Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Both NZ and OZ are new countries and are only now starting to develop their own identities, because migration is from a diverse spectrum by the time they settle on a fully independent identity it will look nothing like the UK.
Not sure about the "only now starting..." part. Possibly for New Zealand, but Australia's relationship with the UK has always been "complicated" and has had more than a few flash points thru the years. Check out Australian history for 1808, 1854, 1916, 1917 and 1941 as examples. And there aren't many Australian institutions that are essential based on a "British" model.
The difference between NZ and Aus, in terms of their interactions with the UK, probably goes back to their earliest decades. While the vast majority of NZ's early arrivals were English settlers, Australia's were often very different, and included a lot of Irish transported to Australia because of their support of the Irish independence movement, Chinese gold prospectors, and groups like Silesian Germans who came here to find religious freedom.
Last edited by Bakery Hill; 11-04-2016 at 01:40 AM..
Not sure about the "only now starting..." part. Possibly for New Zealand, but Australia's relationship with the UK has always been "complicated" and has had more than a few flash points thru the years. Check out Australian history for 1808, 1854, 1916, 1917 and 1941 as examples. And there aren't many Australian institutions that are essential based on a "British" model.
The difference between NZ and Aus, in terms of their interactions with the UK, probably goes back to their earliest decades. While the vast majority of NZ's early arrivals were English settlers, Australia's were often very different, and included a lot of Irish transported to Australia because of their support of the Irish independence movement, Chinese gold prospectors, and groups like Silesian Germans who came here to find religious freedom.
I definitely agree with Australia being more fiercely nationalistic than New Zealand. Australia was also used as a punishment island for political dissidents especially us Irish who demanded independence, the British seen it working in two ways, one being that they were sent to the opposite side of the world too far to influence their homeland and second being used as slaves for economic gain. British and Irish were suspicious of each other in those days mainly because of religious differences. Ironically the nations that Britain set up to be bastions of Protestantism are now overwhelmingly Catholic such as the US, OZ and NZ. New Zealand had a much softer history with Britain and looking at world war one commemorations kiwis seem to be some of the few who were actually proud of serving motherland Britain. It's something i'll never understand. Lets not forgot though didn't Australia reject removing the queen as their head of state? I'd say that both nations still hold on to their colonial past until they create a truly independent flag and have a head of state that is actually a citizen on their country. This will come in time
As i said before though i definitely feel the South Island feels more British than the North Island and Australia due to the fact that most of the migration is either to OZ or the North Island so the south Island is changing at a slower pace still showing a hint of resemblance from it's British colonial past. As migration increases here which it is now starting to that resemblence will fade away
Not sure about the "only now starting..." part. Possibly for New Zealand, but Australia's relationship with the UK has always been "complicated" and has had more than a few flash points thru the years. Check out Australian history for 1808, 1854, 1916, 1917 and 1941 as examples. And there aren't many Australian institutions that are essential based on a "British" model.
The difference between NZ and Aus, in terms of their interactions with the UK, probably goes back to their earliest decades. While the vast majority of NZ's early arrivals were English settlers, Australia's were often very different, and included a lot of Irish transported to Australia because of their support of the Irish independence movement, Chinese gold prospectors, and groups like Silesian Germans who came here to find religious freedom.
There were a lot of Chinese miners here in the early days, as well as miner from the California, Yukon and Australian gold fields.
While settlers were predominantly British, many regions had significant settlement from other countries. My region had German settlers in the 1860s and Southern Italians in the 1890s. Reading early accounts of settlement in NZ, and there's a surprising amount of names from different European -countries - I was asking a neighbour about the origin of her name, and she told me that her great grandparents were Swiss and Serbian . One friend traces one line of his family back to an American whaler in the 1840s, while another has two different french names in his (NZ)family tree.
Nothing exotic for me though -an Irish name, but predominantly Scottish and English
Lets not forgot though didn't Australia reject removing the queen as their head of state?
in short, wouldn't agree on what form of republic we wanted, and the model put up was not a popular one. Here any constitutional change has to be passed by a majority of voters overall, and by a majority of states, and it not just the change "in principle", its agreement to the fine detail.
I definitely agree with Australia being more fiercely nationalistic than New Zealand. Australia was also used as a punishment island for political dissidents especially us Irish who demanded independence, the British seen it working in two ways, one being that they were sent to the opposite side of the world too far to influence their homeland and second being used as slaves for economic gain. British and Irish were suspicious of each other in those days mainly because of religious differences. Ironically the nations that Britain set up to be bastions of Protestantism are now overwhelmingly Catholic such as the US, OZ and NZ. New Zealand had a much softer history with Britain and looking at world war one commemorations kiwis seem to be some of the few who were actually proud of serving motherland Britain. It's something i'll never understand. Lets not forgot though didn't Australia reject removing the queen as their head of state? I'd say that both nations still hold on to their colonial past until they create a truly independent flag and have a head of state that is actually a citizen on their country. This will come in time
Only if you regard Anglicans as a form of Catholic.
in short, wouldn't agree on what form of republic we wanted, and the model put up was not a popular one. Here any constitutional change has to be passed by a majority of voters overall, and by a majority of states, and it not just the change "in principle", its agreement to the fine detail.
Fair enough but once Australia does agree to it and becomes truly independent then i'd say it is no moving in it's own direction free from any past influences
Only if you regard Anglicans as a form of Catholic.
I mean in terms of Christianity Catholicism is by far the most dominant in those nations. Anglicans is the second largest in OZ and NZ i believe. If you include Anglicans in with protestants then that number might change in OZ and NZ
There were a lot of Chinese miners here in the early days, as well as miner from the California, Yukon and Australian gold fields.
While settlers were predominantly British, many regions had significant settlement from other countries. My region had German settlers in the 1860s and Southern Italians in the 1890s. Reading early accounts of settlement in NZ, and there's a surprising amount of names from different European -countries - I was asking a neighbour about the origin of her name, and she told me that her great grandparents were Swiss and Serbian . One friend traces one line of his family back to an American whaler in the 1840s, while another has two different french names in his (NZ)family tree.
Nothing exotic for me though -an Irish name, but predominantly Scottish and English
Its probably that in NZ there don't seem to be any (many?) places with names like Heidelberg (Victoria), Altona (Vic) Krondorf (South Aus), Leichardt (NSW) or Hermannsburg (NT), or indeed Kosciuszko or Strzelecki.
Its probably that in NZ there don't seem to be any (many?) places with names like Heidelberg (Victoriai), Altona (Vic) Krondorf (South Aus), Leichardt (NSW) or Hermannsburg (NT).
Place names in this area were anglicized during WW1, and only a few remain like Neudorf or Rosendahl. Germans got bit of a hard time in this area during WW1, and quite a few family names were Anglicized as well.
Any immigration from other European countries was very much secondary to British settlement, so probably not so many new places to settle either.
Place names in this area were anglicized during WW1, and only a few remain like Neudorf or Rosendahl. Germans got bit of a hard time in this area during WW1, and quite a few family names were Anglicized as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
