I couldn't help but feel like the History and Moral Philosophy class was not substantially different from the inserted government coursework we see a lot today (e.g. CRT, gender studies, etc.). Maybe it was from Johnnie's father's comment early on about it being something like propaganda. Sure, the content of the class was different, but it was still government inserted education. Can I really say it's good to insert indoctrination into education because I agree with the content?
Seems true as well, that those segments are Heinlen's way of inserting his own viewpoints without being totally direct about it.
You're right in that I'm very attuned to seeing the pushing of political ideology into kids. I wasn't really having an emotional response, but more of noticing this in the book and thought it would make a good discussion point. I am a bit torn on it, but that's mostly from being calloused from seeing the garbage ideology being pushed in our own schools. The fact of the matter is if they were to teach good ideology in schools today, I'd most likely celebrate it.
Your many points regarding correct opinions did make me think of Yuri Bezmenov and his talks/writings on Soviet subversion. The "medicine" he suggests for this is essentially "correct" subversion. Subversion of truth. I don't think he says it directly, but essentially is speaking to the necessity to teach good ideology as a shield against the bad.
It's not education in general, just the History and Moral Philosophy part I'm pointing out. It's just inserted curriculum to teach the kids what to think. It's not described as just a general history class even, but as a government inserted course. So my point being that while I tend to agree more with what it's teaching, is that the only difference between History and Moral Philosophy versus something like Black History or Critical Race Theory?
It's more of a food for thought type question, as I can't decide for myself. Part of me says "yeah, it's good to teach" while the other questions my own hypocrisy.
Fundamentally it's a necessary evil. You have to teach the next generation how to act otherwise the society will fail. The only way to make sure everyone is taught the same thing is to apply it via society in the form of curriculum.
The society didn't just happen by accident, and it requires "maintenance" to continue to function and retain that form. It's a fair point that "education" and "indoctrination" are not discrete categories, they blur together.
I couldn't help but feel like the History and Moral Philosophy class was not substantially different from the inserted government coursework we see a lot today (e.g. CRT, gender studies, etc.). Maybe it was from Johnnie's father's comment early on about it being something like propaganda. Sure, the content of the class was different, but it was still government inserted education. Can I really say it's good to insert indoctrination into education because I agree with the content?
Seems true as well, that those segments are Heinlen's way of inserting his own viewpoints without being totally direct about it.
You're right in that I'm very attuned to seeing the pushing of political ideology into kids. I wasn't really having an emotional response, but more of noticing this in the book and thought it would make a good discussion point. I am a bit torn on it, but that's mostly from being calloused from seeing the garbage ideology being pushed in our own schools. The fact of the matter is if they were to teach good ideology in schools today, I'd most likely celebrate it.
Your many points regarding correct opinions did make me think of Yuri Bezmenov and his talks/writings on Soviet subversion. The "medicine" he suggests for this is essentially "correct" subversion. Subversion of truth. I don't think he says it directly, but essentially is speaking to the necessity to teach good ideology as a shield against the bad.
It's not education in general, just the History and Moral Philosophy part I'm pointing out. It's just inserted curriculum to teach the kids what to think. It's not described as just a general history class even, but as a government inserted course. So my point being that while I tend to agree more with what it's teaching, is that the only difference between History and Moral Philosophy versus something like Black History or Critical Race Theory?
It's more of a food for thought type question, as I can't decide for myself. Part of me says "yeah, it's good to teach" while the other questions my own hypocrisy.
Fundamentally it's a necessary evil. You have to teach the next generation how to act otherwise the society will fail. The only way to make sure everyone is taught the same thing is to apply it via society in the form of curriculum.
The society didn't just happen by accident, and it requires "maintenance" to continue to function and retain that form. It's a fair point that "education" and "indoctrination" are not discrete categories, they blur together.