Russian Special Military Operation in the Ukraine - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion

Nah, this is weird by Russian standards too. My school never did anything remotely like this. We barely even had flags, let alone being made to conduct photo ops for an ongoing war (for me that would have been the second Chechen War).

Actually this is very much like what we were taught American schools were like. Students made to pray to the flag and a portrait of the president, sieg heiling the flag some, and then having army recruiters make the rounds to sign up anyone whose parents didn’t pay for their school lunch.
 
Russian government has been tightening the screws for patriotic education for quite a while now. Among other things, they introduced questionable subjects to school curriculum, such as "Foundations of Orthodox (or Islamic) culture" and "Conversations about what is imporant" that are all rah rah Russia stronk shake hands with the veteran. According to official statements, the course is aimed at "strengthening traditional Russian spiritual and moral values" and "fostering patriotism" among Russian schoolchildren.
 
Glad my mom packed my lunch.

EDIT: I did have a pretty jingoistic rah-rah America education, but with a deeply religious flavor (e.g. portraying the Founders as devout Christians), since I went to a religious school run by people who felt education was better in the 50s and 60s (it objectively was). It was a bit silly in retrospect, but hardly ruined my life or anything. Later, I've witnessed the partisan "America was born in wickedness, only the Democrats can heal us" catechesis that's drilled into modern kids' heads, and it's a thousand times worse. Seems like Russia's going back to Cold War-style jingoism.
 
Last edited:
Glad my mom packed my lunch.

EDIT: I did have a pretty jingoistic rah-rah America education, but with a deeply religious flavor (e.g. portraying the Founders as devout Christians), since I went to a religious school run by people who felt education was better in the 50s and 60s (it objectively was). It was a bit silly in retrospect, but hardly ruined my life or anything. Later, I've witnessed the partisan "America was born in wickedness, only the Democrats can heal us" catechesis that's drilled into modern kids' heads, and it's a thousand times worse. Seems like Russia's going back to Cold War-style jingoism.
But you did do the prayer to the flag and saluting it, right?
I've seen it in films, it's super weird that you lot consider that normal. Even in Soviet schools, which were a fair bit more ideological than by the time I grew up, you weren't idolising the Soviet Union as a nation so much as you were idolising communism, the liberation of the worker, and the Soviet Union as a union of nations rather than just "Ura Russia!". But the US approach really doesn't strike me as ideological so much as just nationalistic. Did you ever celebrate more internationally influential liberal nations like France or England? Thinkers like Locke? The English Civil War? The French Revolution, Napoleon, and the Napeoleonic Wars? After all capitalism and liberal democracy as an ideology predates your nation's rise to prominence by centuries. Predates the discovery of the new world by Europe at all, really, since they arguably began with the Magna Carta (1215).
 
But you did do the prayer to the flag and saluting it, right?

Yeah, the Pledge of Allegiance has been around since WW1 - I assume that's the "prayer to the flag" you're referring to.

I've seen it in films, it's super weird that you lot consider that normal. Even in Soviet schools, which were a fair bit more ideological than by the time I grew up, you weren't idolising the Soviet Union as a nation so much as you were idolising communism, the liberation of the worker, and the Soviet Union as a union of nations rather than just "Ura Russia!". But the US approach really doesn't strike me as ideological so much as just nationalistic.

Definitely nationalistic. Programmatic American nationalism was born in WW1. At that time, there were still massive populations of immigrants in the USA whose primary loyalties were to their countries of origin. For example, in 1915, my great-grandpa's home town had a German-language newspaper and was doing charity drives to send care packages to German soldiers to fight against the wicked, hated French. So when Wilson managed to hoodwink us into the war, they realized fighting a war in Europe meant doing away with regional national loyalties. We couldn't be sending boys to war if they still hated the French weren't excited to kill Germans. So they banned German-language papers, introduced the Pledge to schools, other stuff like that. German Christian churches (incl Anabaptist, Reformed and Lutheran) would even put the American flag up front in the sanctuary to prove they weren't traitors. Over a century later, it's still there, something I find inappropriate, but something you can't remove without causing a shitstorm.

So if you think about it, the origin of all that stuff is drumming into Germans' heads that if they want to live in America, they'd better be Americans, not Germans, and take America's side, not Germany's, in a war. And you know what, I can't say it's entirely wrong-headed. You can't have massive populations of disloyal immigrants in a country.

