Context: these Aboriginal sites are basically caves, trees and rocks showing signs of former habitation, with the most significant artifact uncovered at the site below being a length of plaited human hair. I'm no fan of open-pit mining, but BHP is not exactly nuking the Parthenon or the Taj Mahal here.
I'm a draftsman that works for a construction company that builds a lot of the infrastructure for these mines. Recently I was looking at some maps with a civil draftee, and I asked him what all the red dots were all over the map. He said they were all Aboriginal heritage sites. There was a lot of them, scattered everywhere. It was like the map had chicken-pox.
So whilst I think it is important to protect this history, some of it can't be that important. I imagine that is what the traditional owners also thought when they signed the agreements. The article mentions "significant cumulative loss", which would become a problem when you sign away the rights to the lot.
But in the case of the cave that Rio Tinto destroyed, surely that was significant enough to protect and work around. I know that it wouldn't take long to design around such a requirement, which makes the outcome even more disappointing.
I’m a boilermaker who isn’t getting any younger, working in Launceston operating a laser cutter, considering getting in to steel detailing / 3D modelling.
I started out as a steel detailer but haven't worked in that sector for over 10 years, so I've not got my finger on the pulse. But in the design sector I'm in now, it's a bit quiet at the moment and has been for a few years, and that means there are a lot of experienced draftee's out there without work - left overs from the boom times. So in that regard, it might not be the best industry to pursue at this time. But if you can leverage your existing skills and contacts etc, you might be able to get yourself into a niche, and then you would be set.
Regarding programs, Tekla Structures is the gold standard for detailing steel structures, but the price is up there (if you're looking at going it alone). Cheaper options that I haven't used are available from Autodesk for AutoCAD, and another from Bentley for Microstation. I would look at the Microstation option first, because the "core" seems to be better for 3D work than AutoCAD. However, Autodesk does a reasonably priced bundle of programs for the construction industry, which includes some BIM staples like Navisworks.
Yeah, our steel detailers here (seven across two sites) use Tekla Structures and have it tweaked how our workshops like, and I've got to say it produced the best drawings I've ever worked with.
Also spits out NC1 files for the laser and beam-line, so we're somewhat keeping up with the technological advances to stay competitive.
And yeah, I've worked myself in to a pretty good niche here, and it's a bit of a nice corner to be in at the moment.
This doesn't dispute your general point, but these are different cases, in case non-Australian readers are confused. That May article was Rio Tinto blasting a much older and more significant site, this newer story is BHP: similar area and operation, but more "recent" and smaller heritage sites.
Context: the traditional owners of the land have a strong cultural connection to country. Just because there isn't a physical manifestation of history in built form, doesn't make it any less relevant or important. It just seems to make it less relevant to you.
For context, I'm a Guardian reader, not overly partial to mining and love the Australian outback. The earlier Rio Tinto issue appeared to concern an older and more significant site. With this BHP case, it's hard to get a real idea of what sort of heritage sites we're talking about without details/images. If there were evocative images, I think we'd be seeing them in the article. I wondered if many in this case are not so much caves as people think of them, but very small alcoves you could store food in or maybe lie down in. The areas mined seem flatter than some of the more exciting formations in the northern WA region that don't make national park designation.
I'm torn because if you need to mine somewhere, remote parts of Australia might as well be the place. But on the other hand, once you give over these truly wild areas to development, they're not coming back, especially from mining.
I've driven past there a couple of times in the last few months (filming on Eyre Peninsula) and even something of that scale is a blip. Take away mining and grazing and absolutely massive areas of Australia would barely be of interest to humans.
Iron Knob is an eyesore, but if it weren't for the roadside warning signs for the others in that locale, you might not know they were there.
I was born in Port Lincoln, though moved to Adelaide before I was one. I'm a web developer, but I fly a drone on the side filming for tourism. Last trip over that way was to film from an oyster boat in Coffin Bay for the tourism commission. Shots from other locations in the area:
Stonehenge is just a couple of turned rocks too. Its not a great rationalisation to downplay the significance of the meaning of the sites for future generations to see. You can't exactly have a taj mahal 15k years ago..
