Walking in areas of significance to Tradtional Owners

[GPSGuided]

Interesting point Turfa. All cultures and societies evolve. When we talk about preserving a culture (aboriginal or others around the world), what exactly are we doing? Putting it in a deep freeze and locking it for eternity? Is that really healthy? Effectively pulling a wider and wider gap b/n what's being preserved and what's out there in the prevailing society. At the same time, I think it's also important to allow a culture to evolve naturally. External intervention and imposition of views and practices can be very damaging and counter productive. Yet, sometimes it's very hard to avoid given the strength of influence and near unavoidable interventions. So difficult!

[whitefang]

Now these issues may not be fairly clear cut for most people, but what about something like women's rights, where some "traditionalists" might debate the point ?

Personally, I see this as something that only needs to be dealt with by those who live within the culture. As outsiders it is easy to point fingers and say that the stereotypical roles are sexist, or that women should be allowed to go where ever they want, etc, etc, but those who live within the culture may not see it that way. Even the women within the culture may not see it as being sexist. However, if the women do feel oppressed and they wanted the help from outsiders then it is a-ok to help those people out. MY main point here is that we need to respect them and not push our views onto them if they do not wish for it.

[simonm]

Interesting point Turfa. All cultures and societies evolve. When we talk about preserving a culture (aboriginal or others around the world), what exactly are we doing? Putting it in a deep freeze and locking it for eternity? Is that really healthy? Effectively pulling a wider and wider gap b/n what's being preserved and what's out there in the prevailing society. At the same time, I think it's also important to allow a culture to evolve naturally. External intervention and imposition of views and practices can be very damaging and counter productive. Yet, sometimes it's very hard to avoid given the strength of influence and near unavoidable interventions. So difficult!

I think what Rosalie Kunoth-Monks says here is relevant - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=birnA3_tm5E

[north-north-west]

Now these issues may not be fairly clear cut for most people, but what about something like women's rights, where some "traditionalists" might debate the point ?

Personally, I see this as something that only needs to be dealt with by those who live within the culture. As outsiders it is easy to point fingers and say that the stereotypical roles are sexist, or that women should be allowed to go where ever they want, etc, etc, but those who live within the culture may not see it that way. Even the women within the culture may not see it as being sexist. However, if the women do feel oppressed and they wanted the help from outsiders then it is a-ok to help those people out. MY main point here is that we need to respect them and not push our views onto them if they do not wish for it.

How can they wish for it when for so many generations they have been taught - from birth - that this is the natural order?

It's a complex issue. For me, as with so many other questions, it comes down to what I consider basic human rights and fairness. One person's rights become limited as soon as they conflict with another person's. A culture or society or way of life becomes questionable when it fails to give all its members comparable rights. And there are many aspects to traditional aboriginal society and culture that do fail in that respect. (Many other cultures as well, but lets limit this to Australia).

[Mechanic-AL]

This would have to be the most interesting thread I have followed on this site. From the beginning I had a very black or white ( no pun intended ) attitude to this issue. Lots of informed people out there with a diverse range of thoughts and attitudes on the subject have opened my eyes to what a complicated situation it really is. I take heart from the fact that people have actually taken the time to stop and think about it. Maybe not so long ago any discussion on this topic wouldn't have elicited anywhere near so much discussion?
I still feel it's time to give a little bit back....and if that means finding another peak to climb or somewhere else to walk is that really a huge imposition?

AL

[simonm]

NNW - just out of interest, in the Aboriginal community I worked in it was clear that it was the women who played the most significant role in change and getting things addressed, at least publicly. At nearly all the meetings of Elders that I attended it was the women who were most vocal, it was the women who demanded change, it was the women who demanded more action by the men. It was really quite funny to watch at times as the women told the men what they should be doing in no uncertain terms. I think sometimes the men feared going to these meetings as they knew what was going to happen, so often most would go fishing instead.

[whitefang]

How can they wish for it when for so many generations they have been taught - from birth - that this is the natural order?

It's a complex issue. For me, as with so many other questions, it comes down to what I consider basic human rights and fairness. One person's rights become limited as soon as they conflict with another person's. A culture or society or way of life becomes questionable when it fails to give all its members comparable rights. And there are many aspects to traditional aboriginal society and culture that do fail in that respect. (Many other cultures as well, but lets limit this to Australia).

