25.3 C
Sydney
26 janvier 2022

Elisez les 7 nouvelles Merveilles du Monde !

Le 1er site francophone sur l’Australie, le pays-continent Forums Divers Divers Elisez les 7 nouvelles Merveilles du Monde !

40 sujets de 1 à 40 (sur un total de 70)
  • Auteur
    Messages
  • #58310

    Bonjour à tous !!

    Surement bon nombre d’entre vous connaissent déjà ce site et cet évènement !!
    Il s’agit en fait d’élire selon votre propre choix, les 7 nouvelles Merveilles du Monde !!
    Je vous avoue que le choix est difficile étant donné que la majorité des « candidates » peuvent figurer dans ce classement… !!
    Le seul truc qui me paraît bizarre c’est que je croyais qu’un tel classement existait déjà en plus des classiques 7 Merveilles du Monde. Mais bon ça reste ludique et marrant 🙂

    NB: Vous n’avez que jusqu’au 7 juillet pour voter !!!

    Site: Elisez Les 7 nouvelles Merveilles du Monde

    Ciao les travellers !!

    Perso j’ai voté pour:

    Machu Picchu: le mystère Inca, le site eceptionnel
    le Taj Mahal: la beauté de l’édifice et sa signification
    le Christ rédempteur: pour… son charme et sa simplicité
    Angkor: le mythe, son décor, la conjugaison jungle/ruines
    Chichen Itza: la culture Maya, l’architecture des temples
    les Statues de l’Ile de Paques: pour son coté mystérieux & intriguant
    la Grande Muraille de Chine: l’incroyable immensité de cette muraille !

    Et vous ?? 🙂

    #265415

    pour moi

    L’opera de Sydney
    l’Empire state Builing
    la Statue de la Liberté
    la Sears Towers
    le Golden bridge
    le Brooklyn Bridge
    la Q1 towers

    bon je sais jsui pro americain mais bon et puis les Builing c es ma passion lool

    #265416
    UnjourenOz
    Membre
    fashion-boy wrote:
    pour moi

    L’opera de Sydney
    l’Empire state Builing
    la Statue de la Liberté
    la Sears Towers
    le Golden bridge
    le Brooklyn Bridge
    la Q1 towers

    bon je sais jsui pro americain mais bon et puis les Builing c es ma passion lool

    Il manque la tour Eiffel 😛

    #265417
    siryanne
    Membre

    Ooooh super ce site 🙂

    J’ai voté (dans l’ordre du site) pour:
    Le temple d’Angkor
    Les statues de l’île de Paques
    La grande muraille de Chine
    Le Machu Picchu
    Le château de Neuschwanstein
    Stonehenge
    Le Taj Mahal

    #265418
    Buell
    Participant

    Buell
    Buell
    Buell
    Buell
    Buell
    Buell
    Buell

    voilà, ça fait 7… yahoo-supercontent.gif

    Bon… ok lancer-tomates-9548.gif :jesuisdehors

    hahahaha, je sais que je vous manquais 😛 hihihihihi

    Bon + serieusement je vais regarder ton site Go’Oz 😉

    #265419
    Nejma
    Membre

    Mouais y’en a certains qui ont rien a faire dans cette liste … bon vais voter 🙂

    #265420
    Nejma
    Membre

    Chichen Itza
    Colosseum
    Easter Island Statues
    Great Wall
    Machu Picchu
    Stonehenge
    Taj Mahal

    A vote 🙂

    #265421
    togier
    Membre

    – Machu Picchu
    – Les 3 pyramides de Gizeh au Caire
    – Taj Mahal
    – Le Colisee a Rome
    – La statue geante de Jesus Christ a Rio de Janeiro sur le Mt Corcovado
    – Les maisons troglodytes de la Cappadoce en Turquie
    – Tombouctou au Mali

    #265422
    Quiou
    Membre

    Vous avez vu tous les trucs pour lesquels vous votez ?

    #265423
    Nejma
    Membre
    Quiou wrote:
    Vous avez vu tous les trucs pour lesquels vous votez ?

    Pas encore… c’est pour cela que cela reste des merveilles 😆 A part la Tour Effel 😆 Et Buell :mrgreen: Ca j’ai vu :nervous:

    #265424
    Nejma wrote:
    Quiou wrote:
    Vous avez vu tous les trucs pour lesquels vous votez ?

    Pas encore… c’est pour cela que cela reste des merveilles 😆 A part la Tour Effel 😆 Et Buell :mrgreen: Ca j’ai vu :nervous:

    En somme Buell c’est notre Angélique à nous….. 😆

    #265425

    Pour ma part tous sauf l opéra et la Q1 biensur qui se trouve en OZ lol

    #265426
    Quiou
    Membre

    Punaise le choix a été long à faire. Surtout qu’on puis pas voter pour les Pyramides, c’est trop nul !! 🙁
    Du coup dans l’ordre ça donne

    1. Great Wall
    2. Machu Picchu
    3. Chichen Itza
    4. Petra
    5. Angkor
    6. Easter Island Statues
    7. Stonehenge

    J’ai donné de l’importance à la technologie/époque et à la représentation des différentes civilisations.

    Sinon moi j’ai déjà vu le Mont St Michel… Si si en vrai !!
    Par contre j’ai pas encore vue buell 🙁

    #265427
    Buell
    Participant
    Quiou wrote:
    Par contre j’ai pas encore vue buell 🙁

    Sois en heureux :mrgreen:

    (obligée d’éditer, même le forum le souligne: Buell, Inscrit le: 21 Juin 2005, Messages: 1666 mdr :lol:)

    #265428
    sylvestre
    Membre

    Quiou : on peut pas voter pour les pyramides parce que c’est en soit la derniere merveille du monde qui subsiste ! L’Egypte a donc demandé un status spécial et d’être retiré de la liste (ça l’aurait moyennement fait de faire partie de la premiere liste et pas de la seconde).

