OUR NATIONAL CHARACTER

New Zealand Listener, Volume 24, Issue 623, 8 June 1951, Page 5

OUR NATIONAL CHARACTER

Sir,-With reference to your articles on our "National Character," I note that none of your contributors has written of the New Zealander as a biological animal. Differentiation can be brought about by climate, food (a more or less degree of first-class protein in particular), education, a greater or lesser degree of it, and heredity. Did the old country push its morons on to us, or did the best and most enterprising migrate? Audrey Cumming gives us a pen picture of an early pioneer who was quite definitely not one of A. R. D. Fairburn’s "helpless lot." It would appear from her letter that she is of the opinion that the pioneering period finished fifty years ago. This hardy pioneer seems to have been one of the fortunate ones who got an access road during his lifetime. The one great touch of genius he showed, in my opinion, was to learn a profession, sell his farm before it reverted to scrub, and get into the City. He has my profound admiration. In this district, first settled over eighty years ago and not roaded yet, we are pretty versatile-modesty forbids us to say how wonderful we are, The toast, "The pioneers, God bless ’em," should, I think, be shorn of the usual humbug, and be extended to something like this for the urban dweller: "Here’s to the Pioneers and their Pioneer descendants. Long may they live in the unroaded hills to pay their trates and taxes for\ our benefit, and to sell their produce overseas to bring us our cars and delightful electrical gadgets, and nearly all the things we use. May they always be there to work their silly guts out for us. Bless ’em all."

J. B.

JACKSON

(Raglan).

Sir-It appeared to me that your excellent two-page spread on our national character suffered from the grave fault that it was not national in character. It was the middle-aged intelligentsia holding the mirror up to its own generation-arbitrarily, those born just before and at the turn of the century. The picture reflected of this segment of our national life was pretty close to the truth, but it was not true of the younger generations. Unfortunately, The Listener did not include their views in its symposium. I think they have a good case, too. They

certainly have no inferiority complex, no "hangdog" demeanour because, as children, they were permitted to be seen and heard-even to questioning the judgments of the man-god at the head of the table! They were reared in a more socialised environment that did not produce those stultifying effects on character associated with the family hearth round of instruction and entertainment. They are not undemonstrative, They show their feelings and their loyalties, not in the lip-service to precepts as of old, but in thoughtful and kindly deeds unobtrusively performed. They do not believe that adversity makes character -that a stone in the shape of a sermon is better than a loaf in the image of a handout. They respect their elders only if they are genuinely worthy of respect; mere increase of years is not enough. It is true they are not religious and I cannot help but feel that they are the better for that. They are the heirs of that intellectual legacy handed down from the Darwinian era. The spirit of the age is against the old religious beliefs and no tears need be shed on that account. They are sports lovers rather than book lovers. But it is surprising what a good grasp they have on contemporary world affairs; it could not be obtained from newspapers alone. All in all, the sons and daughters of your contributors’ generation present a far finer picture than the one presented in your symposium.

G.R.

B.

(Auckland),

(Abridged. Ed. )