ThePerryMasonandHisBrain
(cc SeoulSurvivor)
Thank you for an intelligent comment. However, I doubt that dealing with the slave trade really counts. Slavery was something that British people perpetrated outside Britain, and therefore the only effect its abolition had was to cut off an income stream to certain people in Britain. It was not something that affected its society as such, apart from a debate that concluded - shock horror - that yes, slavery of black people was just as wrong as slavery of any person. What makes it a monumentally bad example is that even now there isn't really much recognition in the UK of was done. In the meantime, the British government and various businesses continued to exploit other ethnicities on a global scale; a subject that even now is not really discussed in British public life to any great degree - just like the Merchant of Venice which most people have not studied, and few willingly. Contrast NZ where the legacy of colonialism is all around us, and is therefore discussed in great detail as a matter of course. The Treaty of Waitangi has to be considered by the government at every turn, and considerable amounts of money have been paid out to Maori for breaches of it. Perhaps the UK might like to consider chipping in?
You make a better point about Australia and NZ, although I cannot speak for Australia. The point to note, however, is that the legacy of colonialism - which in NZ presents as poor outcomes for Maori - is not a reflection of its society now but intergenerational dysfunction brought about by colonialism. It's not inconsistent to say that a non-racist society can - for historic reasons - still have to wrestle with these problems in a way that a non-colonised society such as Britain need not. You mention how racism is as a result of colonialism is steeped in NZ's museums, art galleries, politics etc. My own view it it is these institutions in the UK that are more prone to such things because they reflect attitudes that - unlike here - have never been questioned. It really is more accurate to say that it was only some decades after the UK began to be a multi-cultural society that it really began to question what this meant and how society should adapt. In the meantime, the nasty and discriminatory treatment meted out to immigrants over three decades resulted in race-riots - and I would suggest also, very tragically, some home-grown terrorism. In NZ, by contrast, this began - with very many mistakes - in the 1840s.
What I really took exception to in the original remark, however, is the misconception that because the average Kiwi might be more prone to make derogatory remarks they must therefore be more racist. "Nonsense" is really the only appropriate reply. It is just the humour - and a dislike of people being snotty - and any alleged racism is not reflected by the high immigration rates, high achievement of immigrants, high levels of participation in politics, the professions and public life generally - in all of which I would suggest it beats the UK. Kiwis (both male and female) are prone to making sexist remarks too. Despite that, I would also suggest that women have a smaller pay gap, better representation in parliament and government, the professions and so on, and there is far, far, far, far, far less traditional expections on women to be feminine compared to the UK. The remark was in my view sufficiently ignorant to be guilty of the very thing it was complaining of, ie, racism.
Whew. As you were. I suppose I'd better contribute something to this thread myself. I will say that it's how polite people in the UK are. 