I don't see how images (assuming photographs) are necessarily important here.
Traditional owners have been passing down stories of country for tens of thousands of years, passing them down by oral history and experiencing place. Marking history with physical presence of permanence is a primarily western phenomenon (for example: not all cultures had access to hard stone for construction, be it either locally, or via trade - wood succumbs to the elements eventually - the physical record of built form in Japan doesn't go back very far because buildings and structures were more impermanent. Some argue this is why they have such a strong written tradition and a focus on gardens, similar for areas of china and many island nations). "Evocative" images are irrelevant.
FWIW, BHP has since said they will consult the traditional owners and not disturb the 40 heritage sites.
Often the oral histories are general or associated with distinct features. If we're talking about broader areas, I think the key ones would be protected already or not signed over to a mining company. My point was that these don't sound like distinct places, else I'd guess images would aid the public cause in pressuring mining companies. The Rio Tinto story was accompanied by a photograph of the gorge/cave.
One hundred years ago, mining didn’t use the same chemical or terraforming processes it does today. The Iron Duke mine linked nearby in the comments is a nearly 5km gash in the Earth. I don’t think it will be a nature reserve in 2120.
You might be undercalling just how bad mines were 100 years ago. The pollution they caused would be total non-starter in modern Australia. Wouldn't even be an option on the table.
Thing with some of these Australian areas is that I don't know that we have the geological and weather forces to reclaim them in any hurry. And they're too remote or contaminated to be of much use for an intentional project to repurpose them for adventure (quad bikes, etc), tourism, art, etc.
Here the thing, if you sold a bunch of land that contain “just” a 1k year old European ruin that site would have immediately been protected from destruction for mining.
I can appreciate that. And while evidence of Aboriginal life at some sites might be scant (age and geology being big factors), I don't think it would be an insane inconvenience to work around them for many things outside of very massive operations like mines, even if there are loads of sites.
I suspect the significance of these sites is being overplayed as a negotiating tactic on the back of the Rio Tinto incident. As it was, one of the authorities demoted half of the sites.
On the other hand, if there was a broad area of historical interest (heavily frequented by nomads, or well-preserved), usually it'd be set aside. It's possible that the best examples already have been.
While the destruction of these sites is most probably not a good idea and there is an open question regarding the fairness of native title negotiations between mining companies and the local indigenous people it should be noted that:
"They are also unable to raise concerns publicly about the expansion, having signed comprehensive agreements with BHP as part of a native title settlement. BHP agreed to financial and other benefits for the Banjima people, while the Banjima made commitments to support the South Flank project."
From the sounds of it the two parties have agreed to the situation and now one party is attempting to escape its part of the agreement through the use public opinion.
If some house in Greece is sitting on the ruins of the classical era, and its owner sells the house to some mining company, can't people protest the impending destruction?
It doesn't seem right to treat 15K-year-old archeological sites as sellable goods. It should belong to Australia and mankind.
How come that places like these are not protected by the government? In other countries you are barely allowed to tear down houses older than a hundred years.
"Australia is unable to protect 15K year old national heritage sites big mining corp plans to destroy"
As I understand that for the "elders" the money may be more important than the sites, an for the mining corp the money surely is more important: this needs to be a matter of national interest.
It isn't a matter of national interest because nobody in the nation is interested. Nobody has ever heard of or cares about the very similar site that is 10 km away but not on the mining lease.
Imagine you had an HDD with every photo you'd ever taken, you have no backups, this is the only place these memories are stored.
A wealthy individual approaches you and asks if they can buy this HDD off you for a large amount of money. You don't have a lot of money, your ability to make money is restricted and your government is always reducing social safety-nets. This proposition looks like your best chance. The wealthy individual takes your HDD, holds it for a while and then physically destroys it in front of you without regard.
