Do you believe that textbooks need to be edited to say Native Americans rather than indians or african americans instead of blacks?

Do you believe that textbooks need to be edited to say Native Americans rather than indians or african americans instead of blacks?

619878[/snapback]

It should be Native Americans because Indians are the group of native people from the Indian subcontinent. Otherwise known as India.

 

 

 

African-Americans is politically correct but I haven't seem much opposition to being called black. However they approve is fine with me.

 

 

 

 

And this is wrong to push Christian values on kids, especially if they are of other religion. And changing textbooks for the schools that are of acceptable nature to the Christian religious right and not to the majority of the country is exactly the type of thing our founding fathers tried to prevent with the Constitution.

In a nod to those who believe God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, a sentence saying the ice age took place "millions of years ago" was changed to "in the distant past."

Boo

 

Descriptions of environmentalism have been attacked as antithetical to free-enterprise ideals;

Boo

 

a passage describing the cruelty of slavery was derided as "overkill."

Why is this an issue though, is it all books or just one? I would think they would have learned plenty about slavery already to know it was very very bad and all that stuff.

 

One agreed to define marriage as a "lifelong union between a husband and a wife."

Well, technically it is. Kinda gay though (no pun intended)

 

Another deleted words that were attacked by conservatives as "stealth" references to gay relationships; "partners," for example, was changed to "husbands and wives."

Well, that one sucks

 

A passage explaining that adolescence brings the onset of "attraction to others" became "attraction to the opposite sex."

I don't see what the fight against this one is

Do you believe that textbooks need to be edited to say Native Americans rather than indians or african americans instead of blacks?

619878[/snapback]

It should be Native Americans because Indians are the group of native people from the Indian subcontinent. Otherwise known as India.

 

 

 

African-Americans is politically correct but I haven't seem much opposition to being called black. However they approve is fine with me.

 

 

 

 

And this is wrong to push Christian values on kids, especially if they are of other religion. And changing textbooks for the schools that are of acceptable nature to the Christian religious right and not to the majority of the country is exactly the type of thing our founding fathers tried to prevent with the Constitution.

620029[/snapback]

 

The majority of this country is christian or at least they consider themselves to be. Furthermore this is just antichristian banter, textbooks being changed like this is no worse than having a character with aids on sesame street. If i dont think its ok to be gay or have aids no one should be telling my kids the opposite, which is the same argument that if i teach my kids that being gay is ok no one should teach thme the opposite either. And many teachers undermine this parentalauthority

Do you believe that textbooks need to be edited to say Native Americans rather than indians or african americans instead of blacks?

619878[/snapback]

It should be Native Americans because Indians are the group of native people from the Indian subcontinent. Otherwise known as India.

 

 

 

African-Americans is politically correct but I haven't seem much opposition to being called black. However they approve is fine with me.

 

 

 

 

And this is wrong to push Christian values on kids, especially if they are of other religion. And changing textbooks for the schools that are of acceptable nature to the Christian religious right and not to the majority of the country is exactly the type of thing our founding fathers tried to prevent with the Constitution.

620029[/snapback]

 

The majority of this country is christian or at least they consider themselves to be. Furthermore this is just antichristian banter, textbooks being changed like this is no worse than having a character with aids on sesame street. If i dont think its ok to be gay or have aids no one should be telling my kids the opposite, which is the same argument that if i teach my kids that being gay is ok no one should teach thme the opposite either. And many teachers undermine this parentalauthority

621013[/snapback]

Text books don't tell kids to be gay. Textbooks don't tell kids to get AIDS. In fact when the establishment tells kids that they mustn't do something, in all likelihood a majority are stupid enough to do so.

i think we are all adults and open minded enough to accept homosexuality.

 

i think must of us have aquaintances who are homosexuals.

 

but from accepting it to promoting it, or neglecting the union of a man and woman as the natural union of humans for the sake of homosexuals is pushing the evelope, i think.

i think we are all adults and open minded enough to accept homosexuality.

 

i think must of us have aquaintances who are homosexuals.

 

but from accepting it to promoting it, or neglecting the union of a man and woman as the natural union of humans for the sake of homosexuals is pushing the evelope, i think.

621055[/snapback]

 

Do you think that someone who doesn't accept homosexuality because they think it is immoral is automatically labeled a bigot?

lots of people would label the person a bigot.

 

i wouldn't go that far, depends to what we define as "not accepting".

 

 

i have a very conservative friend who does not "accept" homosexuals. he says homosexuality is wrong and feels very strong about it. but you would never see him discriminating a homosexual, it is just his personal opinion. do i think he is a bigot? not at all. probably those who call him bigot are more so than he is.

I have no opinion on the editing of the textbooks. I'm more interested in your opposition to it.

619841[/snapback]

 

You're telling me you have abolutely no opinion whatsoever that a science book (which I'll presume it is) changes the general age of the earth from "millions of years ago" to "the distant past"? No opinion? A student is going to ask eventually "well how old do scientists think the earth is?" and the teacher will have to say "Well scientists currently believe that the earth was probably formed somewhere around.... THE DISTANT PAST! Didn't you read the book kids? it was created in THE DISTANT PAST! Oh, and by the way children, ignore most of this other propaganda in this book about dinosaur bones, carbon dating, continental drift, etc... because to tell you that the earth is millions of years old would be offensive to some religions."

If i dont think its ok to be gay or have aids no one should be telling my kids the opposite.

621013[/snapback]

 

No one should be telling kids that it's "ok" to have AIDS? I'm not even sure what that means....

