Quality of Education in China? Overnationalism?

You're overreacting to this.

The PLA has always been a role model in Mainland early-child education. When I was in grade one, all the boys wanted to be a PLA soldier. Playing mock-battles has always been a perfectly common activity on the playground. I remember that I was very surprised when I first moved to Canada that kids here didn't play these games.

Reading your post, I feel that you are injecting your own bias into this. To you, the PLA means war, hatred, and death. Well, to these kids, the PLA means courage and self-sacrifice.

Here's a question, do you think the Canadian Military means war, hatred, and death? I'd be very surprised if you do. So why does it disgust you so much that a school would encourage kids to mimic the military? Just because they're the PLA? Or because the idea of "military" automatically conjures up images of death and suffering to you? Or perhaps a little bit of both?

There is a culture in Canada to divorce politics from everyday life. There's this feeling that politics is for politicians, evening news, and elections. Political discussions should not take place in work places or among casual acquaintances.

It's a useful adaptation for a country where people hold all sorts of different political views. This allows people of different, and sometimes opposing, political views to enjoy each other's company.

However, you have to remember that there's no such thing as "different political views" in China. There is only one political view, and people are expected to adhere to it. The end result is that since people in China don't argue over politics, there is no need to divorce politics from everyday life. In fact, politics is an integral part of both workplaces and schools.

The point is, this has nothing to do with nationalism, it's just a difference in culture. In Canada, politics is a dirty word and kids shouldn't play with guns. In China, politics is a part of everyday life and toy guns are just toys.

I think it's purely relative. Is it in all schools that teach that? I don't think so. It just looks like American kids playing Cowboys and Indians. I've always heard the story about Vancouver when the influx of Hong Kong money started flowing in that created what Vancouver is today. Canadians didn't like this invasion and would posts signs stating what buildings had Hong Kong money involved as to identify which ones Canadians should not do business. You haven't heard something like happening in the US in decades. Canadians brag how they're supposedly more progressive than Americans. Apparently not in all areas. Is Hong Kong money evil money? So what was the reason they would be afraid of money from Hong Kong? So what makes Canada any different? And they have those same fears about Mainland Chinese investment in Canada today. I know the excuse will be it's from communist China. Hong Kong was never communist. So what's in common?

I can point to plenty of examples but people will make their excuses on what makes it different. Is it only teaching in school that's the problem. I remember seeing on the news when Rambo First Blood Part 2 came out in theaters, some kids after watching it savagely beat some Vietnamese they saw on the street. That's why it's all relative. I wouldn't want to see Westerners teaching their version of history to Chinese kids. That's just as damaging.

Originally Posted by solarz

You're overreacting to this.

The PLA has always been a role model in Mainland early-child education. When I was in grade one, all the boys wanted to be a PLA soldier. Playing mock-battles has always been a perfectly common activity on the playground. I remember that I was very surprised when I first moved to Canada that kids here didn't play these games.

Reading your post, I feel that you are injecting your own bias into this. To you, the PLA means war, hatred, and death. Well, to these kids, the PLA means courage and self-sacrifice.

Here's a question, do you think the Canadian Military means war, hatred, and death? I'd be very surprised if you do. So why does it disgust you so much that a school would encourage kids to mimic the military? Just because they're the PLA? Or because the idea of "military" automatically conjures up images of death and suffering to you? Or perhaps a little bit of both?

There is a culture in Canada to divorce politics from everyday life. There's this feeling that politics is for politicians, evening news, and elections. Political discussions should not take place in work places or among casual acquaintances.

It's a useful adaptation for a country where people hold all sorts of different political views. This allows people of different, and sometimes opposing, political views to enjoy each other's company.

However, you have to remember that there's no such thing as "different political views" in China. There is only one political view, and people are expected to adhere to it. The end result is that since people in China don't argue over politics, there is no need to divorce politics from everyday life. In fact, politics is an integral part of both workplaces and schools.

The point is, this has nothing to do with nationalism, it's just a difference in culture. In Canada, politics is a dirty word and kids shouldn't play with guns. In China, politics is a part of everyday life and toy guns are just toys.

Good points, and thanks for reminding me of my bias. Actually I possess no ill feelings of the PLA, and in fact might even see them acting as professional and restrained as HKPF, who I also put in a very high regard. My disgusts is to do with instilling politics and militarism into children at such an age, when they had barely even begin to grasp the understandings of basic moral ideas, judgements of right and wrong, etc. why should kids be taught violence and politics? That is my concern. Furthermore, bringing kids into politics or teaching them to think of politics in a certain way is equivalent to exploiting the innocence of their minds. They have yet to learn or understand anything yet, and already tell them how to think, instilling our political views? And what's even more alarming is the entire theme of using violence and force to solve a problem and to get what you think is yours. Before diplomacy, a gesture of civilized manner of talking and working things out and for compromise. Furthermore, if what is taught today is already so extreme, what prevents teachers from teaching them Japanese people are evil, and that the CCP is god? There is a need to teach moral rights and judgment so they can think independently, but politics are preferences and beliefs.
If today canadian schools are teaching to hate communists, I will sign the petition to withdraw such content too. It therefore has absolutely nothing to do with PLA; it's the fact that forcing our political preferences on others, on the innocent ones, the kids, that is unacceptable.

Originally Posted by AssassinsMace

I think it's purely relative. Is it in all schools that teach that? I don't think so. It just looks like American kids playing Cowboys and Indians. I've always heard the story about Vancouver when the influx of Hong Kong money started flowing in that created what Vancouver is today. Canadians didn't like this invasion and would posts signs stating what buildings had Hong Kong money involved as to identify which ones Canadians should not do business. You haven't heard something like happening in the US in decades. Canadians brag how they're supposedly more progressive than Americans. Apparently not in all areas. Is Hong Kong money evil money? So what was the reason they would be afraid of money from Hong Kong? So what makes Canada any different? And they have those same fears about Mainland Chinese investment in Canada today. I know the excuse will be it's from communist China. Hong Kong was never communist. So what's in common?