But it's fine... Right? It was only some plastic and metal... You can go to the store and buy a new larger HDD with all your new money.
The wealthy individual in the metaphor is quite up-front that he is buying the HDD to destroy it, and is more than willing to provide counselling and support to get you back on your feet.
The alternative in the metaphor is you keep the HDD, suffer financially and the wealthy person can't become wealthy because these trades are how they make money. It is worse for everyone.
i would say that a lot of people/groups in these types of positions dont have any idea about using money for investment and improvment to get into a more self-sustaing cycle
instead they use it to "just get by for a while" and theyll be back in the same position again later...
How do you propose to stop two [groups of] people from willingly making a trade agreement? If you have an issue with it, what gives you the right, or ability to stop them?
Reducing social benefit programs, i.e. reducing their entitlement to the fruit of the labour of others.
But yeah, imagine this HDD belonged to my sibling that I have supported financially, but I cannot keep supporting them financially to the same extent I have been doing it because times are hard economically. I would somehow feel a bit bad for them, but really I can only do so much.
Archaeology is not free and it requires excess resources, something which mining provides. If you destroy Australia's economy there won't be any Archaeology happening anyway.
EDIT: We can all dream about what wonderful world we would have if there were no scarcity of resources, but resources are scarce. We can work to make them less scarce, and that is actually exactly what BHP is doing when they mine coal.
BHP should offer scientific and technical support, as well as time, to study the sites before they are destructed. If this is done seriously, the cultural heritage could actually be augmented, by the knowledge, even after the physical destruction of the sites.
Not sure if you read the article, but it mentions BHP offering 3D scanning, drone imagery, etc to capture digital versions of each location for archive. Any loose, physical items would be removed to their staff encampment and then a museum.
I was thinking about even deeper investigation, like DNA sampling, other chemical analyses in particular in the ground near or inside the sites.
Most often, the real value of having historical sites around is that even decades later there can be complementary investigations that were not thought of in the first place.
I have no expertise in this area, but my guess is that there would be millions of sites like this across Australia. Australia is absolutely massive and the indigenous population has an epic 40-80k years of history here. If you wanted to preserve everything just in case, no one could move a foot.
I suspect they have preserved the key sites with the best scientific opportunities or main cultural importance, and that these are much more run of the mill.
That said, mining companies make buckets of money and I have no issue with tipping the scales a bit against their convenience and profitability for something like this.
The aboriginal elders of that area have already signed and agreed contractually to monetary benefits and agreed to support BHP's expansion. I'm aboriginal myself, and I'm sad to see these sites torn down... But as the traditional land owners, it was their land to sell.
In England there is a "Schedule of Monuments" to protect nationally important archeological sites. This is in addition to a much larger number of listed buildings, which are protected separately. Scheduled sites can be bought and sold, but any work that could damage them needs permission from Historic England. There are 20,000 monuments on the list, from Stonehenge to the former US nuclear missile bunkers at RAF Greenham Common, alongside thousands of hillforts, burial mounts etc. Doesn't Australia have anything similar?
They do at a state level, but given aboriginal sites aren't buildings protected by codes and standards - they're gigantic bits of land with scattered artfacts like stone tools, or trees with markings, or remnants of old sites.. There's nothing really left.
Think about it like this, if you were in Ireland, there might be a small hill and that was remnants of a hut. If you excavated it, you might find some stone from the walls.
But these sites are on a land mass where time doesn't bury sediment over the top of them very much, so what happens is whatever is left usually just wears away by the harsh environment.
People want to protect these sites, but none of these sites will have any visitors for years, decades in some cases. This includes people who live in the state.
To be fair, there's plenty of work that could be done preserving what's there and excavating underneath - or land moving the top few meters.. And we could make companies do that. But that will just drive organisations and land owners to hide these sites exist in the first place.
Or just move to another remote area to do the same for less profit. But good luck hurting profit in Australia. That's not a political game you've got a chance of winning during our life time in this country.
> And we could make companies do that. But that will just drive organisations and land owners to hide these sites exist in the first place.
