# California lawmakers passes bill to teach gay history **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 6, 2011, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993 "2011-07-06T03:55:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/81 "2011-07-08T20:16:14Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > To underscore this I’ve explicitly removed my mod hat in the post, just above where I mention your name, along with some slight additional redaction. You didn’t have to do that. I do appreciate the gesture, but as I told ya in email, I think maybe I’ve been a horse’s ass about the whole thing. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/82 "2011-07-08T20:24:49Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > History isn’t just facts though. History is an interpretation of the past based on available evidence. > > Fact: Between 1880 and 1930, X number of African Americans were lynched in the United States. > > Interpretation #1: Whites turned to lynching because Anglo-Saxon law was not designed with blacks in mind. (James Elbert Cutler’s interpretation ca. 1905) > > Interpretation #2: Lynching was a mechanism by which white society controlled black labor and enforce a racial hierarchy. (Walter White ca. 1929) > > Just presenting the “facts” will leave people with no meaningful understanding of the past. They won’t know why something happened. They still won’t after the interpretation. It’s just someone’s opinion. The process of analysis and interpretation are important, as are some of the facts, which is why I think history is an important subject. But neither of your interpretations above provide a meaningful understanding of the past, just an understanding. > [@](#): > > Would that not include the lie of omission? Yes. And you will not that I stated the omissions should be corrected. > [@](#): > > Can you clarify? I’m working on my thesis about the role the prohibition question played in national, state and local elections in 1908. I can assure you my intention is to expand our knowledge and not to lie. I doubt your intention is to lie. But if you or someone else presents your opinions as facts, then the lie begins. In your examples above, it is not a lie to identify the cites as interpretations. But I’m sure you realize that someone is arguing that one or the other interpretation is the correct one, and they are clearly wrong because neither interpretation can be established as fact. You can certainly discuss the environment in which prohibition was established, and the facts about the 1908 elections. But there’s a difference in presentation between “Here are the facts and some conclusions about why people voted the way they did based on what we know” and “Here is why people voted the way they did”. But this is all an aside to the original question. Do you think that you should identify people who were homosexuals in 1908 as part of your thesis? I think you realize that exemplifies what will happen to the history books and curriculum in CA as a result of this bill. ETA: Please note that my response to **mhendo** above was simply response in kind. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/83 "2011-07-08T20:26:59Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > You are obviously too ignorant to understand that anything other than facts is fiction. So it’s no surprise that you have no idea what history is. I have no trouble grasping all of the facts that I need to know about history, which are minimal, because the knowledge of history is generally useless. It may be entertaining to some, and enlightening to those who cannot think for themselves, but anything outside of the facts is not science. If history is just opinion and fiction woven around facts then it shouldn’t be taught at all. You’re the one who doesn’t understand what history is nor do you appear to have an understanding of what fiction is. While we’re on the subject, you don’t seem to understand what a science is either. History is not a science. Why? Because “theories” made by historians aren’t testable. Hell, the historical facts aren’t even testable. If history is so useless why are you even participating in this thread? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/84 "2011-07-08T20:31:31Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > You’re the one who doesn’t understand what history is nor do you appear to have an understanding of what fiction is. While we’re on the subject, you don’t seem to understand what a science is either. History is not a science. Why? Because “theories” made by historians aren’t testable. Hell, the historical facts aren’t even testable. If history is so useless why are you even participating in this thread? I think you didn’t notice the ETA on my response to your post. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/85 "2011-07-08T20:34:50Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > If history is just opinion and fiction woven around facts then it shouldn’t be taught at all. I never claimed it was that. Selection and analysis and interpretation are not the same as opinion and fiction. The fact that you conflate them tells us all we need to know about your understanding of history. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/86 "2011-07-08T20:35:42Z")
[Here’s](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_48_bill_20110706_enrolled.pdf) a PDF version for those who want to download it. Its a quick read and I think those who fear some disproportionate gay curriculum mandate should be at ease after reading the text of the bill. This simply adds to the existing mandate on school curriculum the additional group of LGBT people and, since most newspapers didn’t seem to talk about it, people with disabilities. No new gay classes will be added to any school. As far as they emphasize the contributions of other groups, so shall the contributions of LGBT people be emphasized, no more and no less. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/87 "2011-07-08T20:36:38Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > But neither of your interpretations above provide a meaningful understanding of the past, just an understanding. I’m puzzled. What would constitute a meaningful understanding? > [@](#): > > You can certainly discuss the environment in which prohibition was established, and the facts about the 1908 elections. But there’s a difference in presentation between “Here are the facts and some conclusions about why people voted the way they did based on what we know” and “Here is why people voted the way they did”. As I said earlier, history is an interpretation of the past based on the evidence. So pretty much every article or book I read includes some facts and the author reaches a conclusion based on those facts. If I wrote a paper and came to a conclusion without the evidence to support that conclusion it would likely be rejected. > [@](#): > > Do you think that you should identify people who were homosexuals in 1908 as part of your thesis? I think you realize that exemplifies what will happen to the history books and curriculum in CA as a result of this bill. I do not think that exemplifies what will happen in the California history curriculum as part of this bill. > [@](#): > > ETA: Please note that my response to **mhendo** above was simply response in kind. It was a blanket response that I feel was directed to anyone involved in history. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/88 "2011-07-08T20:37:43Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I never claimed it was that. > > Selection and analysis and interpretation are not the same as opinion and fiction. The fact that you conflate them tells us all we need to know about your understanding of history. The results are no different. The process of analysis is an important educational tool. It could be applied just as well to fiction as historical facts though. I understand what history is. You are trying to make it something it is not. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/89 "2011-07-08T20:45:18Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I’m puzzled. What would constitute a meaningful understanding? I don’t want to hijack this thread, but I don’t think conclusions about history are meaningful at all. > [@](#): > > As I said earlier, history is an interpretation of the past based on the evidence. So pretty much every article or book I read includes some facts and the author reaches a conclusion based on those facts. If I wrote a paper and came to a conclusion without the evidence to support that conclusion it would likely be rejected. Again, I have no problem with the idea of presenting a conclusion as an opinion. Presenting the conclusion as fact is the problem. I’m not accusing you of that. > [@](#): > > I do not think that exemplifies what will happen in the California history curriculum as part of this bill. Ok, we disagree. This is a case where time may prove one of us right or wrong. My statement wasn’t worded well, because I was just stating my opinion. > [@](#): > > It was a blanket response that I feel was directed to anyone involved in history. It was directed at **mhendo** only, because of his hostile approach. You can reasonably conclude that I am not a fan of the subject of history as approached by many historians, but you seem to have been reasonable in this discussion so far. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/90 "2011-07-08T20:49:05Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I understand what history is. You are trying to make it something it is not. No you don’t. No i’m not. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/91 "2011-07-08T20:56:34Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > No you don’t. No i’m not. So here we are. Why don’t you illuminate me. Try explaining the utility of an unprovable conclusion other than as an intellectual exercise. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/92 "2011-07-08T21:02:32Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I don’t want to hijack this thread, but I don’t think conclusions about history are meaningful at all. Then what’s the point of studying it? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/93 "2011-07-08T21:12:48Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Then what’s the point of studying it? To develop the skills of comprehension and analysis. And in a few cases of recent history because the facts have relevance. Also, as I mentioned before, to refute revisionists. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/94 "2011-07-08T21:26:29Z")
California needs more focus on math and science and less focus on gay history. Teaching \ history is a waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/95 "2011-07-08T21:29:48Z")
People with disabilities? So JFK who siuffered from delibatating Addisons will also bve featured? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/96 "2011-07-08T22:55:12Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > So here we are. Why don’t you illuminate me. Try explaining the utility of an unprovable conclusion other than as an intellectual exercise. Every time you make a contribution, you completely miss the point. It’s easy to see why you’re not much of a historian. I never made any statement about the utility of history. I happen to believe that much of history’s usefulness is, in fact, precisely as an intellectual exercise. In your subsequent post, after you were asked why study history at all, you said that one reason was to “develop the skills of comprehension and analysis.” This is precisely why we study history, and also precisely why your “idea” of history as “just facts” is so misguided. If history were simply a recitation of facts, then no analysis would be necessary. Analysis itself assumes that arriving at a correct conclusion is a process, rather than simply a self-evident set of facts. > [@TriPolar](#): > > To develop the skills of comprehension and analysis. And in a few cases of recent history because the facts have relevance. Also, as I mentioned before, to refute revisionists. If facts only have relevance for “a few cases of recent history,” why do revisionists need refuting? If i say that Abe Lincoln was a slaveowner who only took up the northern cause after accepting a bribe from abolitionists, why do you need to refute it? After all, any conclusions we make about history are not meaningful, according to you. The fact that you still haven’t demonstrated any real understanding of the difference between analysis and interpretation, on the one hand, and opinion and fiction, on the other, calls into question any credibility you have on this matter. It’s like trying to argue physics with someone who still doesn’t know what force and mass are. