UNDERSTANDING NEW ZEALAND: SOCIETY, CULTURE, AND ECONOMY

 

Devania Anesya/ 070810535

New Zealand is an island country in the south-western Pacific Ocean comprising two main landmasses (the North Island and the South Island), and numerous smaller islands, most notably Stewart Island/Rakiura and the Chatham Islands. The indigenous Māori language name for New Zealand is Aotearoa, commonly translated as “land of the long white cloud”. The Realm of New Zealandalso includes the Cook Islands and Niue (self-governing but in free association); Tokelau; and the Ross Dependency (New Zealand’s territorial claim in Antarctica).

New Zealand is notable for its geographic isolation; it is situated about 2,000 kilometres (1,200 mi) southeast ofAustralia across the Tasman Sea, and its closest neighbours to the north are New Caledonia, Fiji andTonga. During its long isolation New Zealand developed a distinctive fauna dominated by birds, a number of which became extinct after the arrival of humans and the mammals they introduced.

The North and South Island are separated by Cook Strait, 20 km wide at its narrowest point. The total land area is 26.021 km². The country extends more than 1,600 kilometres (990 mi) along its main, north-north-east axis, with approximately 15,134 km (9,404 mi) of coastline (The World Factbook, 2008).

The dramatic and varied landscape of New Zealand has made it a popular location for the production of television programmes and films, including the Lord of the Ringstrilogy and The Last Samurai. The South Island is the largest land mass of New Zealand, and is divided along its length by the Southern Alps. There are 18 peaks over 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) the highest of which is Aoraki/Mount Cook at 3,754 metres (12,316 ft). The North Island is less mountainous but is marked by volcanism. The highly active Taupo volcanic zone has formed a large volcanic plateau, the North Island’s highest mountain, Mount Ruapehu 2,797 metres (9,177 ft).

 

Population of New Zealand is approximately 4.3 million (Stats.govt.nz, 2010),of which approximately 78% identify with European ethnic groups. The indigenous Māori are the largest minority. Asians and non-Māori Polynesians are also significant minority groups, especially in urban areas. The most commonly spoken language is English. The term Pākehā usually refers to New Zealanders of European descent, although some reject this appellation, and some Māori use it to refer to all non-Māori and non-Polynesian New Zealanders (Ranford, 2008).  Most European New Zealanders are of British and Irish ancestry, although there has been significant Dutch, Dalmatian (Carl, 2007), Italian, and German immigration together with indirect European immigration through Australia, North America, South America and South Africa (http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/new-zealand-peoples, 2010).

New Zealand is culturally and linguistically part of Polynesia, forming the south-western anchor of the Polynesian Triangle, much of contemporary New Zealand culture is derived from British roots. It also includes significant influences from American, Australian and Māori cultures, along with those of other European cultures and – more recently – non-Māori Polynesian and Asian cultures. Large festivals in celebration of Diwali and Chinese New Year are held in several of the larger centres.

Cultural links between New Zealand and the United Kingdom are maintained by a common language, sustained migration rom the United Kingdom, and many young New Zealanders spending time in the United Kingdom on their “overseas experience” (OE).

Meanwhile Māori culture has undergone considerable change since the arrival of Europeans; in particular the introduction of Christianity in the early 19th century brought about fundamental change in everyday life. Māori culture has significant differences, for instance the important role which the marae and the extended family continue to play in communal and family life. Māori still regard their allegiance to tribal groups as a vital part of personal identity, and Māori kinship roles resemble those of other Polynesian peoples.

New Zealand has a modern, prosperous, developed economy with an estimated GDP (PPP) of US$119.549 billion (2010). The country has a relatively high standard of living with an estimated GDP per capita of US$31,067 in 2010, comparable to that of Southern Europe (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/we, 2010).