    #265429
    Quiou
    Membre
    sylvestre wrote:
    Quiou : on peut pas voter pour les pyramides parce que c’est en soit la derniere merveille du monde qui subsiste ! L’Egypte a donc demandé un status spécial et d’être retiré de la liste (ça l’aurait moyennement fait de faire partie de la premiere liste et pas de la seconde).

    Ouais j’ai bien compris ce qu’ils expliquaient.

    Même que si ça avait été moi qui organisait le truc bah j’aurais mis 6 merveilles à choisir plus les pyramides obligatoires !! Na !

    La franchement ça fait bizarre. Alors on vous présente les 7 plus grandes merveilles construites par l’homme recensées au XXI siècle. Mais vous nous excuserez, on a pas pu classer les Pyramides car elles avaient déjà participé au concours il y a deux mille ans…

    #265430
    Totof
    Membre

    mdr 😆 c’est clair! ils le méritent bien en plus car ils ont dû en c**** 😛

    #265431
    Totof wrote:
    mdr 😆 c’est clair! ils le méritent bien en plus car ils ont dû en c**** 😛

    plus ou moins que les chinois avec la grande muraille à votr avis ??? 😛

    #265432
    Quiou
    Membre
    Go’Oz wrote:
    Totof wrote:
    mdr 😆 c’est clair! ils le méritent bien en plus car ils ont dû en c**** 😛

    plus ou moins que les chinois avec la grande muraille à votr avis ??? 😛

    Je sais pas. Comment tu crois qu’on peut mesurer, la façon dont ils en ont c**** ?
    Moi je propose qu’on compte le nombre de vies humaines qui ont été « utilisées » pour édifier les monuments. Après, pour trouver les sources, c’est nous qui risquons d’en c****.

    #265433
    plisken11
    Participant

    – la grande muraille de chine + la cité interdite
    – le taj mahal
    – petra
    – le chateaux de versailles
    – l’opera de sydney
    – machu pichu
    – la statue de la liberte ( pas pour la grandeur du monument mais pour ce qu’il représente… ou plutot représentait… )

    #265434
    siryanne
    Membre

    Euh dites c’est juste chez moi ou ça vous a aussi affiché « vote impossible réessayez » ou un truc comme ça?

    Je suis déçue 🙁

    #265435
    plisken11
    Participant
    plisken11 wrote:
    – la grande muraille de chine + la cité interdite
    – le taj mahal
    – petra
    – le chateaux de versailles
    – l’opera de sydney
    – machu pichu
    – la statue de la liberte ( pas pour la grandeur du monument mais pour ce qu’il représente… ou plutot représentait… )

    oups j’avais pas vu qu’il y avait un lien sur un site avec une liste…
    donc j’ai voté mais a la place du chateaux de versaille j’ai mis angkor

    #265436
    Nejma
    Membre
    Go’Oz wrote:
    Totof wrote:
    mdr 😆 c’est clair! ils le méritent bien en plus car ils ont dû en c**** 😛

    plus ou moins que les chinois avec la grande muraille à votr avis ??? 😛

    Bin les pyramides, c’etait du travail volontaire. Pas de vie humaine donc, sauf si accident.
    La Grande Muraille, on les a tue au travail. Il s’agissait de forcats.

    A vous de voir 🙂

    #265437
    Quiou
    Membre

    Bon a priori ils en ont plus c**** pour la Muraille de Chine… 😕

    #265438
    Nejma
    Membre
    Quote:
    Cri d’alarme pour le Taj Mahal

    agrandir la photo
    AGRA, Inde (Reuters) – Le mausolée du Taj Mahal, plus célèbre monument indien, est menacé de péril par la pollution et la pression démographique.

    « Si les choses continuent ainsi, le Taj Mahal va décliner comme un homme malade », prédit K.S. Rana, un militant engagé dans la préservation du monument situé à quatre heures de route de New Delhi. « En raison de la pollution, il va subir un effet de corrosion, une détérioration des pierres qui le composent. »

    Le mausolée est flanqué d’une rivière polluée par les rejets de déchets et est presque toujours enveloppé par le smog rejeté par les cheminées alentours et les pots d’échappement des voitures.

    Il a fallu 17 années de labeur et 20.000 ouvriers pour ériger au XVIIe siècle ce monument orné de marbre blanc.

    Sugam Anand, qui dirige le département d’histoire de l’université de la ville d’Agra, où s’élève le Taj, affirme que le monument souffre de « jaunisse ».

    « En raison de l’accroissement de la pollution, des facteurs de pollution de l’atmosphère, il est vrai que le Taj se délabre plus rapidement. Il nous faut à présenter contrôler cela. Il nous faut prendre des mesures pour stopper ce déclin », a-t-il dit à Reuters.

    Le Taj Mahal a été construit sur ordre de l’empereur Shah Jahan pour accueillir le corps de sa femme, Mumtaz Mahal.

    La ville d’Agra compte aujourd’hui quatre millions d’habitants.

    #265439

    Y’a plus qu’à se grouiller pour le visiter celui là !!!! au même titre que le Machu Picchu !!! 😕

    #265440
    Quiou
    Membre

    C’est quoi le problème avec Machu Pichu ?
    Moi je propose qu’on mette de la boue partout sur les murs du Taj Mahal pour les protéger de la pollution, comme pour se protéger des guèpes 😉

    #265441
    sylvestre
    Membre

    Le Machu Picchu déguste à cause du nom de touriste qui viennent chaque jour. J’y étais il y a un mois, c’était a une journée relativement faible niveau fréquentation, on était 1500, l’UNESCO estime qu’il en faudrait 800 … Le mec disait que ca monte parfois à 3000.
    Mais bon, ca rapporte tellement d’argent au Pérou (vous avez trouvé que Uluru est cher ? le machu picchu est sans commune mesure) qu’ils veulent pas limiter.

