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.