I can point to plenty of examples but people will make their excuses on what makes it different. Is it only teaching in school that's the problem. I remember seeing on the news when Rambo First Blood Part 2 came out in theaters, some kids after watching it savagely beat some Vietnamese they saw on the street. That's why it's all relative. I wouldn't want to see Westerners teaching their version of history to Chinese kids. That's just as damaging.

You are right. My analogy isn't to brag or credit that it's purely Canadian way; when I had my preschool in HK it's same as Canada. I won't even be surprised if Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan, or many nations(blue or not), will not teach these materials to their children. My point is that instilling this into school, especially at such an early age, regardless of any political views, is like you've said, just as damaging. The only thing that makes this particular ordeal sickening than usual is because it goes to the next level of teaching using force. Hatred should never be taught as an encouragement in schools. Teaching kids to role play as child soldiers is horrific. Many children in war-torn states have no access to education, war-raped, mutilated, given drugs, forced to kill, etc etc, and would only dream for an intact family and drop their guns so they can go to school, and here we are, in a society relatively peace, teaching the opposite. If you have children, what will you teach them? What do you want them to learn? What do you want to gift them the most for bringing them into this world? Hatred and dispute?

Originally Posted by airsuperiority

Good points, and thanks for reminding me of my bias. Actually I possess no ill feelings of the PLA, and in fact might even see them acting as professional and restrained as HKPF, who I also put in a very high regard. My disgusts is to do with instilling politics and militarism into children at such an age, when they had barely even begin to grasp the understandings of basic moral ideas, judgements of right and wrong, etc. why should kids be taught violence and politics? That is my concern. Furthermore, bringing kids into politics or teaching them to think of politics in a certain way is equivalent to exploiting the innocence of their minds. They have yet to learn or understand anything yet, and already tell them how to think, instilling our political views? And what's even more alarming is the entire theme of using violence and force to solve a problem and to get what you think is yours. Before diplomacy, a gesture of civilized manner of talking and working things out and for compromise. Furthermore, if what is taught today is already so extreme, what prevents teachers from teaching them Japanese people are evil, and that the CCP is god? There is a need to teach moral rights and judgment so they can think independently, but politics are preferences and beliefs.
If today canadian schools are teaching to hate communists, I will sign the petition to withdraw such content too. It therefore has absolutely nothing to do with PLA; it's the fact that forcing our political preferences on others, on the innocent ones, the kids, that is unacceptable.

You're making a lot of false assumptions here.

First, when you talk about "militarism", I think about one country invading or bombing another. The PLA does not advocate invading any foreign nation, nor does it talk about "regime change". The defense of the Diaoyu Islands is just that: defense. Note that those kids are not re-enacting battles, but simply the planting of the Chinese flag on the island. What violence is there, aside from the violence that you yourself are projecting onto the activity?

Second, why do you think teaching kids politics is "exploiting" their minds, but teaching them about "God" is not? When I first came to Canada, I went to a catholic public school. I had to attend Masses with the rest of the school. This was in grade two and three.

And what about those "morality" classes? So Canadians believe that helping people and giving to charities are good things to do. Well, the Mainland Chinese believe that having the courage to sacrifice one's life to repel invaders is also a good thing to teach to kids. Remember that only 70 years ago, the Chinese were being raped and slaughtered by a brutal invader. This is something that the Chinese people will not, *should not*, ever forget. I'll bet you anything that the Israelis also teach their kids the same thing.

Third, on what basis can you say that current Chinese teachings are extreme? The fact is, Chinese teachers are *not* teaching kids that Japanese are evil, and the era of Mao-worshipping is long gone. So I don't see how any of that is relevant.

You cannot teach children to think critically. That doesn't happen in any country. When was the last time a Canadian primary school, or even secondary school, taught students how to dissect propaganda? As I remember, teachers would be glad if we just read a newspaper or magazine once in a while.

Education is all about forcing adult preferences on our kids. Stop deluding yourself into believing otherwise. Kids like to play and believe in magic. Education forces them to learn math and science so they can become productive citizens. Why is that any more acceptable than teaching kids to defend their country?

Originally Posted by solarz

You're making a lot of false assumptions here.

First, when you talk about "militarism", I think about one country invading or bombing another. The PLA does not advocate invading any foreign nation, nor does it talk about "regime change". The defense of the Diaoyu Islands is just that: defense. Note that those kids are not re-enacting battles, but simply the planting of the Chinese flag on the island. What violence is there, aside from the violence that you yourself are projecting onto the activity?

Second, why do you think teaching kids politics is "exploiting" their minds, but teaching them about "God" is not? When I first came to Canada, I went to a catholic public school. I had to attend Masses with the rest of the school. This was in grade two and three.

And what about those "morality" classes? So Canadians believe that helping people and giving to charities are good things to do. Well, the Mainland Chinese believe that having the courage to sacrifice one's life to repel invaders is also a good thing to teach to kids. Remember that only 70 years ago, the Chinese were being raped and slaughtered by a brutal invader. This is something that the Chinese people will not, *should not*, ever forget. I'll bet you anything that the Israelis also teach their kids the same thing.

Third, on what basis can you say that current Chinese teachings are extreme? The fact is, Chinese teachers are *not* teaching kids that Japanese are evil, and the era of Mao-worshipping is long gone. So I don't see how any of that is relevant.

You cannot teach children to think critically. That doesn't happen in any country. When was the last time a Canadian primary school, or even secondary school, taught students how to dissect propaganda? As I remember, teachers would be glad if we just read a newspaper or magazine once in a while.

Education is all about forcing adult preferences on our kids. Stop deluding yourself into believing otherwise. Kids like to play and believe in magic. Education forces them to learn math and science so they can become productive citizens. Why is that any more acceptable than teaching kids to defend their country?

1. Militarism is from the idea of giving them toy guns, putting them military uniforms, teaching them to plant the national flag. I can let the 3rd part get by as just patriotism, which isn't an issue, but everything else: toy guns, military uniforms, are. It can't get any more overt than that in the symbolism. If that isn't a symbol of militarism, I don't know what is. It doesn't matter if it's re-enacting or not; the theme itself already fulfills them all.