    Ceci dit, des guides disent que c’est pas le tourisme qui est dangereux pour le site mais le fait que plus une seule maison n’a de toit et que l’eau s’infiltre dans le sol et affaiblit tout… Donc ils proposent de remettre des toits sur une partie des maisons…

    #265442
    Nejma
    Membre

    Toute facon, la ou va le touriste, le site trepasse 😕 Entre la population deplacee, la faune et la flore traumatisee…

    La liste serait trop longue!

    #265443
    Nejma
    Membre
    Quote:
    Responsible Tourism Is a 3-Way Deal
    Article and Photos by Tim Leffel

    Who is responsible for sustainable tourism? The government, the tourism industry, or tourists themselves? All of the above, say progressive tourism operators in Peru, but too many people fail to fulfill their part of the bargain. Government action makes a big difference. However, most of their work is for nothing if the tourists don’t spend their dollars wisely and make responsible decisions.

    Mike Weston was traveling to Peru from Britain when he met his future wife. He settled in Cusco and later founded Peru Treks and Adventure, a company that benefits the local communities in the area, both through employment and through community projects. The company pours half its profits back into local assistance and development grants. However, Mike says organizations like his cannot make a difference on their own. “The emphasis cannot be only on the hotels and tour operators. Travelers need to do their homework. They have to bring their business to companies that are doing the right thing and spread the word.”

    This has become especially important in the region around Machu Picchu. The site was once a mysterious and hidden set of ruins visited mainly by archeologists and hardcore backpackers. In 1992, only 9,000 tourists visited the ruins all year. In 2002, the figure rose to 150,000. In 2005 there will probably be close to 400,000 visitors. Machu Picchu is the most visited site in South America. It reportedly generates $40 million each year for Peru’s economy. Because of the power of this one attraction, tourism is the second largest industry nationwide, after mining, and the largest industry overall in the Cusco region.

    UNESCO continually threatens to put Machu Picchu on its list of World Heritage in Danger sites, a designation meant to encourage swift corrective action. For years there has also been plenty of hand-wringing among archeologists and preservationists. In 2000, the World Monuments Fund (WMF), a conservation group based in New York, added Machu Picchu to its watch list of the 100 most-endangered sites. The group later removed it after the Peruvian government scrapped plans to increase the number of visitors and implemented regulations for the Inca Trail.

    This impressive and enigmatic Inca city was meant to be inaccessible. It lies on a narrow peak wedged into a narrow river valley miles from any areas suitable for large-scale farming. Until it was rediscovered by American archeologist Hiram Bingham in 1911, nobody knew about it apart from a few Andean locals. Even today, the only road in the area is a winding switchback that carries tourists up on a bus from Aguas Calientes town at the base. Visitors must arrive by train at the base of the mountain ($46-plus, one way from Cusco) or do the 4-day Inca Trail hike through the mountains ($300-plus).

    Regulating the Inca Trail

    The Inca Trail itself has been another source of worry for decades. Until the end of 2000, travelers could just show up and hike the 4-day trail on their own or sign up with an escorted group. The result was overcrowding and erosion, lots of garbage, and rampant exploitation of the porters. Eranjelio Seina Castca, one of the porters on my own Inca Trail trip, had no nostalgia for those days. He had been at this for seven years, and over 600 Inca Trail trips. “There was a lot of misery before the controls started,” he says. “We would have to carry over 50 kilos (110 pounds) and there was never enough food. We had to sleep out in the open, with no tents.”

    In January 2001 the government began to regulate the trail and to require permits. Of the 93 tour operators that had sold Inca Trail packages at the time, half were denied permission to continue operating. To meet the new requirements tour operators must use only assigned camp sites with proper toilet facilities; carry all garbage with them; use only propane for fuel (no open fires); provide two guides for groups of more than seven tourists; and limit the amount porters carry to 25 kilos.

    In general, conditions are far better for the trekkers, the porters, and the trail itself. Another boost has come from the Inka Porter Project (Porteadores Inka Ñan), an NGO that spent close to three years working on behalf of porter rights. The group pressured operators to pay a minimum wage for porters and lobbied to improve their conditions. The project also provided English language and first aid programs to over 400 porters and worked to educate tourists on how to choose a responsible agency.

    The agency did its job so well that in mid-2005 it shut itself down. Former press and marketing manager Ann Noon says that it is now up to the trekkers to keep things moving in a positive direction by hiring a tour company based on more than price. “The easiest and least visible place to cut corners is in the pay and treatment of the porters.”

    Mike Weston also believes the onus is on the visitors. “It continually amazes me that some travelers don’t even crack a guidebook before they leave. Many seem to spend five minutes—at most—researching a tour company for the Inca Trail.” He notes that his company makes it a requirement that trekkers arrive 72 hours before departure to get acclimatized. “If we didn’t, clueless travelers would show up the night before and then keel over on the trail.”

    Transforming the Gateway

    Like many “tourist ghetto” areas around the world, Machu Picchu town, the gateway area long known as Aguas Calientes, is a mess. It’s a thrown-together collection of structures with few apparent building regulations. Every space is filled with big signs and mass-produced souvenirs. When guests walk into the stunning Machu Picchu Pueblo Hotel, a fancy ecolodge surrounded by orchids and flitting hummingbirds, they can’t believe they are in the same town.

    It was even worse before the mayor finally got some of the revenue from Machu Picchu diverted to his town. Garbage disposal has improved and the hot springs are better maintained. Plenty of problems persist, including less visible ones like sewage treatment, but the pressure from several sides has helped significantly.