Historically, New Zealand enjoyed a high standard of living which relied on its strong relationship with the United Kingdom, and the resulting stable market for its commodity exports. However, in 1973 the United Kingdom joined the European Community which effectively ended this particularly close economic relationship between the two countries.

Since 1984, successive governments have engaged in major macroeconomic restructuring, transforming New Zealand from a highly protectionist and regulated economy to a liberalised free-trade economy. These changes are commonly known as Rogernomics and Ruthanasia after Finance Ministers Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson.

Agriculture has been and continues to be the main export industry in New Zealand. In the year to June 2009, dairy products accounted for 21% ($9.1 billion) of total merchandise exports (http://www.stats.govt.nz/Publications/BusinessIndicators/global-nz-jun-09/key-points.aspx, 2009) , and the largest company of the country, Fonterra, a dairy cooperative, controls almost one-third of the international dairy trade (http://www.fonterra.com/wps/wcm/connect/fonterracom/fonterra.com/home/frequently+asked+questions/, 2009).

References:

The World Factbook. CIA. 2008.  http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=5lc9jxSKfuEC&pg=PA421&lpg=PA421. p. 421. Retrieved 22 Desember 2010.

Ranford, Jodie. “‘Pakeha’, Its Origin and Meaning”. maorinews.com. http://maorinews.com/writings/papers/other/pakeha.htm. Retrieved 22 Desember 2010.

“New Zealand Peoples”. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand.http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/new-zealand-peoples. Retrieved 22 Desember 2010.

Walrond, Carl (21 September 2007).“Dalmatians”. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand.http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/dalmatians. Retrieved 22 Desember 2010.

“World Economic Outlook Database—April 2010″. IMF.http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/index.aspx. Retrieved 22 Desember 2010.

“Global New Zealand – International Trade, Investment, and Travel Profile: Year ended June 2009 – Key Points”. Statistics New Zealand. June 2009. http://www.stats.govt.nz/Publications/BusinessIndicators/global-nz-jun-09/key-points.aspx. Retrieved 22 Desember 2010.

Frequently Asked Questions,  http://www.fonterra.com/wps/wcm/connect/fonterracom/fonterra.com/home/frequently+asked+questions/ Fonterra website. Retrieved 22 Desember 2010.

 

AUSTRALIAN IDENTITY

Devania Anesya/ 070810535

Multiculturalism, Australian, and globalization

Australian position in Asia

A

ustralian identity still carries the mark of yesterday’s British connection. For Australian as a whole, Anglo Autralia forms one essential part of series of formations which sustain workable social cohesion for multi-cultural today. These formations include parliaments, courts, churches, educational bodies, trade unions, organizations of civil society and family forms.

By the mid-1990s many such Australians felt real uncertainty about their identity. Sidney Professor of English Elizabeth Webby (1997) said ‘(w)e are the group which has had an identity taken away’. Meanwhile Horne (1994) insist that there is no real Australian identity… there never will be something we called the Australian national identity. Other analysts view Australia as a nation without nationalism and her national identity was fragile, weak, lacking, or absence (Kalantzis, 2000).

Some of the reasons for negativity toward Anglo Australia are historically occupy a declining position in the total Australians population and this may be one reason close in time (Price, 1999). Another reason concerns the effects of the global free market project. Anglo Australians act as a subtle cohesion-promoting and organizing influence in our increasingly complex, dizzily-changing society.

Many decades before its potential for economic and social devastation struck home, about free market, the famous economist Joseph Schumpeter made a prediction that free market capitalism was the most productive and the most dynamic economic system which has ever existed. But because of its extraordinary dynamism, free market capitalism could eventually consume itself because it would destroy the foundation-institution on which it rest.

Ethno-racism is also a major threat to cohesion throughout the world. In Australia, Anglo Australia is one guarantor of social cohesion – only one guarantor, but a major one.