I have been discussing this with my girlfriend who has quite a bit of knowledge on ethnography and she made the point that if we are guests of their's (i.e spending time with a tribe, or even being guided by them) then we should respect that women are not allowed in certain locations or that women, just like men have specific gender roles in that given society. However, if you're not a guest of theirs and you're not breaking the law by being in a certain location then it is okay to do so. We also discussed that typical gender roles - which are not seen as acceptable in today's western society - are one of the reasons that indigenous tribes (all over the world) have survived. Lastly, even though my girlfriend is an avid feminist she still believes that western culture should let indigenous cultures and tribes adapt themselves, whether it be by joining with the western world or ignoring it.

[headwerkn]

Cultural significance in Tasmania where my presence might be seen as disrespectful ?

In terms of publicly accessible areas, generally no, but disturbing relics, cave paintings/engravings or walking over middens is illegal. That said, avoiding middens can be tricky in some areas, and I do question how important a relic they actually are.... more on that in a bit.

There are a few Indigenous Protected Areas - Preminghana, Risdon Cove and Mount Chappell/Badger Islands (http://www.environment.gov.au/indigenou ... d/tas.html) - however I believe all these are accessible to regular visitors without any hassle, need for permits/permission etc.

The Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area in the NW of the state has recently gone through series of restrictions and controls on access due a somewhat dubious deal the previous Labor-Green government did with the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre to close many of the 4WD tracks in the area in exchange for their support in mining access in the Tarkine (or something to that effect). The area is still mostly open however you need a permit to see much of it now.

There are also a few privately owned properties that are under Tasmanian Aboriginal control.... Skullbone Plains being the one that concerns me most. The track to Lake Ina has been gated off since the Tasmanian Land Conservancy bought it (with our tax dollars, mind you) and gifted it to the TAC; I've been in touch with them in order to arrange a key but getting anyone to get back to you with forms, etc. is difficult. Something I'll try again for the upcoming trout season.

when I enquired about their connection to land they were adamant that this was all our land and no-one owns it. We all had a connection and a collective responsibility to look after it.

Hard to argue with that kind of logic. I'll probably get my head bit off for saying this, but this is where the attitudes between the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community and their mainland counterparts tends to differ considerably. I'll admit my experience with aboriginal-operated areas/tourist attractions on the mainland is limited to only a few examples, but in each I found they were friendly, hospitable and open, keen to share their 'home', culture and history with anyone - white, black, yellow or whatever - who showed the slightest interest, and proud to make it their living in the 'modern world' in order to both preserve it and provide for their own communities. From what I've read, seen or been told by others, this seems to be pretty standard for indigenous-run ventures on the 'big island'.

I wish the same could be said for the Tasmanian aboriginal community. They - and by 'they' I mean Mansell and the TAC - seem more interested in political point scoring. My two main beefs are:

1. Complete lack of recognition of the Lia Pootah descendants as Tasmanian Aboriginals. Basically the TAC got legislated that if you can prove you're descended from the last full-blood aboriginals sent to Flinders/Cape Barren Island - Palawa - then you're not aboriginal. To this day I'm amazed Mansell got away with it... get screwed over by white fellas then screwed over by your own. Gawd....

2. The TAC seem very much driven by the need to get back as much land as they can for themselves and lock everyone else out. It's a real 'white man' mentality - in complete contrast to what Simonm mentioned - but probably not that surprising given they're mostly white people living in a white person's world. To be blunt about it, Michael Mansell acts like his sole purpose in life is to leverage white Tasmanians' guilt over what happened to the Tasmanian Aborigines in order to get more lands, power, influence etc. for his extended family. Make no mistake about it, what happened to the Tas Aboriginals was a genocide, and a very deliberate one at that, but attempting to hold the government to ransom over each and every project the state attempts because some odd shaped rocks or piles of shells were found somewhere.... they're starting to wear thin on the rest of the population. They want it to be "us vs them".

Speaking of middens.... I realise it's unfair to judge aboriginal built heritage by western/european standards, but I honestly think protecting piles of shells is a pretty dubious proposition at best. I can appreciate that aboriginals want to keep as many links to their past and ancestors as possible, but we are essentially talking about their rubbish tips.... and the fact is they are EVERYWHERE across the state. I used to rent a place in Clifton Beach where the entire backyard was a midden. Sacred site, with a Hills Hoist in the middle? Hmmm....