That really hit home. Sometimes there really are no-win scenarios. Absolutely tragic that these sites are lost, but there's no practical solution to preserve them.
To say so fatalistically this is a no-win scenario and there's no practical solution to preserve them is a bit much, I'd say. Countries and states preserve gigantic bits of land all the time.
In Brazil for example there is a mixed model at the federal level with national parks and environment protection areas (APAs). National parks are geared for maximum preservation, the entire area is government property. APAs are delimited areas with special biologic/historic/cultural value where people can still own property, live there, and even farm, but activities in the area are supervised with preservation in mind. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than nothing, and it can always be worked on.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't Brazil currently losing huge tracts of protected rainforest in those areas, just because of Bolsonaro's politics? How is he managing to undermine these protections so totally?
We're all learning in the past few years how quickly institutions can fail when you have bad faith actors at the highest levels. In this case he can do a great deal of damage simply by openly being against environmental causes, because it sends a message that the laws will not be enforced, even before he started actually dismantling the laws.
These are caves in the Pilbara. There are a loooot of caves in the Pilbara. Pretty much all of them are as old as time itself; and most (all?) of them will have had some sort of Aboriginal contact in the ~65,000 years Australia has been settled. 'Aboriginal site' is a broad term.
Designating them as 'important archaeological sites' would render Australia un-minable. There is nowhere in Australia that hasn't been important to the Aboriginals at some point in the last 65,000 years. Look at how Europe is dotted with cultural sites and that really only track back a few thousand years. You mention Stonehenge, a modern construction dating back to only ~3,000BC. Australian Aboriginals claim a much older heritage.
To cover that many nooks, hollows and small sites with the umbrella of heritage protection is basically equivalent to debating destroying the mining industry as we know it in Australia. It is a very big debate.
It would mean taking the rights to the land away from the Natives and putting it under the purview of the central government.
This is exactly the injustice that was done to the natives so many generations ago.
If it truly belongs to them - then they have the right to sell it.
Moreover, the historical/landmark significance of these sites is often exaggerated for hyperbolic effect. The sites in question here have no monuments on them - no structures - no special designations - they are just chunks of land.
> It would mean taking the rights to the land away from the Natives and putting it under the purview of the central government.
Not arguing one way or the other here, nor do I know much of the context. But going only from the original comment in this thread, it sounds like this would mean taking the rights to the land away from the current set of tribal elders.
There's an argument to be made that this sort of cultural heritage belongs to the whole tribe; and not only those currently alive, but those who will be part of it in the future; and possibly not only of these particular tribes, but of all Aboriginals in Australia. It may be that those elders have considered that large group in their decision, but it's also quite possible that they have not; or even that they're corrupt and lining their own pockets.
It's also possible that this move is seen as the lesser of two evils to those elders: that they want to keep the sites, but feel they need the money to help support the tribe in other ways. If that's the case, then it's still a case of injustice.
(As an interesting aside: Recognition that "selling your land" might not really be voluntary was recognized so early that in ancient Israel, it was legally impossible to sell your land permanently: Every 50 years, all land went back to the original owners or their heirs, and you could only lease land until the next 50-year "reset".)
While I'm certainly in favor of letting groups decide for themselves what kinds of protection they need or don't need, there are lots of ways in which "tribal elders signed an agreement" could happen while still being "injustice to natives".
Right. It's normal to be able to buy and sell land, but having land rights shouldn't mean that you suddenly own heritage sites that it might hold. Heritage sites should by definition not be buyable by individuals since they inherently belong to the collective.
I am Polish so I may be missing some nuances here... but my understanding is there was no such thing as transferable right of ownership in aboriginal cultures. This came with western civilization because, whaddayaknow, it always needs to convert other civilizations to its way of thinking to even be able to communicate.
The would ignore the local culture as much as possible. Ask for the chief around here, come to him, plant the seed of thinking he actually is a king, and then it is easier to talk to just one guy than get everybody in agreement.