2. I never mentioned the PLA the whole time.

3. You might have gone to a catholic public school, but I didn't. There are plenty of public schools in Canada that don't teach God. Also I never said anything about "teaching God isn't exploiting" neither, although I'm not sure if going to a Catholic school can be considered an exploitation. Furthermore, if your school had made it clear it's going to be a Catholic school, then it's pretty given that we all expect what the theme is going to be. The same thing goes with private schools that dictates uniform, military schools that dictate military traditions, certain colleges that dictate certain cultures, etc. Those are given, and applicants who applied could expect a certain theme. As for the current incident, if I'm correct that school is just an ordinary kindergarten, not any particular Party schools or military-themed related institutions.

4. Explaining an action does not make the action legitimate and acceptable. This is something I learned early on because my major in Psychology talks a lot about understanding human minds, including mass murderers like Jeffrey Dunham. Sure, he had psychopathic disorder (DSM-diagnosed), and he struggled for a long time because he knew what he's doing was wrong and he even experienced cognitive dissonance when his acts of fetish conflicted with his moral compass(yes he knew what was considered right or wrong, as his family had taught him certain moral dictions), however as much as we can have the hearts of sympathy and sympathize him for his hard life and his victims, it won't make his actions any less wrong just simply now we understood what he's done. One in control of their own behaviors should be morally responsible for their own actions. Treat institutes and states as individual actors, and their own actions are their own burdens of responsibilities. As HK-Canadian, I grew up in HK in my early days, and I learned about Opium War and the 8 Nations Alliances and all the humiliations and things, but this isn't the ticket to do anything we want. Why Diaoyu and West Bank remains so contending to this day has to do with neither sides willing to yield nor compromise. The problem had already strained the relationships from both sides, destroyed opportunities to work together, jobs, properties, lives, progresses, advances, and pretty much serious butterfly effects that stemmed from the sins of our fathers. As the future generation, the only way to end conflict is either to cooperate and work it out together like civil people and descendants of a proud civilization, or treat your competitor as enemy and overpowering them with muscles, leaving destruction in its wake, causing greater enmity, disrespect and bitterness between both sides, more revenge, more distrust, and more destruction to lives and families, more misunderstandings. It's unfortunate that this school teaches the hard method to its students. Furthermore, I even say, is there even a need to teach militarism to children? If they grow up to love their country, every enlistment will be voluntary. Furthermore, teaching that stuff is absolutely ridiculous. If HK, Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan today experiences invasions, citizens will bear arms voluntarily without truly needing propaganda or slogans. This national identity is everywhere, particularly when one's way of live is threatened, social identity is threatened, and people will act on their own. Propaganda only rings the ears, but most will make these choices from their hearts. NO education needed. With that said, I don't really see a need to teach such. In addition, your explanation, I tell you man, is the more advanced stages of altruism. But altruism and sacrificing self for others must first occur with the teaching of altruism, good citizenship, good civil duties, and most of all, proper right of heart, code of honor, and sense of moral fiber and duty from within. The issues of teaching these to them at such an early age is that they have yet even understand moral concepts properly, according to their developmental stages. I can go on forever just on this alone.

5. The extreme I'm referring to is introducing and role-playing military conquest, and instilling political views at an age the kids even barely understand basic morality. And while I'm glad the old Mao-ist eras are gone, I can only hope they don't teach anti-Japanese hatred to the kids. I won't be surprised if some teachers do.

6. Actually you're very wrong about that you can't teach kids think critically. Throughout my early education careers, often in the textbook I'll see questions such as "List 3 reasons why XXXX is right? List 3 reasons why XXXX is wrong? Who is right? Who is wrong? Why? How can you improve it? What will you do, and why?" Questions like these may seem like nothing, but in fact these force you to think from both sides of the perspective. Even comparative essays serve this purpose. My secondary school history teacher taught us how to dissect primary sources, secondary sources, examine for bias, and we even did exercises of reading articles. Even how academia's requirement of using various sources or specifically academic articles, teaching us how to write papers, etc, are all part of critical thinking. Earlier this year during March I was taking a mandatory writing course where we were to examine journal articles and critique them, examining critically of the researcher's bias, research methods, potential confounds,etc. One of the articles I argued again was Hare's definition of psychopath, and Hare is a very well-known researcher. Even this semester we studied criticisms of Freud, and after I finish replying to you, I have to hand in a paper where I argue against Rule Utilitarianism. As you can see, these are ALL critical thinking.

7. Lastly, your final sentences only represent your personal views. Math is for problem solving tool, Science is for understanding the world better and interests and preparing for future career, but how about politics?

Originally Posted by airsuperiority

1. Militarism is from the idea of giving them toy guns, putting them military uniforms, teaching them to plant the national flag. I can let the 3rd part get by as just patriotism, which isn't an issue, but everything else: toy guns, military uniforms, are. It can't get any more overt than that in the symbolism. If that isn't a symbol of militarism, I don't know what is. It doesn't matter if it's re-enacting or not; the theme itself already fulfills them all.

Wait, so you are against boy scouts? and letting children to shoot real guns - like they do in the USA or Europe? I think you are discounting the valuable lesson of discipline and responsibilities these activities give.

Originally Posted by airsuperiority

5. The extreme I'm referring to is introducing and role-playing military conquest, and instilling political views at an age the kids even barely understand basic morality. And while I'm glad the old Mao-ist eras are gone, I can only hope they don't teach anti-Japanese hatred to the kids. I won't be surprised if some teachers do.

Wait again, you are against play Chess, Weiqi-Go, Chinese Chess, Animal Chess, Chinese Checkers and a whole assortment of board games and card games like Magic The Gathering, Risk, etc. which very nature is military conquest and also by its very nature trains the mind in logical thinking for kids?

Originally Posted by Lezt

Wait, so you are against boy scouts? and letting children to shoot real guns - like they do in the USA or Europe? I think you are discounting the valuable lesson of discipline and responsibilities these activities give.

