The text discusses Riversleigh a place in Australia that is considered to be of “Authorized Heritage”. It is a place rich with fossils and Cenozoic deposits. This in deed reveals a lot about Australia’s history and scientifically Riversleigh has been lush with new discovery. However, according to the European standard of authorized Heritage, this one landscape defines Australia’s national identity. The idea that the qualities of the Australian Landscape define its culture has not been argued within the Australian AHD. I adamantly disagree with the concept, I believe ones identity can be informed by its environment, but the environment is no ones identity but itself. I personally take this as if it were inferred that because I grew up in an urban neighborhood then I have no values, I’m a devious, or suspicious person. That is the thing that angers me about how politics get involved with identity in a viscous way. Riversleigh is only on the World Heritage List, for the value of the scientific discovery that has been there, not for the culture, economic, or social significance of the people. The important thing this chapter has allowed me to think of is how importance is granted and for what motives are things about a culture or identity are exalted or marginalized.
There is so many things about Australia that is important to its identity as a nation that has been swept under the rug. For example, it’s colonization by Europe and how women were thought of as “an embodiment of the landscape that needed to be subdued or put in her place”. They ignored the hideous events of Australian history, such as, land seizure, child removal, and cultural assimilation as being an important part of