Hitler started with book burnings. Desanctimonious is right there with him.

Source please dumbass?

quote:

Originally posted by straightshooter:
Hitler started with book burnings. Desanctimonious is right there with him.

Here you go Fuckwit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV80AJjfLm0

Go back to your septic tank...

Old Slimesquirter...... Cant post anything without lying...typical liberal.....

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...ed-florida-textbook/

The textbook was indeed changed to remove any reference to Rosa Parks race, leaving out the reason she was seated at the rear of the bus.

Why do conservatives feel the need to cleanse our history? This is no different than the removal of the civil war monuments. I can't support either.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...ed-florida-textbook/

The textbook was indeed changed to remove any reference to Rosa Parks race, leaving out the reason she was seated at the rear of the bus.

Why do conservatives feel the need to cleanse our history? This is no different than the removal of the civil war monuments. I can't support either.

Racist pigs might be the reason....

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...ed-florida-textbook/

The textbook was indeed changed to remove any reference to Rosa Parks race, leaving out the reason she was seated at the rear of the bus.

I find this profoundly sad.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...ed-florida-textbook/

The textbook was indeed changed to remove any reference to Rosa Parks race, leaving out the reason she was seated at the rear of the bus.

I find this profoundly sad.

Me too.

"The publisher says the changes provided to Florida officials were an overreaction to a vaguely written Florida law; the publisher has since re-written the section on Rosa Parks to include mention of her race in the most recent version of that lesson."

So, it was an admitted overreaction by the PUBLISHER and was subsequently revised.
Is this even a story in anyone's head other than the chicken little Leftys'?

Why is there even a law in FL regarding what can be taught about race?

It boggles the mind.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Why is there even a law in FL regarding what can be taught about race?

It boggles the mind.

The teaching of K-12 students is only part of the "Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act"

It also protects individual employees from racial discrimination in the workplace based on historical events.
Many kids and employees are intentionally targeted through school material and HR/compliance training based solely on their race and how people of their race subjugated others in the past.
It's complete BS and any honest thinking person knows that guilting kids and employees for past wrongs which none of us living today had a hand in is wrong and abusive.
Just look at the reparations BS in CA.
If this isn't curtailed now, its going to be a disaster for whites and blacks.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Why is there even a law in FL regarding what can be taught about race?

It boggles the mind.

The teaching of K-12 students is only part of the "Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act"

It also protects individual employees from racial discrimination in the workplace based on historical events.
Many kids and employees are intentionally targeted through school material and HR/compliance training based solely on their race and how people of their race subjugated others in the past.
It's complete BS and any honest thinking person knows that guilting kids and employees for past wrongs which none of us living today had a hand in is wrong and abusive.
Just look at the reparations BS in CA.
If this isn't curtailed now, its going to be a disaster for whites and blacks.

I do not think living in ignorance is the way forward.

Seems like a complete overreaction by conservatives to me.

I can't support the Florida law or the push for reparations in Ca, both seem foolish and shortsighted to me.

Burying our history will not restore peace among the races in my view.

Nobody is "burying" history!
The Act is to prevent an individual's race from being used against them.
It's just that now, we need law to protect regular white folks from being discriminated against based on nothing but past history.
Do you think it's OK to discriminate against little white kids because there was slavery 140 years ago?
Teachers should be allowed to imply that white kids of today are to share the blame for what white people did decades and centuries ago?
Is it OK with you to make white employees uncomfortable and stressed in the workplace because they are white?
THAT is what this is about.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
Nobody is "burying" history!
The Act is to prevent an individual's race from being used against them.
It's just that now, we need law to protect regular white folks from being discriminated against based on nothing but past history.
Do you think it's OK to discriminate against little white kids because there was slavery 140 years ago?
Teachers should be allowed to imply that white kids of today are to share the blame for what white people did decades and centuries ago?
Is it OK with you to make white employees uncomfortable and stressed in the workplace because they are white?
THAT is what this is about.

I stand by my earlier statement, I think that this law is an overreaction by the Right.

I do not think this law is needed and I do not think it is OK to discriminate against anyone.

The Florida law does not improve things in my opinion.

It seems to me Mr. De Santis is very much trying to bury history. Talking about our past is in no way discriminating against little white kids. I was taught about slavery, Jim Crow, the civil right movement, the Watts riots and the underlying causes of those things. I hardly feel burdened by knowing about that history, or to blame. I have never felt uncomfortable or stressed by being white anywhere I have been employed.

Gee whiz, now I'm a victim because I'm white and need a special law to protect me?

No, just no.

The current laws we have on anti-discrimination could be improved and applied better, no argument there.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
Nobody is "burying" history!
The Act is to prevent an individual's race from being used against them.
It's just that now, we need law to protect regular white folks from being discriminated against based on nothing but past history.
Do you think it's OK to discriminate against little white kids because there was slavery 140 years ago?
Teachers should be allowed to imply that white kids of today are to share the blame for what white people did decades and centuries ago?
Is it OK with you to make white employees uncomfortable and stressed in the workplace because they are white?
THAT is what this is about.

