North Korea inspires hate for the west from an early age.
Is this sentence grammatically correct and conveys its meaning properly? The meaning being the hatred for the west is injected into the children when they're young? If two people are talking about North Korea, and one of them says that sentence, would the sentence hold the meaning it has set out to convey, due to there being sufficient context?
Would it be understood with and without much context?
You are asking if this sentence conveys meaning without any additional context:
North Korea inspires hate for the west from an early age.
The statement is grammatically correct, but I feel it lacks detail to be a complete statement without any additional context. The ambiguous element is who it inspires to hate the west. I would assume it means its own people, but if one has to assume then context or detail is lacking. If, in the wider context, you explained how this inspiration occurs then it would be fine, but without any context there remains some ambiguity.
Some alternatives:
North Koreans are inspired to hate the west from an early age.
This makes it clearer that it is North Korea's own people who are inspired to hate the west, but arguably it now lacks the detail of where this inspiration comes from.
North Koreans are taught to hate the west from early age.
This is less ambiguous, because teaching to hate is deliberate indoctrination, which could only really come from a formal program of learning within the country. "Inspiration" can come from almost anywhere.
North Korea teaches their young to hate the west from an early age.
This is the most specific. It states who teaches who, and what they are taught.
