DIGNITY OF LABOUR,

Putaruru Press, Volume IV, Issue 136, 10 June 1926, Page 4

DIGNITY OF LABOUR,

BEWILDERMENT has been expressed by the new' Minister of Education as to how he is going to reconcile two seemingly-irreconcilable conclusions, one being the fact that parents want their children to be free from the rough labouring work they themselves have had to do, and the other the equaily-cbvious and much more pressing and important fact that the rough work of the world has to be done. That the Minister should, in h:s maiden speech as Minister, have touched upon a vital problem thus early and with such directness, simplicity cf exposition and clarity of thought and expression augurs well for a useful career with the portfolio of Education. The subject is indeed baffling, primarily because leadership in the affairs of humanity usually goes to the brain worker ; commercial ascendancy is reached by those who devote all their energies, mental and otherwise, to the securing of wealth, by means of which they are able to command all the goods and services they require, or fancy ; the real leadership, however, lies in the hands of the specialists and investigators, in our colleges and laboratories, though these latter may make no vulgar show of their power. Cases in point are recalled by the visit of Sir Frank Heath and by the frequent reports emanating from the Department of Agriculture.

But the moneyed and the mental leaders are few in proportion to the total, and the great majority must needs earn their living as wage workers or small proprietors of farms and general trade and commercial concerns, and what are termed the “ professional ” classes. Commendably enough, the majority of parents want their children to reach the higher walks of life. It is an unfortunate circumstance of the struggle that, forgetful of the fact that fields must he ploughed before we can eat bread, that metal must be quarried before we can have good roads, and that noles for posts must be dug before we can secure the boon of electricity in the^home, half-educated people have permitted their children to look down upon manual labour. They are also taught to look askance at a trade, ftome branch of craftsmanship, with the result that the “ profe-' ional ” callings are overcrowded, and the unfortunate occupants are obliged to up tiie semblance of a chainpagne sty's of living upon a plain ale 7?®' Thousands of “ profession--4 rra — v "'« a harder struggle for existence in the world than are the

bricklayers and the carpenters and the plasterers. One of the members of the Auckland Education Board, Mr. E. C. Banks> of Matamata, made some pertinent comments when discussing the subject recently. He recalled that in the early days in Canterbury the school holidays were given during the harvest time, and on his father’s farm the young people all had to work in the fields. This gave them a practical grounding in farm work and taught them to understand the dignity of labour, thus preventing them in after life from looking down upon the man who toiled with his coat off. If such ideas were more generally held today the benefits would be manifold and the Minister of Education would not have to wonder who was going to do the world’s manual labour.