve their history and to have sacred spots. That, it seems, is only for others to have.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I heard stories that whenever the Australia government want to do anything. Say they find aluminium and want to mine it. Aboriginals will come from all around and say that it's a burial ground, or it's sacred or something because then they can get more money because the government has a system for pay off the Aboriginals. I don't know how true that is but I can believe it.

I chatted to an elder and he said they was building something in town so they asked him to come and ceremony for it. He refused. He said that as far as he knows no one ever lived there. He said sure people lived there, pointing over there, and there. But no one lived here. It's no body's land how can I talk about my ancestors if my ancestors didn't live here. He then went on a rant about how he hates everyone saying they are aboriginal and getting free funding or money and stuff. Then there some black kid (they soemtimes described themselves as black or blackfellers in this part of Aus) not having access to a school or any funding for them.

It was really interesting.

But I got to admit there is a lot of shit the aboriginal get away with and they need both the government and the elders to treat people more like grown ups rather than as someone has been slighted and now has loads of excuses to act in shitty ways. Like recently seen a video of lot of damage done to Alice Springs, just because. So how sacred this thing is I don't know.

But also me and my girlfriend was talking about how our housemates judged us for going out and doing stuff on Easter Sunday. But you could easily argue from a Christian point of view enjoying God's creation is a form of worship. Wonder if they have different opinions like that in Australia.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The Horizontal Falls are one of Australia’s strangest natural attractions, a unique blend of coastal geography and powerful tidal forces that visitors pay big money to see up close.

Located in the Kimberley Region, 1,900 kilometers (1,180 miles) north of the state capital Perth, the Horizontal Falls are within Maiyalam, one of three protected marine parks created in 2022 that were co-designed, and now co-managed, by Traditional Owners and the WA Government.

After the ban takes effect, boats will still be allowed to cruise Talbot Bay, offering visitors a close-up view of the cascading spectacle that British naturalist David Attenborough has called “Australia’s most unusual natural attraction.”

“Respect the power of this place, and our cultural obligations to care for Country and keep you safe,” they asked of visitors, referring to their ancient role as custodians of Australia’s landscape.

In preparation for the Horizontal Falls ban, the Dambeemangaddee stated they have begun creating new videos and brochures that will explain their culture and spiritual connection to Talbot Bay.

However, the ban was supported by Kimberley Day Cruise CEO Sally Shaw, who told CNN the company’s Horizontal Falls tours only venture near, not between these cliff gaps.

The original article contains 954 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!