Quantcast

Wednesday, July 23, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 26 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Activists attack Capt. Cook’s Australian home

The stone walls are tagged with graffiti in a protest against British settlement

By Associated Press

POSTED:


MELBOURNE, Australia » Activists have sprayed graffiti on the historic home of the 18th-century British explorer Capt. James Cook to protest against Australia's national day.

The stone walls of the two-story building known as Cook's Cottage in Melbourne were painted Thursday night with slogans such as "26th Jan Australia's shame."

Jan. 26 is Australia Day and commemorates British settlement of Sydney in 1788 as a penal colony. Opponents call it "Invasion Day" and regard it as a shameful reminder that Australian land was taken from Aborigines by British colonists without a treaty.

The cottage was originally built in 1755 in the village of Great Ayton in Yorkshire, England, by the parents of the acclaimed seafarer. Cook, who also was the first European to report arriving in the Hawaiian Islands, was a Royal Navy lieutenant in 1770 when he commanded the first European ship to discover the site of Sydney.

The family cottage was dismantled and relocated in 1934 to Melbourne, Australia's second-largest city, where it has become a museum and popular tourist attraction. The Melbourne city council describes it as Australia's oldest building.

City workers began cleaning off the paint Friday, and police were investigating.

Detective Senior Constable Scott Gray said it was the third graffiti attack on the building since Australia Day last year. He did not know whether the attacks were linked.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 26 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(26)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Grimbold wrote:
These people would not even have spray-paint without the settlement of Europeans. They never owned any land , instead just crossed in small family bands through almost empty regions.
on January 25,2014 | 02:39AM
fshnpoi wrote:
These People!! I can surmise by your racist writing that you're referring to Aborigines..no where in the article did it state who the vandals were. Unless you were involved, why are you blaming Aborigines for this incident?
on January 25,2014 | 04:02AM
inHilo wrote:
OMG, no spray paint! Seems like a high price to pay for no Europeans. Wonder if all those people who have never owned land on Oahu are still waiting for the Europeans to show them how it's done -- low mortgage rates? Wonder if the Europeans who first landed in Australia owned any land? Or were they crossing through almost empty regions looking for a place to call their own?
on January 25,2014 | 06:23AM
Slow wrote:
Doktor Grimmy has fired up his Oven of Racial Purity once again. Your ugly racist assumptions are not shared by many in Hawaii. WHITE POWER!
on January 25,2014 | 07:28AM
postmanx wrote:
Rather we should celebrate the many favors the European settlers bestowed the Aborigines, like taking their children from them and raising them in orphanages.
on January 25,2014 | 07:40AM
vankuren50 wrote:
Find the spray painters, break there fingers. Can't stand these idiots who think it's O.K. to destroy private or public property than cry like wimps when they get caught or laugh it off because they know that all they will have to do is pay a fine or spend a day or two in jail. In Singapore they bamboo you in public and Singapore does not have a graffiti problem. We should do the same.
on January 25,2014 | 06:33AM
Slow wrote:
It is "their" fingers, genius.
on January 25,2014 | 07:29AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Jan. 26. "Invasion Day" in Australia. ... Also in Jan., Hawai`i has its own Invasion Day, Jan. 17. (1893).
on January 25,2014 | 07:09AM
Shellback wrote:
It wasn't an invasion. On January 17, 1893, the last monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Queen Lili'uokalani, was deposed in a coup d'état led by seven subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom, five American nationals, one English national, and one German national, all who were living and doing business in Hawaii and opposed to her attempt to establish a new Constitution.
on January 25,2014 | 08:11AM
Shellback wrote:
It wasn't an invasion. On January 17, 1893, the last monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Queen Lili'uokalani, was deposed in a coup d'état led by seven subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom, five American nationals, one English national, and one German national, all who were living and doing business in Hawaii and opposed to her attempt to establish a new Constitution.
on January 25,2014 | 08:12AM
hanalei395 wrote:
When the foreign troops (U.S Marines) stepped foot on a sovereign country, aimed their cannons and Gatling guns at Iolani Palace, and raised their flag atop Ali`iolani Hale, it was an invasion.
on January 25,2014 | 08:31AM
Shellback wrote:
162 sailors and Marines aboard the USS Boston in Honolulu Harbor came ashore well-armed but under orders of neutrality. The sailors and Marines did not enter the Palace grounds or take over any buildings, and never fired a shot. They did not aim their cannons and Gatling guns at the Iolani Palace. There was more opposition to the Hawaiian super ferry in 2008 and 2009 than there was to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in 1893. In 1893, most native Hawaiians lived in grinding poverty, and they were probably more worried about feeding their own families than they were about the status of the Monarchy. Native Hawaiians didn't really start to whine about the 1893 coup d'etat against the Hawaiian Monarchy until the middle of the 20th century when their standard of living began to rise above the poverty level. Queen Lili'uokalani lived a life of wealth and opulence while here subjects lived in grinding poverty. Queen Lili'uokalani was completely indifferent to the suffering of her subjects, and she was really no different than Imelda Marcos.
on January 25,2014 | 09:11AM
hanalei395 wrote:
The Marines landed to support the Honolulu Rifles, a white supremacy militiia, with mostly American immigrants and settlers. The militia took over and guarded all government buildings, including Iolani Palace. (There are photos showing the cannons and Gatling guns pointed at Iolani Palace). The Marines commandeered a hotel and its surroundings between Fort and Alakea Sts. and called it "Camp Boston". They were ready to support the Honolulu Rifles if need be. Knowing that her people were already dying from western diseases, Queen Lili`iokalani ordered them not to fight back. And to prevent more of her people dying, she said she will surrender to the United States. (P.S. To prevent from getting a punch in the face, you should never say, in front of a Hawaiian, that our beloved Queen was "no different than Imelda Marcos).
on January 25,2014 | 09:49AM
Shellback wrote:
Your post is mainly fiction and you know it. Do you have any objective sources that back up your tall tale? You can punch me in the face if you like, but it won't change the fact that Queen Lili'uokalani was really no different than Imelda Marcos. Punching me in the face won't change history.
on January 25,2014 | 10:25AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Hey, google everything I posted. And I'm not talking about me punching you in the face. It was a warning, for your sake. Just don't talk that way about our Queen, when there are Hawaiians around.
on January 25,2014 | 10:40AM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
In 1893, Grover Cleveland's "fact finder" to Hawai'i, James H. Blount, wrote in his report that the 5,500 members of the city's Annexation Club at that time included 1,218 Americans (22 percent of the club); 1,022 Native Hawaiians (19 percent); 251 Englishmen (5 percent); 2,261 Portuguese (41 percent); 69 Norwegians (1 percent); 351 Germans (6 percent), along with 328 persons unclassified but making up the balance.
on January 25,2014 | 12:43PM
Shellback wrote:
162 sailors and Marines aboard the USS Boston in Honolulu Harbor came ashore well-armed but under orders of neutrality. The sailors and Marines did not enter the Palace grounds or take over any buildings, and never fired a shot. They did not aim their cannons and Gatling guns at the Iolani Palace.
on January 25,2014 | 09:14AM
Shellback wrote:
Here's an interesting website: http://www.angelfire.com/planet/big60/AkakaInouyeDorganLies.html I have taken note of hanalei395's warning (threat?). He informed me that native Hawaiians are violent people and will physically attack someone for petty reasons. I do wonder though, where were all those violent native Hawaiians back in 1893 when the Hawaiian monarch was being deposed?
on January 25,2014 | 10:52AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Stupid, you didn't get the sarcasm.
on January 25,2014 | 11:16AM
Shellback wrote:
Did you enjoy reading this interesting website?: http://www.angelfire.com/planet/big60/AkakaInouyeDorganLies.html
on January 25,2014 | 11:21AM
thos wrote:

