Racism and Discrimination in Rio Tinto’s Actions
In the contemporary environment, the preservation of history and culture has become a matter of paramount importance. This process is said to reflect the culture and traditions of a certain area, providing invaluable data for researchers (Yang et al. 2018). However, the economic interests of certain players often outweigh the heritage of the past (Magdy 2021). The case of how Rio Tinto exploded ancient caves containing important artifacts is representative of the general situation. The mining company had received permission for the extraction of ore before the concerns regarding ancient rock shelters were raised (Winning 2020). However, Rio Tinto proceeded with its actions, and the explosion destroyed potentially valuable artifacts on the land of indigenous people. The repercussions of this situation for the preservation of cultural heritage may be considerable, as the expert community was denied an opportunity to research the artifacts.
At the same time, these controversial events took place on the land of indigenous Australian peoples. Even though the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people objected to mining, Rio Tinto proceeded with its plans, as enabled by the government’s permission. The discussed case became controversial from the legal point of view, as well. As inferred from the investigation, Rio Tinto acted in compliance with the law, as the company expedited a request prior to the identification of any potential artifacts. However, this fact implies that a certain degree of discrimination was involved in this case. The permission may have been granted under different conditions, but the change of scenery should have prompted the government to reconsider it. Neither Rio Tinto nor the Ministry considered the identification of traditional people’s artifacts important enough to hinder the mining. Accordingly, it appears to be a combination of individual and institutional types of discrimination. Rio Tinto’s individual decision-making disregarded the interest of the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people, as enabled by the institutional inflexibility and even ignorance of policymakers.
Real and Perceived Impact of Rio Tinto’s Actions
Such case studies, as Rio Tinto’s activities in the Juukan Gorge, are important for the analysis of the industrial impact on indigenous peoples and their culture. As described above, a combination of individual and institutional discriminatory factors contributed to the development of the situation. As such, it had a considerable impact on the business, community, and Aboriginal people. From the industrial perspective, a considerable portion of the global iron ore supply is enabled by mining in this region (Winning 2020). Mining and construction have already raised reasonable concerns in regard to the industries’ impact on the global cultural heritage (Mai 2019). Rio Tinto’s explosion has contributed to the negative publicity, as the story spread across the globe. As such, despite the legal grounds for the explosion, the ethical side of the matter is bound to cause further debates. As a result, the business, as well as the entire industry, will suffer from additional public scrutiny and an overall lack of trust.
The second area of Rio Tinto’s impact concerns the communities, which are related to the issue. The mining company did not hesitate to organize a massive explosion, which destroyed rock shelters and the artifacts they contained. Naturally, such actions are bound to cause outrage within the professional communities of archaeologists, ethnographers, historians, and others. Large-scale policies are enacted in various countries and on the international level in order to ensure better cultural resources management and protect valuable artifacts (Brown and Murtha 2019). However, Rio Tinto and the responsible body of the government undermined the struggle for cultural heritage conservation, placing outdated legislation above the noble purpose. For local communities, such a development will reinforce beliefs according to which businesses only consider their own interests and potential profits, disregarding the broader consequences of their actions. While the latter may not necessarily be true, it is the message that the publicity surrounding Rio Tinto has the potential to create.
Finally, the Aboriginal people virtually had a large portion of their culture destroyed by Rio Tinto’s operations in the Juukan Gorge. In spite of the considerable progress of recent years, such social groups as the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people continue to experience the echo of systemic discrimination. Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders report consistently high levels of both everyday and institutional discrimination in Australia (Thurber et al. 2021). As such, this high exposure to social and economic disparities creates a lack of trust toward the rest of the nation within Aboriginal communities. The situation may be further aggravated by the aggressive actions of Rio Tinto. The legal basis of the explosion may be solid, but the social and ethical aspects are to be considered, as well. The Aboriginal people may see the Juukan Gorge events as overt disrespect toward their land, culture, and history, as exhibited by businesses and supported by the government.
Rio Tinto’s Actions from a Personalized Cultural Perspective
From the perspective of a person whose cultural background is far from the Aboriginal groups of Australia, the case of Rio Tinto still appears problematic on several levels. In the present, the global values promote equality and respect shared equally among all people. Cultural heritage is an important part of this process, as it pertains to people’s history. Nations and ethnicities cannot be deprived of integral elements of their cultures, nor can said elements be appropriated. In fact, the world and its heritage are formed by a complex, interrelated framework of cultures through centuries of development. It is unfair and irresponsible to value each culture differently, as equality is at the heart of modern development. Being part of the majority should not automatically entail privilege. On the contrary, it should be seen as an additional responsibility, which consists of making meaningful changes. In other words, it is the social obligation of certain privileged groups to help others preserve their culture, traditions, and heritage through an equal dialogue.
In the case of Rio Tinto, an opposite situation was observed on many levels. From one perspective, it reveals major flaws within the legislative framework, which is applied in such scenarios. The discovery of rock shelters and important artifacts should have become a crucial factor, which would have automatically overridden the previous ruling. Nevertheless, it was not the case, and the inflexibility of law led to the damage sustained by the heritage of the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people. At the same time, Rio Tinto may have exploited its business privilege when proceeding with the explosion. The company was aware of the archaeological findings, and its management had the power to halt all preparations. Regardless, it willingly abused the imperfections of law to obtain quicker profits and only reflected on the cultural repercussions when the public backlash hit. Such cases reflect the remaining institutional disparities within society. While they are detrimental to the cultural heritage, wider publicity may help attract attention to the problem and accelerate its solution.
References
Brown, Madeline, and Timothy Murtha. 2019. “Integrating Natural and Cultural Resources in North American Large-Landscape Conservation.” Environmental Practice 21 (2): 57-68.
Magdy, Mina. 2021. “Analytical Techniques for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage: Frontiers in Knowledge and Application.” Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry.
Mai, Minh Huong. 2019. “The Issue of Cultural Heritage Protection in International Investment in The Mining and Construction Sectors.” University of Glasgow.
Thurber, Katherine A., Jennie Walker, Philip J. Batterham, Gilbert C. Gee, Jan Chapman, Naomi Priest, Rubijayne Cohen, Roxanne Jones, Alice Richardson, Alison L. Calear et al. 2021. “Developing and Validating Measures of Self-Reported Everyday and Healthcare Discrimination for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Adults.” International Journal for Equity in Health 20.
Winning, David. 2020. “Rio Tinto Tries to Dig Itself Out of a Hole After Blowing Up Ancient Caves.” Wall Street Journal. Web.
Yang, Yongzhong, Monshin Shafi, Xiaoting Song, and Ruo Yang. 2018. “Preservation of Cultural Heritage Embodied in Traditional Crafts in the Developing Countries. A Case Study of Pakistani Handicraft Industry.” Sustainability 10 (5): 1-18.