In January 2000, David Malouf, Australia’s leading novelist, took up the theme of attachment to Britishness in Australia. After 150 years of de facto independence, Malouf remark many such Australians still retain a bond emotion of spirit with Britain that upsets many among themselves, especially those who manage our lives and are driven by theories. Malouf argue that after a century of theories and ideas and ideologies, some of them murderous, we might try listening at last to what people have to say, paying attention to what they have to tell.

The bond of emotion and feeling with Britain to which Malouf refers are shared by many ordinary Australians today. They relate to historic institusional, political, and familial ties with Britain and its long history. What we called as multiculturalism in Australia has long been describes by its supporters as an experiment. Ross Tzanes (1999) called Australian multiculturalism as the most exciting social experiment that the modern world has ever seen. Australia’s multiculturalism democracy is a complex ongoing process.

In the 1980s and early 1990s especially, Australian foreign policymaker and opinion leaders directed considerable energy and imaginative geopolitical work into redefining Australia relation with Asia (Evan, – ). Engagement with Asia Australia’s security and well-being – Asia was viewed as essential for Australia’s security

 

References:

Dixson, Miriam. 2002. Identity in Australia: issues and Strategies for the Early to Mid twenty-first Centuury. Armidale: british Australian Studies Association

Pettman, Jan . –. Question of identity: Australia and Asia. –

 

 

TIMOR LESTE

TIMOR LESTE

Devania Anesya/ 070810535

T imor Leste was incorporated into Indonesia in July 1976 as the province of Timor Timur (East Timor). But on 30 August 1999, in UN-supervised popular referendum, an overwhelming majority of the people of Timor-Leste voted for independence from Indonesia. On 20 May 2002, Timor-Leste was internationally recognized as an independent state. Timor comes from the Malay word for “East” the island of Timor is part of the Malay Archipelago and is the largest and easternmost of the Lesser Sunda Islands. Timor-Leste is located in southeastern Asia, northwest of Australia in the Lesser Sunda Islands at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago. Indeed, Timor Leste includes the eastern half of the island of Timor, the Oecussi (Ambeno) region on the northwest portion of the Island of Timor, and the islands of Pulau Atauro and Pulau Jaco. The total area of Timor-Leste is 14.874 sq km, insist of 14.874 sq km. The only one country that has direct land boundaries of Timor-Leste is Indonesia. Gold, petroleum, natural gas, manganese, marble, are the kind of natural resources in Timor-Leste. The development of oil and gas resources in offshore waters has greatly supplemented government revenues. This technology-intensive industry, however, has done little to create jobs for the unemployed because there are no production facilities in Timor. Gas is piped to Australia. In June 2005, the National Parliament unanimously approved the creation of a Petroleum Fund to serve as a repository for all petroleum revenues and to preserve the value of Timor-Leste’s petroleum wealth for future generations. The Fund held assets of US$5.3 billion as of October 2009. People who live in Timor-Leste named Timorese. Population rate reach 1.131.612 people in 2010 with population growth rate 2,027%. Age structure population: 0-14 years 34,7%, 15-64 years 61,9%, 65 years and over 3,4%. The ethnic groups tend to Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian), Papuan, and small Chinese minority. Their majority religion is Roman Catholic 98%, and the others are muslim 1% and Protestan 1% (2005). There are about 16 indigeneous languages : Tetum and Portugese–the official language–, Galole, Mambae, and Kemak are spoken by significant numbers of people. The conventional long form of Timor-Leste is Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste with Republic as the government type. The administrative divisions are tend to 13 administrative districts; Aileu, Ainaro, Baucau, Bobonaro (Maliana), Cova-Lima (Suai), Dili, Ermera (Gleno), Lautem (Los Palos), Liquica, Manatuto, Manufahi (Same), Oecussi (Ambeno), Viqueque. Administrative divisions have the same names as their administrative centers (exceptions have the administrative center name following in parentheses). The chief of state is President Jose Ramos-Horta (since 20 May 2007). The president plays a largely symbolic role but is able to veto legislation, dissolve parliament, and call national elections. Head of government is Prime Minister Kay Rala Xanana Gusmao since (8 August 2007). The Prime Minister formerly used the name Jose Alexandre Gusmao. And the Vice Prime Minister is Jose Luis Guterres (since 8 August 2007). The cabinet form is Council of Ministers. Timor-Leste Defense Force (Forcas de Defesa de Timor-L’este, Falintil (F-FDTL)) as the Army, Navy (Armada) in 2010. President elected by popular vote for a five-year term and eligible for a second term. The last election was held on 9 April 2007 with run-off on 8 May 2007 and the next election will be held in May 2013. President appoints leader of majority party or majority coalition as prime minister. Timor-Leste-Indonesia Boundary Committee has resolved all but some sections of border along Timor-Lestes Oecussi exclave. But maritime boundaries with Indonesia remain unresolved. Many refugees who left Timor-Leste in 2003 still reside in Indonesia and refuse repatriation. In 2007, Australia and Timor-Leste signed a 50-year development zone and revenue sharing agreement in lieu of a maritime boundary. References: Hamid, Zulkifli. 1996. Sistem Politik Pasifik Selatan. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tt.html

