bro’Town!. I’m not a huge fan of the show, but it comes on after Top Gear or Mythbusters, so sometimes I leave it on and watch a bit. Looks like you can watch it in Canada too.
[QUOTE=TheLoadedDog]
Just to add that one of the biggest NZ cities is… Sydney.
[/QUOTE]
Right - one of the more interesting spots on the West Island.
[QUOTE=TheLoadedDog]
pretty much everybody under about 25 has dropped the Australian “mate” for the Maori “bro”.
Hey, bro?
[/QUOTE]
Is “bro” some kind of universal term of endearment used by dark-skinned oppressed minorities all over the world? Do the Maori rap too?
[QUOTE=Trillionaire]
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.
[/QUOTE]
It’s interesting to read Captain Cook’s journals describing his first contacts with both the Maori and the Aborigine people. The Maori were very aggressive and killed some of Cook’s crew when they approached in a launch (causing Cook to forego landing on his first trip). The Aborigines seemed to be completely indifferent to Cook, his ships, and his peace offerings. This was a shock to Cook, who had had success in most of his dealings with native cultures up to that point by giving them iron nails and other items. The Aborigines gave it all the equivalent of a huge yawn and went about their business. Cook commented that while the Maoris had the proud bearing of other Polynesian cultures he had encountered, the Abos appeared to be the poorest of the poor, lacking in even the simplest “necessities”. He also commented at length on the terrain and geography of the two countries, citing NZ’s lush greenery and Australia’s relative desolation (his first brush being from Botany Bay north and westward, and nearly meeting disaster inside the Barrier Reef).
New Zealand was primarily colonised with Scots by the English, whereas Australia was primarily colonised with Irish by the English. Draw your own stereotypes.
[QUOTE=Trillionaire]
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)
[/QUOTE]
Expanding on this just a little - and please forgive me if wrong this is from (1993) memory.
New Zealand was actually colonized and settled, with the Treaty of Waitangi (our deed of nationhood if you like) signed PRIOR to any major wars. The major wars (known as the land wars) war fought partially in response to the requirement in the treaty for the recognition of individual land ownership, which was not a Maori concept.
Again citing memory from '93 - New Zealand is very unique in the respect that it was neither “conquered” nor “colonized due to it being empty” (can someone help with the legal terms). Australia for example was colonized due to it being an empty land.
On the differences in personality, New Zelander’s tend to be more gracious winners and better losers than Australians, politer and more modest. I have also read in this thread that we are less racist than Australia, by and large (in my expereince) this is true.
In terms of employment, New Zealanders do tend to be harder working than Australians - this is anecdotal sure…however my brother while working in Australia regularly used to get in trouble with his workmates for finishing a job too quickly, and from what I hear New Zealanders are sought after in the hospitlaity industry for their industriousness.
Also, it is Australia who invented velcro gloves and gumboots
[QUOTE=looking busy]
On the differences in personality, New Zelander’s tend to be more gracious winners and better losers than Australians, politer and more modest. I have also read in this thread that we are less racist than Australia, by and large (in my expereince) this is true.
[/QUOTE]
Having lived in both countries I don’t think there’s much difference between the two in this regard. Both countries (unfortunately) have their fair share of ungracious winners, poor losers, rude people, braggarts, racists etc.
New Zealand is to Australia as Canada is to the U.S.
New Zealand is populated by solemn, sword wielding warriors seeking to preserve civilization while Australia, having already lost civilization, is populated by more-than-half-mad crazies fighting for control of petroleum based fuels.
(And these descriptions should be given equal consideration by any informed reader.)
[QUOTE=hawthorne]
Government - NZ is a unitary state without a written constitution.
[/QUOTE]
Not entirely correct.
[QUOTE=monica]
Australia has very little tectonic activity. New Zealand, however, is right on a tectonic boundary.
[/quote]
Australia does have earthquakes, and at times quite considerable ones, but as the landmass rides on a tectonic plate and NZ is, as you say, on a tectonic boundary, the quakes differ in type and frequency. Australia is, of course, sparsely inhabited in the middle, so most of the quake effect isn’t registered.
No, we also have indigenous seals and dolphins, so bats aren’t the only mammals native to NZ. I think you’ll find the “seperated from other land masses at the time of the Jurassic Period” to be the more correct theory. NZ is a landmass which was largely built up from the depths of a geosyncline, out of rocky debris from Australia, of which we were once a part. Australia’s native mammals as marsupials are a result of their rekative isolation from the rest of the world (where placentals dominate) and our flightless birds were as a result of NZ being both isolated and an island. Not all the birds were/are flightless, though. And one, the kiwi, is descended from an Aussie immigrant from way back. 
[QUOTE=looking busy]
Also, it is Australia who invented velcro gloves and gumboots
[/QUOTE]
Heh, heh! 
