5 ms·

Rio Tinto blasts 46,000-year-old Aboriginal site to expand iron ore mine

49 points by MaysonL 6y ago

Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago
A day later and the usual playbook gets rolled out "lessons learned", "very sorry", "genuine mistake" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-52869502 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-52869502
throwbackThurs 6y ago
Systematic corruption of Australia's political class
roenxi 6y ago
I've been to a Rio Tinto mine in the Pilbara and talked to some people there about a large doughnut shaped piece of work they were doing avoiding some aboriginal site. They do more than just pay lip service to the idea of preserving this stuff. I'm obviously a bit biased, but I don't expect 40,000 year old sites riddled with artefacts are actually that rare in the Pilbara. It isn't the sort of place where things change quickly. It is much more likely that this is one of the few they've found because it has a mine on top of it that was paying for an archaeologist to fly out and look. As can be seen from the article - the aboriginals have no idea how old these sites are or what is in them when the mine approvals are negotiated. It makes sense, nobody is keeping a 4,000 year inventory of what practically amounts to buried junk of no value to anyone outside of one small tribe of people. Possibly not even them if I let my usual cynicism seep through. It is easy to see Rio shouldn't have blown the cave up. It is appropriate to change the legislation. It is reasonable to pay the locals money. If the reporting is accurate that the site was historically rare then it is a loss to the historians. But it isn't international news or an international loss - if it hadn't been in the path of an active mine even the traditional owners wouldn't have known what it was, or cared about its historic significance.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  This is utterly false. The original land owners definitely knew it was there and wanted Rio Tinto to protect it. They decided not to, and blew it up instead - the reason given was 'the explosives are already in place and its too dangerous to remove them'. Australians try to cover up their racism and heinous history with erasing the worlds oldest extant culture, but there is a rising tide that is moving against Australian complacency and wants them to put a higher priority on protecting human heritage over extracting mineral wealth. The original land owners of the Australian continent have a huge case for the return of their lands - these acts are only designed to make it harder for that to occur. Rio Tinto didn't even need to mine in that area - it was merely a convenient way to remove cultural heritage that would've made the original land owners case for native title stronger.
  - ReticentVole 6y ago
    Latest evidence is showing that 'modern' Australian Aboriginals are only 4,000 years old: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/14/most-australian-indigenous-languages-came-from-just-one-place-research-claims https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/14/most-... Basically a second wave of colonisation from New Guinea that conquered/destroyed/assimilated the existing, older humans.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      >Latest evidence is showing that 'modern' Australian Aboriginals are only 4,000 years old: In your gleeful rush to discount humanities oldest extant civilisation, you seem to have made the fatal association: human language = human being The original land owners have been on the Australian continent for 60,000+ years, and they have maintained oral traditions that are over 40,000 years. No amount of blathering from racists is going to change that fact: its a matter of geological record.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > ...the explosives are already in place and its too dangerous to remove them... I hadn't heard that before, but it is actually a really good reason. It would be risking people's lives to try and defuse an active shot. Once the explosives are in the ground the shot was going to be fired one way or another. The aboriginals needed to, and a presume probably did, raise concerns before explosives were loaded.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
All in favor of responsible investigation of historical significant finds. But at some point, we live in this world or turn it into a museum. There is so much human activity over so long a period, you can't walk along a riverbank some places without tripping over a Tudor brick or Roman coin. There's definitely a tension between exhaustive investigation into every find, and getting on with a business. Its never going to be a perfect win for either effort.
DrOctagon 6y ago
One hundred and thirty odd (provable) generations of family history blown up. Fifteen hundred generations of continual occupation gone.
- ReticentVole 6y ago
  And if not for White Settlement, would there be Aboriginal Anthropologists and Aboriginal Scientists examining and treasuring the objects? The article mentioned, vaguely, an object made of human hair. Unless sealed in a manner of an Egyptian Mummy, hair will turn to dust in a few centuries. Look up how Aboriginal Australians hunted multiple megafauna species to extinction, and used fire to burn down gigantic sections of forest, to flush out and better hunt animals. Their concern for the continent is minimal. Aboriginal Australians are provided a huge amount of welfare, thanks to things like the mining industry and the fact that the country was settled by the British.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    This heinous, racist attitude is atrocious. The time has come for the Australian people to fess up to their genocide and quit justifying it.