This is better explained in "The Origins of Political Order" by Francis Fukuyama, if anybody is interested.
Many native populations around the world had either or both transferrable rights of ownership and written laws, and while the groups having the former and the groups having the latter overlapped, they weren't the same, and then former wasn't a subset of the latter.
The speculation probably is less radically wrong if you consider property interest in land rather than personal property, though it's worth noting that the kind of free transferrability (some) Europeans wanted wasn't even the norm for land, in Europe until the end of feudalism, which was millenia after the development of written laws. Heck, some of the colonial powers neither sought nor had it as a norm themselves—not everyone was England—relying instead on right of conquest to impose what amounted to a feudal system (Spain, I'm looking at you) many places.
The chief would not own his tribal land not because of lack of written laws but because his power came from the tribe. He was the chief only as long as could show it is in best interest of the tribe.
The land would typically be claimed, not owned. As soon as you stopped using the land somebody else was in the right to come and use it.
As a thought experiment, how would a a site gain such a designation? Could the Commonwealth of Australia designate it as such, or apply on behalf of the traditional owners to UNESCO or similar registry? Would the traditional owners be somewhat pissed? And are there reasons it isn't already designated as a world heritage site, such as Kakadu (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/147), which is often in the news due to its uranium deposits?
And for that reason, generally Australia would favour protecting something especially notable or with tourism potential. Seems this is down the scale a bit.
Nearest Western-international parallel might be Bears Ears in the US. There are specific features likely to hold off development, but other areas are sparse or remote wilderness less likely to survive political assault?
Do you not think it's just a little patronizing, to imply that the native communities... can't be trusted to know how to use money to improve their communities? That they aren't educated enough balance their land against the needs of their people?
Like, I could phrase this more inflammatorily, but the idea that "oh, the responsible white/asian leaders should hold the land in _trust_ for the natives, until they're responsible enough to take care of it properly"... is pretty indefensible, IMO.
Not really in trust for the natives. Just protected overall. In another place in Australia I can't tear down a house because it's over 100 years old and needs to be preserved for historical/architecture value. (It's... A random brick house) Not protecting a 15k year old village in the same way is what's indefensible. (Assuming there's something to protect there - that's another also valid thread in the comments here)
Yes, it's more of a "world heritage" concern. As in, these sites represent humanity's history and provide for our understanding of it collectively. The people descended most directly from those who originally inhabited these sites may have special concern with preservation, but heritage site preservation is a global collective responsibility.
This shouldn't just apply to native communities. It should apply to all important sites. Some things are important to everyone, so the landowner has a wider responsibility.
In Sweden we have protection from many things but the problem is that the government tells you that you can't build anything, can't change anything and as a byproduct effectively made the area worthless.
So I know people who have found things that are archeologically important and they dig it up, drive to a forest and throw it away. About two years ago a neighbor of a person at work found a big intact sword and they asked guy at work that is into history of that area. He was then consulted in secrete because they didn't dare go to the government for losing land valued at 200 000+ USD. The sword was very likely real and should have been displayed in a museum.
So unless the government start paying real market prices for the area they create special status for, then many people will not report and instead hide it. Anytime the government here take some special are such as woods and give "fair" compensation, people are never happy because the government gives you X and you have no choice.
Then the government should buy it if it’s that important. If they value some Aboriginal heritage they can buy it. Telling the people who were there first what they can do with land that was theirs before Cook showed up is just another form of white man knows best.
If it’s that valuable buy it. Don’t take it, buy it.
Indefensible is assumption that local community leaders are always wise and never corrupt (there are examples of the contrary, so it’s proven false). It has nothing to do with race or colonialism.
Even if they are in this case, preservation of cultural heritage is pretty low on their list of priorities: someone else has to take care of it and pay community bills.
> Indefensible is assumption that local community leaders are always wise and never corrupt
This is an interesting take on the word corrupt - why is valuing present needs a corrupt outcome?