Well, I’m a bit late to the thread, but yeah - this is all I meant. I have heard that Canadians are often mistaken for Americans while they’re abroad, and I thought that Anne Neville’s tour guide might have just been trying to avoid being yet another person to make that mistake. The Australia/New Zealand thing was just an example of similar nearby countries, one of which is quite a bit larger.
[QUOTE=Trillionaire]
I think Australians are generally a bit brasher and louder than the more reserved New Zealanders.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I don’t know… in Pamplona, both groups have a reputation of being pretty loud The kiwis are “the ones with the muscles doing those funny dances”. The british have a reputation for drinking until they pass out, way after the point where they get too obnoxious and rude… aussies and kiwis, of being much better drinkers, knowing when to stop (aussies’ rep says they stop a tad later than the kiwis, but still well within reasonable boundaries). Sanfermín kiwis tend to gravitate together; aussies may do it too but being a tad less visible (no maori dances to be ogled by the middle-aged ladies walking the poochie in the area near the kiwi camp ;)) it’s not so evident.
Both are very popular here. People find it terribly neat that they have come all the way from Over There and also that usually they come asking questions; I’ve never heard a local complain of an antipodean explaining the meaning of the encierro to him. They seem to understand it just fine, no freaking Freudian analysis, just running.
[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
Is “bro” some kind of universal term of endearment used by dark-skinned oppressed minorities all over the world? Do the Maori rap too?
[/QUOTE]
We say “bra” (pronounced “Brah” not like brassiere) here, rather than “bro”, but close enough. And we rap. Well, not me, personally, but praise singing is certainly prehistoric rapping 
[QUOTE=Askance]
New Zealand was primarily colonised with Scots by the English, whereas Australia was primarily colonised with Irish by the English. Draw your own stereotypes.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you! That has always been my main idea about the difference between Ozzies and Kiwis.
Australia had droves of misbehaved Irish and English. The worst of the time, but the best of time in a way. Not serious crims but those with enough balls to take a risk…an illegal risk, a LARRAKIN RISK.
New Zealand attracted those types with AGENDAS, reasons to leave Britain. Your dour Scottish religious types that were looking for Utopia (and found it!).
My own personal theory when it comes to sport and why Ozzies consistently beat us (other then the 5:1 population difference) is that essential character difference. When Ozzies are loosing they (as a nation) say “FUCK THAT”! Kiwis as a nation say “Shit the bloody Ozzies will probably win BUT Go Kiwis!”
The Scot in us is hardy and enterprising yet not as willing to take a risk as our Irish descended neighbours.
There is a reason we are different countries, with different personalities…one country was a prison and one country was an escape.
Of course the British were the key to both and the way the indigenous people were treated in each country was very different. New Zealand was among the last of Britain’s colonial prizes, they had learned from many mistakes. Though many Maori would disagree they got a much better deal here in NZ then many indigenous people before them.
Especially in the last 20 years the Maori voice has been stronger in NZ, much stronger then the Aborignal voice in Australia.
We are very different countries (down to our support or lack of support for George and Iraq) but we share many similarities. We will always be foes and friends.
We (hopefully) will always be each others closest friends (even if WE were ditched from ANZUS :D), we will always share many similaraties and just enough differences.
And I blame the Scots and Irish
[QUOTE=monica]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Surely I misunderstand. There were mammals, but they drowned when NZ went underwater? And the flightless birds didn’t drown? How long did it take NZ to go underwater? By what process? When did it come back up? As noted above, where are all the mammal fossils?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Surely I misunderstand. There were mammals, but they drowned when NZ went underwater? And the flightless birds didn’t drown? How long did it take NZ to go underwater? By what process? When did it come back up? As noted above, where are all the mammal fossils?
[/QUOTE]
Obviously the mammals flew and the flightless birds swam
[QUOTE=sandra_nz]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I was going to jokingly add that Australians have more jokes putting down Brits than New Zealanders
[QUOTE=Pushkin]
I was going to jokingly add that Australians have more jokes putting down Brits than New Zealanders
[/QUOTE]
Damn Larrikins!
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Surely I misunderstand. There were mammals, but they drowned when NZ went underwater? And the flightless birds didn’t drown? How long did it take NZ to go underwater? By what process? When did it come back up? As noted above, where are all the mammal fossils?
[/QUOTE]
They must be teaching people that NZ has been bobbing up and down in the ocean like a cork. Very odd way to look at something like geology and paleontology. For the record, most of the major reptilian fossils found here seem to have been from ancient marine reptiles (from when NZ was still just a shoal of sedimentary stuff at the bottom of the sea, with a few islands poking up here and there), but the tuatara has survived from the age of the dinosaurs (land animal, not a good swimmer). NZ hasn’t been bobbing up and down – it was upthrust, wore down through natural erosive processes to become almost like a flat atoll with islands, then rose up again (when the Southern Alps were created). After the Jurassic, it has never really been totally submerged.
Not much, other than the spelling.