49 points by MaysonL 6y ago

Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago

A day later and the usual playbook gets rolled out "lessons learned", "very sorry", "genuine mistake" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-52869502 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-52869502

throwbackThurs 6y ago

Systematic corruption of Australia's political class

roenxi 6y ago

I've been to a Rio Tinto mine in the Pilbara and talked to some people there about a large doughnut shaped piece of work they were doing avoiding some aboriginal site. They do more than just pay lip service to the idea of preserving this stuff. I'm obviously a bit biased, but I don't expect 40,000 year old sites riddled with artefacts are actually that rare in the Pilbara. It isn't the sort of place where things change quickly. It is much more likely that this is one of the few they've found because it has a mine on top of it that was paying for an archaeologist to fly out and look. As can be seen from the article - the aboriginals have no idea how old these sites are or what is in them when the mine approvals are negotiated. It makes sense, nobody is keeping a 4,000 year inventory of what practically amounts to buried junk of no value to anyone outside of one small tribe of people. Possibly not even them if I let my usual cynicism seep through. It is easy to see Rio shouldn't have blown the cave up. It is appropriate to change the legislation. It is reasonable to pay the locals money. If the reporting is accurate that the site was historically rare then it is a loss to the historians. But it isn't international news or an international loss - if it hadn't been in the path of an active mine even the traditional owners wouldn't have known what it was, or cared about its historic significance.

fit2rule 6y ago
This is utterly false. The original land owners definitely knew it was there and wanted Rio Tinto to protect it. They decided not to, and blew it up instead - the reason given was 'the explosives are already in place and its too dangerous to remove them'. Australians try to cover up their racism and heinous history with erasing the worlds oldest extant culture, but there is a rising tide that is moving against Australian complacency and wants them to put a higher priority on protecting human heritage over extracting mineral wealth. The original land owners of the Australian continent have a huge case for the return of their lands - these acts are only designed to make it harder for that to occur. Rio Tinto didn't even need to mine in that area - it was merely a convenient way to remove cultural heritage that would've made the original land owners case for native title stronger.
- ReticentVole 6y ago
  Latest evidence is showing that 'modern' Australian Aboriginals are only 4,000 years old: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/14/most-australian-indigenous-languages-came-from-just-one-place-research-claims https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/14/most-... Basically a second wave of colonisation from New Guinea that conquered/destroyed/assimilated the existing, older humans.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    >Latest evidence is showing that 'modern' Australian Aboriginals are only 4,000 years old: In your gleeful rush to discount humanities oldest extant civilisation, you seem to have made the fatal association: human language = human being The original land owners have been on the Australian continent for 60,000+ years, and they have maintained oral traditions that are over 40,000 years. No amount of blathering from racists is going to change that fact: its a matter of geological record.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > ...the explosives are already in place and its too dangerous to remove them... I hadn't heard that before, but it is actually a really good reason. It would be risking people's lives to try and defuse an active shot. Once the explosives are in the ground the shot was going to be fired one way or another. The aboriginals needed to, and a presume probably did, raise concerns before explosives were loaded.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

All in favor of responsible investigation of historical significant finds. But at some point, we live in this world or turn it into a museum. There is so much human activity over so long a period, you can't walk along a riverbank some places without tripping over a Tudor brick or Roman coin. There's definitely a tension between exhaustive investigation into every find, and getting on with a business. Its never going to be a perfect win for either effort.

DrOctagon 6y ago

One hundred and thirty odd (provable) generations of family history blown up. Fifteen hundred generations of continual occupation gone.

ReticentVole 6y ago
And if not for White Settlement, would there be Aboriginal Anthropologists and Aboriginal Scientists examining and treasuring the objects? The article mentioned, vaguely, an object made of human hair. Unless sealed in a manner of an Egyptian Mummy, hair will turn to dust in a few centuries. Look up how Aboriginal Australians hunted multiple megafauna species to extinction, and used fire to burn down gigantic sections of forest, to flush out and better hunt animals. Their concern for the continent is minimal. Aboriginal Australians are provided a huge amount of welfare, thanks to things like the mining industry and the fact that the country was settled by the British.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  This heinous, racist attitude is atrocious. The time has come for the Australian people to fess up to their genocide and quit justifying it.