This would have done me a world of good as a kid. I know things are different now, but in grade school I barely understood that “gay” is what I was let alone that there were others.
You named George Washington Carver and there’s some evidence that he was gay.
What about the actual state that is the subject of the actual bill being discussed in this actual case?
Personally, i don’t think the issue of “protected class” is especially relevant in this debate, but your two contributions to this thread so far have been singularly unimpressive. More a case of finding spurious reasoning in order to conform to your political leanings.
Of course, making that part of the curriculum would be part of that whole “claiming” thing I abhor. There is a lot of difference between “some evidence that someone who lived 100 years ago was gay” and “someone was gay” - that sort of subtlety isn’t really appropriate before college - at least not in a classroom. Its a fun history buff parlor game though.
Its ridiculous. “X did abc and by the way he liked dudes”? We don’t really teach children the sexual preferances and practices of straight people and nor should. Both Roussau and Lawrence of Arabia enjoyed whipping and spanking; that preferance was irrelavant to whatever the conributed.
Turing is known for his maths and code breaking. Not his gayness. He was historically prosecuted for homosexuality and later castrated. Mentioning that would be proper as it is part of the historical record. If it was something he did in his off time; then it is frankly irrelavant.
This is a bad idea. Gay people haven’t been left out of the history books. They just haven’t been identified as gay. If you want to put some stuff in Social Studies class, fine. But a Gay section of a history book is the equivalent of a Creationism section in a science book.
On top of that, there is no consensus on the definition of ‘gay’ either. The term is relatively new, and there are only a few historical figures who could be definitively identified in that way.
Quoth Dangerosa:
I’d be a bit worried about this, too. Presumably, about 5 or 10% of significant historical figures were gay, but for the vast majority of them, we don’t actually know which historical figures those were. In those few cases where a historical figure was out, sure, mention that when you get to them in class. If, say, allegations of homosexuality (whether denied or not) hurt a politician’s reputation, go ahead and say so when you’re discussing why he didn’t get re-elected. But that won’t show the full impact of gays on history, since most of them managed to hide it fairly well. And if you do try to show the right amount of impact, it’s likely to degenerate into rumor-monging.
Well, who’s been deciding what’s ‘historically significant’ (and who has to be affected for it to be deemed so)? Reading an American history textbook (at least the ones I had) still gives one the impression that white, straight, Christian men are the default and everyone else was a bit player.
Aside from “outing” historical figures as gay, I see nothing wrong with teaching the history of California and including the story of Harvey Milk. Like it or not, he is significant in recent history in the state. It would be disingenuous to avoid his story because of the gay element.
Otherwise, it serves no meaningful purpose to me to state “so-and-so did this great thing AND THEY ARE GAY!” That’s like saying “so-and-so did this great thing AND THEY ARE STRAIGHT!”
I think that in California, Harvey Milk is a very appropriate topic for high school History classes.
That’s because that was the way this country was for most of our history. Very few people who did not fit that mold had the opportunity to do anything historically significant. However, some were left out of the history books because they did not fit that mold. No gay people that I am aware of though. There are probably some ‘white Christian men’ in the history books who would identify themselves as gay if they lived now.
History is not fair. It has enough inaccuracies already. We don’t need to add more.
I think you’re off base comparing a “gay section” of a history book to a Creationism section in a science book. The big problem I have is that queer history is just as legitimate a study as European, American, black, or Greek history whereas Creationism is simply not a valid scientific concept. Second, while people who might have been gay haven’t been excluded from history books all mention of their sexuality has been removed. This exclusion of any reference to sexuality is one method of removing homosexuals from history.
If you do include homosexuals in a history book you don’t need to give the subject it’s own little section. You would integrate it into the narrative. For example, if the book discusses the urbanization of the United States following the Civil War it would include some information on how urbanization affected and was affected by blacks and women. There could also be some mention of how urbanization made people less dependent on their families for their economic well being and provided enough anonymity for a gay subculture to develop. Anyone know what a Boston marriage is?
Historians come up with terms and use them to describe institutions and people in a manner that we can use to understand the past. It doesn’t really matter if people from the past would have agreed with the terms that we use. You think describing much of medieval Europe as feudalistic would have much meaning for a German living in the 12th century? It wouldn’t.
Its been a long time since I read it, but I think its Lillian Faderman in Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers who makes the point that prior to a cultural identification of sexuality, its really difficult to define people. Was Alexander the Great gay, or was he a soldier that didn’t spend much time around women and so his emotional and sexual outlet was other men during a time period when that wasn’t a problem? Who might, had he been born in a more repressive 19th century, been a straight man who had some unacted on bisexual leanings? It would be impossible to say.
But Boston marriage may or may not have had anything to do with sexuality (and many people think during that repressed time, it usually DIDN’T) - but economics. Many men of marriageable age died during the Civil War, leaving a surplus of women, who seldom could afford to live independently. To say that Boston marriages were between two people sexually involved would likely shock the hell out of many of the women who engaged in them.
Just a minor nitpick, but maybe a rank-and-file soldier fighting in Alexander’s army would have gone long stretches without any chance at female company, but for ol’ Alex himself, I would guess he had virtually constant access to damn near anything he wanted, needed, desired…
I have often been quite dubious about calling assorted historical figures (St. Paul, Leonardo Da Vinci, Abraham Lincoln, etc.) queer based on flimsy evidence, but apparently Alexander the Great is someone who may have actually preferred having sex with men (or boys).
You’re absolutely correct though I didn’t define a Boston marriage as a relationship between two sexually involved people. However, there’s no reason what you just said can’t be included in a history book detailing the 19th century except I would add that sometimes they did involve romantic relationships.
You implied it. And I’m sure that many women in Boston Marriages were romantically and sexually involved. (I think there is a huge difference myself - women will get romantically involved with their female friends without getting sexually involved - and even today that doesn’t necessarily mean that they self identify as bisexual).
Its a rather obscure thing for a high school History class - they have a lot of ground to cover. Kind of a fascinating side topic though, and probably not unworthy of a paragraph (probably gone unread and undiscussed) in a History textbook. Used to be right up my alley (Women’s Economic History - not Ancient Military Generals ;)) back when I was serious about History and before I became a corporate drone.
I have no idea what you mean.
Certainly, I wouldn’t devote a whole lot of time to it in a survey course. But a Boston marriage was a great way for some women who didn’t want to marry to maintain some autonomy independent of their families. It was also a way for some couples to maintain a romantic relationship (which I will define as sexual) in a manner that was socially acceptable. There we go. We just added a paragraph to an American history book that includes gay history! Yay, us! /highfive!
Great Debates material if I ever saw it. Moving from MPSIMS to GD.
What does the bill actually say? If we’re talking about the history of the gay rights movement, then it needs to be taught, the same way we teach the history of the civil rights movement for racial minorities. However, if it’s something more like this:
…I really don’t see the point.