Wait again, you are against play Chess, Weiqi-Go, Chinese Chess, Animal Chess, Chinese Checkers and a whole assortment of board games and card games like Magic The Gathering, Risk, etc. which very nature is military conquest and also by its very nature trains the mind in logical thinking for kids?

Are boy scouts considered military? Do boy scouts carry guns which pit them in a role-play of war scenario and conquest? And even then, how old do boy scouts begin? Discipline and teamwork is one thing, but military role-play for children which carries the theme of military force is another.

All those things you've mentioned are strategy and competitive-based, and children only begin to play those after they reach a certain age, usually toddler age of approximately 7. This is when they now begin to possess the brainpower, rationale, and logic to comprehend more advanced situation. That, in Piaget's definition, is called Concrete Operations

Concrete Operational Stage of Cognitive Development

Piaget determined that children in the concrete operational stage were fairly good at the use of inductive logic. Inductive logic involves going from a specific experience to a general principle. On the other hand, children at this age have difficulty using deductive logic, which involves using a general principle to determine the outcome of a specific event.

Now tell me, just how old do you think those kids in the photos are from that Chinese link when they had to climb through lines and carry guns?

And your attempt is futile because boardgames are meant to be competitive AND non-political. Not to mention your strawman is very fallible. I'm referring to political and military all along, and you brought in something completely irrelevant into the equation.

People shan't be instilled to love their country; they should do so from their will. Learning without judgement and true understanding is just rote memory, and how can one judge something that s/he hasn't even develop a concept of? the only thing that will occur is blind acceptance, brainwash, without a thought of their own. and just how do you enforce a learning of something they don't even have an idea of? a grasp of? why should they be thinking about their country when the only thing surrounding their life is mostly their family and peers?

If today instead of China this story is about Al-Qaida, some African states, or some Western states where this is occurring, I won't be surprised there will be condemnations by many members. And in fact it's occurring in Africa as child soldiers, is a serious humanitarian concern.

As much as I'm pro-China and support my own people, I am not afraid to point out what is wrong, not defend and embrace everything they do. Improvements start by being your own critics and recognizing what's wrong. Don't leave it for your neighbor next door to do your job because all they do is hate and bash uncritically; only you can rationally criticize with a good intent for your people on whether it's something that should be looked into. If we don't, no one else will. A China where people think independently is what China needs, not blindly supporting and defending everything no matter black or white. If even we can't uphold this responsibility, China will never improve, and reforms are pointless.

Originally Posted by airsuperiority

Are boy scouts considered military? Do boy scouts carry guns which pit them in a role-play of war scenario and conquest? And even then, how old do boy scouts begin? Discipline and teamwork is one thing, but military role-play for children which carries the theme of military force is another.

All those things you've mentioned are strategy and competitive-based, and children only begin to play those after they reach a certain age, usually toddler age of approximately 7. This is when they now begin to possess the brainpower, rationale, and logic to comprehend more advanced situation. That, in Piaget's definition, is called Concrete Operations

Concrete Operational Stage of Cognitive Development



Now tell me, just how old do you think those kids in the photos are from that Chinese link when they had to climb through lines and carry guns?

And your attempt is futile because boardgames are meant to be competitive AND non-political. Not to mention your strawman is very fallible. I'm referring to political and military all along, and you brought in something completely irrelevant into the equation.

People shan't be instilled to love their country; they should do so from their will. Learning without judgement and true understanding is just rote memory, and how can one judge something that s/he hasn't even develop a concept of? the only thing that will occur is blind acceptance, brainwash, without a thought of their own. and just how do you enforce a learning of something they don't even have an idea of? a grasp of? why should they be thinking about their country when the only thing surrounding their life is mostly their family and peers?

If today instead of China this story is about Al-Qaida, some African states, or some Western states where this is occurring, I won't be surprised there will be condemnations by many members. And in fact it's occurring in Africa as child soldiers, is a serious humanitarian concern.

As much as I'm pro-China and support my own people, I am not afraid to point out what is wrong, not defend and embrace everything they do. Improvements start by being your own critics and recognizing what's wrong. Don't leave it for your neighbor next door to do your job because all they do is hate and bash uncritically; only you can rationally criticize with a good intent for your people on whether it's something that should be looked into. If we don't, no one else will. A China where people think independently is what China needs, not blindly supporting and defending everything no matter black or white. If even we can't uphold this responsibility, China will never improve, and reforms are pointless.

I think it is just a children game. I do not think it is a regular activity that would have an impact like you fear.
On the larger picture, yes, Chinese is a paternalistic culture. We value our heritage. Thousand year old wisdom have to be pass on to our offspring and they are very hard to explain to children, so Chinese parent tend to drill it into their children and so do the formal education system. Chinese is also a collective culture, therefore would prefer tradition and unity of thought. Teaching kids to be patriotic is actually good for the kid. The kid would one day needs to grow up and it is good for them to fit in. I actually think that Chinese education is good at producing balance adolescence to become productive member of society. Yes they are not as creative or adventurous as western educated kid, but you cannot have everything and nothing is perfect.
I feels that to assume Chinese people as some kind of brainwash automaton without critical thinking is really an insult to Chinese people. In fact, from what I can gather from the Chinese forum, I can see that the Chinese people today have a bullshit antenna as big as Arecibo. They are a very cynical bunch and trust virtually nobody. I think this has to do with Chinese being sold ideology after ideology and being rudely awaken again and again by the hard fact of life. Today Chinese trust no form of authority. Not the politician, not the professional, not the entrepreneur, not the opinion leader. In fact, I would say that the group that has some shred of credibility left is the scientist and surprise, surprise -- the PLA soldier.
Now how do you explain that phenomenon? Since everyone of those people I am sure has gone through years and years of patriotic and political education. I think maybe you should give Chinese people a little bit more credit, to compete and survive in a nation of billion require quite a lot of thinking!
And in my opinion, Chinese education is doing just fine. The current policy is to put an emphasize on fairness, to make the system equal opportunity to all. The government would not attempt to do too much on education quality but concentrate on what the government authority is good at doing. There is a policy lean towards bringing the educational hardware of poorer area to be better compare with the cities.