The sole reason she was the last monarch is because as Queen, she couldn’t hack it.

A monarch has one and only one job, but it can be difficult: maintain the kingdom.

It is a job that requires constant vigilance to keep tabs on - - and if need by ruthlessly suppress - - the kind of palace intrigue that swirls around every royal court.

It is not a job for an emotionally immature person - - however well educated or musically gifted - - much given to feeling sorry for herself, pouting and blaming others for her shortcomings.

It is also interesting to note that none of the MALE incumbents who preceded the last monarch dropped the ball the way she did. Whatever their imperfections, each of THEM was able to bequeath an intact kingdom to his successor.

Whoever picked and prepared the one who became the last monarch did a lousy job of preparing her for the nitty gritty rigor and day to day grind required to keep a kingdom intact. The reason a monarch is given such lavish perks is because when you get right down to it, the job itself s u c k s.
on January 25,2014 | 08:37AM
hanalei395 wrote:
America's "Manifest Destiny": After conquest of the North American continent and the Caribbean, it was on to the Pacific, from Hawai`i to the Philippines. At that time, it was impossible to stop.
on January 25,2014 | 08:51AM
maafifloos wrote:
Evolution, natural selection. History of mankind. This is good in the long run for the species.
on January 25,2014 | 08:18AM
thos wrote:

Australia, too, must be laboring under the curse of its own Crybaby Boomers - - a pretentious, preachy, preening, pouting, phalanx of putrid protoplasm looking for any excuse they can find to don the golden mantle of imagined victimhood in yet another nauseating bid for sympathy.


on January 25,2014 | 08:24AM
bekwell wrote:
Very good, thos.
on January 25,2014 | 08:36AM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
"The Hawaiian Grievance Industry -- Panhandling for Race-Based Handouts and Political Power"
http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/grievanceindustry.html
on January 25,2014 | 12:36PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates