Florida textbook altered to remove references to Rosa Parks's race

Yakuda said:
And it says nothing about not mentioning the race of rosa parks or anyone else.
Click to expand...

It shall constitute discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex under this section to subject any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such student or employee to believe … a person, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
 
AProudLefty said:
It shall constitute discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex under this section to subject any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such student or employee to believe … a person, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming that no where does it say not to mention race. What it does say is if you promote bullshit like trying to make people who never owned slaves to pay reparations to people who were never slaves then your breaking the law.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Rosa Parks is largely an irrelevancy raised to saint status by the radical Left. This as they totally ignore Elizabeth Jennings who, in New York City pre-Civil War got the exact same treatment on the public transit system there, but unlike Parks who did nothing but get arrested (obtaining martyr status with the Left) she took the transit company to court, won, and got the NYC public transit system desegregated.

The problem for the Left is that Jennings was from a wealthy family with good education and she was well connected. That is the antithesis of everything the radical Left wants.
Click to expand...

The two cases may be similar because they both involve public transportation but that is where the importance stops.
Elizabeth Jennings was entitled to ride the street car according to NY law at the time but she was forcibly removed. In the case of Jennings, it only upheld existing NY law.
In the case of Rosa Parks, it resulted in the bus boycott and a US Supreme court ruling that declared segregation on public transport everywhere in the US was unconstitutional.

New York law doesn't apply to Alabama or Mississippi or Georgia or Florida. Rulings by the US Supreme Court do apply to all those states.
 
Yakuda said:
Thanks for confirming that no where does it say not to mention race. What it does say is if you promote bullshit like trying to make people who never owned slaves to pay reparations to people who were never slaves then your breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Vagueness is the point. That is why the book went thru few revisisions.
 
AProudLefty said:
Vagueness is the point. That is why the book went thru few revisisions.
Click to expand...

Well thank you for admitting it never says race cant be mentioned. If people are too stupid to realize that it's not desantis fault. BTW I think the law is quite clear but I can see how anyone with a stick up their ass about desantis could get "confused".
 
Phantasmal said:
Another who doesn’t know the full story of Rosa Parks. I suggest you watch “[FONT="]The Rebellious Life Of Mrs. Rosa Parks”[/FONT]
Click to expand...

If Fox News or OAN is not airing that i am confident T.A Gardner will not only never see it, but remain blissfully ignorant in giving history lessons to others as if informed.

Similar to Marjorie Greene bragging about lecturing top Generals and Security officials about the threat the Chinese balloons really were. She bragged about calling them out as all wrong while telling them what she learned from the internet and her other sources.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Sure, Terry. Same for Fort Sumter; an overrated minor event where no one was killed by opposing forces. :rofl2:

How old are you? I'm 67, but your mental state indicates you are over 70 and deteriorating. If younger, I advise you to go see a doctor about early onset dementia. Jus' sayin'.
Click to expand...

Actually, Sumter was the final straw in a fairly long series of takeovers of federal forts, armories, and other locations throughout the South. For example, Fort Pickens at Pensacola Florida was similarly laid siege to but a truce was arranged between the sieging Confederates and the fort's defenders. It was never taken by the South during the war either. Another fort near Sumter that was taken earlier was Castle Pinckney. The officer commanding, Lt. Meade, and about 30 troops who were mostly there as laborers were allowed to leave and go to Sumter after they surrendered without fighting.
Sumter itself was under construction at the time, and hardly fit to be used in a fight. Of 135 cannons the fort was supposed to have, by the time of the bombardment the Union defenders had gotten 38 in service. The fort was to house 600 men, but only 85 were present.
At Fort Carswell in N. Carolina, the governor intervened and made rebel forces that took the fort give it back to the Union caretakers because the state hadn't yet seceded from the Union.

Once again, your unnuanced, lack of historical knowledge does you in.
 