Did you ever celebrate more internationally influential liberal nations like France or England? Thinkers like Locke? The English Civil War? The French Revolution, Napoleon, and the Napeoleonic Wars? After all capitalism and liberal democracy as an ideology predates your nation's rise to prominence by centuries. Predates the discovery of the new world by Europe at all, really, since they arguably began with the Magna Carta (1215).

This is a good question and maybe one I haven't thought a ton about, but I can stab at an answer. From 1783-1917, America's disposition toward Europe was pretty unfriendly, the overall dominant attitude being that Europe was a bloodthirsty continent of warmongers who never met a field they didn't want to soak with the blood of teenage boys. In fact, when Hiram Stevens Maxim was showing American investors his machine gun idea, he was reportedly told, "Go sell it in Europe - they can't ever get enough of killing each other over there."

So, prior to WW1, we were isolationist, anti-monarchy, and anti-imperialist., so I think 19th C Europe just didn't get any attention in our curriculum. However, we were extremely busy with westward expansion, and the Spanish Empire was crumbling during this time. So I learned a lot about Lewis & Clark, the Gilded Age, the Civil War, the railroad, etc. We also paid a fair bit of attention to the rest of the Americas - I learned more about Simon Bolivar and Benito Juarez than Napoleon Bonaparte and Queen Victoria. Now, I did learn about the Magna Carta, Locke, Hume, Smith, etc...American history prior to 1776 is English history, so I got a fair bit of that. I remember my high school econ teacher liked Smith a lot.

So the short answer is there was a lot going on in the Americas, so after the Revolution, traditional American education mostly focuses on the Americas, occasionally taking a break to give very, very brief attention to Europe, but I didn't really learn about the Napoleonic Wars at all until recently.
 
Russian government has been tightening the screws for patriotic education for quite a while now. Among other things, they introduced questionable subjects to school curriculum, such as "Foundations of Orthodox (or Islamic) culture" and "Conversations about what is imporant" that are all rah rah Russia stronk shake hands with the veteran. According to official statements, the course is aimed at "strengthening traditional Russian spiritual and moral values" and "fostering patriotism" among Russian schoolchildren.
I genuinely want to see the reactions And comments of the very cynical russians . Will probably get my side into orbit.
 
People have underestimated the impact of rampant social media and interconnectivity of human relations through such medium.

We no longer look to our parents, schools, or history for wisdom and connection to define what we are. Our children are now being taught to define their own identity through the spectrum of lgbqtneiwh whatever that may be, and be free from the constraints of villages, community and other important social functions that helps us understand and appreciate our friends and most importantly our foes.

Because we are defining what we are as what we want to be, people resist the call for self interest....as in, nationality. That's why lgbtiwjwbsi group together and refuse integration. Nationalism is the antithesis to their existence.

The self interest is no longer tied to our state, our village, or even our nation.

It is defined by pure self interest and pursuit of idealism/hedonism defined by social media which is so easy to fabricate and destroy what was in order to usher in absolute hedonism.

This is why Russia must resist Western ideologies. The self destructive nature of western world will destroy Russia into fragments of what it once was. This is especially important for Russia since Russia is made up of multiple ethnicities.

This war will either make or break Russia. Putin is betting his entire legacy on it. He is already pushing 70s. Russia needs a demographic revival through patriotism and self determination like Israel.
 
Last edited:
But the US approach really doesn't strike me as ideological so much as just nationalistic.
The contents of the "pledge of alligance" in the US (the words) are a reaction to both the United States Civil War of 1860-65 and to class-based violence in the US from around 1877 to 1900. Its a rejection of earlier American state-centric loyalties in favor of explicit loyalty to the federal (national) government. Its also an explicit rejection of the earlier tendency of American oaths to be to the US Constitution as a document rather than to the national government ("I pledge alligence to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands"). The oath of the US President is to the constitution. The oath of the US military is to the constitution (rather than the president). But this pledge by children is explicitly to the sitting government of the country itself.
The second set of words ("one nation, indivisible") is an explicit rejection of both the idea that any state could leave the United States (as in the US civil war) or the idea of other loyalties by americans other than to the national government.
The final phrase ("with liberty and justice for all") was initially about the issue of slavery and the US civil war. But it gained a different meaning in that it was taken eventually to say that the idea of questioning the equality and virtue of the US governmental system was unthinkable.
The pledge was forced on the country under the powers given to the national government during the first and second world wars.