Most of the European settlers in Australia sacrificed their cultural heritage; they have no ready access to any of the cultural treasures of Europe or their ancestral lands. They have no moral right to tell the Aboriginal communities to do as they say rather than they do.
Moral rights of European settlers are irrelevant in context of discussion about historical site which should be recognized as world heritage. I do not see those settlers in this thread and it doesn’t look like they are concerned (their government will collect taxes from the mine).
These aboriginals have a right to trade their land for money. The government has no right to stand in the way of that (nor do the people for that matter).
And how many people do you know who are interested enough to go and visit these potential 'world heritage' sites? We've got hundreds if not thousands of them in the Pilbara, and yet it isn't a tourist destination. I'd hazard that up until the mines got involved literally nobody knew or cared how long they'd been there. They aren't remotely important world heritage. They showcase nothing about the world except that humans have been a species for some time now. There is no heritage here that anyone cares enough about to go and look at, outside of maybe making a political point (and even then, the Pilbara is a long way to go for a protest). Australia is festooned with ancient Aboriginal sites. I've never seen a mine that doesn't have Aboriginal sites within the perimeter.
The papers are wildly underestimating how common 'aboriginal sites' are.
You took a world-heritage argument and turned it colonial. The idea, as I understood the GP, was that it would apply to all monuments, whether Chinese or Roman or Native American or French or what have you. That, for example, the Italians should not be allowed to level the Colliseum, since it should be a protected world heritage site, even though traditional property rules would have the Italian state be free to do anything with it.
In fact, some legal framework of this kind already exists, through the UNESCO World Heritage sites. If anything, I believe that tends to have problems in not recognizing enough First Peoples sites as important, rather than being too protective of them.
UNESCO World Heritage sites are created when their host country submits a nomination. If the host country doesn't have the resources to submit that nomination and show that it's capable of preserving the site, it doesn't get added to the registry.
The fact that wealthier countries have more resources to put towards preservation and so nominate of their own UNESCO sites is big problem with the whole system. The Eurocentric bias of the UNESCO committee's selection of which sites actually make it onto the list is another one that's been debated for a while.
As I see it, it's their ancestral land, and they're willing to destroy their cultural heritage for $$$. Perhaps they're in dire financial circumstances, or perhaps they don't care about their cultural heritage all that much. We don't know. Either way, it's their choice and that is a good thing.
White Australia ties itself in knots about this stuff.
There's an ongoing Intervention in the Northern Territories where the rural Indigenous communities are basically being nannied. They can't buy alcohol, they have state-issued debit cards that will only buy "good" things like healty groceries and clothes.
If the state treats them as responsible adults who can make their own decisions, then a large proportion of them choose, as adults, to get drunk most of the time. Then the state gets shouted at for allowing the Indigenous communities to become cesspits that no-one can live in.
If the state treats them as "chldren" - people who cant make sensible decisions - then the state gets a reputation for racism and colonialism.
It's the exact same problem we have with addicts: the only person who can stop the problem is the addict, but they have to get to the point where they want to stop first. And that means a lot of self-harm and the risk of death to get to that point.
Using that analogy, this is your junkie nephew stealing family heirlooms from your grandma's house to sell so that they can buy more junk.
note: obviously not all Indigenous folks are junkies/alcoholics or bad people. There are good people out there struggling to cope with a terrible situation, and I wish we could help them more.
Well, this is part of the problem. It gets very difficult to state facts like "Indigenous communities have huge problems with alcohol and domestic violence" without sounding racist. But without being able to state the problem, it gets very hard to solve it.
Exactly, does getting designated a world heritage site mean getting UN funding to preserve it and make up the opportunity cost of not selling it? If not, it's just wealthier countries patting themselves on the back for being such good custodians of world heritage while pushing the actual unseen costs onto the economically impoverished.
If someone actually cares enough about the site, raise the money to buy it up and preserve it however you like.
> A listed site gains international recognition and legal protection, and can obtain funds from among others the World Heritage Fund to facilitate its conservation under certain conditions.
