On the motion for the Adjournment, Deputy MacBride gave notice that he would raise the subject-matter of Questions Nos. 49 and 50.
Supplementary Estimate, 1951-52. - Adjournment Debate—National Flag and Proclamation.
I asked leave to raise the subject-matter of Questions Nos. 49 and 50 on the Adjournment tonight, not in any spirit of contention against the Minister, but in the hope that I may be able to persuade the Minister to adopt a different attitude from that expressed by him in the course of his reply to me to-day. The reply which he gave me to-day is, in effect, the Department of Education's stock reply which has been given in this House for over 25 years. It is a reply drafted year after year by civil servants in the Department of Education and handed down to their Minister to give out in this House. I do not think that that reply bears examination. I do not think that the Minister can possibly agree with that reply if he focuses his mind on the issues involved.
In effect, my suggestion was that, in order to inculcate a sense of patriotism and respect for this State in the young people growing up, we should have available in the schools of this country a copy of the Proclamation of 1916 and our national flag. What objection can there be to that? The objection originally, as I understand it, in the Department of Education was that it might be construed as introducing politics into the schools. Whatever validity there might have been for that line of reasoning 25 years ago, or even ten years ago, there is no ground for that argument in the year of Our Lord 1951.
Why should not our children be taught to respect the national flag? Why should there not be in every school in the country a copy of the Proclamation of 1916 or the Declaration of Independence? In practice, in every other country in the world the national flag is displayed during school hours in the national schools and the equivalent of the Proclamation of the Republic, in the shape of the declaration of that Republic or, if it is a monarchy, a photograph of the king and queen or the ruling family is displayed in every schoolhouse. I know the Minister is a man of independent mind, and I hope that he will revise this silly, stupid, stock answer that we have been given.
I should like to read that answer which has been put into the Minister's hands:—
"I cannot agree that the procedure suggested offers the most effective means towards achieving that end."
I never suggested that the display of the flag or the Proclamation or the Declaration of Independence in the schools provides the most effective means of inculcating patriotism in the minds of our children. But it certainly does provide a means. At the moment, as far as I am aware, there are no means of any kind prescribed by the Department of Education to inculcate patriotism or respect for the flag in our national schools. The answer goes on:—
"Patriotism should be a natural and progressive growth in our schools, and the less it is inculcated through the medium of the formality which characterises most school classes, the more likely it is to take firm root in the mind and heart..."
Who suggested that it should be inculcated as a formality or as a school task? I suggested in my question that the Minister should make available to schools copies of the Proclamation of 1916, so that they could be hung on the walls of the schools. Is that a formality? Is it a school task? Is it a formality or is it a "school task" to have the national flag flying over our schools?
The answer goes on:—
"A sound knowledge of the national and cultural inheritance that has come down to us is, to my mind, the surest foundation for a spirit of patriotism."
By all means—a sound knowledge of the national and cultural inheritance, but surely the Proclamation of 1916 and our flag form part of that national inheritance. How are the children to have a sound knowledge of our national inheritance unless they are given an opportunity of learning about it?
The answer goes on, further down:—
"I do not consider that symbols of national significance should be made a matter of such everyday familiarity."
That beats all platitudes. Because a symbol is important it has to be kept hidden. You might as well suggest that because to all of us our religion is probably the most sacred thing we have, crucifixes should be hidden and churches should not be seen.
I hope that if this adjournment debate serves no other purpose it will stop civil servants from writing answers that are platitudes, that are meaningless, that do not bear examination, and then handing them to Ministers.
I hope I have not been too hard in criticising the answer which the Minister gave me to-day. It was not my intention to indulge in harsh criticism. My intention was to appeal to the Minister to review the matter in the light of conditions as they exist in the year 1951. There can be no objection to the display in our schools, not merely of the Proclamation of 1916, not merely of the Declaration of Independence, but also of pictures of some of our national heroes.
The Deputy is unintentionally talking out of the Minister's time.
I am sorry.