    Alvaro Bedoya Nadramia is one of the people trying to make a difference in the area by following more sustainable practices. His Rupa Wasi Eco Lodge, in Machu Picchu town, has been light years ahead of other hotels in the area since its start three years ago. “Some people are finally waking up and realizing they need to take care of what they have,” he says. “We do what we can to help this through the municipality, but we also try to give a good example by the way we run our own business.” The hotel is built mainly of wood—a rarity here—and even uses organic soap. Waste is composted and Nadramia tries to recycle everything.

    Like most other business owners I talked to in Peru, Nadramia puts a fair chunk of the blame for area problems on travelers themselves. “The biggest impact overall, in terms of waste, comes from plastic. So why do tourists buy four or five plastic bottles of water each day instead of just using the one bottle and purification tablets? What do they think happens to all that plastic out here in this isolated area once they throw it away?”

    A Long-Term Plan

    Despite the throngs of other visitors, as I wandered around the ruins of Machu Picchu after four days hiking to get there, the experience was both humbling and exciting. Our guide Oscar explained that there is fear the structure is sinking and that the continual bus traffic and growing tourist numbers aren’t helping. Japanese scientists said in 2000 that the area was at high risk for a landslide. “They are studying satellite pictures each month. These wires and marks are helping them to see if this theory is real or if it is just worry,” he said.

    Every set of feet has an impact, and the luxury side has stepped up and made a huge difference. The Orient-Express Hotels group runs the Monasterio Hotel in Cusco, the Sanctuary Lodge by the entrance to Macchu Picchu, and the train lines to the site, including the elegant Hiram Bingham coach. “When we started our operations here in 1999 you could smell garbage when you walked around Machu Picchu,” said Joanna Boyen, public relations manager for Orient-Express Hotels. “There was literally a huge dump right outside the ruins and they would just light it on fire now and then.”

    After dozens of meetings with various municipal governments and agencies the Orient-Express group worked out a program to haul off the original garbage—100 cubic tons of it—and cart off new refuse three times per week on the train. The company also replaced the old diesel kitchen at the Sanctuary Lodge with natural gas and installed a water filtration system for both the inflow and outflow.

    In addition Orient-Express worked hard to help broker a deal between UNESCO, the World Bank, and the local governments to avert a crisis over Machu Picchu. The parties are drafting a master plan, one that will limit the number of visitors but will also provide investment to deal with garbage, sewage, and Inca Trail maintenance. “It looks like we are going to settle on a daily limit of 2,500 visitors,” says Boyen. “It’s a few hundred people more than we get now on peak days, but tourism in Peru is climbing at the rate of 15 to 20 percent per year, so you have to allow at least a small cushion for growth. This sets a defined stopping point so it doesn’t keep growing exponentially.”

    At the same time the admission price will rise again, to $30 per person in the near future. As with any golden goose historical site, the struggle between commerce and preservation brings up all kinds of conflicts. “Who comes to Peru for the first time and doesn’t go to Machu Picchu?” asks Weston. “So if the government wants Peru tourism to increase by 10 percent per year, that means 10 percent more visitors to Machu Picchu, automatically. But it’s already close to capacity now, so what can you do to compensate? You have to raise the price.”

    Ann Noon notes that the Inca Trail permit has risen from $17 to $60 per person. “But a fair amount of that money is going into trail maintenance, monitoring of regulations, and better toilets. The free-for-all was cheaper, but sustainable tourism costs money.”

    “You can’t pay a rock-bottom price for everything and still expect responsible tourism to magically happen,” says Weston. “If the Inca Trail and Machu Picchu are to be preserved, everyone who goes has to do their part. The only thing that is going to keep tour operators from trying to cut corners is market forces. If companies lose business because they get a bad reputation, they will change. Travelers who don’t do any research and don’t speak up are just reinforcing the bad practices.”

    Responsible Tourism in the Cusco Region

    Regionwide

    Andean Travel Web: http://www.andeantravelweb.com
    South American Explorers Club: http://www.saexplorers.org

    Cusco

    Peru Treks and Adventures (tour operator): http://www.perutreks.com
    Q’Ente (tour operator): http://www.qente.com
    United Mice (tour operator): http://www.unitedmice.com
    Center for Traditional Textiles: http://www.incas.org/SPChinchero.htm
    Niños Hotel and Foundation: http://www.ninoshotel.com
    Hostal Marina and HoPe Foundation: http://www.hostalmarani.com

    Macchu Pichu Town

    Rupa Wasi Eco Lodge: http://www.perucuzco.com/rupawasi
    Machu Picchu Pueblo Hotel: http://www.inkaterra.com

    From http://www.transitionsabroad.com/publications/magazine/0511/saving_machu_picchu.shtml

    #265444
    Nejma
    Membre

    Quand a Uluru… la bonne blague 😆

    Quote:
    The Rock is a hard place
    Monday, February 12, 2007 The Bulletin
    Herds of tourists splash out their cash each day to crawl over the sacred site known as Uluru. Some seek adventure, others enlightenment; many leave unsatisfied, griping about rip-offs and absent Aborigines. And, sadly, a few become part of its legend. By Paul Toohey.
    March 29 last year,late evening on the Uluru ring road: a 44-year-old Australian tourist in a four-wheel drive, towing a dinghy, becomes completely lost. This is understandable – sign-posting around the Rock is dismal. He flags down an oncoming vehicle to ask directions to the Rock. The car stops. A policeman gets out, leans in and tells the tourist that Australia’s pre-eminent natural icon is only 100m away. In fact the driver’s headlights are shining right at it. The officer then books the man for blowing .116, but that’s not the point.

    RELATED LINKS
    More news stories
    Care to comment?
    The point is: can anyone see Uluru for what it is?

    For some, the Rock is about creation – maybe a god, maybe geology, but either way an awesome, unknowable strength. A check against conceit and reminder of our smallness, although most quickly snap out of such humble introspection and clamber straight to the top to claim a victory of sorts.