It is nationalistic, but it is also an expression of unquestioning absolute loyalty to government in power. Whatever that government might be.

Did you ever celebrate more internationally influential liberal nations like France or England? Thinkers like Locke? The English Civil War? The French Revolution, Napoleon, and the Napeoleonic Wars? After all capitalism and liberal democracy as an ideology predates your nation's rise to prominence by centuries.
There has tended to be an explicit rejection of the French Revolution and Napoleon accompanied by a rather triumphalist belief that the French "got it wrong" while America got it right.
English history in the past could be considered, but only usually considered as a path to the superior American model. The English Civil War is usually NOT covered. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 tended to be covered in the past, but is no longer considered acceptable material for Roman Catholic Americans. Anything explicitly protestant or protestant-adjacent really isn't acceptable anymore in the story of America that it tells itself.
Locke became somewhat unacceptable decades ago. In certain parts of society, people like John Rawls (theory of justice), Leo Strauss or even Ayn Rand are far more influential. Ayn Rand for example seems to be the most read person of ideas among the American elite. Her special gift is to speak to entitled, ungifted and undisiguished American rich people and convince them that their natural superiority entitles them to power and position.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 5507721

The Ukrainians are so mad that they don't have the ability to kill Russian children right now. Absolutely seething about it.
Screenshot_20231118_230834_X.jpg

Such a brave Kholhol defending his motherland........by starting a "transparent" charity all the way over by Poland.
 
Did you ever celebrate more internationally influential liberal nations like France or England? Thinkers like Locke? The English Civil War? The French Revolution, Napoleon, and the Napeoleonic Wars? After all capitalism and liberal democracy as an ideology predates your nation's rise to prominence by centuries. Predates the discovery of the new world by Europe at all, really, since they arguably began with the Magna Carta (1215).
Like the @The Ugly One I too went to a religious school so while the Pledge of Allegiance was a thing we were explicitly taught the Lord, and the Church, were above all. The fact I lived in a heavily Irish neighborhood confirms some of his observations about instilling loyalty to the US because Irish nationalism did not disappear when the Irish, particularly Northern Irish, became citizens, to the point that while I am not Irish I can discuss the Easter Uprising and Eamon de Valera (born in NYC to an Irish mother and Spanish father so there you go) as the Irish were both loyal Americans and Irish nationalists. I think Irish immigrants are unique in this sense because no other ethnic group in America is quite like them insofar as their loyalty to both the US and a united Ireland especially since they entrenched themselves in US government at all levels, the Church and the educational system. Its interesting that their more American children stayed here and integrated while those that identified with Ireland went back.

European history was standard when I grew up and its no secret the US had its origins in English law, government and colonialism but since we are the New World by its very definition of course we learned about all the nations that were a part of what is now the continental US-England, Spain, France, the Netherlands and of course, Russia. Russia hate was certainly not a thing when I was growing up as Russians were carefully separated from the ideology of the USSR. I ascribe present day America's irrational hatred of Russia to the legions of pre and post USSR/Warsaw Pact emigrants, particularly Ukrainian and Russian Jews who wormed their way into our government and media to spew their anti-Russian hate rhetoric all day, every day, who pushed for the disastrous policy that created the Maidan and culminated in the present day Russia-Ukrainian War. I'm looking at you Masha Gessen and Aleksandr Semyonovich Vindman.
 
Last edited:
Hungarian education was somewhere in between.

History mostly focused on the country, and literature too, which 90% of the works were hungarian nationalist in nature.

There wasn't anything fancy like oaths and salutes. Just usual stuff like ceremonies on important national holidays.

Still, I would hardly condemn the little orks or hohols having to dress up for azog or Z. Still better than rainbow queer story hour.
 
Hungarian education was somewhere in between.

History mostly focused on the country, and literature too, which 90% of the works were hungarian nationalist in nature.

There wasn't anything fancy like oaths and salutes. Just usual stuff like ceremonies on important national holidays.

Still, I would hardly condemn the little orks or hohols having to dress up for azog or Z. Still better than rainbow queer story hour.
I'd prefer the resurgence of the Little Pioneers than the Hitler Jugend any day tbh
 
Back