Just as the title says.
After reading this I was wondering what kind of differences there were in culture, dialect, economy, etc.
Why would it be insulting to incorrectly identify someone from the wrong country?
And here’s a doozy, (please don’t hang me, I really am quite ignorant of the facts here) What are the differences, if any, in government?
Oops, let me clarify something. It was this particular post in the thread that got me scratching my head.
I didn’t want to hijack the thread.
Well. the one on the left is much bigger.
I don’t think it’s necessarily insulting, just a bit annoying. Imagine having to spend your life with everyone assuming you are from town A when in fact you are from town B just up the road. After a while all the “Oh, I was in A once…” “You people from A are all…” “Hey, did you see that A have just…” would have you wearing a “I’m from B, goddammit” T-shirt.
Hey thanks! That clears it up.
Government - NZ is a unitary state without a written constitution. Australia is a federation of States under a written Constitution. NZ has a unicameral legislature elected by a fancy electoral system strongly featuring elements of proportional representation. Australia (and most of its States, at least in the House of government) has a bicameral legislature elected by district-based compulsory preferential voting (lower, governing house) and quota-based equal-State (Upper House) methods. Try the “government” sections of NZ and Aust.
As for the importance of differences, it’s possible for a conversation between an Australian and a New Zealander to be full of apparently blood-curdling insults whilst remaining perfectly friendly. Sometimes, however, there will be something said that doesn’t quite translate and great offence will be taken - usually by the sheep-shagger.
Ha! We totally just did this in geography class. Great timing!
Australia has very little tectonic activity. New Zealand, however, is right on a tectonic boundary. This enables them to use some geothermal power. It also leads to the contrasts between Australian and New Zealand topography. Australia is fairly flat. They have a few mountain ranges, but they’re not huge. New Zealand is very mountainous.
Australia’s preEuropean natives are the Aborigines. They migrated from Africa 50,000 years ago. They are largely nomadic with no written language. New Zealand’s preEuropean natives are the Maoris. They were Polynesian, I believe. Both countries treated their natives very differently. Australia didn’t give the Aborigines rights for years, and it wasn’t until the 1970s that they even recognized them as citizens and included them in the census. New Zealand, however, reserves a certain percentage of seats in their legislative house for the Maoris.
Except for bats, New Zealand has no indiginous mammals. There are a couple of theories for this. One is that it separated from other landmasses before mammals could evolve. The other (and the one that I feel is more probable) is that there is evidence that all of New Zealand was once under water, so all of the mammals drowned. Australia does have mammals. New Zealand also has a lot of flightless birds.
Australia was originally a prison colony, although it later was turned into just a normal British colony. I don’t think New Zealand was ever a prison colony.
No. There were several penal colonies set up in Australia, however, the entire country was never a penal colony. For example, South Australia was never a penal colony.
That’s correct. There were “ordinary” colonies in Australia from the beginning. The usual term of transportation for convicts was seven years, and once you finished your sentence you could in theory go home to the UK. But in practice few people could afford to do so, even if they still wanted to; so instead most of them settled in the non-penal Australian colonies. And of course many people emigrated to Australia of their own free will, even in the early days of settlement.
For pretty much the same reason that it would be insulting to call a Canadian an American, or an English person Scottish, etc. No-one will get genuinely upset if you make an honest mistake, but you should make the effort to distinguish between them.
I’m a Kiwi, so I’ll try a couple of broader (and probably controversial) generalisations from my own experiences. I think Australians are generally a bit brasher and louder than the more reserved New Zealanders. I think they’re also somewhat prouder of their identity than we are: the Republican movement is quite a bit stronger in the lucky land for instance.
monica touched on a major difference in the two country’s histories. Whereas the Aborigines were mostly either driven inland or killed by the white settlers; the Maori tribes fought (and in many cases defeated) the British. In NZ therefore, the British were forced to negotiate and trade with the Maori, which led to the two cultures integrating much more than they did in Australia. Today the Maori are an urban people, who speak English as a first language and have a strong voice in Parliament. In Australia this is generally not true, and its historical treatment of its indiginous people is still a source of shame and embarrassment to many in that country.
