BHP to destroy at least 40 Aboriginal sites, up to 15K years old, to expand mine
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/26/rio-t...
So whilst I think it is important to protect this history, some of it can't be that important. I imagine that is what the traditional owners also thought when they signed the agreements. The article mentions "significant cumulative loss", which would become a problem when you sign away the rights to the lot.
But in the case of the cave that Rio Tinto destroyed, surely that was significant enough to protect and work around. I know that it wouldn't take long to design around such a requirement, which makes the outcome even more disappointing.
Any advice?
The article?
The article is about mining ore for steel.
How am I off topic?
Because I’m talking about myself?
Or because I didn’t think to mention Rust in this context?
<eye roll>
Regarding programs, Tekla Structures is the gold standard for detailing steel structures, but the price is up there (if you're looking at going it alone). Cheaper options that I haven't used are available from Autodesk for AutoCAD, and another from Bentley for Microstation. I would look at the Microstation option first, because the "core" seems to be better for 3D work than AutoCAD. However, Autodesk does a reasonably priced bundle of programs for the construction industry, which includes some BIM staples like Navisworks.
Yeah, our steel detailers here (seven across two sites) use Tekla Structures and have it tweaked how our workshops like, and I've got to say it produced the best drawings I've ever worked with.
Also spits out NC1 files for the laser and beam-line, so we're somewhat keeping up with the technological advances to stay competitive.
And yeah, I've worked myself in to a pretty good niche here, and it's a bit of a nice corner to be in at the moment.
I'll continue to observe the playing-field.
Thanks again.
Why don't we go into your house and just start demolishing shit. Everything can't be that important, right?
I do work in the steel fabrication industry though, so perhaps I have an unconscious bias in favour of iron ore mining.
I'm torn because if you need to mine somewhere, remote parts of Australia might as well be the place. But on the other hand, once you give over these truly wild areas to development, they're not coming back, especially from mining.
Someone once pointed out to me the scale of Australia by showing me this:
https://goo.gl/maps/XuwPjHfLmqAYaRwa6
This is the open pit iron ore mine Iron Duke in the Middleback Ranges.
He quipped the plan is to “keep digging north forever.”
Iron Knob is an eyesore, but if it weren't for the roadside warning signs for the others in that locale, you might not know they were there.
I was born in Adelaide but moved to Port Lincoln before I was one.
So yeah, familiar with Coffin Bay, and don’t mind me the odd oyster or twelve.
If you’re ever done this way shoot me a msg, email in profile.
I suspect the significance of these sites is being overplayed as a negotiating tactic on the back of the Rio Tinto incident. As it was, one of the authorities demoted half of the sites.
On the other hand, if there was a broad area of historical interest (heavily frequented by nomads, or well-preserved), usually it'd be set aside. It's possible that the best examples already have been.
Often the oral histories are general or associated with distinct features. If we're talking about broader areas, I think the key ones would be protected already or not signed over to a mining company. My point was that these don't sound like distinct places, else I'd guess images would aid the public cause in pressuring mining companies. The Rio Tinto story was accompanied by a photograph of the gorge/cave.
"They are also unable to raise concerns publicly about the expansion, having signed comprehensive agreements with BHP as part of a native title settlement. BHP agreed to financial and other benefits for the Banjima people, while the Banjima made commitments to support the South Flank project."
From the sounds of it the two parties have agreed to the situation and now one party is attempting to escape its part of the agreement through the use public opinion.
It doesn't seem right to treat 15K-year-old archeological sites as sellable goods. It should belong to Australia and mankind.
Our PM today claimed we didn't have slavery here (in response to the BLM marches).
Narrator: Australia did have slavery...
I expect this means that even if it goes ahead in the future, the traditional owners will get a big payout (beyond whatever was signed in 2015)
As I understand that for the "elders" the money may be more important than the sites, an for the mining corp the money surely is more important: this needs to be a matter of national interest.
A wealthy individual approaches you and asks if they can buy this HDD off you for a large amount of money. You don't have a lot of money, your ability to make money is restricted and your government is always reducing social safety-nets. This proposition looks like your best chance. The wealthy individual takes your HDD, holds it for a while and then physically destroys it in front of you without regard.
