BRITAIN and NEW ZEALAND

New Zealand Listener, Volume 13, Issue 320, 10 August 1945, Page 18

BRITAIN and NEW ZEALAND

Sir-As a "Homie" of seven years’ standing in New Zealand I advise Mrs. J.M. (Rotorua) to take the first available boat back to England along with her husband who, within one week of landing here was disgusted not to get a Government appointment. Such sentiments as expressed in her letter would be harmful if taken seriously. Happily, there is no need. , We arrived in this country knowing no one, but have made many real friends and are very happy socially. We have never beén made to feel that we were not welcome here, and as an illustration have spent every Christmas with the people from whom we bought our first farm, within a month of landing. As for "the callous behaviour towards helpless animals," I admit that the handling of bobby calves hurts me and there is room for much improvement here. But, after seven years of close. contact with a dairy herd of some one hundred cows, my husband and I have no complaints to make concerning the handling of stock by the several men we have from time to time employed.

JANE

BURTON

(Hamilton).

Sir-I read with disgust the letter you printed from J.M. and I am rather surprised you should open your columns to such a discussion. By J.M.’s own showing she is a type we know: one of those who come out here, not with the idea of working and making their way in the world, but with the idea of getting an easy living. From her own remarks she and her husband have failed to do any good either in Canada, South Africa, or anywhere else. I should like to refute all she says aboyt "anti-Home" feeling in any colony, most of all New Zealand. I am also a Homey, and although I realise I’ve spent more of my life in New Zealand than at Home I'll always be a "Homey," and I’ve had nothing but the best of good feeling and unfailing friendliness from the folk of New Zealand. I came out in 1912 straight from an office with the idea of making something of life. I found it paid: milking cows by hand for 25/- a week is never easy, but with the unfailing friendliness of the folk I met I liked it all. It was a good life and a grand country, and I enjoyed every minute of it. I went to the war and mixed with "the boys,’ Homeys and New Zealanders, and never had any experience of "anti-Home" feeling. We were all men together, and any grinning reference to "Homeys" was countered with the retort "Pig Islander," but all in the best of good feeling. Now I’ve farmed a Goyernment section for quite a lump of my lifetime and always got on well with my neighbours, some of them definitely in the so-called "fhoneyed class," and I may say they all, rich and poor, helped me at a time when I had a bad knock. They would have done the same to anyone in the same circumstances. That old yarn about the cruelty of farmers to stock is, on the face of it, absurd: farmers are not such fools as to ill-treat the stock they get their living from: and no one believes they do. It doesn’t pay, and farmers are no different from other folk. This

trying to stir up trouble sickens most of us. Take it from me, this is a good country and the folk are fine. It almost lines up to the wonderful leaflets that brought me here! I don’t pretend that New Zealand is paradise. There are lots of things I don’t like. I don’t like the Government. They took my butter money. I don’t like the bloke on the benzine counter of the Post Office. I don’t like the chap that "demands" my income tax! But I’m not likely to make a public moan about it.

FAIR

PLAY

(Ohaupo).

Sir,-It seems that J.M. takes a very narrow view of New Zealand’s life and people. She must go about with a chip on her shoulder, to receive the treatment of which she complains. If one looks for trouble one can always find it. There is a certain type of Englishman, fortunately in the minority, who regards himself as superior to the mere colonial. Perhaps there was condescension in her husband’s manner when he applied for the Government vacancy. Though I admit that all officials are not above reproach, in any country the many should not be judged by the few. As for the "callous treatment of. defenceless animals," I have lived in the country all my life, and been always a lover of animals, but have seen no evidence of abuse. Her fellow "Homie" may have witnessed some isolated case of cruelty, and jumped to the conclusion that all New Zealanders were brutes and sadists. Is there not a S.P.C.A. in England too? The loyalty of New Zealanders of all classes to the Motherland has been proved beyond all question during the last six years, while our admiration for the British people, and our desire tu help them to the uttermost, has drawn us closer than ever before. I can only think that J.M. has been unfortunate in her contacts and manner of meeting the "ignorant and immature" people among whom she has lived in security for six years. Far from clearing up misunderstanding J.M.’s letter can only arouse a storm of resentment and antagonism, nor can such an attitude create goodwill anywhere. Evidently she has not made herself conversant with New Zealand’s contribution to science, art, and literature, apart from its contribution of "blood and sweat and toil and-tears" in the Empire’s time of need, er she would not be so sweeping in her condemnation of the country in which she and her husband have had sanctuary, and a living.

LEITH

TULLOCK

(Te Karaka).

Sir,-J.M. mentions, among other things, that there is a strong "antiHome" feeling in this country. Now what does she mean by that? New Zealanders of older generations have a habit of referring to England as "Home," but we of the younger generation refer to England as England; New Zealand is our home, and England is as foreign to us as the United States of America. If she means we are anti-British, she is wrong.