Originally Posted by airsuperiority

Are boy scouts considered military? Do boy scouts carry guns which pit them in a role-play of war scenario and conquest? And even then, how old do boy scouts begin? Discipline and teamwork is one thing, but military role-play for children which carries the theme of military force is another.

All those things you've mentioned are strategy and competitive-based, and children only begin to play those after they reach a certain age, usually toddler age of approximately 7. This is when they now begin to possess the brainpower, rationale, and logic to comprehend more advanced situation. That, in Piaget's definition, is called Concrete Operations

Boyscouts are not military, but they do wear uniform, follow ranks, plant flags and indeed do a lot of the things considered to be paramilitary. You can choose to draw the line where you want, but per say, Hitler Youth is a boy scout.

I am from HK too, I played animal chess when I was 2-3 years old. I started Chinese chess when I was 5 years old, and I did weiqi when I was 12. There was also that war game with those little wooden blocks representing aircraft, tanks and infantry which we can get at any candy store... whats that name again? but anyways, I was playing that when I was 5.

And I can tell you when I was 3-4 I knew how to lay traps, take advantage of my pieces strengths and exploit my opponents weaknesses. These are all war games, Chess is a tactical game, weiqi is a strategical game; and I can assure you I understand what an infantry is on the chess board and what use he is to me at that age. I know I am in conquest or being conquered.

I think you are reading too much into things. You can argue that teaching martial arts to children or gunnery is militarization of them. But you can also see the health and disciple aspect of it as well.

Originally Posted by airsuperiority

1. Militarism is from the idea of giving them toy guns, putting them military uniforms, teaching them to plant the national flag. I can let the 3rd part get by as just patriotism, which isn't an issue, but everything else: toy guns, military uniforms, are. It can't get any more overt than that in the symbolism. If that isn't a symbol of militarism, I don't know what is. It doesn't matter if it's re-enacting or not; the theme itself already fulfills them all.

2. I never mentioned the PLA the whole time.

3. You might have gone to a catholic public school, but I didn't. There are plenty of public schools in Canada that don't teach God. Also I never said anything about "teaching God isn't exploiting" neither, although I'm not sure if going to a Catholic school can be considered an exploitation. Furthermore, if your school had made it clear it's going to be a Catholic school, then it's pretty given that we all expect what the theme is going to be. The same thing goes with private schools that dictates uniform, military schools that dictate military traditions, certain colleges that dictate certain cultures, etc. Those are given, and applicants who applied could expect a certain theme. As for the current incident, if I'm correct that school is just an ordinary kindergarten, not any particular Party schools or military-themed related institutions.

4. Explaining an action does not make the action legitimate and acceptable. This is something I learned early on because my major in Psychology talks a lot about understanding human minds, including mass murderers like Jeffrey Dunham. Sure, he had psychopathic disorder (DSM-diagnosed), and he struggled for a long time because he knew what he's doing was wrong and he even experienced cognitive dissonance when his acts of fetish conflicted with his moral compass(yes he knew what was considered right or wrong, as his family had taught him certain moral dictions), however as much as we can have the hearts of sympathy and sympathize him for his hard life and his victims, it won't make his actions any less wrong just simply now we understood what he's done. One in control of their own behaviors should be morally responsible for their own actions. Treat institutes and states as individual actors, and their own actions are their own burdens of responsibilities. As HK-Canadian, I grew up in HK in my early days, and I learned about Opium War and the 8 Nations Alliances and all the humiliations and things, but this isn't the ticket to do anything we want. Why Diaoyu and West Bank remains so contending to this day has to do with neither sides willing to yield nor compromise. The problem had already strained the relationships from both sides, destroyed opportunities to work together, jobs, properties, lives, progresses, advances, and pretty much serious butterfly effects that stemmed from the sins of our fathers. As the future generation, the only way to end conflict is either to cooperate and work it out together like civil people and descendants of a proud civilization, or treat your competitor as enemy and overpowering them with muscles, leaving destruction in its wake, causing greater enmity, disrespect and bitterness between both sides, more revenge, more distrust, and more destruction to lives and families, more misunderstandings. It's unfortunate that this school teaches the hard method to its students. Furthermore, I even say, is there even a need to teach militarism to children? If they grow up to love their country, every enlistment will be voluntary. Furthermore, teaching that stuff is absolutely ridiculous. If HK, Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan today experiences invasions, citizens will bear arms voluntarily without truly needing propaganda or slogans. This national identity is everywhere, particularly when one's way of live is threatened, social identity is threatened, and people will act on their own. Propaganda only rings the ears, but most will make these choices from their hearts. NO education needed. With that said, I don't really see a need to teach such. In addition, your explanation, I tell you man, is the more advanced stages of altruism. But altruism and sacrificing self for others must first occur with the teaching of altruism, good citizenship, good civil duties, and most of all, proper right of heart, code of honor, and sense of moral fiber and duty from within. The issues of teaching these to them at such an early age is that they have yet even understand moral concepts properly, according to their developmental stages. I can go on forever just on this alone.

5. The extreme I'm referring to is introducing and role-playing military conquest, and instilling political views at an age the kids even barely understand basic morality. And while I'm glad the old Mao-ist eras are gone, I can only hope they don't teach anti-Japanese hatred to the kids. I won't be surprised if some teachers do.

6. Actually you're very wrong about that you can't teach kids think critically. Throughout my early education careers, often in the textbook I'll see questions such as "List 3 reasons why XXXX is right? List 3 reasons why XXXX is wrong? Who is right? Who is wrong? Why? How can you improve it? What will you do, and why?" Questions like these may seem like nothing, but in fact these force you to think from both sides of the perspective. Even comparative essays serve this purpose. My secondary school history teacher taught us how to dissect primary sources, secondary sources, examine for bias, and we even did exercises of reading articles. Even how academia's requirement of using various sources or specifically academic articles, teaching us how to write papers, etc, are all part of critical thinking. Earlier this year during March I was taking a mandatory writing course where we were to examine journal articles and critique them, examining critically of the researcher's bias, research methods, potential confounds,etc. One of the articles I argued again was Hare's definition of psychopath, and Hare is a very well-known researcher. Even this semester we studied criticisms of Freud, and after I finish replying to you, I have to hand in a paper where I argue against Rule Utilitarianism. As you can see, these are ALL critical thinking.

