Re:Definitely OT: Old World, New World and Other Matters
- Subject: Re:Definitely OT: Old World, New World and Other Matters
- From: W* B*
- Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 10:51:22 -0800 (PST)
Moira, what an interesting and thoughtful answer. I'm very grateful.
To add a small point to the discussion, at present the Tropical House at
UC Botanical Garden is roughly organized into two groups of plants, those
from the 'Old World' and those from the 'New World'. The plants from
Hawai'i are placed in the 'Old World' group because of their Polynesian
origins.
Elly
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Tony and Moira Ryan wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