Probably my main issue though is that these lands we're giving back to them don't appear to be being utilised much. I spoke with the keyholder to Skullbone Plains some months ago about who was going up there and how the land was being used.... apparently the TAC folk had been up there once since the handover for a few days and that was it.... none of this bark canoe making, teaching traditional activities stuff they told the media about. Apparently Preminghana is being utilised more for tourism etc. but the prevailing attitude seems to be 'close it up, keep the whiteys out'... which is the exact opposite way to go about getting anyone to appreciate a place.

Anyway, I digress...

It's not complex, just get rid of the 'us and them' mentality, make it an 'our' and the problem is well on the way to being solved.

Exactly! Less black fella, less white fella... and more just plain old 'Australians'.

Cheers, Ben.

[simonm]

Regarding TAC, I have met David Warrener the relatively new State President and found him to be a very reasonable man, and certainly not as divisive as Mansell is reported to have been.

[Turfa]

Here's another interesting thing to think about.... The australian continent is about 3.8 billion years old. Current estimates put the migration of the first aboriginals to Australia at about 40,000 years ago.

If you compress the 3.8 billion years of continental history into a single 24 hour day, then the aboriginals arrived here at 11:59:59pm ........... Literally in the last second of the day ( and the first europeans at about 0.01 seconds before midnight)

So I guess you could say that none of us really belong here !

[simonm]

But homo sapiens have only been around since what 200-300,000 years, so it would be a bit hard for them to migrate before their own existence.

[whitefang]

It's not complex, just get rid of the 'us and them' mentality, make it an 'our' and the problem is well on the way to being solved.

Exactly! Less black fella, less white fella... and more just plain old 'Australians'.[/quote]

It's all about making compromises. They have their culture, we have ours. Successful management can be achieved by working together, but we still need to accept and respect the differences in our cultures. That is, western culture respecting aborignal cultures, and aboriginal cultures respecting western culture.

I can see where the mentality comes from though, especially in older generations, because white man put the Aboriginals through HELL and it is still very far from perfect for them in many communities. Some people might find this interesting: http://johnpilger.com/articles/mandela- ... -australia

[north-north-west]

How can they wish for it when for so many generations they have been taught - from birth - that this is the natural order?

It's a complex issue. For me, as with so many other questions, it comes down to what I consider basic human rights and fairness. One person's rights become limited as soon as they conflict with another person's. A culture or society or way of life becomes questionable when it fails to give all its members comparable rights. And there are many aspects to traditional aboriginal society and culture that do fail in that respect. (Many other cultures as well, but lets limit this to Australia).

...Lastly, even though my girlfriend is an avid feminist she still believes that western culture should let indigenous cultures and tribes adapt themselves, whether it be by joining with the western world or ignoring it.

Even when those gender roles operate in such a way as to entrench an uneven power structure and make change from within impossible?
Even when they include practises (such as FGM, especially the more extreme varieties like infibulation) that are highly adverse to personal health and must eventually negatively affect survival?
Even when they include practises that are such drastic abuses of basic human rights as enforced underage marriage and domestic slavery?

If it was OK for a global initiative like the Gleneagles agreement to try to change the apartheid system in South Africa, why is it not acceptable to put pressure on governments to change the most extreme negative aspects of indigenous cultures and societies? Or are the people affected by these aspects of these cultures somehow less deserving of human rights than the rest of us?

This is getting way off topic.
As far as access goes,

It's not complex, just get rid of the 'us and them' mentality, make it an 'our' and the problem is well on the way to being solved.
Exactly! Less black fella, less white fella... and more just plain old 'Australians'.

Yes, that's it. And not just that, but the idea of custodianship rather than ownership, the idea the we ALL, regardless of ethnic or cultural background, have a responsibility to take care of the land rather than just exploit it for economic gain.

[slparker]

Mid dens are not sacred sites, they are archeological sites and their significance is mainly of archeological interest, although, where they coincide with areas of natural beauty or significance, it might be plausible to assert some kind of higher cultural significance also. Given the paucity of cultural record of tasmanian aboriginals it is difficult, I believe, to assert any kind of 'sacredness' to traditional meeting sites. There are recorded areas of aboriginal meeting places (toolumbunner in the gog range for example) it is plausible that they were celebration or community sites.