7. Lastly, your final sentences only represent your personal views. Math is for problem solving tool, Science is for understanding the world better and interests and preparing for future career, but how about politics?

1. If you think militarism is just toy guns and military uniforms, then I say your definition of militarism is pretty harmless to teach to kids. Why do you think it's fine for kids to wear a doctor's uniform, but not a soldier's uniform? Do you think doctors are inherently more noble, more worthy for kids to imitate, than soldiers?

2. Maybe you didn't specifically mention the PLA, but these kids are not imitating al-Qaeda or the Taliban. They're imitating the People's Liberation Army, which comes with a set of values that does not advocate gratuitous violence or invading other nations. In fact, putting on PLA uniforms and marching with toy guns is a far less violent activity than watching an episode of G. I. Joe.

3. You're assuming that I got a choice to go to a Catholic school. Remember that this was a catholic *public* school. I went there because that was the school in our school zone. Furthermore, I also pointed out that morality classes are as much of a value-indoctrination as religion classes.

4. Really, you think South Korea doesn't teach kids about their soldiers? You do realize that they have mandatory enlistment, right? You think kids in South Korea are never taught about their military and just get dropped into the army when they turn 18?

And I don't see what your example of psychopathy have anything to do with the issue. You seem to be taking an issue with China teaching its kids that soldiers are a noble and important profession. You talk about cooperation and understanding, but you forget that such things are only possible if built from a position of strength. Try talking about cooperation and understanding to the Japanese in 1931, and see how far you get. You think the world has changed? Look at Iraq. As much a tyrant as Saddam Hussein was, the Iraqi people were still better off under him than in the failed state that they live in now. Saddam made every effort to cooperate with the UN in order to prevent a US invasion. Did that help him?

No, teaching kids that it's noble to sacrifice one's life for one's country is not going to automatically make them altruists. Altruism is a life-long process. However, what it does teach those kids is that there *are* things worth dying for. When they're in grade one, they think it's defending the country. When they grow older, they realize that China is not about to be invaded anytime soon, but this sense that there are still things worth sacrificing stays with them.

I am telling you this from personal experience. I went through exactly this kind of education in grade one and two. You haven't experienced it, nor have you done any study on people who have experienced it. At this point, you are just making conjectures based on your own hypotheses. Hypotheses need to be tested, not taken as conclusions just because you *think* it makes sense. That's how religion works, not science.

5. How is the enactment of planting a flag on a territory that they consider as their own, and which happens to be uninhabited, constitute the role-playing of a military conquest?

Also, your reaction reminds me of the Chinese media. The Chinese media makes a big deal out of some Japanese text books that whitewash Japanese WW2 atrocities. They don't understand that unlike China, Japanese schools can choose which texts to use and which not to use. Just because some school books were printed doesn't mean that's what's being taught in all Japanese schools. And how do I know this? Because I have a friend who grew up in Japan, and he told me so.

Likewise, you're speculating that Chinese school teach kids to hate the Japanese based only on your own extrapolation. Maybe you should just trust those who have actually gone through the Chinese education system?

6. Are you familiar with Kohlberg's stages of morality? Children have to go through 6 stages in their moral development, and it is only in stages 5 and 6, the post-conventional morality stages, that they begin to understand concepts like social contract and universal principles. You cannot understand critical thinking if you're stuck in pre-conventional or conventional morality. Kohlberg himself stated that stages 5 and 6 are for adults or the rare teenager, and not even all adults make it to the post-conventional stage. Most kids are in stages 1 and 2 of their moral development, which involves simple obedience and exchange of favors. How can you teach them critical thinking at that age?

7. If we see Math and Science as tools, then Politics is the teaching of why you need these tools. There is political education at an early age in Canada, even if you don't recognize it. When I was in grade one and two in China, we were taught to study hard so that when we grow up, we can make contributions to the country. When I moved to Canada, I was taught that I should study hard because it will let me get a good job and make lots of money. Both are political statements, the difference is just individualist vs collectivist values.

Originally Posted by solarz

1. If you think militarism is just toy guns and military uniforms, then I say your definition of militarism is pretty harmless to teach to kids. Why do you think it's fine for kids to wear a doctor's uniform, but not a soldier's uniform? Do you think doctors are inherently more noble, more worthy for kids to imitate, than soldiers?

2. Maybe you didn't specifically mention the PLA, but these kids are not imitating al-Qaeda or the Taliban. They're imitating the People's Liberation Army, which comes with a set of values that does not advocate gratuitous violence or invading other nations. In fact, putting on PLA uniforms and marching with toy guns is a far less violent activity than watching an episode of G. I. Joe.

3. You're assuming that I got a choice to go to a Catholic school. Remember that this was a catholic *public* school. I went there because that was the school in our school zone. Furthermore, I also pointed out that morality classes are as much of a value-indoctrination as religion classes.

4. Really, you think South Korea doesn't teach kids about their soldiers? You do realize that they have mandatory enlistment, right? You think kids in South Korea are never taught about their military and just get dropped into the army when they turn 18?

And I don't see what your example of psychopathy have anything to do with the issue. You seem to be taking an issue with China teaching its kids that soldiers are a noble and important profession. You talk about cooperation and understanding, but you forget that such things are only possible if built from a position of strength. Try talking about cooperation and understanding to the Japanese in 1931, and see how far you get. You think the world has changed? Look at Iraq. As much a tyrant as Saddam Hussein was, the Iraqi people were still better off under him than in the failed state that they live in now. Saddam made every effort to cooperate with the UN in order to prevent a US invasion. Did that help him?