    For British woman Ethel Hetherington, 52, the Rock was about Aborigines. It was a sacred site, not a thing to climb. After all, the local Anangu people do not like visitors walking up it. There’s no official version of her death on October 24, 2004, although people who live around the Rock have a pretty good idea of what happened.

    Hetherington had been drinking at the Outback Pioneer Hotel & Lodge with some younger Aboriginal men who’d come in from Mutitjulu, the strictly no-access no-alcohol community hidden away on the south side of the Rock. Only guests of one of the hotels may drink at the Yulara resort. Aborigines – before authorities cottoned on to the ruse – would take out cheap dorm beds at the Outback, with no intention of sleeping there but using their key as a drinking pass.

    Perhaps the men were becoming a little rowdy and were asked to leave. Perhaps Hetherington became indignant, saying the hotel was racist to the traditional people of the land. Hetherington and the men drove the 20km out to Mutitjulu. But, says one man who has talked to the Aborigines who were with her that night, Hetherington may not have been prepared for the realities of Mutitjulu. She was sitting around, half-cut, in a wrecked and badly lit township, listening to a language she didn’t understand. Maybe they hit on her; maybe they didn’t. Either way, Hetherington’s romantic notions of Aboriginal life evaporated. She chose her moment and left.

    To reach her Yulara hotel, Hetherington should have taken the dirt road to the right. That would have taken her to the base of the Rock, where traffic passes regularly. Instead, she turned left and headed down the red-dirt track on what is sometimes known as the Flagon Freeway because people try to sneak alcohol along it into Mutitjulu. She walked all night in the opposite direction to everything. She never left the road, making 22km before she dropped and died.

    Ethel Hetherington was, in a sense,the one who got away. People who enter the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park become a micro-managed species known as Visitor. Unless they are day-trippers, making the 440km run from Alice Springs, with just enough time to glimpse the sights before starting back, people find themselves in the grip of either the strict park rules, or of the seamless management of Voyages, the company that runs the Yulara resort.

    Voyages run everything in Yulara, from the camping ground to the five-star Sails in the Desert Hotel. They run the super-market and the cafe. You have to stay with them – there is nowhere else. There is a feeling of falling into the jaws of a corporation, but they are careful to appear eco-friendly and, particularly, connected to the Anangu.

    Automatically tacked onto every bill is a $2 surcharge. The money, which has been collected since 2003 and is matched up to $200,000 annually by Voyages, is for the Mutitjulu Foundation, which aims to « relieve poverty, further education and/or improve health » at the community no Visitor is allowed to see. The money is stored in trust until the planned project, a respite centre, is built. The surcharge can be removed from a bill on request but the guilt factor is persuasive: how would you feel demanding not to be charged $2 to help the suffering?

    Not as bad as might be imagined. At a Senate inquiry into the state of Australia’s national parks, senators learned that 30% of the estimated 390,000 visitors each year asked that the surcharge be removed. The reaction of David Heath and Rick Pearce, from Liverpool in England, is typical. « It’s supposedly for the Aborigines, but I’ve only seen one Aborigine since I’ve been here, » says Pearce. « The whole complex states they do so much for Aborigines, but I haven’t seen any working here. I know $2 is nothing, but I was annoyed. » Still, Pearce won’t ask that it be removed.

    At the Uluru hearing, Senators Andrew Bartlett and Claire Moore expressed surprise that anyone would ask that the surcharge be removed, especially for such a good cause. But they’re senators. They didn’t pay for flights, rooms, dinners or the $25 it costs adults to enter the park. They didn’t bring the kids. And unlike most others, the senators got to meet Aborigines – even if it was at the other end of a microphone.

    Getting close to or understanding Aborigines is the stated desire of many who visit the Rock. But there aren’t too many opportunities. Visitors can take a tour with the Aboriginal-run Anangu Tours and their guides, traditional people who talk via translators about the few Rock sites which are not shrouded in secret lore. They are, by all accounts, excellent tours, but only a few Anangu are qualified to discuss sites, and even then men can’t talk about women’s sites and vice versa. Mutitjulu is a very small community of some 300; there aren’t enough Anangu with the proper knowledge to pass on to the hordes.

    Many visitors imagine they’ll find chatty Aborigines sitting about in caves, excusing themselves as they nick off to spear passing kangaroos. It follows that some tourists expect to take photos with the equivalent of a roadside American Indian. It won’t happen. The Anangu are a gracious but prickly people, who don’t sell themselves out.

    Many Anangu speak little or no English – or claim they don’t. It works well that way. If they present as bilingual, their responsibilities increase. They will be asked to attend endless meetings with government officials, rangers, resort managers and visitors. They will be forced to make decisions on behalf of others, and Aborigines are notoriously wary of speaking for other Aborigines. They like to keep low.

    Visitors learn nothing of the Anangu’s creation stories for Uluru and Kata Tjuta (the Olgas). Some visitors find this frustrating, but if they really wanted, they could dig around old anthropological texts for the myths. But even then, there is no « rainbow serpent passed this way and made Uluru » legend. It is a complex matrix of stories that focuses not on Uluru or Kata Tjuta, but on creation itself. Even « Uluru » refers to just one small site on the Rock. Anangu don’t see the Rock as one thing – they were persuaded by whites to give it one, catch-all name. There was a perceived need to indigenise « Ayers Rock », and likewise « the Olgas » became Kata Tjuta.

    Around the Rock are numerous sites described as « sacred ». Photography is not permitted. Visitors get no explanation why. White tour guides take cultural training courses and tend to use the secrecy to their advantage, talking in whispers and building up the mystery. From then on, all commentary is up to them. This has led to a phenomenon noticed by The Bulletin while eavesdropping on guides – not so much the craggy old coach guides, who show the required minimum respect and just get on with the task of hauling humans – but the younger guides carting smaller busloads.