Does she remember that as soon as Britain declared war on Nazi Germany, the Dominions, on their own initiative, rallied to her side, even though we felt disgust with the England of Munich, but we learned to admire and respect her after Dunkirk. New Zealanders have died fighting to keep the Nazi bombers from England; what other proof does she want than a New Zealand life? If again she means we are anti-British because we choose to have our own opinions, if because at the San Francisco and. other Conferences, we did not follow Britain’s lead like a lot of sheep, but disagreed, sometimes violently and voted against her, if she thinks that is being anti-British, then she may as well pack up and go back to England, because we are nations in our own right, we govern ourselves, we think for ourselves, and we always shall. I see no reason why a New Zealander should not be given preference in a Government job; after all it is the New Zealand Government. As for the remark about our callous treatment towards farm animals, well why does J.M. not find out for herself? No one. objects ta criticism, in fact, we New Zealanders could do with a lot more of it, but I suggest J.M. look first to herself. Are there things about her which people don’t like, I mean people of any country. Then again does she speak in an affected manner, does she feel superior to New Zealanders, and make that feeling felt, does she talk continuously about "Home," does she run down New Zealand to our faces? I have lived in New Zealand all my short 22 years, and I know we would not care twopence how she walks and dresses, but the affected voice and superior manners would not find her friends. , We pledge our allegiance neither to America-nor to England, our allegiance first and foremost goes to New Zealand, then to the British Commonwealth of Nations, and it always will. We, the Dominions, are young, vigorous nations; we may probably seem to older nations uncouth and rather raw, ill-mannered and intolerant; but have patience, we shall mellow. What J.M. hasn’t realised is that we are no longer lion cubs gambolling round the mother lion; we have grown up, we are New Zealanders, Australians, Canadians and South Africans before we are British.

M. M.

WILSON

(Wellington).

Sir,-If J.M. is really sincere one cannot wonder that she has not been happy ijn New Zealand, and her attitude is the greatest possible hindrance to closer relationship between Britain and her colonies. Let J.M. ask any returned New Zealand soldier, sailor or airman who sojourned in Britain, particularly north Britain, what his feelings are for the Old Country. From what I have heard there is a real lové and affection@te regard for the Motherland and the people thereof. ; I also am of "that mentality" that sees no reason for preferring J.M.’s husband, a new arrival, before a New Zealander for a Government. job in New Zealand. Evidently J.M. thinks herself and her husband superior to any New Zealander and therein lies the cause of their failure to get along with New Zealanders. She says she does not like "their ignorance and immaturity, and petty and

persistent persecution in various subtle ways." New Zealand’s "ignorance and immaturity" has made a splendid job of leading the world in many ways, particularly in social reforms and commonsense legislature. (No, I am not a "Labourite"’). J.M. believes on hearsay that the New Zealand farmer is callous. From experience I deny that. I have read in British newspapers reports of parents’ cruelty and neglect of their children, but it would be utterly ‘stupid to say the British parent is callous. Had J.M. ever seen the sufferings of a fly-blown sheep she would realise the wisdom of cutting lambs’ tails, and had she been privileged to see a New Zealand farmer at work among lambing ewes she would revise her opinion of farmers. After 23 years among New Zealanders in city, town and backblocks I have the greatest admiration and affection for them, and had I the choice of settling anywhere on earth, I should again choose New Zealand. J.M. could help to préserve the unity of. the British Empire by refraining from referring to Britain as "Mother England" or speaking of "England and her colonies," a minor point, but a sore one with Britons who are not English.

"HOMIE FROM NORTH BRITAIN"

(Wellington).

Sir,-Your correspondent J.M. offers some pungent criticism of New Zealand without fair judgment. Some of her remarks are sound, but unduly scathing. As a resident of over 30 years, I have learnt to avoid hasty conclusions. It is true that after serving with New Zealand troops in the last war, I came back to a country where discharged men were officially informed that New Zealanders would receive preference in all Government jobs. Again, ability counts for little. The country always had a bureaucratic bias, with its attendant lack of inspiration among leaders and departmental heads. But comparisons are futile. In some respects, life is freer in Great Britain, because of an infinite variety of jobs, entertainment and social life. Surely this little country cannot expect these without a far greater population. But there is a type which I call the typical New Zealander, that in my opinion surpasses most in any country. He is the young manhood of the land. Clear cut, steady and capable, he is the backbone of the country. There are plenty of him. He stiffened the ranks of the services in both wars, and has to thank his open life and country for his fine character. He is proud, without arrogance, and listens well. Above all, he makes no hasty judgment of his fellowmen! Certain people of all countries are discontented when trying other "fields and pastures new." But taking all in all, this is a fine little country, and to infer that unkindness to animals is a characteristic, is ridiculous. The great danger to the peace and prosperity of New Zealand is political bigotry and wrangling. The country is too small to stand up to it. There is too much intolerance. This, with racing and gambling, dominates the scene. The assistance of the British Council may help to offset these tendencies. More diversity of interests is vital to the future.

ENGLISHMAN

(Havelock North). |