No, teaching kids that it's noble to sacrifice one's life for one's country is not going to automatically make them altruists. Altruism is a life-long process. However, what it does teach those kids is that there *are* things worth dying for. When they're in grade one, they think it's defending the country. When they grow older, they realize that China is not about to be invaded anytime soon, but this sense that there are still things worth sacrificing stays with them.

I am telling you this from personal experience. I went through exactly this kind of education in grade one and two. You haven't experienced it, nor have you done any study on people who have experienced it. At this point, you are just making conjectures based on your own hypotheses. Hypotheses need to be tested, not taken as conclusions just because you *think* it makes sense. That's how religion works, not science.

5. How is the enactment of planting a flag on a territory that they consider as their own, and which happens to be uninhabited, constitute the role-playing of a military conquest?

Also, your reaction reminds me of the Chinese media. The Chinese media makes a big deal out of some Japanese text books that whitewash Japanese WW2 atrocities. They don't understand that unlike China, Japanese schools can choose which texts to use and which not to use. Just because some school books were printed doesn't mean that's what's being taught in all Japanese schools. And how do I know this? Because I have a friend who grew up in Japan, and he told me so.

Likewise, you're speculating that Chinese school teach kids to hate the Japanese based only on your own extrapolation. Maybe you should just trust those who have actually gone through the Chinese education system?

6. Are you familiar with Kohlberg's stages of morality? Children have to go through 6 stages in their moral development, and it is only in stages 5 and 6, the post-conventional morality stages, that they begin to understand concepts like social contract and universal principles. You cannot understand critical thinking if you're stuck in pre-conventional or conventional morality. Kohlberg himself stated that stages 5 and 6 are for adults or the rare teenager, and not even all adults make it to the post-conventional stage. Most kids are in stages 1 and 2 of their moral development, which involves simple obedience and exchange of favors. How can you teach them critical thinking at that age?

7. If we see Math and Science as tools, then Politics is the teaching of why you need these tools. There is political education at an early age in Canada, even if you don't recognize it. When I was in grade one and two in China, we were taught to study hard so that when we grow up, we can make contributions to the country. When I moved to Canada, I was taught that I should study hard because it will let me get a good job and make lots of money. Both are political statements, the difference is just individualist vs collectivist values.

I really like this post of yours. Lots of good points and backings. I also see perhaps we're establishing a clearer understanding.

1. The main reason I am against introducing militarism at such an early age (3-5) is because they have yet to establish sufficient moral understanding and distinctions towards violence. Let me remind that children at this age (3-5) is only in Preoperational stage(according to Piaget), and Preconventional morality at best (Piaget). They are still only learning some of the more basic things and these are the ages your parents are still teaching you a lot of stuffs. At this stage, why should kids even be taught something so advanced such as politics and soldiers and government? They will not understand, and probably will just blindly accept it. This is why I am so against teaching military to children at this age, and the children in those photos are properly approximately this age. I took preschool at age 2 in HK, kindergarten at 3-5, grade 1 in canada at age 6. I'm not as opposed if the materials were introduced at a much later age, such as grade 2, etc. This is because at grade 2, that's approximately age 6-7, the children will be in Concrete Operational stage(Piaget), and can begin to grasp more logic and more advanced ideas. While thinking's not fully developed, much of the academic programs and teaching begins at this age. I am simply very opposed to teaching kids about military and politics at age 3-5. In other approach, let's consider this: in Cognitive and Developmental Psychology our earliest memories occur around 3, and from then on, what are some of the things you are learning or should be taught at age 3-5? Should it be basic values, conducts, manners, cognitive, academics, and various stuffs? Or politics, PLA, etc? Is it suitable at age 3? I mean, look at the children in those photos. What would they normally be doing? What should they be doing and learning at this age?
As for your comments about doctor, why doctors are better off than soldier is because the duties of a soldier can be controversial, in particular the violence.

2. I agree with you, and no, PLA never really came into my mind throughout this thread. You can call me sensitive, but sometimes I do find it a bit concerning with what messages and symbols are being exposed to children these days. While I can't and won't be expecting loving cuddly toy as being the only thing "politically correct", stuffs like G. I Joe are indeed carry a bit more violent tone. While although PLA or any soldiers in this definition can represent heroism, duty, and courage, it also denotes machoism, violence, force, domination, as with any soldier. (It doesn't matter if it's PLA or G.I Joe which is being played.) Although toys can represent gender roles for children to learn at this age(such as G.I Joe or care bear), what other contents or messages Regardless, I have less issues with basic toys as long as it's not too overboard, and rather more with "mock exercise" like the ones in the photo (which was also about diaoyu island), and what appears on TV and mass media these days. Furthermore, the focus here is how the kids are given an event which carries a very strong political tone which combines with military-theme and hard power.

3. Yes you're correct too, that teaching morality is also teaching value( that's what it is). The differences are , morality and politics are different. Politics can be more of a preference, but morality is human behaviour

4. As mentioned before, teaching isn't a problem as long as you aren't teaching them at age 3-5 and making them do mock-exercises at those age like in those photos.

5. Reiterate: Issues not about teaching military, but issue of when, and how, and what. When: what age? 3-5? too early. How: What are you teaching them? What did you teach them about should be and should-not? What: PLA? Or political agenda?

6. That's what I'm getting at: they don't possess critical thinking yet to understand the complexities of politics and the notions of actions. You must explain to them about both sides of the picture, not just simply something for them to obey without them understanding. And this is the problem of Diaoyu Islands and making them do a mock exercise: You tell them it belongs to China, and therefore must defend or whatever. The issue is that they will also learn to accept this and when in the future they will see/associate land disputes as legitimate definition of using force or the hard approach.

7. Very correct again, in regards to the collectivist and individualist differences. Just be noted, it's in Grade 1, so at least it's not age 3-5. Introducing those concepts at grade 1-2 etc is the good time to begin telling them. Any earlier and it's too early.

8. Issues of introducing life sacrifice too early is that children will have yet to understand the more important message and concept: life is precious. If the child has yet to learn the preciousness of human life and you're teaching them sacrifice, their concepts of life continuity and values of the importance of human life can be an issue.