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2011, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/97 "2011-07-09T00:03:15Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > To develop the skills of comprehension and analysis. How do you analyze without forming a conclusion? How do you measure someone’s comprehension of a subject, without examining the conclusions they derive from the information? > [@](#): > > And in a few cases of recent history because the facts have relevance. Also, as I mentioned before, to refute revisionists. How do you determine which facts are relevant, without forming a conclusion about it? How do you even know that revisionists need to be refuted, without formulating an opposing conclusion of the relevant data? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/98 "2011-07-15T05:32:59Z")
[Its officially law!](http://news.yahoo.com/calif-gov-signs-landmark-law-teach-gay-history-190037960.html) Brown signed the bill into law today! 😃 The nation’s first anti-discriminatory bill meant for schools to teach the history of LGBT and people with disabilities goes into effect even sooner than I thought (2013-2014 school year as the article says). I’m happy this happened here in California after the disaster that was Prop 8, this bill makes up for that mistake a little bit As the bill states, its purpose is to teach about the contributions of people who are LGBT and disabled, no different from having to learn about women, or Native Americans, or blacks, or other minorities. People thinking this will bring politics into the classroom or force teachers to acquiesce to legislators’ wishes discount the fact that what is taught has always been affected by politics. When its facts they like, they call it history. When its facts they don’t, they call it propaganda. As the article mentions, laws have been passed in previous years mandating the teaching of the Holocaust or the Irish potato famine, so this law is no different in scope than those The usual know-nothings are bigots came out to get their last parting shot in at the law before it goes into effect. No doubt they are gearing up to fight this somehow, someway > [@](#): > > Randy Thomasson, president of [SaveCalifornia.com](http://SaveCalifornia.com), a conservative family group, said under the new law parents will have no choice but to take their children out of public school and homeschool them to avoid what he said was “immoral indoctrination.” The new law applies only to public schools, not private schools or families who homeschool. > > “Jerry Brown has trampled the parental rights of the overwhelming majority of California fathers and mothers who don’t want their children to be sexually brainwashed at school,” Thomasson said. **“This new law will prohibit textbooks and teachers from telling children the facts that homosexuality is neither healthy nor biological.”** I hope it does Randy, I hope it does. Because your hatred of gays and your stupid ideology has made millions in this country question whether its ok or not to let gays get married, have hospital visitation rights, or adopt children. The law should always be used to bludgeon idiots like you into submission and force the next generation to be less stupid than you hoped to raise them ---
**Author:** ![MattProle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ed8c4c/32.png) [@MattProle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MattProle)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/99 "2011-07-15T13:53:42Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > And frankly, since I can’t name one person who is gay that did anything with peanuts (or science, or politics - other than Barney Frank - the Arts is easy), that might not be bad to let GLBT kids know that they have options other than becoming Truman Capote. [Alan Turing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing) is one of the few scientist that I happen to know is gay. It’s not talked about very much, despite the fact he was a pretty prominent figure. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993/100 "2011-07-15T14:10:01Z")
> [@MattProle](#): > > [Alan Turing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing) is one of the few scientist that I happen to know is gay. It’s not talked about very much, despite the fact he was a pretty prominent figure. I followed that wiki link and looked at the bottom for those prosecuted under anti-homosexual laws. I learned about [Leonardo da Vinci:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci) > [@](#): > > Beyond friendship, Leonardo kept his private life secret. His sexuality has been the subject of satire, analysis, and speculation. This trend began in the mid-16th century and was revived in the 19th and 20th centuries, most notably by Sigmund Freud.[57] Leonardo’s most intimate relationships were perhaps with his pupils Salai and Melzi. Melzi, writing to inform Leonardo’s brothers of his death, described Leonardo’s feelings for his pupils as both loving and passionate. > > It has been claimed since the 16th century that these relationships were of a sexual or erotic nature. Court records of 1476, when he was aged twenty-four, show that Leonardo and three other young men were charged with sodomy, and acquitted.[9] Since that date much has been written about his presumed homosexuality and its role in his art, particularly in the androgyny and eroticism manifested in John the Baptist and Bacchus and more explicitly in a number of erotic drawings.[58] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-lawmakers-passes-bill-to-teach-gay-history/587993.md?page=6)