To what extent was New Zealand 'born as a nation' in World War I?

Authors Avatar

To what extent was New Zealand 'born as a nation' in World War I?

In order to evaluate the extent to which New Zealand was 'born as a nation' in World War I, it is first necessary to explore the elements that constitute a nation, which in itself is problematic.

By then tracing the emergence and rise of the New Zealand nation from the late nineteenth century up until the end of the First World War, it is possible to examine the importance of the war to New Zealand's nationhood.  A distinction can thus be made between the war being solely responsible for the 'birth' of the nation, and the war being part of a complicated process towards the nation state.

By contemporary academic standards, it is unlikely that New Zealand achieved the status of nationhood before, or even for some years after, the First World War.  In theory, a nation was to be independent, yet New Zealand only achieved formal independence in 1947.  But New Zealand's complex relationship with Great Britain did not preclude the formation of a nation.

The transition from the provincial system to central government, and finally to party politics meant that by the 1890s, New Zealand was self-governing in terms of internal affairs.  Another traditionally desired characteristic in a nation was the presence of one race that shared a common history, language and culture.  Although the concept of a bicultural nation may appear problematic, this essay must engage with it because it was a reality to the New Zealand situation.  Keith Sinclair approaches this problem by speaking of a 'Pakeha nation'.

Yet this theory is eurocentric, because it assumes a nation into which Maori would be assimilated.  Maori were in fact strongly divided in their desire to become citizens of the nation.  There were many, however, who chose to support a nation that they increasingly saw themselves a part of.  Therefore, biculturalism was not an impediment to a 'New Zealand nation'.

Join now!

If New Zealand was capable of reaching nationhood with neither independence nor monoculturalism, then it is clear that the methodical application of 'desirable' characteristics does not test a country's nationhood.  As a nation is not tangible, it cannot be successfully measured in a 'concrete' way.  Sinclair adopts the view that a nation is simply a group of people who think that they are a nation.

So, by viewing the building of a nation as a 'social process', it is possible to trace the rise of nationalism in New Zealand.  As it is a sentiment arising directly from belonging to a ...

This is a preview of the whole essay