[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.