PACIFIC ISLAND: SOCIETY, CULTURE, ECONOMIES, ENVIRONMENT, & TOURISM

Devania Anesya/ 070810535

T

he Pacific Ocean is the largest geographical feature on Earth, covering a third of the planet’s surface. It hosts more than 20.000 islands, 80 per cent of the world’s total. With each square kilometre of land–about 1.300.000 in all–come 130 of ocean. This is the ‘water continent’ that encompasses Pacific Islands, a specialist term–based on geographical, biological, historical and ethnic criteria–for a specific Pacific region which excludes the Asian and American islands and archipelagos that are part of the greater Pacific Rim.

Pacific Islanders were the last people on Earth to encounter Europeans, in some places nearly 500, in others only 50 years ago. The collision of the two worlds changed both the Pacific and Europe, as this history will show.

Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia are Pacific Islands’ three distinct culture areas.  The name Polynesia–from Greek poly (many) and nesos (island)–was coined by French his torian and geographer Charles de Brosses in 1756 who applied it to all of Pacific Islands. French explorer Jules Sebastien César Dumont d’Urville gave the term its current restricted usage in 1831 when he also suggested the labels Melanesia (from Greek melas ‘black’) and Micronesia (mikros ‘small’) for the rest of Pacific Islands. These Greek-derived names have recently been challenged by those who reject Western nomenclature in the Pacific. Yet the names remain peerless as useful regional and cultural distinctions, especially to describe the last 500 years of Pacific Islands.

Though many similarities obtained in Pacific Islands throughout most of prehistory, by AD 1500 Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia had developed distinct characteristics of their own. Many of the characteristics still survive today, particularly among those isolated Melanesian and Micronesian communities which have been little affected by several centuries of Western intrusion.

In its settlement patterns, Melanesia generally displayed nuclear villages of concentrated populations. Micronesia preferred extended settlements. Polynesia also preferred extended settlements, but some islands had concentrated populations.

In their social organization, both Melanesia and Micronesia experienced matrilineal and patrilineal societies. In contrast, Polynesia was both ambilineal (mothers’ and fathers’ lines together) and patrilineal. Melanesian society was classless, Micronesia had either two or three classes, while Polynesia usually displayed three classes or more. Both Melanesia and Micronesia had men’s clubhouses; Polynesia had none. Melanesia acknowledged egalitarian descent, but Micronesia and Polynesia showed ramage (ranked family branching). Melanesia had the ‘Big Man’ concept, Micronesia and Polynesia an aristocracy.  Melanesia did have hereditary chiefs in some places, but these were not commonly hierarchical chiefs. Micronesia and Polynesia had weak hierarchies on atolls and strong hierarchies on larger high islands. Melanesia displayed ‘consensus’ rule, Micronesia decision by council, and Polynesia autocratic chiefly rule. Melanesia generally contained small social units with a village focus. Micronesia experienced military alliances between lineages. Polynesia had larger political units which transcended kinship groups.