I think little white kids should be taught about slavery, Jim Crowe, and the Civil Rights movement starting in about the 3rd or 4th grade and every there after.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
Nobody is "burying" history!
The Act is to prevent an individual's race from being used against them.
It's just that now, we need law to protect regular white folks from being discriminated against based on nothing but past history.
Do you think it's OK to discriminate against little white kids because there was slavery 140 years ago?
Teachers should be allowed to imply that white kids of today are to share the blame for what white people did decades and centuries ago?
Is it OK with you to make white employees uncomfortable and stressed in the workplace because they are white?
THAT is what this is about.

I think little white kids should be taught about slavery, Jim Crowe, and the Civil Rights movement starting in about the 3rd or 4th grade and every there after.

Why?

Teaching about past injustices is not a problem.

I don’t know if I’d think it’s worthwhile to take up valuable education time to repeat the lesson every year starting from 3rd grade on… our students are falling behind in STEM because of spending so much time on historical grievances of various sorts.

Teaching that you shouldn’t treat people differently or unfairly based on appearance is reasonable in early elementary school. Racism and its history should be one of the early history lessons.

Then again, I’m in the group that feels you should fail folks that don’t learn the curriculum, and thus don’t really buy into the need to keep repeating the same information over and over.

Propagandizing a world view that while it does start with a past injustice but goes way past that is not good. This is CRT, and a lot of the civil rights education now.

I’d agree the law is a bit of an overreaction on the right… caused by a significant overreaction by the left.

To me, the idea that someone (a minority) can’t be racist because they “have no power” is absolute BS.

Yet it gets taught in some classes by some teachers.

Is that variant of racism thought an overreaction? Would a law outlawing that be reasonable?


It’s grievance politics.

Not illegal, but it sure doesn’t help anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
Nobody is "burying" history!
The Act is to prevent an individual's race from being used against them.
It's just that now, we need law to protect regular white folks from being discriminated against based on nothing but past history.
Do you think it's OK to discriminate against little white kids because there was slavery 140 years ago?
Teachers should be allowed to imply that white kids of today are to share the blame for what white people did decades and centuries ago?
Is it OK with you to make white employees uncomfortable and stressed in the workplace because they are white?
THAT is what this is about.

I think little white kids should be taught about slavery, Jim Crowe, and the Civil Rights movement starting in about the 3rd or 4th grade and every there after.

Slavery… Where, when and who were (and still are) the enslavers, perhaps. All that is important because most every culture held, traded in slaves and were enslaved, too. We all can be painted (IMHO, stupidly) with the broad brush of formerly enslaved victims or damned as the melanin-deprived progeny of ancestors we never met.

Cassius Marcellus Clay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...lus_Clay_(politician)

Then click on politician


Tramping out the vintage, not encouraging it

Slavery in the United States. Of course, you already knew that.

Yes, do units on indentured servitude.
I remember being told never read, that the Irish were used for dangerous work bc slaves cost too much to risk.

I would still rather be an indentured servant than property.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Slavery in the United States. Of course, you already knew that.

I’m afraid most current day students think the U.S. (and particularly the South) was unique in its abominable slavery. A few days study about the Sultan of Madagascar, etc might correct that deficit. Ask a fifteen year-old how many Union soldiers died to end slavery…. “….as Christ died to make men Holy lets us die to make men free.” That selfless sacrifice of approximately 600,000 young men is somehow forgotten in the 1619 Project and CRT.

Well, England has already banned slavery.

France had not.

To understand where the U.S. stands in this issue you have to see which countries imported the most from the 1500s to around 1860

Then get back to me, hint Spain at near 6,000,000

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Slavery in the United States. Of course, you already knew that.

I’m afraid most current day students think the U.S. (and particularly the South) was unique in its abominable slavery. A few days study about the Sultan of Madagascar, etc might correct that deficit. Ask a fifteen year-old how many Union soldiers died to end slavery…. “….as Christ died to make men Holy lets us die to make men free.” That selfless sacrifice of approximately 600,000 young men is somehow forgotten in the 1619 Project and CRT.

Your number is seriously flawed. Half of them died trying to preserve slavery, not to set men free.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
Nobody is "burying" history!
The Act is to prevent an individual's race from being used against them.
It's just that now, we need law to protect regular white folks from being discriminated against based on nothing but past history.
Do you think it's OK to discriminate against little white kids because there was slavery 140 years ago?
Teachers should be allowed to imply that white kids of today are to share the blame for what white people did decades and centuries ago?
Is it OK with you to make white employees uncomfortable and stressed in the workplace because they are white?
THAT is what this is about.

I think little white kids should be taught about slavery, Jim Crowe, and the Civil Rights movement starting in about the 3rd or 4th grade and every there after.

Why?

Why? Is there a more insane statement you could come up with? I realize than denying and white washing history are cornerstones of the right these days, but really?

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Why is there even a law in FL regarding what can be taught about race?

It boggles the mind.

