This is true, and an astute observation. It's also unavoidable - or at least one of the better alternatives.
Everybody has their own ideas of how things should be. In a society of 300 million people, that means 300 million different ideas. There will be some overlap, but obviously they won't all think the same things - then they'd really be brainwashed.
Unfortunately, there's only one way that things actually are. So somehow you've got to condense the myriad of different cultures, beliefs and desires into a single reality. Governments have relied on various ways of accomplishing this:
1.) Kill everyone who doesn't agree with the "official" culture. Eg. Rwanda, Bosnia, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, U.S. conquest of Native Americans
2.) Kill the most vocal proponents of alternate viewpoints, enough to terrorize the remaining citizens into keeping with the party line. Eg. modern Russia, several South American governments, apartheid South Africa
3.) Convince the population that eternal damnation awaits anyone who disagrees with the party line. Eg. the Catholic Church
4.) Split the population into many little populations, each of which can have their own reality. Eg. former Yugoslavia, former Soviet Union, American Civil War, Roman Empire. Problem with this is that each sub-state still wants to impose its reality upon its neighbors, so you often get continual warfare until one gobbles up the others.
5.) Convince a majority of the population that they really agree with you. This is the "discrimination and brainwashing" you refer to.
6.) Develop some fundamental principles that everybody agrees on, then agree to disagree on the specifics, knowing that eventually reality will come swing your way. Eg. the Enlightenment theory behind liberty and democracy
#6 seems to be the ideal, but it requires some cognitive dissonance, namely the ability to say "I disagree with what you're doing, but will defend your right to do it." Most people are not capable of this kind of cognitive dissonance - either they slip into "I will not defend your right to do this" and end up with #1 or #2, or they slip into "I agree with what you're doing" and end up with #5.
So #5 is the most stable system that a large civilization can enter. Most Western democracies actually function as a combination of #5 and #6, with the masses adjusting their beliefs to fit their leaders and the leaders themselves agreeing to disagree under fundamental principles. U.S. democracy is currently in danger because a disturbing number of "leaders" (on both sides) are suggesting #1 or #3, but the political party system is meant to encourage #6.
Incidentally, the same problem happens with multi-party governments. Most multi-party systems are actually run by coalitions, where a bunch of parties get together and say "Okay, I don't totally agree with all of your viewpoints, but for the sake of getting things done I'll let you do things your way."
Everybody has their own ideas of how things should be. In a society of 300 million people, that means 300 million different ideas. There will be some overlap, but obviously they won't all think the same things - then they'd really be brainwashed.
Unfortunately, there's only one way that things actually are. So somehow you've got to condense the myriad of different cultures, beliefs and desires into a single reality. Governments have relied on various ways of accomplishing this:
1.) Kill everyone who doesn't agree with the "official" culture. Eg. Rwanda, Bosnia, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, U.S. conquest of Native Americans
2.) Kill the most vocal proponents of alternate viewpoints, enough to terrorize the remaining citizens into keeping with the party line. Eg. modern Russia, several South American governments, apartheid South Africa
3.) Convince the population that eternal damnation awaits anyone who disagrees with the party line. Eg. the Catholic Church
4.) Split the population into many little populations, each of which can have their own reality. Eg. former Yugoslavia, former Soviet Union, American Civil War, Roman Empire. Problem with this is that each sub-state still wants to impose its reality upon its neighbors, so you often get continual warfare until one gobbles up the others.
5.) Convince a majority of the population that they really agree with you. This is the "discrimination and brainwashing" you refer to.
6.) Develop some fundamental principles that everybody agrees on, then agree to disagree on the specifics, knowing that eventually reality will come swing your way. Eg. the Enlightenment theory behind liberty and democracy
#6 seems to be the ideal, but it requires some cognitive dissonance, namely the ability to say "I disagree with what you're doing, but will defend your right to do it." Most people are not capable of this kind of cognitive dissonance - either they slip into "I will not defend your right to do this" and end up with #1 or #2, or they slip into "I agree with what you're doing" and end up with #5.
So #5 is the most stable system that a large civilization can enter. Most Western democracies actually function as a combination of #5 and #6, with the masses adjusting their beliefs to fit their leaders and the leaders themselves agreeing to disagree under fundamental principles. U.S. democracy is currently in danger because a disturbing number of "leaders" (on both sides) are suggesting #1 or #3, but the political party system is meant to encourage #6.
Incidentally, the same problem happens with multi-party governments. Most multi-party systems are actually run by coalitions, where a bunch of parties get together and say "Okay, I don't totally agree with all of your viewpoints, but for the sake of getting things done I'll let you do things your way."