Concerning land rights, Melanesia’s kinship groups occupied a given territory. Micronesian atolls comprised distinct lineages claiming specific areas. Ancient Polynesia at first had lineages holding tenure, but territory in later centuries became defined in political terms beyond the lineage. All three regions had community leaders – almost always male – who controlled or managed land in a variety of ways.

The legal system of Pacific Islands as a whole was arbitrary, with both supernatural and secular sanctions. In Melanesia, a common form of punishment was sorcery. Whereas Melanesia displayed more legalistic practice, Micronesian and Polynesian law was applied principally according to rank.

In its economy, Melanesia had only limited marine exploitation; ‘slash and burn’ horticulture by both males and females, with separate duties; little food preservation; some irrigation; and non-specialist craftsmen. Micronesia experienced intensive marine exploitation; ‘slash and burn’ horticulture commonly, but not exclusively, by females; food preservation; and specialist craftsmen. Polynesia had intensive marine exploitation; all horticulture by males; complex food preservation; sophisticated irrigation and terracing; and many types of specialists for crafts and rituals. Pacific Islands’ economies were founded from the beginning on such bountiful marine resources and on subsistence farming. Whenever possible Islanders also hunted. Micronesia had special pottery and looms used for weaving which attest to early contacts with the Philippines or Indonesia.

There were few degenerative diseases in prehistoric Pacific Islands: few people lived long enough to develop them. Nevertheless, ancient Islanders generally lived better than the rest of their contemporaries on the planet. Apart from New Guinea, they had no dangerous animals, insects or infectious diseases, and their environments held no extremes. Indeed, these environments–apart from the atolls–provided nearly everything needed to live. The price for this bounty: intensive labour. Pacific Islanders spent a large amount of their time at open sea, fishing. They built and managed taro terraces in high valley steeps.  They raised irrigation aqueducts, often of stone and up to several kilometres in length. They planted, tended, harvested, nursed, cooked, wove, carved and continually rebuilt damaged or destroyed structures. As a result, premature ageing saw most Islanders elderly by 40. Life was constant work under the perpetual scrutiny of absolute warrior-kings, powerful priests or one’s own immediate relations. And the threat of a sudden raid from a neighbouring valley or island always loomed.

With respect to a value system, Melanesians were highly competitive, particularly in their ‘Big Man’ system (a relatively localized and possibly quite recent phenomenon), yet communal at special times while suspicious and aggressive towards all outsiders. Micronesians were also highly competitive, but generally hospitable towards guests and strangers. Polynesians normally determined whether to be competitive or communal according to class, family or island, always mindful of the political or social circumstances; otherwise, Polynesians were generally hospitable to guests and strangers alike.

Pacific Islands’ rituals included the Melanesians’ ‘betel nut’ chewing, and the kava drinking of the Micronesians (ceremonial) and Polynesians (ceremonial/unceremonial). All three regions shared feasting and competitive giving with elaborate display. Varying degrees of cannibalism were common throughout most of prehistoric and early historic Polynesia (see below), while head-hunting, in restricted contexts, was endemic to Melanesia.

In their networking, most Melanesians traded with immediate neighbours, rarely travelling beyond the next village; Melanesian society, especially in New Guinea and the Bismarcks, was of highly restricted mobility.  In stark contrast, Micronesia’s atoll dwellers travelled frequently; long sea-voyages were common, for social calls, trade, crisis relief and other things. Polynesians elaborated extensive ‘voyaging spheres’ which enabled inter-insular and inter-archipelagic communication for social, political and economic purposes.

Sumber:

Fischer, Steven R. 2002. A History of the Pacific Islands. London: Palgrave