NEW ZEALAND A NATION?

Evening Star, Issue 19764, 14 January 1928, Page 6

NEW ZEALAND A NATION?

“I heard a resident in New Zealand say many years ago: ‘ There is no New Zealand character, because there are no New Zealanders. There are only Englishmen who have lived abroad for a number of years.’ But if that was ever true, the passage of a quarter of a century has made a great difference. A New Zealand nation with definite characteristics has emerged.” These words were written by Professor A. J. Grant in a final article to a northern contemporary. Professor Grant, it will be remembered, came from Leeds University a year ago in exchange with Dr Hight, Professor of History at Canterbury College. He has travelled up and clown the country and made himself thoroughly conversant with the life of tho people, so that this estimate of our national unity is a valuable one.

By many people the words “race,” “nation,”' “State,” “country” are used almost interchangeably. But a few minutes’ analysis should convince anyone that, however accurate this may once have been, it is no longer true to confuse those four distinct terms. The “State” may and usually does comprise peoples of several “races.” The term “race” usually goes back to origins; but to-day there are so few, if any, ethnological!,y pure races that, except in the broad sense of color, it is not of great value to classify peoples according to race. In our own day, with the spread of group consciousness as the world gets smaller and people are brought more into contact, the “nation” has become of greater importance, and the growth of “nationality,” or national character, has become a great factor, on the whole for good, even if a narrow “nationalism” of blind patriotism has at times worked against the peace of the world. A nation cannot be made, say, by a peace treaty which divides up territory into certain portions as separate States. It is rather a slow growth round an idea, based on long common traditions and established customs, memories of a common past, along with aspirations for a common future. Out of this grows an organised system of mental or physical forces such as we imply in the phrase “the soul of a people,” or, simpler still, “national character.” And wo may speak of a nation thus making a contribution to the world’s thought and culture in the onward march of civilisation. In a small pamphlet just to hand, entitled 1 New Zealand a Nation,’ the author, Mr W. T. G. Airey, M.A., of Christchurch, stresses this aspect of the question. Ho defines nationality as “the tiling which gives cohesion to a particular group of people in their endeavor to work out the whole problem of humanity, and to make a vital, co-operative, sympathetic contribution to the life of mankind. Nationality is simply personality raised to its highest power. The greatest artists and poets wore men whose personalities comprehended an expression of their own nationality, of the genius of their country.” And again: “The more nationality is regarded as a cultural possession, the loss people will fight it and the less political will it become. It is in art and in music, and not in the waving of flags or in the growth of trade statistics that national personality is developed.” Taking this point of view, Mr Airey considers that New Zealand has so far little of this personality. She is not making a contribution to the world. Ho quotes her refusal of separate responsibility as a mandatory, and her general attitude of preferring to act as a part of the British Empire rather than as a separate unit, as Canada and Australia have tended to do. Nor does he think she thought out for herself her attitude to the Geneva Protocol, or even to the Locarno agreements. “Here, again, New Zealand failed to have a mind of her own.” Probably it is true that the aveiage New Zealander has no opinions on these affairs, and the Government recognises this fact. We do not think, however, that it quite proves an absence of national character. Mr Airey is on surer ground when he says: “In our internal life wo seem still to cling to worn-out traditions, and build up no new faith. Wo are in danger of repeating the mistakes of the Old World. In our economic life there seems little response to new ideas.” He instances some of the fallacies of Protection as an example of this; sees a danger of developing a plutocracy, and finds “ we are still weighed down with nineteenth-century responsibility.” Finally, in art and cultural expression we have little to show. The average school or college essay, for instance,

uses descriptions of outdoor scenes which suggest English landscapes. “,We will never have any New Zealand art until we have a vital experience on which to draw and until wo learn to see our own countryside.” Here Professor Grant would join issue with Mr Airey, for he sees New Zealand as “pre-eminently romantic.” Ho sees the essentials of romance hi our conscious pride in the beauty of our country. “The nation’s life,” he says, “is henceforth projected against that wonderful background, and can hardly be thought of apart from it. He notices also “our careful preservation of the trees and flowers, tho birds and beasts.” Next the same romantic impression is produced by the presence of the Maoris in our midst, and the country’s attitude to them. Incidentally he considers New Zealand has mad© the most successful effort yet known to solve the problem of the relation between European and non-European races on a basis of humanity and justice. In time to come the story of the Maoris should play more and more part in the traditions of the country. Again, he finds a third romantic element in the whole relation of New Zealand to the Mother Country. “ The traditions of the Homeland are not a prison to bo escaped from, nor a burden to be shake"n off, but a pride and stimulus to progress. Could anything,” he concludes, “ be more essentially romantic than that?” Finally he considers New Zealand stands more and more clearly in the presence of tne future. It is a novel feature of our time, tho extent to which the future acts on our imagination, and through our imagination on our actions; and New Zealanders in his opinion think more than most ipeople of the destiny that awaits them. We may doubt whether we are yet a nation, yet surely in trends such as these there lies the possibility of our emergence to nationhood in the near future. As was shown earlier in this article, this implies no change in government, no loosening of ties of Empire, nor added military or economic power. It will simply mean that we or our children, as well as being British, will nlso be proud to be called New Zealanders, in that we shall have achieved a definite national character, making a valued contribution to tho progress of humanity.