Very few places in Tassy are being, or plausibly could be, 'locked up' if they do, so what- it's nothing compared to freehold land or logging areas that are 'locked up'. It's not as if the TAC wants to lock up the cataract gorge, a known significant site where aboriginals met, or Native Point on the south- esk ( actually freehold land in the main part).

Celebrate the shared heritage. Every time you walk over the south-west track you are walking an aboriginal markenner (road). There's something beautiful in walking the oldest known road In human history, 10s of thousands of years before the roman roads in Britain.

[GPSGuided]

NNW - just out of interest, in the Aboriginal community I worked in it was clear that it was the women who played the most significant role in change and getting things addressed, at least publicly...

Remember the public discussions over that NT Intervention Program and the Basic Card? Recall how it was attacked by numerous indigenous leaders for it imposing excessive control over an individual? Talking variously at Uluru and friends in Alice Springs, I understand the Basic Card is actually positive in the township as it gives the women control over their household budget. Without it, the man of the household would just spend all the money on alcohol, leaving no spare money for the woman to buys food for the family. The social circumstances amongst the indigenous can be so different that one policy may have very different effects fro different location. A serious complexity and a real challenge for the policy makers and support groups. Yes, another example where the woman is the one holding things together.

[Nuts]

I'm wondering if the cultural video's, obviously stories told by their people (such as the red breasted robin/ brow beating), should come with a warning here? noticed some do on you tube.

[north-north-west]

... in the Aboriginal community I worked in it was clear that it was the women who played the most significant role in change and getting things addressed, at least publicly...

Of course. Women are always more practical.

[simonm]

Remember the public discussions over that NT Intervention Program and the Basic Card? Recall how it was attacked by numerous indigenous leaders for it imposing excessive control over an individual?

The intervention was problematic I think even if it may have had beneficial features. Community engagement and community driven programs, rather than government sanctions, are always more likely to be successful in my opinion. Especially if those programs are specific to that community and it's culture.

I'm wondering if the cultural video's, obviously stories told by their people (such as the red breasted robin/ brow beating), should come with a warning here? noticed some do on you tube.

I think that should be a question for Mat or the moderators to put to an Aboriginal advisory body if it is considered important for this forum.

... in the Aboriginal community I worked in it was clear that it was the women who played the most significant role in change and getting things addressed, at least publicly...

Of course. Women are always more practical.

Naturally.

[GPSGuided]

The intervention was problematic I think even if it may have had beneficial features. Community engagement and community driven programs, rather than government sanctions, are always more likely to be successful in my opinion. Especially if those programs are specific to that community and it's culture.

Don't disagree with you. But the situation also demonstrated the vast differences in the circumstances b/n the indigenous communities across the state and country. What works within a community may not work for another community, whilst most of the Australia and government binds them under the same "indigenous community" and treats them the same. This is as if inner city dwellers are being treated for the same needs as for fellow citizen living in the countryside.

[simonm]

I think we have well and truly strayed off the main topic but yep I agree GPS.

[headwerkn]

Regarding TAC, I have met David Warrener the relatively new State President and found him to be a very reasonable man, and certainly not as divisive as Mansell is reported to have been.

... and to be fair the people from the AHU I worked with ~10 years ago were all decent, motivated and friendly too, with no antagonism or divisiveness. I didn't always agree with/understand what they were trying to achieve sometimes, but they were all for openness and sharing of their culture. Same with the Lia Pootah descendants I met many years back where I first heard about the division within the aboriginal community. Really the only sense of hostility, etc. has been from the Mansells, Everetts, etc..... which is a shame given they appear to own the monopoly on 'being a Tasmanian aboriginal' as far as the media, government and ultimately everyone else who doesn't know better is concerned.

Mid dens are not sacred sites, they are archeological sites and their significance is mainly of archeological interest,

The way Mansell carries on you'd think they were ancient burial grounds.

It's not as if the TAC wants to lock up the cataract gorge

I'm sure if they thought they could get away with it, they'd try. They seem more concerned with screwing over the government of the day for more funding et. al. than preservation of their own culture. Which is a shame, because they should be more concerned about their culture than simply finding ways to hold leverage over politicians.

