Re:Definitely OT: Old World, New World and Other Matters

Jason D wrote:
> 
> Are Oz & New Zealand considered "The New World"
> because they are/were European colonies or "The Old
> World" because they're in the Asian longitudes?

Jason 

After some thought I decided to make my reply through the list but
putting it in the OT catergory, rather than privately as you suggested, 
as I think it might interest some of the other members as well as you.

As I understand it the terms Old and New World long predate British
colonization and were coined after that first fateful voyage of
Columbus. If you remember he was actually seeking a new way to Asia.
whose position at the opposite end of the Eurasian landmass to Europe
was already well known. 

The unexpected discovery (for Europeans) of a previously unknown land in
between the two ends of their the megalandmass led not very 
surprisingly to its being christened the New World. 

Using this notation, when I refer to the New World I  mean the Americas
exclusively, as I think would many others with European connections..

I doubt the Asians would view this in the same way, as it seems they
probably always had some connection, albeit tenuous, with the Americas
from early times, originally via the Bering strait after the Ice age and
later through a few intrepid sea voyagers. 

Australia and New Zealand are not really parts of Asia, but rather the
largest land masses in Oceania, which is otherwise a great constellation
of small islands, often in clusters, scattered over the vast stretches
of the South Pacific. However,though the Europeans did not know of their
existence before the 16th or 17th centuries the southern Asian countries
could not fail to have been aware of them, since it seems all the
peoples who settled there
originally came basically from the Asian mainland, starting with the
Australians and later adding various other races forming todays
Polynesia and Melanesia and so forth. (The Haiwaians are also
Polynesians -their language, appearence and customs have a good many
affinities with those of the Maori- but somehow when all their brothers
went south they turned the opposite way instead and found one of the
extremely few inhabitable island groups in the north part of the Pacific
(a real piece of Serendipity it would seem))

> And moving profoundly off-topic: Which of the two
> countries is closer to becoming a republic (i.e.
> replacing the Queen Elizabeth as head of state with an
> elected head of state)? I heard word recently that the
> movement for a republic was further along in NZ.

Neck and neck at the moment I would say, but in a race that has scarcely
begun. There is still a good deal of support based on affection and
general loyalty among the public is both countries -in NZ still more
than 50% would prefer to stay with the monarchy according to the latest
opinion poles.

Australia did have a referendum last year, but voted to stay with the
status quo at least in the short term.

The biggest stumbling block to becoming a republic seems to lie in
devising a successful mechanism for appointing a head of state. Both
countries are at present enjoying undoubted advantages in having one who
is comfortably impartial and a-political and there is no easy way 
anyone here can yet see to ensure that the office keeps this impartialty
under republicanism. the Australian proposal for the referendum was that
the appointment should be made by Parliament and this was as totally
unacceptable to the majority of its citizens as it would be this side of
the Tasman.

it may seem very remote and unworkable to have a head honcho who not
only does not live in the country but actually only rarely visits (we
have just had the Queen here fleetingly after a lapse of ten years).
However her functions her are in the normal way undertaken by her
personal appointee the Governor General who is very much a part of our
life and has our particular interests at heart. In recent years this has
been very well ensured by the office being always held by a New
Zealander. There has I think been a good impartiaity in the choices
which have taken no account of gender nor of profession as they have
included several women and been drawn from background as disparate as
the law, medicine, the church and local government. I can't easily
rememeber way back, but the last four in order have been an Anglican
bishop (who was also half Maori), the mayor of our largest city
(female), a noted (retired) surgeon, and the present incumbent, a senior
judge of the High Court (also female). They hold the position for four
years and are not normally reappointed. A similar system is used in
Australia.

So as it stands at present Queen Elizabeth will be ruling her dominions
in the south seas for some time yet.

Moira


-- 
Tony & Moira Ryan
Wainuiomata NZ, 
where it's Summer in January and Winter in July.
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index