Maybe because a thorough teaching might mention a time when England was threatening what is now Florida over its refusal to return escaped slaves.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
Nobody is "burying" history!
The Act is to prevent an individual's race from being used against them.
It's just that now, we need law to protect regular white folks from being discriminated against based on nothing but past history.
Do you think it's OK to discriminate against little white kids because there was slavery 140 years ago?
Teachers should be allowed to imply that white kids of today are to share the blame for what white people did decades and centuries ago?
Is it OK with you to make white employees uncomfortable and stressed in the workplace because they are white?
THAT is what this is about.

I think little white kids should be taught about slavery, Jim Crowe, and the Civil Rights movement starting in about the 3rd or 4th grade and every there after.

Why?

Why? Is there a more insane statement you could come up with? I realize than denying and white washing history are cornerstones of the right these days, but really?

How about so they do not grow up to be ignorant racists and vote for those who articulate similar policies.

The same reasons they should be taught about the dangers of Nationalism and the Holocaust. Not just the Holocaust, but the policies and political rationalizations by the voting Germans that allied it.

Go watch Judgement at Nuremberg and read the history it is based on.

Again, you show yourself stupid.

The Civil War was about Slavery. The state right they were fighting for was the state right to keep humans as property in defiance of what they perceived to be a Senate that would be mot be controlled by slave state because President Lincoln’s position was to not expand slavery as we moved west.

Without Slavs states controlling the Senate, Fed legislation banning the Peculiar Institution was viable.

The Ban on Slave Trade passed by the Fed Government set the precedent the Fed Government could ban the practice. There was a real likelihood such a Fed ban on slavery as a whole would be upheld by the Supreme Court. Thus, South Carolina said, “We are out.”

That is why slavery should be taught. So, future generations do not ask why she we teach slavery, etc.

Re the Holocaust.

You are considered a holocaust denier if you dare suggest it was not targeted at the Jews alone.

History shows it wasn’t.

Anyone Hitler and his minions considered unacceptable was targeted.

One could say the Nazis were more successful in eradicating the gypsies than the Jews.

Yet the school classes exclusively focus on the Jewish victims.

The death camps dealt with Jews, gypsies, gays, political prisoners, communists, etc.

The real lesson is once you start down that road, no one is safe.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Re the Holocaust.

You are considered a holocaust denier if you dare suggest it was not targeted at the Jews alone.

History shows it wasn’t.

Anyone Hitler and his minions considered unacceptable was targeted.

One could say the Nazis were more successful in eradicating the gypsies than the Jews.

Yet the school classes exclusively focus on the Jewish victims.

The death camps dealt with Jews, gypsies, gays, political prisoners, communists, etc.

The real lesson is once you start down that road, no one is safe.

It must have changed since I was in school. I learned about every group you named being persecuted by the Nazis when I went to school.

Same here SKB.

The first major issue in Judgement of Nuremberg is the forced sterilization of Communist and suspected Communist.

Society went along with Hitter’s regime because they thought the country was being destroyed from within by groups who did not deserve to be citizens.

The hand break was allowed to be let go snd the car went over the cliff.

The issue was allowing just one person to be so treated, then there was no red light. Yet, Germans allowed it, voted for those who did it because the Country was in need of salvation from “enemies.”

I could see folks making the argument that the Holocaust itself was the targeting of Jews for removal by the state and confiscation of property.

The other groups being separate from the Holocaust.

The word Holocaust is a word that means a sacrifice where the offering and alter is consumed in fire.

The word Holocaust is derived from the Greek holokauston, a translation of the Hebrew word ʿolah, meaning a burnt sacrifice offered whole to God. This word was chosen, and gained wide usage, because, in the ultimate manifestation of the Nazi killing program—the extermination camps—the bodies of the victims were consumed whole in crematoria or open fires.

Thus, it is rational to say the Holocaust is specific to the Jews population. The other groups were genocide and atrocities.

In Israel and France, Shoʾah, a biblical Hebrew word meaning “catastrophe,” became the preferred term for the event, largely in response to director Claude Lanzmann’s influential nine-and-a-half-hour 1985 motion picture documentary of the same name. The term Shoʾah is also preferred by speakers of Hebrew and those wishing to be more particular about the Jewish experience or who are uncomfortable with the religious connotations of the word Holocaust. The term Shoʾah emphasizes the annihilation of the Jews—not the totality of Nazi victims, which also included the Germans deemed intellectually, physically, or emotionally unfit who were murdered through the T4 “euthanasia” program, as well as the Roma and Sinti (pejoratively known as Gypsies), homosexuals, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Yes, I tend to think of all groups when I say Holocaust. However, Holocaust is specific to the Jewish extermination.

Now, the next question by the Faction will be, “ Why should the Jews get their own word?”

The short answer is they came up with the word for their experience.

Now, I can excuse those who do not know the above for two reasons; 1) most folks, including me, refer to all Nazis evil as Holocaust, and 2) that information of Jewish origin of the word is contained in a series of books one being the Encyclopedia Britannica. That series has pictures of The David in it. Thus, found to be objectionable knowledge.