Anyway... back on topic....

Common sense is key. Respect culture, but don't pander to the point of fearing offending anyone. We all have our culture and traditions, they're all equally valid.

If an elder didn't want me 4WDing into an area because the last 5 yahoos they let in tore up the track and left rubbish everywhere, I'd respect that... and offer to help clean up the rubbish.

If an elder preferred people not to climb up to a peak because they were concerned their spirit god might get aggrieved.... I'd have to think about it.

If Michael Mansell doesn't want me fishing at Lake Ina because Skullbone Plains is his trophy over us nasty white men, then he can go suck a fart. Even if I have to hike in the long way round....

Cheers, Ben.

[geoskid]

Here's how the red robin got its red breast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF7Pbr1ME5c
(You're funny geoskid, most people looking for answers, you seem to like the questions in themselves. I considered your thoughts on the depth of discussion, making headway in such a topic is probably doomed to go not much further than whats already available with a google search)

It's all about questions Nuts.
Or at least that is what I always thought until Nick pointed out once that his institution encouraged questions.
That forced a re-think on my part. That's when I got even more clarity.

Questions drive learning, and it's not the allowing of questioning that is important, it is the intellectual values that are brought to bear on the answering.

Cheers

Hey geoskid I think some of your comments should be in parenthesis as I believe you are quoting from another source and not speaking from inherent knowledge nor do I believe that this your normal mode of speech.
Just saying Mate

No quotation marks needed Corvus, for better or worse they are my words.

[geoskid]

How can they wish for it when for so many generations they have been taught - from birth - that this is the natural order?

It's a complex issue. For me, as with so many other questions, it comes down to what I consider basic human rights and fairness. One person's rights become limited as soon as they conflict with another person's. A culture or society or way of life becomes questionable when it fails to give all its members comparable rights. And there are many aspects to traditional aboriginal society and culture that do fail in that respect. (Many other cultures as well, but lets limit this to Australia).

...Lastly, even though my girlfriend is an avid feminist she still believes that western culture should let indigenous cultures and tribes adapt themselves, whether it be by joining with the western world or ignoring it.

Even when those gender roles operate in such a way as to entrench an uneven power structure and make change from within impossible?
Even when they include practises (such as FGM, especially the more extreme varieties like infibulation) that are highly adverse to personal health and must eventually negatively affect survival?
Even when they include practises that are such drastic abuses of basic human rights as enforced underage marriage and domestic slavery?

If it was OK for a global initiative like the Gleneagles agreement to try to change the apartheid system in South Africa, why is it not acceptable to put pressure on governments to change the most extreme negative aspects of indigenous cultures and societies? Or are the people affected by these aspects of these cultures somehow less deserving of human rights than the rest of us?

This is getting way off topic.
As far as access goes,

It's not complex, just get rid of the 'us and them' mentality, make it an 'our' and the problem is well on the way to being solved.
Exactly! Less black fella, less white fella... and more just plain old 'Australians'.

Yes, that's it. And not just that, but the idea of custodianship rather than ownership, the idea the we ALL, regardless of ethnic or cultural background, have a responsibility to take care of the land rather than just exploit it for economic gain.

Agree wholeheartedly.

I almost brought up the cultural practice of FGM as an example of why simply throwing out 'respect a culture/ respect a belief' is insufficient a reason to automatically comply with any request. - Glad you did.

[north-north-west]

If an elder didn't want me 4WDing into an area because the last 5 yahoos they let in tore up the track and left rubbish everywhere, I'd respect that... and offer to help clean up the rubbish.
If an elder preferred people not to climb up to a peak because they were concerned their spirit god might get aggrieved.... I'd have to think about it.
If Michael Mansell doesn't want me fishing at Lake Ina because Skullbone Plains is his trophy over us nasty white men, then he can go suck a fart. Even if I have to hike in the long way round....

Very well said, young man.

[walkerchris77]

If an elder didn't want me 4WDing into an area because the last 5 yahoos they let in tore up the track and left rubbish everywhere, I'd respect that... and offer to help clean up the rubbish.
If an elder preferred people not to climb up to a peak because they were concerned their spirit god might get aggrieved.... I'd have to think about it.
If Michael Mansell doesn't want me fishing at Lake Ina because Skullbone Plains is his trophy over us nasty white men, then he can go suck a fart. Even if I have to hike in the long way round....

Very well said, young man.

Agreed.

[Nuts]

Sorry Geoskid, I did mean funny as in interesting, not-the-usual. I'm sure you didn't mean that those that may already have enough information to have answers (for themselves) weren't entitled to them. SBS may have invested a vast amount of time into critically analysing his experiences and those of others for this to indeed be a subject with simple answers (for him). I don't know.

Personally, my experiences started with earliest memories that were without prejudice. My parents were as clueless about aboriginal people as anyone. I came from somewhere All white, as a pasty refugee on a long boat voyage to this exotic land. My first impressions of indigenous people were from 1970's Perth and later the Pilbara, as young kids do, not with negative focus but ones of respect for how much tougher and better adapted they were (ie. including, I recall, that they had a sense of humour). I'd need ma wellies across the road in their country maybe that's of influence. I've reminded myself of those days from time to time.

Had some dealings with TAC and various 'family' members, heritage surveys, youth employment (sounds like from a similar era to Ben). Complex, at the same time still simple (for me). The realisation that I would never fully appreciate their historical pain never mind the ongoing rifts, even within the community. Had my share of negative individual dealings (and can relate to some of what Ben says), some outsiders knowledge of several sites and stories. But, for me, how am I to know other than facts presented for any particular area (if I even needed those). Maybe in their shoes, I'd still feel angry, get as much back as possible, let the invaders argue among themselves over their modern view of our 'rights'.. I think at the least, as an indigenous male.. or female, i'd expect you to make decisions about our land and culture from a basis of respect rather than applying worst case scenarios or modernist views to those places that were simply a preserved historical reference or site. And if you couldn't, too bad. Maybe that's how i'd feel and act accordingly.

That's just my take, pretty linear to me, no doubt easily overwhelmed by critical analysis.

[corvus]

Being an incomer since 1968 I have come to accept the beliefs of most however I do find it strange that whatever is in or around Mt Cameron West ( I have been in its vicinity ) can be more significant than the excellent Petroglyphs on the Mersey Bluff Headland which are open for all to see and to the best of my knowledge have never been vandalised ,why is that not a sacred site I wonder ?
I also wonder why the excellent Tiagarra Interpretation museum cannot be operated with volunteers from the local Aboriginal community ? only needs someone to collect a small fee and hand out brochures and a couple of others to do the cleaning on a daily basis how hard can that be ?
I may add that the Pioneer's Grave yard which was up there was moved to another (out of the way position ) on this site and it has been subjected to vandalism in the past !!
corvus

[Nuts]

Hi Corvus. I was on the coast near there last weekend. Really nice country out that way, some of the private property could be 'wilderness area' (or multi million dollar resorts) in any other country.

To my understanding with Mt. Cameron West, locals have less of an issue with access in the area than those in the south (surprised?) Others may offer more (or different)?

Did your wellies migrate with you?

[corvus]

Hi Corvus. I was on the coast near there last weekend. Really nice country out that way, some of the private property could be 'wilderness area' (or multi million dollar resorts) in any other country.

To my understanding with Mt. Cameron West, locals have less of an issue with access in the area than those in the south (surprised?) Others may offer more (or different)?

Thanks for that insight Nuts, still does not explain the lack of interest in what I Believe to be an easily accessible significant Aboriginal Site >
corvus.
As an aside there is an abundance of wildlife up there buggers even coming down to invade our gardens

[geoskid]

Maybe in their shoes, I'd still feel angry, get as much back as possible, let the invaders argue among themselves over their modern view of our 'rights'.. I think at the least, as an indigenous male.. or female, i'd expect you to make decisions about our land and culture from a basis of respect rather than applying worst case scenarios or modernist views to those places that were simply a preserved historical reference or site. And if you couldn't, too bad. Maybe that's how i'd feel and act accordingly.

That's just my take, pretty linear to me, no doubt easily overwhelmed by critical analysis.

I'm sure that's how some feel. And the sentiment of 'too bad' is unfortunate, because it will never be understood that in some instances, rights are claimed that they simply don't have.

I can't help but feel that a brush up on what rights are is warranted?, and what Native Title is, and what rights it ensures.

I was only thinking of the specific example of the St Marys Peak request in the OP.
I believethat request is unreasonable.