It’s similar criticism to the ideas about removing the Amazon from Brazil’s control, which, for better or worse, pulls up the ladder before they’ve finished climbing in the interest of humanity.
These arguments typically come from the hearts of post industrial societies that have already exploited their resources, cultural, environmental, and otherwise, leaving them in the aftermath with only token conservation efforts in their regions and essentially no skin in the game elsewhere.
That’s an interesting take. Usually the argument is over how much benefit actually comes from living in certain societies, not the concept of living in one.
To expand on this for non-Australian readers. Native title in Australia stems from the Mabo court case in 1992.
IANAL, but my understanding of this case is that the High Court overturned the concept of terra nullius in Australia. Essentially meaning that the Crown (as in the government formed after European settlement) never had valid title to the lands where native title holders maintained a connection to their traditional lands.
Hence, addressing questions from other commenters, since the government never had title nor any rights to the native title lands, they could not have placed any caveat or restriction on the rights of native title holders as to how they use their traditional lands.
This is understandably a gray area, and a matter of debate. But "tyrants" is certainly not the right word. I cannot speak for this individual case, but in many countries it's forbidden to damage, sell, tear down protected buildings and areas, because they are classified as cultural heritage. In some case it's a crime under international law to destroy cultural heritage even in war. This is just to say that it's perfectly normal to forbid the selling out of certain lands or artifacts, if in the public interest.
If Aboriginals have land rights on the basis that they lived there for thousands of years, and are then restricted from changing anything that has thousands of years of history, what have they actually been given? It sounds like a sham ownership of the land.
They are totally ordinary people. They should have the right - indeed the expectation - to change their surroundings in ways that are to their material benefit. The fact that they lived there for thousands of years can't be the starting point of an argument that they have to sit there living with pre-1900s style infrastructure and no money.
I understand that you're arguing it's legally their land to sell, but I'm not truly sure about that, once these sites are gone, they're gone forever.
Other people in Australia or the world may also object to losing incredibly interesting sites like this, so I'm not quite sure I agree with this black and white thinking to the problem.
It seems like a lot of these comments didn't read the article.
>This letter in April followed one sent in December 2019 in which the native title holders said: “The significance of the sites impacted by the notice to Banjima people is such that Banjima people cannot and do not support the destruction of those sites as proposed by the Notice as to do so would be inconsistent with their cultural obligations to protect those sites.”
So many people saying "they have the right to have their sites/land destroyed for monetary gain", and maybe you're right, but it doesn't sound like that is what they were trying to sell. There may be misunderstandings, or they are having second thoughts on what was signed. Additionally leaders don't always speak for everyone, and leaders are often heavily motivated/biased by the prosperity the deal will bring them personally, while others within the community will receive a pittance in comparison(though I don't know the exact terms of this deal), and destruction of their land.
@dang Hopefully you'll see this but no one else will since the thread is a day old at this point. Can you explain what made you think this account was trolling? Looking at the history there's nothing obvious, so I'm just kind of curious.
The username was the name of a neo-Nazi band—truly nasty stuff. That, combined with the reference to being aboriginal, looked a lot like trolling, and we got emails pointing this out. The reason why I posted such a terse comment is that, when dealing with trolls, it's important to stick to the point. If you add in anything extra, true trolls are masterful at seizing on it and making the conversation be about that instead.
However, the story has a twist. The user emailed us, and it turns out he had no idea what the username meant and was deeply shocked to find out. We've renamed the account now, and all's well. I'll check with him if it's ok to leave this answer up.
Destroying thousands of years worth of culture is not fair game, no matter who does it and no matter the legal authority. Don't fall for it, lest you become a traitor.
Strictly speaking, you're correct, but that's not the full story.
Native title does give you the right to take it to court to decide, and tenement holders can't commence mining activities until an agreement has been reached or the court has ordered otherwise.
So native title holders aren't totally powerless to try and stop mining development. Ultimately it's up to the tribunals/courts to balance the native title objections against the development.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/26/rio-t...