In DeSantis’s revised history curriculum, Rosa Parks wasn’t black or a civil rights activist

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

So… mentioning that Rosa Parks was arrested because she was a black woman who refused to surrender her seat to a white person on a bus… that’s a “spin” which should be removed from history books?

No, the spin would be where teachers try to use that story to make white kids find their "inner racist" and turn them into BLM disciples. You discuss the facts of that time and then you move on. That's it. 

Edited March 22 by Deluge

[Infidel Dog]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

There is no lie by me or the NYT.  You have very poor reading skills   The only lies are the non-existent claims  that YOU are inventing and claiming are being “insinuated”  

I admit, Beave sometimes your willingness to say, present a picture of an Aardvark and tell them it's a tomato impresses even me.

Here's what's currently up at the Studies Weekly Publishing website:

Now show where in there it claims their next text book will contain anything that suggests Rosa Parks was not a civil rights icon or black. Then show me how what doesn't exist was the work of Ron De Santis.

If you can't do that then what you appear to be claiming in the title of this thread is a lie. You should admit it and move on. But you won't. You can't. Liars can't admit they're lying.

Instead you want to blather on about unrelated tidbits that have nothing to do with your central claim or inference or whatever that is in the title.

And none of that matters because if there is nothing in the current revised curriculum as it will appear in their upcoming text book claiming Rosa Parks was just another bus passenger of unspecific race then what are you or your fellow, fringe, far left, numbskulls complaining about?

 

 

 

Edited March 22 by Infidel Dog

[BeaverFever]

41 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I admit, Beave sometimes your willingness to say, present a picture of an Aardvark and tell them it's a tomato impresses even me.

Here's what's currently up at the Studies Weekly Publishing website:

Now show where in there it claims their next text book will contain anything that suggests Rosa Parks was not a civil rights icon or black. Then show me how what doesn't exist was the work of Ron De Santis.

If you can't do that then what you appear to be claiming in the title of this thread is a lie. You should admit it and move on. But you won't. You can't. Liars can't admit they're lying.

Instead you want to blather on about unrelated tidbits that have nothing to do with your central claim or inference or whatever that is in the title.

And none of that matters because if there is nothing in the current revised curriculum as it will appear in their upcoming text book claiming Rosa Parks was just another bus passenger of unspecific race then what are you or your fellow, fringe, far left, numbskulls complaining about?

 

 

 

Buddy you are look going around in circles. Let’s rehash your desperate excuses and pathetic defences  

It never happened

Ok It happened but DeSantis wasn’t personally involved

It was a Democrat infiltrator sleeper cell sabotage operation 

But DeSantis’s law never mentions Rosa Parks specifically

Now your latest strawman argument appears to be “show me where the publishers statement to the public after everything came out in the open they say they’re going to go ahead with the Rosa Parks edits anyway”

Your pathetic lies and lame desperate flailing arguments are getting worse and worse. You can’t possibly be this dumb. Just give up. 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

No, the spin would be where teachers try to use that story to make white kids find their "inner racist" and turn them into BLM disciples. You discuss the facts of that time and then you move on. That's it. 

So where is that happening?

I have lots of German friends. They don't feel guilty about the Holocaust, nor should they.

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

Excellent point. That dude had TWO terms to heal the country, and all he did was help widen the divide. 

What Obama didn’t magically end all racism in America? How dare he!

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I thought things would really improve after the US elected, and re-elected, the black president Obama.

But naaa

Having a black president is what sent overt republican racism into high gear. Suddenly they felt safe saying the N word again. 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

MLK had a dream: That his four little children would live in a nation where they woudn't be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. 

BLM also has a dream: That they will be able to judge people by the color of their skin, not by the content of their character, hence, the name Black Lives Matter: everyone else prepare to be judged unworthy. 

 

Rosa Parks is welcome in the history books; there should be a couple sentences about her bravery and that she took a beating for standing firm. It's inspirational. 

 

Correct. Always correct. 

 

You're looking at it through a hater's lens - way too narrow and biased.

What makes America great is the Constitution, Christianity and Capitalism - in other words, Western thought and culture. But when pervert haters slither in and try to revise the narrative, it corrupts the country and turns it into a cultural wasteland - much like Portland or Tenderloin San Francisco. You need to step out of the degenerate's bag and embrace what's right and true. 

The only one trying to revise the narrative here is republicans. 
 

You never answered the question about whether 9-11 should be censored in order to spare the feelings of Muslims who had nothing to do with it. 

[Infidel Dog]

51 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Buddy you are look going around in circles.

Let's check that out. Here is how my very first post in this thread began.

Quote

In DeSantis’s revised history curriculum, Florida textbook altered to remove references to Rosa Parks’s race:

Really? Did they now? Who says so?

My god, Beave you have finally said something that may be correct. Was it an accident?

I began asking you to justify the title of your thread and I'm still doing it. We're precisely where we started. Where the snake first began to swallow its head.

Well can you then? Can you show me in the Publisher's response to the New York Times. Where they say the current textbook will be altered to say Rosa Parks was just some woman of non descript racial origins?

Still can't do it, eh?

How about showing me how it's possible for Ron De Santis to be responsible for something that's not going to happen?

Is that proving to be too much even for the King of Lies?

And also one more time. If you can't show me where the curriculum will be minimizing the race or importance of Rosa Parks to the civil rights story, what are you complaining about?

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

I admit, Beave sometimes your willingness to say, present a picture of an Aardvark and tell them it's a tomato impresses even me.

1) Sad that the average leftist in the US is constantly bombarded with the type of sensational lies posted in the OP.

2) Even more sad: most of them will never know they were lied to because they've been conditioned to avoid the sources which will point out the truth, and they're too stupid/lazy to follow up themselves. 

3) Thrice as sad: those leftards will ignore the truth if you put it right under their noses. They're actually much happier just wallowing in their confirmation bias than they are knowing the truth.

4) Sadder than that: even after being presented with evidence that their shiny new story is a lie, they won't be able to resist the temptation to spread the lies themselves because they just have too much fun spreading manure.

5) Saddest of all: if they get caught lying they won't care because they're so accustomed to it now. If they did care, they would have stopped watching CNN/NBC and CBC/CTV in the first place. 

[Deluge]

17 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The only one trying to revise the narrative here is republicans. 
 

You never answered the question about whether 9-11 should be censored in order to spare the feelings of Muslims who had nothing to do with it. 

In your dreams. Revision is the cornerstone of leftism - it's the only thing that keeps the woketards above water. 

Muslims need to care more about facts than their feelings. If the main body has a terrorist arm to it, then they need to sever it not ignore it. 

Edited March 23 by Deluge

[Deluge]

17 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Having a black president is what sent overt republican racism into high gear. Suddenly they felt safe saying the N word again. 

Having a politician (who was lacking in experience) get in because of his skin tone is what pissed Republicans off. Especially in light of all the pervert hypocrites' complaints about Sarah Palin's "inexperience". 

Edited March 23 by Deluge

[Deluge]

18 hours ago, Rebound said:

So where is that happening?

I have lots of German friends. They don't feel guilty about the Holocaust, nor should they.

That's right - today's Germans should not have any guilt, just like today's white kids should not have any guilt.  

So why are you still crying about race? If your German friends are not crying, why are you? 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

That's right - today's Germans should not have any guilt, just like today's white kids should not have any guilt.  

So why are you still crying about race? If your German friends are not crying, why are you? 

What is this stupid video? 
We should make up Federal policy over pretend videos created with actors about things that aren’t actually happening? Doesn’t make any sense to me.  

[BeaverFever]

18 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Let's check that out. Here is how my very first post in this thread began.

My god, Beave you have finally said something that may be correct. Was it an accident?

I began asking you to justify the title of your thread and I'm still doing it. We're precisely where we started. Where the snake first began to swallow its head.

Well can you then? Can you show me in the Publisher's response to the New York Times. Where they say the current textbook will be altered to say Rosa Parks was just some woman of non descript racial origins?

Still can't do it, eh?

How about showing me how it's possible for Ron De Santis to be responsible for something that's not going to happen?

Is that proving to be too much even for the King of Lies?

And also one more time. If you can't show me where the curriculum will be minimizing the race or importance of Rosa Parks to the civil rights story, what are you complaining about?

Repeating you desperate ridiculous arguments isn’t getting you anywhere. You’ve seen the edits that were suggested and the publisher open admits that’s what they provided  

Now you’re hilariously saying that since they’ve called it off AFTER it was  accurately reported by the NYT the original article want true?  That doesn’t even make sense.  You understand that the publisher’s statement came out only AFTER NYT exposed them right?
 

Your ridiculous argument is like a burglar on the defence stand saying “but your honour the cops caught me in the in the act therefore technically I didn’t steal anything!”

Apparently in Fiddle-land the only way the NYT article is true is if the publisher had said “we’re still going through with it”  

 

Your argument is so dumb, you’re hanging your entire hat on the fact that the publisher admitted guilt (but as a mistake) and backed off the edit, after they were exposed, rather than doubling down.    Your idi*cy knows no bounds. 
 

 

[Deluge]

37 minutes ago, Rebound said:

What is this stupid video? 
We should make up Federal policy over pretend videos created with actors about things that aren’t actually happening? Doesn’t make any sense to me.  

I see, so are you opposed to discussing white privilege in this kind of setting with kids, or are you just opposed to the way the video approached white privilege? 

You didn't answer my question below the video. 

Edited March 23 by Deluge

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

That's right - today's Germans should not have any guilt, just like today's white kids should not have any guilt.  

So why are you still crying about race? If your German friends are not crying, why are you? 

Germans don’t pretend the holocaust didn’t happen it keep statues of Hitler in order to protect German feelings.  The evils of the Nazis and the holocaust are taught extensively beginning at an early age in Germany, which includes having school children hear stories first hand from holocaust survivors. 

[Deluge]

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Germans don’t pretend the holocaust didn’t happen it keep statues of Hitler in order to protect German feelings.  The evils of the Nazis and the holocaust are taught extensively beginning at an early age in Germany, which includes having school children hear stories first hand from holocaust survivors. 

Point out where I said Germans pretend the holocaust didn't happen. 

Edited March 23 by Deluge

[Rebound]

15 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Point out where I said Germans pretend the holocaust didn't happen. 

Should German children in Germany be taught that the Holocaust occurred, or would that make them ashamed of being German?

[Deluge]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

Should German children in Germany be taught that the Holocaust occurred, or would that make them ashamed of being German?

It should be taught, but not projected on the youth. It's in the past, and that's where it needs to stay. 

[Rebound]

28 minutes ago, Deluge said:

It should be taught, but not projected on the youth. It's in the past, and that's where it needs to stay. 

Yes, and I agree that segregation and slavery are in the past. Children should not feel guilty about those things. But is racism a thing of the past, or does it still exist in America today?

Should children feel guilty about racism? No, but they should understand what it is, and its forms, so that they learn not to be racist. And that is true of children of all colors. 

Edited March 23 by Rebound

[robosmith]

Florida Scoured Textbooks for ‘Prohibited Topics’

Quote

A prominent conservative education group, whose members volunteered to review textbooks, objected to a slew of them, accusing publishers of ‘promoting their bias.’ … And in a sign of how fraught the political landscape has become, one publisher created multiple versions of its social studies material, softening or eliminating references to race — even in the story of Rosa Parks — as it sought to gain approval in Florida.”

The New York Times compared three versions of the company’s Rosa Parks story, meant for first graders: a current lesson used now in Florida, an initial version created for the state textbook review and a second updated version.

In the current lesson on Rosa Parks, segregation is clearly explained: “The law said African Americans had to give up their seats on the bus if a white person wanted to sit down.”

But in the initial version created for the textbook review, race is mentioned indirectly.

“She was told to move to a different seat because of the color of her skin,” the lesson said.

In the updated version, race is not mentioned at all.

“She was told to move to a different seat,” the lesson said, without an explanation of segregation. 

Simple explanation of the hoops publishers now have to jump through to sell text books in FL. 🤮

[Infidel Dog]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Repeating you desperate ridiculous arguments isn’t getting you anywhere. You’ve seen the edits that were suggested and the publisher open admits that’s what they provided  

Now you’re hilariously saying that since they’ve called it off AFTER it was  accurately reported by the NYT the original article want true?  That doesn’t even make sense.  You understand that the publisher’s statement came out only AFTER NYT exposed them right?
 

Your ridiculous argument is like a burglar on the defence stand saying “but your honour the cops caught me in the in the act therefore technically I didn’t steal anything!”

Apparently in Fiddle-land the only way the NYT article is true is if the publisher had said “we’re still going through with it”  

 

Your argument is so dumb, you’re hanging your entire hat on the fact that the publisher admitted guilt (but as a mistake) and backed off the edit, after they were exposed, rather than doubling down.    Your idi*cy knows no bounds. 
 

 

And as always every claim made above is blathered up BS diversion from the point.

The Point is at has remained throughout this thread that the Title of this thread is a lie.

This one:

In DeSantis’s revised history curriculum, Rosa Parks wasn’t black or a civil rights activist

That's not going to happen. No textbook in the final form will contain anything like that. So if it's not going to happen what are you nutbars complaining about?

I'll give you fanatics credit for one thing. Some of you true believers are so locked into this lie that it's almost impressive.

 

 

[Infidel Dog]

Now as to the edits. The Rosa Parks one was stuffed into a final revision before a review which didn't even have power of final decision on what would or wouldn't be accepted as curriculum. The reviewers could only offer opinion.

The publisher of the the Rosa Parks offering containing the sneaky edit that was snuck in at the last moment before the Mickey Mouse "review" called it an abhorrent miswriting of history. Something like that anyway. And they're not happy with the "staff" that stuffed the bogus edit in before they could see it. They say those people have been identified and the situation has been rectified.

But that isn't the story Beave wanted you to believe in his title, is it? Go ahead lie some more and say it was. What blows my mind is even after the publisher responded to the NYT story telling you the Rosa Parks edits will never actually happen some of you are still all in on the lie.

The Publisher of the review offering with the sneaky last minute edit is no longer eligible BTW. There are different stories as to why but you won't be seeing that bogus edit in any curriculum textbook.

So again, what are you complaining about?

Edited March 23 by Infidel Dog

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

It should be taught, but not projected on the youth. It's in the past, and that's where it needs to stay. 

But your past comments suggest that you think that teaching it IS projecting it on the youth.  Can you tell us what was wrong with the original Rosa Parks statement?

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

And as always every claim made above is blathered up BS diversion from the point.

The Point is at has remained throughout this thread that the Title of this thread is a lie.

This one:

In DeSantis’s revised history curriculum, Rosa Parks wasn’t black or a civil rights activist

That's not going to happen. No textbook in the final form will contain anything like that. So if it's not going to happen what are you nutbars complaining about?

I'll give you fanatics credit for one thing. Some of you true believers are so locked into this lie that it's almost impressive.

 

 

Well it’s not going to happen anymore, now that truth has come out. When DeSantis’s bill first came out this is exactly the kid of censorship and revisionism people said would happen and would have if not for the NYT and the people who leaked it to them. Better luck next time.
 

Your desperation and your ever-changing arguments and lies like the one you made up about secret democrat infiltrators are sad and pathetic.