169
For years tourists have ridden boats through this sacred Australian natural wonder. A new ban will stop them in their tracks (www.cnn.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Horizontal Falls are one of Australia’s strangest natural attractions, a unique blend of coastal geography and powerful tidal forces that visitors pay big money to see up close.

But all that is about to change.

Located at Talbot Bay, a remote spot on the country’s northwestern coastline, the falls are created when surges of seawater pour between two narrow cliff gaps, creating a swell of up to four meters that resembles a waterfall.

For decades, tours have pierced these gaps on powerful boats, much to the dismay of the area’s Indigenous Traditional Owners, who say the site is sacred.

It’s not the only reason the boat tours are controversial. In May 2022 one boat hit the rocks resulting in passenger injuries and triggering a major rescue operation. The incident led to calls to halt the tours for safety reasons.

Although the boat trips have continued, the concerns of the Indigenous Traditional Owners have now been heeded, with Western Australia, the state in which the falls are situated, saying they will be banned in 2028 out of respect.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

I can understand not wanting folks traipsing over burial mounds that were actually built by their ancestors, but if someone is going to say “No you can’t go to Niagara falls!”, because their 35th great grandpa thought the view was divinely inspired, that’s just dumb.

What if their 34th, 33rd, 32nd, 31st, 30th, 29th, 28th, 27th, 26th, 25th, 24th, 23rd, 22nd, 21st, 20th, 19th, 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th, 14th, 13th, 12th, 11th, 10th, 9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st great grandpa along with their father too all see a place as sacred to their culture?

Are you suggesting that because a place was declared sacred long ago that it has some kind of statute of limitations on being sacred that expires after a certain amount of time? Or, using the US an example, are you suggesting that because the native peoples and cultures that lived here before Europeans invaded were subject to a genocide and mass land theft that their claim to a place being sacred is now forfeit? What are you actually saying?

Your argument is nothing more than a hollow appeal to being willfully ignorant, and crucially you utterly fail to realize how vitally important indigenous cultures have been to preservation of precious natural spaces all over the world. Without indigenous people defending the lands they consider sacred there would be an unbelievable amount more of irreversible ecological destruction wrought by modern capitalism by this point and that is just simply a fact. If you don't care about the preservation of beautiful, natural spaces... well then I am damn happy there are indigenous land protectors out there who are devoted to pissing people like you off by refusing to let the cultural context of the landscape around them be erased by lazy people who can't be bothered to understand history or environmentalism.

Sure, if you want to consider native beliefs silly or dumb, whatever, I could care less but you are just factually wrong if you don't understand the immense material benefit to us all (and our children) from indigenous cultures defending the preservation of our most beautiful and rare natural landscapes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What if their 34th, 33rd, 32nd, 31st, 30th, 29th, 28th, 27th, 26th, 25th, 24th, 23rd, 22nd, 21st, 20th, 19th, 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th, 14th, 13th, 12th, 11th, 10th, 9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st great grandpa along with their father too all see a place as sacred to their culture?

    They didn't build it anymore then 35 did, so I'm not understanding what counterpoint you're trying to put forth here. My point was fairly clear, and if you're only going to willfully misinterpret it, then I'm not sure you're someone I want to engage with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    They didn’t build it anymore then 35 did, so I’m not understanding what counterpoint you’re trying to put forth here.

    Oh ok, so your argument is if indigenous peoples built Niagra Falls thennn they could claim it was sacred site to their culture.

    ....got it

    That makes total sense, it is a commonly accepted fact among all major religions and cultures of the world that something can only be sacred if it was built by human hands. Forgot about that one!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Sacred implies supernaturality. Since that isn't actually a thing, nothing is sacred. It's as valid for one person to say they think something is not sacred as it is for someone to say they think it is.

    At the end of the day, the argument should be that it is unique and should be preserved because of its uniqueness. That's a much more palatable and understandable position to take.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    People in Congress refer to the US Capitol as a "Sacred" space. Yes, that's right. It has nothing to do with gods or supernatural things. It is referred to that way specifically because it is so important to the people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent