Vandalism at Finchley Aboriginal Area
Date: 20-Feb-08
Author: Peter Firminger
The recently added interpretive materials at Finchley Aboriginal Area have been vandalised.
Photo: Caroline Maul
It did look like this...
Photo: Peter Firminger
Comments (14)
Posted: 30-Mar-09 12:34 by Andrew Snelgar Permalink
Dear Peter,
I contest your claim that the vandalism occured by taking the NSW National Parks and Wildlife sign away from the Map Site (correct name for that sacred site). I question who is the Vandal in this case, and suggest the idea that the people who cut a piece of Stone from one part of our mother (Mother Earth) and placed this stone in another sacred place from where the stone did not come from, they are the vandals. Not only does it break Traditional Aboriginal Lore but it draws unnecessary attention to this Sacred Place, where other vandals scratch and destroy the traditional carvings that are thousands and thousands of years old.
Posted: 30-Mar-09 14:03 by Jeremy Coward Permalink
I also belive that the vandalism is not the taking of the National Parks sign, but in fact taking the stone from a sacred site to be placed at another, Wich in turn brings about the unnecessary attention to this sacred site and vandals who are destroying the carvings.
Posted: 30-Mar-09 15:48 by Mick O'Loughlin Permalink
I agree the vandalism I see is the disregard that people have for Traditional Aboriginal sites. The destruction of Aboriginal culture has been an on going issue from day dot. This is just the latest example of it. I agree that the vandalism is in the scratching and the pouring of milk and fluro paints onto the sites so that people can see the carvings, i would like to know what people would think if the same disrespect was shown to sites which the wider community consider significant.
Posted: 31-Mar-09 01:39 by Peter Firminger Permalink
Maybe so... but defacing the sign is vandalism as well. Thanks for sharing your opinions in a public forum, it's good to see you getting involved.
Posted: 31-Mar-09 12:15 by Mick O'Loughlin Permalink
Yes I agree that defacing a sign is vandalism as well but are the 2 acts comparable
Posted: 31-Mar-09 15:46 by Peter Firminger Permalink
Hi Mick, two wrongs don't make a right... so no, not in my opinion, but I'm not trying to compare them. If the stone was indeed cut from a specific 'Sacred Site' then yes that too is vandalism (though there is probably a better word).
Forgive my ignorance but which 'Sacred Site' was the stone cut and removed from?
Posted: 01-Apr-09 08:52 by Andrew Snelgar Permalink
Dear Peter, in response to your question posed to Mick O'loouglin, the stone was removed from our Sacred place being Mother Earth. This is against Traditional Sacred Aboriginal Lore, or as the common word today is 'Law'. By cutting stone from a Sacred place down in Gosford or the central coast, and placing that stone at a very important and very sacred dreaming site 100's of kilometers away, is very distressing to Traditional Gooris. NSW National PArks and Wildlife should be held responsible for the first and second act of vandalism.
Posted: 01-Apr-09 12:08 by Peter Firminger Permalink
Ok, but NPWS didn't deface the sign, so no, the two issues stand alone.
Our laws don't allow for 'an eye for an eye' type retribution. There is no excuse for the second act.
A better action path would be to push for NPWS (or they allow you) to post a sign with your group's views at the site, asking people not to enter the map site, and explaining why.
Just destroying the sign based on that argument (and I'm not accusing anyone above of the vandalism, but you're all supporting it) just makes people angry, and your argument just loses due the the visible act of vandalism of public property.
Pity you guys didn't show up to put your case at the Laguna meeting, where you had a large audience to address. This is exactly the type of issue that needs open discussion so other people can understand your side of the story and then work together to change it.
I understand your point and your desire to keep people away from the site (and I wholeheartedly agree on the latter), but it's a pretty thin excuse for destroying something that provides information to those that do go up there, and gives them a sense of the importance of the site.
Thanks again for contributing. Let's work together on getting your message out there (through signage or brochures etc. meetings and here of course) and change the situation that way.
Peter
Posted: 01-Apr-09 20:19 by Jeremy Coward Permalink
Dear Peter, I agree with the comment by andrew snelgar in saying that NPWS should be held responsible for both acts of vandalism. And in saying that the sign defacing makes people angry due to the visible acts of vandalism, it is also very visible to see the impact the stone being there is having on this sacred site. There are other ways for NPWS to provide information instead of destroying our mother (Mother Earth)
Posted: 02-Apr-09 08:58 by Andrew Snelgar Permalink
Peter, this is your personal way, we have our way which we have had for Thousdands of years, and in our opinion and that of Traditional Lore it is the RIGHT way. So why Peter, do you have complete disregard for our way, our lore and us and expect us to respect yours? Is this the white man's form of Justice? It seems to be because this is the way it has been enacted all around the world.
Posted: 02-Apr-09 12:25 by Peter Firminger Permalink
I'm on your side. I don't disregard your way at all Andrew, in fact I cherish it.
I am very lucky to have been born in a country with such a wonderful spiritual history and if I was to choose a belief system, it would be yours as yours is the only one (that I know of) that includes the notion of evolution.
That particular Map Site is the only one I have been to in this area. While I would love to see the other sites, I choose not to as it would be disrepectful.
This news story was simply to document the vandalism of the sign. You all agree that the sign was defaced. It wasn't to attribute blame or anything else. Read what was said.
If the vandalism had been done on one of the churches or the museum I would have done the same. If I had before and after photos of the Map Site being vandalised I would also have published that.
However, I don't believe your culture promotes vandalism in any way (in fact far from it), and you three are trying to justify this act.
I agree with most of what has been said by all three of you. Yes there are other ways NPWS could have gone about this. I think the argument about the stone from Gosford is a very thin one, but I don't challenge your belief that it is distressing, and now that I know that, I'll think about it very differently.
I am very happy that you have raised the other issues and rather than just reacting to something small like two photos of a damaged sign, I'd encourage you to write more on the real issues - this (sign vandalism) is a tiny issue as opposed to the vandalism (scratching, paint, milk, chalk, sand and of course the catarpillar tracks etc.) of the Map Site itself.
Don't make me the enemy guys. I'm really not.
I won't be commenting further on this page as it's going around in circles and you're getting upset and insulting over the wrong issue.
Posted: 15-Apr-09 15:46 by Andrew Snelgar Permalink
We are just telling you the truth. The Truth is that the Stone shouldnt have been placed at the Map Site. The Truth is that Traditional Aboriginal People who are the care takers of Traditional Sites which are destroyed every day in Australia are offended and insulted by the placement of this stone. The truth is that you believe that the vandalism is the taking of the interpretation sign from off this stone, while we say it should not be there in the first place. If i cut a building down and put it in your back yard would you be offended Peter? The truth is that you took photos of the Stone at the Map Site and Claimed that the Vandalism occured by the displacement of the sign. Furthermore, you placed these images in a public domain, and we are responding to this. If you wanted to discuss these matters further you would have made yourself available at our MEETING at WOLLOMBI in response to the meeting at LAGUNA which was another white man's interpretation of our Aboriginal Culture.
Posted: 15-Apr-09 15:50 by Peter Firminger Permalink
Take a breath Andrew.
Posted: 25-May-11 13:36 by Andrew Snelgar Permalink
Peter, the stone has been removed. NPWS has removed the stone due to our request for the preservation of the sacred site. So can you please remove this whole article as it is outdated. thanks.
Join or log in to leave a comment