    They talk emotionally of Australia’s rotten record in dealing with Aborigines. The Rock has become Reconciliation Central, a marker of Australia’s shame. Our past is now sold off as a tourist feature. Does that explain the radiated joylessness of visitors to the Rock? Guides tell of unspeakable acts of viciousness and cruelty and visitors feel the pain. That’s fine, when it’s true, but some of them have got it awfully wrong.

    One skinny, bearded English tour guide is overheard telling a group of impressionable young Europeans: « It was legal to shoot Aborigines in Australia up till the late ’60s. » Staggering bullshit, of course, but he doesn’t stop there. He claims Australia once « tried to sell the Rock » to America; and he gives his version of how Uluru was handed back to the traditional owners in 1985. The Aborigines, he says, kindly agreed to continue to let visitors come because « we don’t want to take away from you people what you took away from us ». It didn’t go quite like that. One of the conditions of the hand-back was that the Anangu lease the park back to National Parks and Wildlife, for the use of all people, for 99 years.

    One young tour guide who will be called « Ian » (or he’ll lose his job) has a better feel for the place. He’s been doing his job for years and it’s work that brings benefits, including driving wide-eyed, bikini-topped girls around. But he’s exhausted by Rock politics. He’s disappointed with how the Rock is run; there’s no « holiday atmosphere », he says, and things seem dead and forced. He’s frustrated by the limitations created by the all-pervading « No Unauthorised Entry » signs, the lack of dunnies, and the whole feeling of being processed by Voyages and the park. Sometimes, he admits, he camps his tourists out bush, on Aboriginal land, to give them a real experience. He’d not only lose his job for that – he’d be prosecuted.

    « The old Australia’s gone, » he says. « Look at all the restrictions. » So, I ask him, what’s your tour about, then? Trying to pretend it’s still here? « That’s it, exactly, trying to pretend. But if they ask the right questions, I’ll tell them. »

    On rare occasions when the climb is closed for « cultural reasons », usually because an important Anangu person has died, Ian tries to use it as « a good talking point for tourists, a real-life drama ». But, he says, watch the big tour companies. They kick and squeal and demand it be reopened. All their talk about sacredness suddenly disappears because, says Ian, the main reason people come to Uluru is to make the climb.

    He is always asked why there are so many photo bans. « To people who want to know why a site’s sacred, there are no answers. I dare say that’s an Aboriginal prerogative. We’ve poisoned and shot them through history, so we can’t really ask too much of them. If you’re worried about sacred sites, don’t step off the plane.

    « People are interested in Aborigines – that’s a definite. The most common question they ask at the Cultural Centre [a joint-run Anangu Parks learning and art-purchase point near the Rock] is: ‘Where are all the Aborigines?’ Then they ask why they smell, why they bash each other. Their whole perception of Aborigines is what they see in Todd Mall, Alice Springs, before they come out here. »

    A young English visitor with ochre face-paint finds Ian and me talking. « Is it true that up till 1967, Aborigines were a protected species of wildlife? » she asks. Not quite, although some early legislation spoke of « natives » and « wildlife » in the same breath. She’s just come down from Thailand, where she went up into the hills and saw indigenous tribes dancing for tourists. She found it demeaning for all involved. But she’s read the brochures and fully expects to see painted, naked people gnawing on marsupial bones. And if she spent long enough in Central Australia, she would see that. But she’s a passer-through, and those bones are chicken.

    « How about, » Ian tells her, « if I took you to the home of a traditional owner? And I showed you a man sitting in a lounge chair watching the cricket? What would you think? » She does not know what to say. « The truth is you’d be disappointed, wouldn’t you? » She nods, then says: « I don’t understand this place. » I don’t blame her.

    Ian tells visitors that the Rock is the most politically sensitive place in Australia. He’s wrong. Land title issues have been resolved and the park is jointly managed between Anangu and National Parks. But it is the most politically raw place in Australia. We ask, but do not prevent, people from stomping over the biggest sacred site in the world. And on one side of the Rock, visitors live in comfort. On the other, Anangu live in squalor.

    I notice over several days that visitors, particularly Australians, are worried about giving their names when discussing what the Rock means to them. They know they are supposed to respect Aborigines, and they – sort of – do. But they think they’ll be pinged as racists for speaking. And they want to know what the hell these sacred sites are about.

    « John » and « Mary » have different motivation for name concealment. John – shirtless, tattooed, muscled – reeks of the Special Air Services and hidden battles. He confirms his military past. He and Mary are not happy with the camp ground – no soap in the bathrooms, broken-down washing machine, nowhere much for the kids to play – but they can live with that.

    They have read the Anangu warnings: signs that say, « Please don’t climb » and how « Too many people die here ». People topple off the Rock at regular intervals. They get up high, where the wind blows hard, lose confidence and panic, or do what they’ve always dreamed of doing then cark it in their hotel rooms afterwards. The climb, by all accounts, is not easy.

    « Yes, we climbed the Rock, » says John. « Awesome. But the waves of Asians – I’m not racist – is almost overwhelming. The wind is the scary bit. » John found it strange that he was permitted to climb and yet there was not one ranger on duty at the starting point advising of the risks.

    I got up at sunrise to watch the human herd. Indeed, there was no ranger or signs warning of the degree of difficulty. Nothing to warn children or the elderly to reconsider. I watched people set off, then freeze with fear after only 100m to 200m, sit down, then crawl on their hands and bums back down to the base.

    « I’ve never been to a national park where you’re doing something so dangerous and there’s no one there [to offer safety advice], » says John. Such a comment from an SAS-type is saying something. As he came back down, nervous people on the way up were asking him if the climb was going to get harder. He said it was.

