Quality of Education in China? Overnationalism?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lezt

Junior Member
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.
 

solarz

Brigadier
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.
 
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.
 

jackliu

Banned Idiot
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 

xywdx

Junior Member
Regarding the quality of Canadian education compared to Chinese, did you happen to be in BC?

I still remember when I was in grade 8 and was asked by my parents about what I learned at school today, and all I could think of was how much salary teachers in other provinces are getting, and how many % per year they are increasing at, and how our province is "failing" in comparison. Another round was just in the news recently, I'll leave it at that because I still have a great deal of respect for some of my teachers.

Airsuperiority, I mean no offense but I feel that in this case you are falling victim to the all-too-common subconsciously imprinted idea that everything happens in China is orchestrated at the top level. You might not even realize it but this itself is a result of political propaganda.

These children are simply tools by which local school administrators use to score some easy political points, and is in no way representative of the quality of education just like my example above does not condemn Canadian education in its entirety.

You might wonder how much damage this is causing the kids. Well that's hard to assess in the long run, it would appear they were only taking pictures with toy guns, otherwise this is just a dress up obstacle course. And after reading the comments in the link I am fairly optimistic that critical thinking skills would develop regardless, because even though it's bad now, it was worse before.
 
Regarding the quality of Canadian education compared to Chinese, did you happen to be in BC?

I still remember when I was in grade 8 and was asked by my parents about what I learned at school today, and all I could think of was how much salary teachers in other provinces are getting, and how many % per year they are increasing at, and how our province is "failing" in comparison. Another round was just in the news recently, I'll leave it at that because I still have a great deal of respect for some of my teachers.

Airsuperiority, I mean no offense but I feel that in this case you are falling victim to the all-too-common subconsciously imprinted idea that everything happens in China is orchestrated at the top level. You might not even realize it but this itself is a result of political propaganda.

These children are simply tools by which local school administrators use to score some easy political points, and is in no way representative of the quality of education just like my example above does not condemn Canadian education in its entirety.

You might wonder how much damage this is causing the kids. Well that's hard to assess in the long run, it would appear they were only taking pictures with toy guns, otherwise this is just a dress up obstacle course. And after reading the comments in the link I am fairly optimistic that critical thinking skills would develop regardless, because even though it's bad now, it was worse before.

Actually the title of the thread is inappropriate. I wasnt even sure what to label this thread, so I put all those question marks. If you follow the rest of our discussions you will understand clearer of what I'm expressing. The title is the biggest mistake.

And yes I'm from BC. I recall all those strikes from various things, and I assume you're talking about VSB in general. Even as a matter of fact, SFU had their fair of strikes lately, and it was pretty disruptive.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Just thought of something.

Hong Kong has never had to personally take control of its military defence, and I think this is a big reason why nationalistic propaganda seems to foreign to HKers.

The fact is, nationalistic propaganda is most important for military recruitment. This is an invariable fact, whether you're in Mainland China, Taiwan, USA, or France. And because of its pervasive presence, people who grew up with it sees it as something quite normal. On the other hand, because HK has never had to raise its own army (they've only done so under the British), they've never been exposed to this kind of propaganda, and thus it seems "over the top" and "outrageous" to many of them.
 
Just thought of something.

Hong Kong has never had to personally take control of its military defence, and I think this is a big reason why nationalistic propaganda seems to foreign to HKers.

The fact is, nationalistic propaganda is most important for military recruitment. This is an invariable fact, whether you're in Mainland China, Taiwan, USA, or France. And because of its pervasive presence, people who grew up with it sees it as something quite normal. On the other hand, because HK has never had to raise its own army (they've only done so under the British), they've never been exposed to this kind of propaganda, and thus it seems "over the top" and "outrageous" to many of them.

Good observation. I can definitely see this relate to Canada as well. If you talk about the military too much in Canada, people either think you're related to the industry, or you're boring. One clarification I will make is that HK is of course a pacifist society, so while even though we do have our own love for our Chinese culture and heritage and all, we are rational and cultured in our expressions, and even find "full of hot blood and bold patriotism" funny. This is also why the textbooks makes us feel appalled because it's telling us how to feel about the flag and all, although in our minds we feel we don't need any of that. We knew where our hearts lie, so telling us how to love is in a sense telling us we aren't doing it right, which would insult us and our ways in the process.

Here's an example of what can be considered HK's approach and perception towards being Chinese and nationalism.
[video=youtube;R-dgbqgczNk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-dgbqgczNk[/video]
[video=youtube;-klzAJfwiDo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-klzAJfwiDo[/video]
If you can ignore the monkey bouncing they were doing and listen to the lyrics, you would understand this song is quite meaningful. And songs are good representations of culture, which thus expresses HK's views in a way.