Yakuda said:
Well thank you for admitting it never says race cant be mentioned. If people are too stupid to realize that it's not desantis fault. BTW I think the law is quite clear but I can see how anyone with a stick up their ass about desantis could get "confused".
Click to expand...

Admitting? I never confirmed nor denied it. The point is the vagueness of the law. This story is true.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Actually, Sumter was the final straw in a fairly long series of takeovers of federal forts, armories, and other locations throughout the South. For example, Fort Pickens at Pensacola Florida was similarly laid siege to but a truce was arranged between the sieging Confederates and the fort's defenders. It was never taken by the South during the war either. Another fort near Sumter that was taken earlier was Castle Pinckney. The officer commanding, Lt. Meade, and about 30 troops who were mostly there as laborers were allowed to leave and go to Sumter after they surrendered without fighting.
Sumter itself was under construction at the time, and hardly fit to be used in a fight. Of 135 cannons the fort was supposed to have, by the time of the bombardment the Union defenders had gotten 38 in service. The fort was to house 600 men, but only 85 were present.
At Fort Carswell in N. Carolina, the governor intervened and made rebel forces that took the fort give it back to the Union caretakers because the state hadn't yet seceded from the Union.

Once again, your unnuanced, lack of historical knowledge does you in.
Click to expand...

Blah blah. So will you address the topic?
 
AProudLefty said:
Admitting? I never confirmed nor denied it. The point is the vagueness of the law. This story is true.
Click to expand...

It's not vague at all except to those with a political ax to grind with desantis. The wording is quite clear. Parks race is mentioned and this just more leftist political horseshit. It's what some might call dis-information.
 
AProudLefty said:
Blah blah. So will you address the topic?
Click to expand...

In an indirect way, I did. Textbooks frequently are wrong. They have crap that is irrelevant, just plain flat wrong, and otherwise meaningless in them. Doc's comment that prompted my response, is an example of how someone with just a public school education doesn't really know shit about much of anything.

So, the Left's panties are in a twist over some textbook not presenting their version of reality vis a vie civil rights. They likely wouldn't even bother if some math or science book was so bad as to be harmful because those topics hold no interest for them.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The two cases may be similar because they both involve public transportation but that is where the importance stops.
Elizabeth Jennings was entitled to ride the street car according to NY law at the time but she was forcibly removed. In the case of Jennings, it only upheld existing NY law.
In the case of Rosa Parks, it resulted in the bus boycott and a US Supreme court ruling that declared segregation on public transport everywhere in the US was unconstitutional.

New York law doesn't apply to Alabama or Mississippi or Georgia or Florida. Rulings by the US Supreme Court do apply to all those states.
Click to expand...

Parks was entitled to ride the bus, only she had to sit in the 'Black' section and wouldn't. SSDD.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In an indirect way, I did. Textbooks frequently are wrong. They have crap that is irrelevant, just plain flat wrong, and otherwise meaningless in them. Doc's comment that prompted my response, is an example of how someone with just a public school education doesn't really know shit about much of anything.

So, the Left's panties are in a twist over some textbook not presenting their version of reality vis a vie civil rights. They likely wouldn't even bother if some math or science book was so bad as to be harmful because those topics hold no interest for them.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though the book was revised and parks race is included. The law doesn't say anything about not mentioning race. It says if you want to preach (teach) white guilt it ain't going to happen in fla schools.
 
Yakuda said:
It's not vague at all except to those with a political ax to grind with desantis. The wording is quite clear. Parks race is mentioned and this just more leftist political horseshit. It's what some might call dis-information.
Click to expand...

I'll bite. What is the purpose of the act and what events prompted the writing of the act?
 
AProudLefty said:
I'll bite. What is the purpose of the act and what events prompted the writing of the act?
Click to expand...

I already answered this. See this is exactly why we are where we are. You don't read what's written and if you do you don't respond to what's written you respond to whats inside your head. That's why no decent conversations can be had here with leftists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top