Do you believe that textbooks need to be edited to say Native Americans rather than indians or african americans instead of blacks?

619878[/snapback]

It should be Native Americans because Indians are the group of native people from the Indian subcontinent. Otherwise known as India.

 

 

 

African-Americans is politically correct but I haven't seem much opposition to being called black. However they approve is fine with me.

 

 

 

 

And this is wrong to push Christian values on kids, especially if they are of other religion. And changing textbooks for the schools that are of acceptable nature to the Christian religious right and not to the majority of the country is exactly the type of thing our founding fathers tried to prevent with the Constitution.

620029[/snapback]

 

The majority of this country is christian or at least they consider themselves to be. Furthermore this is just antichristian banter, textbooks being changed like this is no worse than having a character with aids on sesame street. If i dont think its ok to be gay or have aids no one should be telling my kids the opposite, which is the same argument that if i teach my kids that being gay is ok no one should teach thme the opposite either. And many teachers undermine this parentalauthority

621013[/snapback]

 

Anti Christian banter? By your logic, any resistance it establishing Christianity would be considered anti Christian. I suppose it would be acceptable since the majority of the country is considered Christian.

 

 

Ive never heard a worse example of bootstrapping in my life. You would accept one minority's imposition on another based on a large amount of people who are clueless when it comes to their religious faith, though will say they are Christian, do nothing to practice their religious, openly have extramarital sex, openly break the rules, but are evidence of why our nation should be in the direction of fundamentalism.

Do you believe that textbooks need to be edited to say Native Americans rather than indians or african americans instead of blacks?

619878[/snapback]

It should be Native Americans because Indians are the group of native people from the Indian subcontinent. Otherwise known as India.

 

 

 

African-Americans is politically correct but I haven't seem much opposition to being called black. However they approve is fine with me.

 

 

 

 

And this is wrong to push Christian values on kids, especially if they are of other religion. And changing textbooks for the schools that are of acceptable nature to the Christian religious right and not to the majority of the country is exactly the type of thing our founding fathers tried to prevent with the Constitution.

620029[/snapback]

 

The majority of this country is christian or at least they consider themselves to be. Furthermore this is just antichristian banter, textbooks being changed like this is no worse than having a character with aids on sesame street. If i dont think its ok to be gay or have aids no one should be telling my kids the opposite, which is the same argument that if i teach my kids that being gay is ok no one should teach thme the opposite either. And many teachers undermine this parentalauthority

621013[/snapback]

 

Anti Christian banter? By your logic, any resistance it establishing Christianity would be considered anti Christian. I suppose it would be acceptable since the majority of the country is considered Christian.

 

 

Ive never heard a worse example of bootstrapping in my life. You would accept one minority's imposition on another based on a large amount of people who are clueless when it comes to their religious faith, though will say they are Christian, do nothing to practice their religious, openly have extramarital sex, openly break the rules, but are evidence of why our nation should be in the direction of fundamentalism.

621261[/snapback]

 

This is a perfect circling around of a key point. My point is we change textbooks all the time to make them more PC among other things. There is no difference b/w a textbook that changes the word american indian to native american and one that changes partner to wife. Agree so far? If you disagree then your point is invalid simply because you'd be nitpicking which forms of censorship and filtering are allowed and which are not based on no true merit except that its bigotry to dislike gays even if you;'re a christian. Furthermore my teaching kids its ok to have aids point was misconstrued. The point is I dont want my kids to know what AIDS is when theyre 3 why? B.c i just dont feel like it. However, I want them to learn numbers andd spelling. If I want to teach my kids to hate all gays blacks and people with AIDS I can, and there is no diiference b/w a book or TV show that advocates the greatness of gay people or one that talks about the evils of being black. Both are exercises of free speech, why dont we see the latter? B/c its not socially accepted, (and i dont think it should be). There is a current movement to stop the evil narrowminded bigots from censoring books and teaching are kids that homosexuality is wrong BUT the movement that believes homosexuality is wrong which seems to be a small majority of people is openly shunned in schools and media. Why? End rant

The sad truth of this entire thread is that textbooks have ALWAYS been edited which came about from pressure from the publishers and distributors. These are the people whose heads should be on the chopping block.

 

Everyone is so worried about what the kids will think, that they fail to see that making kids think is a teacher's purpose.

 

Sadly, as well, is that there are many versions of the truth-especially when it gets into science vs. creationism. Science knows that homosexuals exist but can't explain how they "get that way". Religion believes it can but has no proof. If religion had a 'cure' for homosexuals, then why are they still around.

 

Textbooks and the writing thereof is a shifty business at best. People are listed as contributing authors, when in fact, they have never done any writing for the book at all. State legislatures adopt textbooks, not individual counties and therein lies part of the problem. You have lawmakers, instead of teachers, deciding on what is best for the students to learn. If a school decides to go with a non-state adopted textbook, they open themselves up to tons of litigation and possibly violate the Florida Sunshine State Standards. Every state has a similar curriculum standard that they enforce.

 

What are the textbook publishers getting out of it? There's big bucks to be made off of a textbook that is state adopted. The Big publishing houses spend lotza bucks lobbying the legislature to adopt their books. I wouldn't be surprised if they're paid off in some fashion.

 

It's a business- they will print whatever they think will sell.

 

is this right- no, I don't think so. What will stop it? I don't know. It's hard to stand alone against the multitudes.

 

 

What is right is not always popular. What is popular is not always right.