Your post implies that aboriginal heritage is not currently acknowledged or respected. While there can be improvements made to just about any area of social policy and aboriginal heritage is no different, I would suggest that there is an acute awareness and acknowledgement of aboriginal cultural history today. You only have to look at Uluru as a classic example. Its name has been changed from the European Ayers Rock to the aboriginal Uluru and now the only people climbing the rock are Aboriginal. Anyone else is banned.
Its a rock. It was there long before Aborigines set foot on Australian soil and it will be there long after the last humans disappear. Can anyone own a rock ? Anyway, the Aborigines claim to own it and the rest of us respect the decision as the democratic communal thought of our society decrees. I doubt that many people would disagree that a site of such splendor would not be significant to indigenous Australians in the same way it would be significant in the lives of any European / Australians who spent a lot of time in the area.
If we are going to avoid incidents such as the recent destruction of caves by miners there needs to be a complete and thorough recording of ALL sites of significance to indigenous Australians. If they want them protected, get them on a central register. If they are not on the register, don't come back complaining later when something bad happens.
This will avoid the chaos caused by false claims of aboriginal significance as soon as minerals are found or the usual whingers want to stop a development and fabricate claims of Aboriginal significance.
If you want to see the worst of this, not only affecting non indigenous Australians, but also tearing aboriginal communities apart. take a look at the " Hindmarsh Island Bridge saga." A royal commission found that a small group of Aboriginal woman encouraged by the usual suspects fabricated stories of the sites significance in order to stop a bridge being built. While a later High Court finding disagreed with the Royal Commisions findings, the High Court did not actually find any evidence to refute the findings of the royal commission that the claims where fabricated. The Royal commission on the other hand provided extensive evidence including individual people, places and time frames supporting its findings of fabrication.
Not only did the false claims delay the building of the bridge for many years, it cost us a fortune in court and legal fees and tore the local Ngarrindjeri tribe apart, as many Ngarrindjeri woman came out publicly to dispute the fabricated claims of the small group of indigenous woman.
It might not be popular to point out the bleeding obvious, but if we are to respect our indigenous history, Aboriginal people themselves must treat it with respect and not use it as a play thing for other purposes ( usually involving receiving royalty money ). It cuts both ways.
. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindmarsh_Island_bridge_controversy#:~:text=The%20Hindmarsh%20Island%2...
3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
