National Identity Evidence Ledger · 1914 → 1919

Keep this all term. This is not a summary worksheet you complete at the end. After each signature task, add one piece of evidence. Your final interpretation should emerge from the ledger.

Rule: evidence does not “prove identity”. It supports a bounded claim about how identity was expressed, contested or remembered by particular people / institutions in particular contexts.

Week / historical problem	Evidence / carrier	What I can claim	Whose perspective?	Limit / complication	Confidence
1 · Ngā take / causation Nationalism, Empire, responsibility					low / med / high
2 · Choice / Empire British subjects? NZ? both?					low / med / high
3 · Experience / Total War Whose war experience?					low / med / high
4 · Contested loyalty Who defines duty?					low / med / high
5 · Peace / power Who represents NZ?					low / med / high
6 · Aftermath / memory Land, Samoa, memorials, ANZAC					low / med / high

Mid-unit checkpoint · after Week 3

My current answer to the governing inquiry:

Evidence that might make me change my answer:

Final evidence selection

Choose three strong entries from different weeks. One should complicate the other two rather than merely repeat them.

Evidence	Why this one?	What claim does it support?	What still limits the claim?

Naming reprise

Great War · First World War / World War One · “war to end all wars” · Te Pakanga Tuatahi o te Ao. Which name is most useful for your final argument, and what does it reveal / hide?

Final bounded judgement

Use this structure only if it helps: “The evidence suggests that Te Pakanga Tuatahi o te Ao changed New Zealand identity by ____________. This is supported by ____________, ____________ and ____________. However, the story is more complicated when ____________ is included. Therefore the strongest conclusion I can make is ____________.”

Self-check: Have I written as if all Māori, all Pākehā, all soldiers or all New Zealanders thought the same thing? If yes, repair the claim.