9 ms·
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 mysel
by deviation 6y ago
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.
Fair game, though a sad game.
- dependenttypes 6y agoI think that these should be designated as world heritage sites, rather than as a property of a specific group that is free to destroy it at any time. Anyway, it is not like there leaders of communities have never been corrupt.
- AbrahamParangi 6y agoCapitalism for me, nothing for thee
- magicsmoke 6y agoExactly, 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.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago> If someone actually cares enough about the site, raise the money to buy it up and preserve it however you like. This is what has happened. It’s going to be preserved as an open cut iron ore mine.
- adrianN 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Site#Consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Site#Consequenc... > 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.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y agoThat doesn’t address the question of lost opportunity cost.
- dependenttypes 6y agoNot sure what you mean by this.
- readarticle 6y agoIt’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. Thus: capitalism for me, none for thee.
- dependenttypes 6y agoThat would make sense if people were countries.
- readarticle 6y agoThat’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.
- bpodgursky 6y agoDo 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.
- ascorbic 6y agoThis 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.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y agoSweeping generalisations and bureaucratic red tape.
- 3D233022 6y agoIn 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.
- jaratec 6y ago
- stubish 6y agoAs 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 https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/147), which is often in the news due to its uranium deposits?
- Someone 6y ago“World Heritage Site” is a title countries apply for at UNESCO. Once on a list, treaties require countries to protect the site. Because of that, the decision whether to ask UNESCO to put that sticker on a site is a political choice.
- prawn 6y agoAnd 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?
- inscartwheelies 6y agoRespect. The OP story feels like a metaphor for the Earth's rape, destruction, and, pollution (ecocide) and mass extinction era (terracide) which ultimately leads to death of all people (omnicide), descendants (prolicide), and self (suicide). If we cannot connect what's done to the planet to our survival, not necessarily that digging up particular tracts of land is the end of the world, but that certain kinds of widespread actions do cause very indirect, slight, invisible, deferred harm.
- ascorbic 6y agoIn 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? https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/scheduled-monuments/ https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/s...
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y agoProbably, but in typical Aussie style we’re all to drunk or stoned or off guts on meth to notice.
- ascorbic 6y agoYou're talking to a Brit here, mate. We're hardly better
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y agoYeah, I thought you’d empathise ;)
- dmos62 6y agoRight. 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.
- Mandatum 6y agoThey 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. Always was, always will be..
- fungi 6y agoi am not familiar with the specifics of this case but native title does not grant the holder a veto over mining development.
- nmfisher 6y agoStrictly 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.
- thelittleone 6y agoVery sad. Off topic but do you know of any effective programs for supporting aboriginal youth in tech?
- yoloClin 6y agoPing me on twitter. @yoloClin
- thelittleone 6y agoThanks will do.
- thelittleone 6y agoHey I'm locked out of my twitter but please reach out at Thelittleone@altmails.com
- rorykoehler 6y agoSorry it's not theirs to sell. It belongs to humanity. Everyone involved should be ashamed.
- 0-O-0 6y agoHow is "humanity" going to substantiate this claim?
- bamboozled 6y agoI 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.
- koheripbal 6y agoAre you suggesting we take the land rights away from the Natives in order to... protect Native sovereignty?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- yung0 6y agoDestroying 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.
- TLightful 6y agoBollox, mate.
- cskinner 6y agoTo 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.
- koheripbal 6y agoIt's an interesting contradiction I see in the media where activists demand Natives the lose their rights to (sell) the land. These activists have become the tyrants the claim to fight.
- martopix 6y agoThis 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.
- roenxi 6y agoIf 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.
- lmilcin 6y agoI 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.
- koheripbal 6y agoFrancis Fukuyama specifically talks about the necessity for WRITTEN laws and literacy in his book as one of the core foundations of political order. Native populations around the world had no "transferable right of ownership" because they had no written laws.
- dragonwriter 6y agoMany 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.
- lmilcin 6y agoThe 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.
- nix23 6y agoYou sound like history could be owned by individuals. In Switzerland you can own a old house (witch is under historic protection) but don't change it. So no, i don't think its anyone's right to exchange history for money.
- FilterSweep 6y agoDid they hire independent appraisals? Something tells me they’re not getting the value that warrants this contract
- pstuart 6y agoIs it really the elders land to sell? It should be their land to protect.
- Klinky 6y agoIt 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.
- bromuro 6y agoYes it works like this: first they keep them hungry, then they buy the land.
- dang 6y agoWe've banned this account for trolling. Please don't do that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- fphhotchips 6y ago@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.
- dang 6y agoThe 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.
- Plutonsvea 6y agoCan I ask why you've banned my account? I'm genuinely curious because I'm 100% sure I'm no troll.