But it's fine... Right? It was only some plastic and metal... You can go to the store and buy a new larger HDD with all your new money.
But yeah, imagine this HDD belonged to my sibling that I have supported financially, but I cannot keep supporting them financially to the same extent I have been doing it because times are hard economically. I would somehow feel a bit bad for them, but really I can only do so much.
Archaeology is not free and it requires excess resources, something which mining provides. If you destroy Australia's economy there won't be any Archaeology happening anyway.
EDIT: We can all dream about what wonderful world we would have if there were no scarcity of resources, but resources are scarce. We can work to make them less scarce, and that is actually exactly what BHP is doing when they mine coal.
The alternative in the metaphor is you keep the HDD, suffer financially and the wealthy person can't become wealthy because these trades are how they make money. It is worse for everyone.
instead they use it to "just get by for a while" and theyll be back in the same position again later...
Most often, the real value of having historical sites around is that even decades later there can be complementary investigations that were not thought of in the first place.
I suspect they have preserved the key sites with the best scientific opportunities or main cultural importance, and that these are much more run of the mill.
That said, mining companies make buckets of money and I have no issue with tipping the scales a bit against their convenience and profitability for something like this.
If they do it on a handful of sites, chemical analysis would be a true way to show their commitment.
Fair game, though a sad game.
Anyway, it is not like there leaders of communities have never been corrupt.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
If it’s that valuable buy it. Don’t take it, buy it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am not implying that though. Please do not put words in my mouth.
> but the idea that ...
This is not what I said.
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.
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?
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/s...
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..
That really hit home. Sometimes there really are no-win scenarios. Absolutely tragic that these sites are lost, but there's no practical solution to preserve them.
In Brazil for example there is a mixed model at the federal level with national parks and environment protection areas (APAs). National parks are geared for maximum preservation, the entire area is government property. APAs are delimited areas with special biologic/historic/cultural value where people can still own property, live there, and even farm, but activities in the area are supervised with preservation in mind. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than nothing, and it can always be worked on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/28/world/americas/brazil-def...
Designating them as 'important archaeological sites' would render Australia un-minable. There is nowhere in Australia that hasn't been important to the Aboriginals at some point in the last 65,000 years. Look at how Europe is dotted with cultural sites and that really only track back a few thousand years. You mention Stonehenge, a modern construction dating back to only ~3,000BC. Australian Aboriginals claim a much older heritage.
To cover that many nooks, hollows and small sites with the umbrella of heritage protection is basically equivalent to debating destroying the mining industry as we know it in Australia. It is a very big debate.
It would mean taking the rights to the land away from the Natives and putting it under the purview of the central government.
This is exactly the injustice that was done to the natives so many generations ago.
If it truly belongs to them - then they have the right to sell it.
Moreover, the historical/landmark significance of these sites is often exaggerated for hyperbolic effect. The sites in question here have no monuments on them - no structures - no special designations - they are just chunks of land.
Not arguing one way or the other here, nor do I know much of the context. But going only from the original comment in this thread, it sounds like this would mean taking the rights to the land away from the current set of tribal elders.
There's an argument to be made that this sort of cultural heritage belongs to the whole tribe; and not only those currently alive, but those who will be part of it in the future; and possibly not only of these particular tribes, but of all Aboriginals in Australia. It may be that those elders have considered that large group in their decision, but it's also quite possible that they have not; or even that they're corrupt and lining their own pockets.
It's also possible that this move is seen as the lesser of two evils to those elders: that they want to keep the sites, but feel they need the money to help support the tribe in other ways. If that's the case, then it's still a case of injustice.
(As an interesting aside: Recognition that "selling your land" might not really be voluntary was recognized so early that in ancient Israel, it was legally impossible to sell your land permanently: Every 50 years, all land went back to the original owners or their heirs, and you could only lease land until the next 50-year "reset".)
While I'm certainly in favor of letting groups decide for themselves what kinds of protection they need or don't need, there are lots of ways in which "tribal elders signed an agreement" could happen while still being "injustice to natives".
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.
Off topic but do you know of any effective programs for supporting aboriginal youth in tech?
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.
History has to be preserved no matter what.
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.
These activists have become the tyrants the claim to fight.
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.
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.
Native populations around the world had no "transferable right of ownership" because they had no written laws.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.