9.Why Diaoyu Island dispute can be a problematic topic to teach to children, especially in China, is because while public education may not necessarily directly teach anti-Japanese sentiments, this doesn't prevent teachers from saying it at their own individual levels. And also given because there is a very heavy anti-japanese sentiment in China, passive racist messages can be unknowingly shared and to influence the children. This is also an issue I have with political messages being taught to children too early.


The biggest issue I have all along is teaching these materials to children at an age too quick. This is because at an age too early, teaching them something too advanced will skip the fundamental basics of which more core ideas diverge. Without first learning peace, war will not be understood as a means to create peace, or why war should be avoided. Without understanding appreciation of life, life sacrifice will mean much less, and why human life is so precious.
Furthermore, because politics itself isn't so simple as black and white, teaching them too early will only lead to a very basic Conventional Morality concepts and not understand the complications within. And this is also how you have people who thinks communist = evil. They just don't possess any more advanced understanding and only rely on most basic stereotypes and non-critical approach to associate with those issues.

And Solar those points you brought up are pretty good.

Originally Posted by airsuperiority

Good points, and thanks for reminding me of my bias. Actually I possess no ill feelings of the PLA, and in fact might even see them acting as professional and restrained as HKPF, who I also put in a very high regard. My disgusts is to do with instilling politics and militarism into children at such an age, when they had barely even begin to grasp the understandings of basic moral ideas, judgements of right and wrong, etc. why should kids be taught violence and politics? That is my concern. Furthermore, bringing kids into politics or teaching them to think of politics in a certain way is equivalent to exploiting the innocence of their minds. They have yet to learn or understand anything yet, and already tell them how to think, instilling our political views? And what's even more alarming is the entire theme of using violence and force to solve a problem and to get what you think is yours. Before diplomacy, a gesture of civilized manner of talking and working things out and for compromise. Furthermore, if what is taught today is already so extreme, what prevents teachers from teaching them Japanese people are evil, and that the CCP is god? There is a need to teach moral rights and judgment so they can think independently, but politics are preferences and beliefs.
If today canadian schools are teaching to hate communists, I will sign the petition to withdraw such content too. It therefore has absolutely nothing to do with PLA; it's the fact that forcing our political preferences on others, on the innocent ones, the kids, that is unacceptable.

Good point, when I first when to US, I also had the same feeling about religion. I saw children as young as toddlers and 5 years old would go to church with their parents every weekend. For me growing up in China for the early part of my life, I was mainly taught atheism and I was naturally skeptical for religion. When I went to church with my friend, there are a lot of things I was learning which was very strange concept.

But this is not so for the little kids, because they grow up being taught that there is god and Christianity is the natural order. I mean... if you read the bible it is a few hundred pages of craziness and nonsense, or at least it is a very deep book with a lot of author from over 1000 years and a lot of meanings. So how can you tell things to little kids who have no basic concept of critical thinking that this is it, this is the world of god. And that if they grow up with Christianity, chances are they will believe that for the rest of their life. So is it ethical for them to accept whatever region Christianity/Islam when they rarely have the sense of self? To me I don't think that is fair, I think in best of the worlds, kids should be exposed to all regions when they are growing up, and only when they have learned all religions or atheism, when they learn the ability to do critical thinking, they should have the right to pick a religion.

So yes, I agree with you on the kindergarten, they should not be teaching the kids that the Japanese are the enemy when they don't have the concept of good vs evil, reality vs friction. However think about this religion example that I just listed, I'm sure you don't have the same response to this kindergarten example do you? Because it never cross your mind that this might not be something that is acceptable to do. So in the end I believe both of our perception is still very much cultural based. And both are wrong/right.

But I'm going to say, I think hat kindergarten's example is an isolated case. I'm pretty sure the CCP does not go tell all the kindergarten in China to play this game.

Originally Posted by jackliu

Good point, when I first when to US, I also had the same feeling about religion. I saw children as young as toddlers and 5 years old would go to church with their parents every weekend. For me growing up in China for the early part of my life, I was mainly taught atheism and I was naturally skeptical for religion. When I went to church with my friend, there are a lot of things I was learning which was very strange concept.

But this is not so for the little kids, because they grow up being taught that there is god and Christianity is the natural order. I mean... if you read the bible it is a few hundred pages of craziness and nonsense, or at least it is a very deep book with a lot of author from over 1000 years and a lot of meanings. So how can you tell things to little kids who have no basic concept of critical thinking that this is it, this is the world of god. And that if they grow up with Christianity, chances are they will believe that for the rest of their life. So is it ethical for them to accept whatever region Christianity/Islam when they rarely have the sense of self? To me I don't think that is fair, I think in best of the worlds, kids should be exposed to all regions when they are growing up, and only when they have learned all religions or atheism, when they learn the ability to do critical thinking, they should have the right to pick a religion.

So yes, I agree with you on the kindergarten, they should not be teaching the kids that the Japanese are the enemy when they don't have the concept of good vs evil, reality vs friction. However think about this religion example that I just listed, I'm sure you don't have the same response to this kindergarten example do you? Because it never cross your mind that this might not be something that is acceptable to do. So in the end I believe both of our perception is still very much cultural based. And both are wrong/right.

But I'm going to say, I think hat kindergarten's example is an isolated case. I'm pretty sure the CCP does not go tell all the kindergarten in China to play this game.

You're very correct. I also don't think CCP is crazy enough to do that to public kindergarten yet..or I hope not. It was an isolated case, but I why I picked it up is because given our understanding of some of the more prevalent thoughts and cultures in China, what occurred this time demonstrates itself as a symbolic gesture of what this sentiment has led to protruding. Of course I was also particularly concerned with instilling such types of thoughts at such an early age.

In my opinion, kids at such an early age should be taught the most basics, being manners, basic moral conducts such as honesty, respect, acceptance, and values such as family and love, and other things which help their development. And unless the kid actually ask about that stuff, I won't go up and start telling them these things.