    When I ask if he is interested in the Aboriginal connection around here, John says he doesn’t believe it exists. « They put so much emphasis on Aboriginal this and that, but there is no Aboriginal face. If they didn’t want us to climb, they’d shut it. If you saw the thousands of people streaming up yesterday morning, at $25 a head … we all know what they’re doing with the money. »

    John thinks they’re drinking it. But in fact Anangu get only one quarter of the gate takings, shared between three communities. The remainder goes to park management. What do the Aborigines do with their cut? Who really cares? They cannot enjoy the Rock as they did for thousands of years. The terms of the hand-back meant they had no choice but to allow visitors in – but even so, the Anangu have been generous.

    The real demand that they share the Rock with others comes not from governments or tourists but their own belief system. Think of it this way: if their creation stories are the equivalent of, say, the Big Bang Theory, then the Rock is much bigger than the Anangu as a people. They cannot « own » the Rock, just as they cannot own whatever powerful forces shaped it; they can only have primary responsibility to care for it.

    « I don’t like the restrictions, » grumbles Gatean Saint-Gerlais, a visitor from Quebec and lung-transplant survivor who is fulfilling a 30-year dream. He and his wife, Dominique, sold everything to come to Australia. The Rock is at the heart of their pilgrimage. « If they don’t want photos, why do they open it? We respect it, we won’t write on it, saying, ‘Gatean & Dominique 2007’. I am taking photos, even if they think I’m rude. »

    It is our wartime enemies, the Germans and Japanese, who of all foreigners love the Rock most. We know disarmament made them rich: they gave up making weapons for cars and TVs and now they have money and mobility, the strange spoils of wars they lost. You can ask them till you’re black and blue in the face: they cannot succinctly explain the attraction. And that, in itself, is part of the wonder.

    It is that it’s not the Sydney Opera House or the Eiffel Tower. It is not the product of human ambition. It can’t be owned, sold or relocated. And it can’t – you’d like to hope – be destroyed.

    Just as they do at Kakadu, Uluru-Kata Tjuta treats visitors like a stereotype of 40 years ago: holiday-making families of vandals setting off in the station wagon to see the bush. They think we’re going to chuck litter and paint our names on boulders, and torture or feed tiny mammals. They don’t realise we’ve changed. We’ve learned to look and not destroy. Although it’s hard to say whether it’s the park rules or the Rock itself that make adults feel like children.

    Germans and Dutch love that muted khaki « bush » clothing, with multiple pockets, net underarms and camera-dangling points. But the bloke in the dark green work shirt is Australian. He’s wearing King Gee. Matthew Steven and his partner Sue Sparkes are from Maryborough, Queensland. We stop to talk in light rain along the trail at the base of the Rock.

    « I’m really interested in the sacred site stuff, » Steven says, « but I want to know what is there. What makes it so important? We could cop it sweet if they gave some overview and held back their secrets, but there’s nothing. We’ve got tribes where we live and they give out a lot of information and we’ve got a pretty good understanding of what they’re about. » He wishes they’d say a bit more here.

    Steven also points out that there is nowhere the curious visitor can find a scientific explanation for the Rock’s creation (« born out of subterranean ructions 70 million years ago » etc etc). It’s as if to discuss geology would offend the mythology. Still, taking another look at it before setting off for Kings Canyon, Steven says his complaints are overridden by the splendour of it all. « It really is a ripper Rock, » he says. Steven struck me as just about the ideally evolved ordinary white Australian: tolerant yet questioning; cynical but understanding. And then, the weirdest, saddest thing.

    Two days later, there’s news from Territory police of a double–fatality road smash on the Luritja Road, which runs to Kings Canyon, east of the Rock. Three Koreans in a tiny Hyundai Getz hire car put two wheels in the dirt on a bend, lost control and slammed headfirst into a Hi-Ace camper. Two days later, the name of one of the dead is released. He is Matthew John Steven, 45, of Maryborough, Queensland.

    The news leaves me bereft, although enough said lest it be thought I am co-opting grief. That is for Matthew’s partner, Sue, who is lying in Alice Springs hospital. A friend to whom I tell this story says: « That’s the power of the Rock. So many who see it die. » I don’t like to think that way. The idea of the Rock selecting death for some who visit is way too out there. Azaria Chamberlain was taken by a dingo, not a Rock. And I explain Steven’s death the same way as the police: lousy driving by one of the Koreans.

    Still, as Ethel Hetherington showed, you don’t want to get sucked into the Rock. Let the Anangu see it their way, let us see it ours.

    The Japanese tourist Hasashi Ito, from Tokyo’s outskirts, has come for four days and so far stayed seven. He hasn’t met Aborigines; hasn’t climbed the Rock. He’s doing nothing but sitting by Uluru, with his girlfriend, unable to leave, basking in its inscrutable glow. « I feel it. It’s one of the most powerful places in the world. » Which is just another way of saying what Matthew Steven said – « It really is a ripper Rock. »

    Perso je me ferais un plaisir de refuser de payer les 2$ et de demander ou va l’argent exactement, de prendre des photos meme ou on peut pas … et si vous voulez grimper, grimpez! Remember, one of the conditions of the hand-back was that the Anangu lease the park back to National Parks and Wildlife, for the use of all people, for 99 years.

    #265445
    Nejma
    Membre
    Quote:
    Uluru tourist danger
    Wednesday, August 10, 2005 The Bulletin
    Canberra is skimming off the profits from tourism at Uluru and endangering visitors.

    In the predawn half-light of a crisp Central Australian winter morning, about 1000 tourists are jostling with buses and cars in a mad scramble for standing room at Uluru’s designated sunrise viewing area.
    They are waiting, cameras at the ready, for the daily event that more than anything else has cemented this red sandstone monolith’s reputation as an international tourist destination: the moment shortly after 7.30 when the rising sun lights up the Rock like neon.