The Deputy is entitled, because he lost ten minutes or so. We can give time to the Minister afterwards.
I can quite well see that there should not be displayed in schools matters which are the subject of political controversy, but there is no political controversy about these things now. This nation accepts the fact that it is a Republic. We accept the fact that we are a nation and our task must be to inculcate in our young people a respect for their nationalism, for their nation, for their flag. There is no better way of doing that than by visual demonstration.
Sir, it is not an unusual thing that an answer to a question in this House is drafted by the officials of the Minister's Department but, even if that happened, as it did happen in this case, I examined the answer and I fully agreed with the matter of the answer. Nobody has greater respect for the flag than I have. I can even say that nobody has proved his respect for the flag better than I have, but I do not regard this as quite the simple matter of hanging a framed replica of the Proclamation of 1916 on the walls of schools or the presentation of a flag and flag-pole to the school. The value of symbols is what is behind them and if those who are asked to honour a symbol are without a knowledge of its history or background, that honour is a very empty one. It is not a simple matter to impress or to inform children with a capacity for thought. To secure an intelligent acceptance by them of concrete facts demands a continuous and considered effort. Abstract ideas are more difficult still, and reverence for symbols requires the exposition of the background of the idea and the inculcation of historical knowledge of the men and events associated with the symbol and the sacrifices and nobilities also associated with it.
Surely that is one of the functions of the schools.
This is only to be achieved, in my opinion, by the teaching of history.
The teaching of history in a primary school must necessarily be a slow process. Much talk was made to-day about the various subjects that should be taught, and especially about preparing children for their future economic life. I think the primary school's main function is to try to develop character ïn children and to give them wisdom. It seems to me that in the few hours that it is possible to teach small children they should be taught those subjects which are needed for the acquisition of the knowledge by which character is formed and wisdom developed. I do not think that history can readily be taught in the early stages of a school-child's life. I think the child must be at least 12 years old and beyond the fairytale age, and until then there is little use in trying to give him a feeling for history.
I confess that, due to my unfamiliarity with the schools' programme so far, I have no knowledge of the amount or the nature of the history taught or the text-books used, but I am deeply sensitive of the value of true patriotism and I do propose to make an earnest inquiry into the text-books used, the nature of the history taught and the method of teaching. I believe that in that fashion we shall develop the patriotism which the Deputy, I presume, and I would like to see throughout the countryside.
I am afraid that it would not be easy to teach small children the full meaning of the Proclamation of Easter Week, and that a good deal of time would be wasted in trying to do so. I feel also that the raising and lowering of the flag daily, instead of being an event in the child's life, would be a reminder to it of a daily task associated at some time with subjects during school life. I think a method of inculcating respect for the flag would be by having a coloured replica of it in the history text-books. I think that lessons in the teaching of history might be impeded by stories of flags and their use. I think, since not merely children but older people require to be told something of the honour due to the flag, that a recent publication of the Genealogical Office in relation to the respect due to the flag, and the manner in which it should be used, should be part of the lesson taught to the children.
I think that, in spite of everything that has been said to the contrary, our people of all brands of politics are nationally minded. Converts from one religion to another are generally more vocal about their new religion than those who were born into it. In other countries, with not as sound a basis of nationality and patriotism as this country, we have a good deal of ballyhoo about the flag. There is a good deal of insincerity about it. I think that when the flag is carried in procession, and when adults stand to attention and take their hats off as it goes by, such action has more effect in inculcating the idea of the honour due to the flag, of its background and of the reasons why men have died for the flag—because it represents the best of the things they believed in and wished for their country.
I am wholly in agreement with the Deputy in his desire for a knowledge of the history of our flag, and for the inculcation of the idea of respect for the flag. It is not for any perverse reason that I would object, at the moment anyhow, to the carrying out of what the Deputy desires. I think, however, that my idea is better than his, and is much more likely to bring about the result which the Deputy and I would like to see.
The Dáil adjourned at 11.5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 18th July, 1951.