[dependenttypes]

I 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.

[stubish]

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?

[Someone]

“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]

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?

[bpodgursky]

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.

[viraptor]

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)

[oldlinux]

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.

[ascorbic]

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.

[3D233022]

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.

[jaratec]

Do you have photos of the sword? Were there any other artefacts? Where did they end up?

[barry-cotter]

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.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

Sweeping generalisations and bureaucratic red tape.

[ivan_gammel]

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.

[roenxi]

> 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.

[ivan_gammel]

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).

[roenxi]

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.

[tsimionescu]

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.

[magicsmoke]

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.

[tasuki]

I agree with you and am surprised many don't!

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.

[marcus_holmes]

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.

[tasuki]

I think parts of your comment could be considered racist. They might also be true. Thank you for sharing.

[marcus_holmes]

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.

[dependenttypes]

> to imply that the native communities... can't be trusted to know how to use money to improve their communities?

I am not implying that though. Please do not put words in my mouth.

> but the idea that ...

This is not what I said.

[AbrahamParangi]

Capitalism for me, nothing for thee

[magicsmoke]

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.

[adrianN]

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]

That doesn’t address the question of lost opportunity cost.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

> 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.

[dependenttypes]

Not sure what you mean by this.

[readarticle]

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.

Thus: capitalism for me, none for thee.

[dependenttypes]

That would make sense if people were countries.

[readarticle]

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.