有佢教曉我地唔係東亞病夫
黃皮膚都可以做番自己
唔要跟人地抄人地黐人地
中國人唔要睇死自己

有佢教曉我地唔係東亞病夫
黃皮膚都可以做番自己
唔要跟人地抄人地黐人地
中國人唔要睇死自己

公元二千年 中國五千年
六十年前呢度 曾經出過一個人
大家又知唔知道 佢又做過一的事
行過一條路 令到全世界既人都知道
乜野叫做中國人中國精神
佢拍過電影四五部 透過活動既影像熒光幕上
前所未有既動作速度 拳腳套路哲學角度
無分國度用現代既電影製造
向全世界解釋中國功夫文化
又行o左一條新既道路
截拳道 大懶堂今次係呢度
淨係想你做番一個似樣既中國人
可以學人唔使下下抄人
至好就用心去消化人地點做
試下又問下
呢度點解又有一班失敗既人
唔支持自己人成日走去扮其他人

有佢教曉我地唔係東亞病夫
黃皮膚都可以做番自己
唔要跟人地抄人地黐人地
中國人唔要睇死自己

有佢教曉我地唔係東亞病夫
黃皮膚都可以做番自己
唔要跟人地抄人地黐人地
中國人唔要睇死自己

一個大中華 一個李小龍
無一個中國人唔為佢覺得驕傲
西洋拳劍柔道詠春北派堂腿十二路
各門各路各式各樣 每一種招數
佢都用紙筆去紀錄 紀錄低
唔駛做乜野門派既徒弟
以無法為有法
你自己就係最好既方法
要真正表達你本質
至係最積極既武德

佢揀左呢條路佢又行出左呢一步
創立左一套拳法叫做截拳道
佢既主張做人要有自己既態度
唔可以墨守成規就原地踏步
成日企響度 得個諗字又唔走去做
做 又諗左條歪路
想做就去做 但就最緊要行條正路
就如截拳道 療陰插眼佢一定唔做

唔要欺騙自己 扮假鬼唔三唔四
李小龍精神不死 中國人唔會忘記
唔要欺騙自己扮 假鬼唔三唔四
李小龍精神不死 中國人唔會忘記

你要知道我地中國人有乜唔好
我地有五千年歷史你有冇
為左面子變成白色恐怖
你問心個句你有冇
我想知道我地中國人有乜唔好
你話我封閉 我話我有分數
為世界貢獻又有乜唔好
係每個人最基本你做到

有佢教曉我地唔係東亞病夫
黃皮膚都可以做番自己
唔要跟人地抄人地黐人地
中國人唔要睇死自己

有佢教曉我地唔係東亞病夫
黃皮膚都可以做番自己
唔要跟人地抄人地黐人地
中國人唔要睇死自己

有佢教曉我地唔係東亞病夫
黃皮膚都可以做番自己
唔要跟人地抄人地黐人地
中國人唔要睇死自己
 

ahadicow

Junior Member
Most adults have a arrogant attitude towards kids, that translates to overly ambitous goals for education. Like we pretend we should be teaching children about morality. It is paradoxical. To us, a moral person is someone who made a choice to do the right thing. There is no way one can be moral without choosing to be moral. Therefore, education about morality should be education about making choices. However, we judge kids to be incapable of making choices. So, "teaching children morality" normally entails forcing kid to act the moral choice their parents and teacher had made. The epitome of that model of teaching is the infamous "say you're sorry" in which we force kids to adopt our moral view but resulted apprently in teaching kids how to use lies to appease social order.

To withhold some aspect of the world from children for the reason that "they won't be able to understand" is a expression of our adult arrogance. I don't dispute that a child won't understand politics or war or sexual relationship. but the question is do we, as adults, understand these things? I don't think we do. At least I don't. I accepted them as parts of human existance and I have no doubt that my next generation would have to accept them too. So, why pretend that we know all the answers? why judge and oppress our children and make them less of a human being? why not give them the decency of honesty.

The best education is the honest education. The world is a flawed place, human seldomly live up to their moral ideals, most of us are self-interested beings trying to navigate a precarious landscape in search of a better life. If we understand our place, and we are thinking realistically, we'd conclude the highest moral we can hope to "teach" our children is to be humble(by being humble oursalves). That's why I dispise high moral ideals like peace, love, alturism and self-sacrfice being indoctrinized into children. These are just words for them. One would learn the value of peace if he/she had saw the reality of war. So, realistic war movies and news about war are the best materials for teaching peace. Let them see how human flesh being blown into pieces, how human dignity are shreded and trampped, that would make them far more "peace-loving" than giving them some abstract on the value of peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top