5 ms·

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 -

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.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  Rio Tinto should have paid to have them removed, plain and simple.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    It isn't a matter of money; someone could have died. To do that over a historical curio is not responsible.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      Your characterising this as a 'historical curio' is ridiculous. By the same reasoning we should just leave the bombs dropped in German cities where they are - 'someone could die, disarming them' ...
      - roenxi 6y ago
        Someone could also die leaving them where they are. There are circumstances where it makes sense to risk defusing a shot, but protecting a historical site in the middle of the Australian Outback is not one of them. I'd rather tell someone I blew up a 4,000 year old heritage site and get yelled at than tell them I got their son killed protecting 4,000 year old refuse. The debate should centre entirely around what happened before the shot was loaded.
        fit2rule 6y ago
        The original owners of the Australian continent were a 60,000 year old human culture. The current owners are occupied by these industries. It is factually a human rights violation to destroy the cultural artefacts of other cultures. Remember when ISIS bombed the Buddhas of Bamyan? If China were to, say, demolish the opera house to get at the fish underneath, would you be so happy about it?
        roenxi 6y ago

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.

fit2rule 6y ago
Rio Tinto should have paid to have them removed, plain and simple.
- roenxi 6y ago
  It isn't a matter of money; someone could have died. To do that over a historical curio is not responsible.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    Your characterising this as a 'historical curio' is ridiculous. By the same reasoning we should just leave the bombs dropped in German cities where they are - 'someone could die, disarming them' ...
    - roenxi 6y ago
      Someone could also die leaving them where they are. There are circumstances where it makes sense to risk defusing a shot, but protecting a historical site in the middle of the Australian Outback is not one of them. I'd rather tell someone I blew up a 4,000 year old heritage site and get yelled at than tell them I got their son killed protecting 4,000 year old refuse. The debate should centre entirely around what happened before the shot was loaded.
      - fit2rule 6y ago
        The original owners of the Australian continent were a 60,000 year old human culture. The current owners are occupied by these industries. It is factually a human rights violation to destroy the cultural artefacts of other cultures. Remember when ISIS bombed the Buddhas of Bamyan? If China were to, say, demolish the opera house to get at the fish underneath, would you be so happy about it?
        roenxi 6y ago