As I said I’m generalising, and my knowledge of Australian history isn’t great. (I’d be really interested to hear any dissenting opinions about anything I’ve said btw)
I’d agree with everything you’ve said, Trillionaire!
I’d also add that Australia is a wealthier country than New Zealand, which leads to many New Zealanders moving to Australia. New Zealand has a big ‘brain drain’ problem with (particularly) qualified New Zealanders moving to Australia and the UK (mostly).
I’m about to become one of those as my husband has been offered a job in the UK and we leave in a fortnight’s time.
New Zealanders tend to see themselves as being more ‘cultured’ or having higher ‘class’ than Australians - I think NZers associate themselves with being British more than Australians.
Aah! Thank you all for fighting my ignorance!
You mean besides one being a kiwi and the other a wanker?
Ow. Half-chewed Triscuits and Diet Dr. Pepper injected into the sinus cavity. Some splashback on the keyboard. Seriously, like, ow.
New Zealand specialise in Rugby Union and have a fearsome reputation.
I remember a Kiwi student telling me there were 240 students at his school and they put out 15 teams each week. (15 players in a team, plus substitutes - everybody must have played!)
They do play Rugby League and cricket.
Australia play Rugby Union at world-class level too, but I believe both Rugby League and Aussie Rules football are even more popular.
Kiwis are a bit more reserved than Aussies - warm-hearted, good people, but slightly less social. I think it is to do with isolation - NZ is a long way from anywhere (except Australia).
The big attraction for young NZers to Oz is just that the place is big - more people, more places to go, more to do, but not too far away (or too different) from home. More money in the economy gives a better standard of living, too.
sandra_nz: good luck for your move. Just remember - L&P and marmite (avoid the English marmite like the plague) can be purchased from the NZ Shop in Covent Garden - a good excuse for regular trips into London. And if you are really lucky, your local Sainsbury will stock Vogels bread - a taste of home.
Si (in the UK for over 5 years now)
P.S. Why wasn’t the Son of God born in Australia…
Because they couldn’t find three wise men, let alone a virgin
This is a trifle simplistic - the African link is to Aborigines as it is to Europeans or Chinese.
There’s also the landmass: Australia is 7,686,850 sq km (approaching the US’s 9,631,420 sq km in size), while NZ is a mere 268,680.
Australia is vast, and most of the 20 million population is very sparsely distributed, congregated on the coast, the most populous of which is the east coast. There’s rainforest and temperate, but a huge amount of the middle is desert.
New Zealand is relatively small, with the 4 million population somewhat more evenly distributed, though more concentrated on North Island and north of South Island.
Going on personal experience of travelling around east coast Australia, versus most of New Zealand, Kiwis were much more welcoming and accommodating, without the standoffish nature of most of the people we met outside of Sydney and Canberra.
The distinction in how the indigenous inhabitants are regarded is stark; though I met a couple of deeply racist white Kiwis, generally whites seemed quite benevolently predisposed towards the Maori culture; whereas the antipathetic indifference for the aborigines in Australia amongst pretty much everyone was stark.
Sorry Aussies, I really enjoyed visiting your country, and met some great and kind people there, but I genuinely found New Zealand personally much more charming.
Simple way to tell the accents apart, remember that Aussies say “feesh and cheeps”, while Kiwis say “fush and chups”.
Nor snakes.
That would seem to point toward mammal fossils, of which I’ve not heard.
Wow, I don’t think I’ve ever met a kiwi that I would describe as “reserved”
Just to add that one of the biggest NZ cities is… Sydney. The place is brimming with New Zealanders, and it would be a rare day that I don’t speak to somebody with a Kiwi accent. There would likely be one or three sitting with you in any given bus or railway carriage that you ride in Sydney. The New Zealand (and particularly Maori) influence is having a marked effect on the Sydney accent and slang. This has led to the locals speaking faster and often with clipped vowels (nobody in Sydney sounds like Steve Irwin), and pretty much everybody under about 25 has dropped the Australian “mate” for the Maori “bro”.
Hey, bro?