    Little do these mainly foreign visitors know that, like the 37 tourists who have died climbing the Rock, they are literally taking their lives in their hands.

    « The whole routine has become patently dangerous, » says the general manager of Central Australia’s Tourism Industry Association, Craig Catchlove. « Thank God, no one has been skittled by a bus. »

    A realignment of the inadequate ring road delivering tourists to the viewing area is just one of several major projects that have long been suggested, but not implemented at the Rock, says Catchlove.

    Uluru’s infrastructure is groaning, he says, under the weight of its annual 400,000 visitors. « We are starting to track back to pre-2001 visitor growth rates, averaging 8% per annum. In the short to medium term, we confidently expect that there will be 1 million visitors per annum. But as things stand, it is a ludicrous suggestion. The attraction is simply not able to handle it. » According to Catchlove, last month was the busiest July on record at Ayers Rock Resort.

    The deterioration in infrastructure, according to CATIA, is because the federal government has been filching 75% of the $25 entrance fee to Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (the remainder goes to the traditional owners).

    « Our industry did not object to a price hike from $15 to $25, at the time it was mooted several years ago, on the proviso – a promise on the part of the government – that all extra revenue would be utilised in the park, » Catchlove says.

    « My estimate is that Uluru is $3m worse off. And CATIA is firmly of the view that large amounts of money need to be urgently spent both to improve the visitor experience, and to protect quite significant and sensitive cultural areas. »

    If the visitor experience is good, the entrance fee is well worth $25, Catchlove says. « But so much needs to happen at Uluru for people to get that experience. It is just not happening under current funding. »

    Retention of senior Parks Australia staff – and the associated loss of corporate knowledge – has become a pressing issue, because of « severe limitations » on appropriate housing near the Rock. « The last park manager, Tom English, decamped for those reasons, » Catchlove says. « It was a great blow to the industry, the end of the best relationship our members ever had with a park manager. »

    CATIA, Catchlove says, is not opposed to entrance fees – even though the federal government waived them at Kakadu in the lead-up to the last election. « If they were abolished, nearly $9m per annum would have to be found elsewhere. »

    At the time of the previous fee rise at Uluru – from $10 to $15 in 1997 – the federal government’s co-contribution to the park had been reduced to match additional revenue from the fee increase, says Catchlove.

    Title to the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park was handed back to Anangu, the traditional owners, in 1985. In return, Anangu leased the lands back to the federal government through the Director of National Parks for 99 years. He’s assisted by a board of management made up of eight Anangu and four non-Anangu members, including government representatives.

    And periodic Anangu and Central Land Council claims for a larger slice of the rapidly growing tourism cake appear to have the support of CATIA. « We don’t have any problem with the traditional owners receiving 25% of the gate fee, » Catchlove says. « It is rent. It is their land. And, given the obvious problems with provision of services and mitigating issues within the Mutitjulu Community near Uluru, we often ask, ‘Is it enough?’. »

    ahoy@acpmagazines.com.au

    #265446
    Nejma wrote:
    Quote:
    « ‘Is it enough?’. »

    euh ouais là je crois qu’on est full… 😛
    va nous falloir tout l’été pour lire tout ça 😆

    edit…

    ooops j’allais oublier……… dernier jour pour voter !!! 🙂

    #265447
    Nejma
    Membre
    Go’Oz wrote:
    Nejma wrote:
    ‘Is it enough?’. »

    euh ouais là je crois qu’on est full… 😛
    va nous falloir tout l’été pour lire tout ça 😆

    edit…

    ooops j’allais oublier……… dernier jour pour voter !!! 🙂

    Damned j’ecris des choses que seul toi peux lire, meme pas moi 😆

    Bonne journee today, un bobtail (nan pas le chien 🙄 ), un echidne (ou nez kidney 😛 ) , des cacatoes noirs, verts, roses, des kangourous (qu’est ce donc qu’un gourou kan??), des emeus… et tous vivants dis donc!

    Et toi? Les marmottes??

    #265448
    Nejma wrote:
    Et toi? Les marmottes??

    hier matin 6°C… ce matin un chouïa plus !! pas prêt d’en voir des marmottes, elles ont dû repartir hiberner avec ce splendide été sibérique 😆

    #265449
    Nejma
    Membre

    Il a du geler un peu ici hier matin mais a croire que le bobtail est plus courageux que tes marmottes (a moins qu’elles en aient marre de te voir 😆 ) car on est en hiver et il est sense hiverne!

    #265450
    Nejma wrote:
    le bobtail

    on parle bien du chien là ??? ça hiverne ces bêtes là ?? 🙄
    ou bien c’est encore une de vos particularités belges pour désigner un ours ou un truc de ce genre ci… 😛

    #265451
    Nejma
    Membre
    Go’Oz wrote:
    vos particularités belges 😛

    Au plus tu mettras ‘vos’ en compagnie de ‘belges’, au plus tes bieres s’eloigneront!

    C’est le passage a la 30aine qui te perturbe? :mrgreen:

    #265452
    Nejma
    Membre

    THE NEW 7 WONDERS OF THE WORLD

    The New7Wonders organization is happy to announce the following 7 candidates have been elected to represent global heritage throughout history.

    Chichén Itzá, Mexico
    Christ Redeemer, Brazil
    The Great Wall, China
    Machu Picchu, Peru
    Petra, Jordan T
    he Roman Colloseum, Italy
    The Taj Mahal, India

    #265453
    sylvestre
    Membre

    Christ Redeemer, Brazil
    Ca, une merveille du monde. La bonne blague :p
    Surtout un bon coup de comm des entrepreneurs cariocas …

40 sujets de 1 à 40 (sur un total de 70)
  • Vous devez être connecté pour répondre à ce sujet.

Nos articles