Ditto. And For the record, I’d feel they same if they wanted to teach Deaf history or Handicapped history.
I’m saying that romantic feelings and sexual feelings are different feelings. And that its possible to be romantically involved without being sexually involved. And that people who are romantically involved, but not sexually involved, with members of the same sex, may not choose to identify as gay. (Moreover, even if they did self identify as gay, not everyone would agree that they were).
mhendo, you appear to attack Oakminster’s motivation in posting, which is tantamount to attacking the poster himself. Granted, this thread wasn’t in Great Debates when you made the post, so don’t take this as a personal reprimand. I’m merely asking you to keep it in mind.
(Mod hat off)
Oakminster, mhendo does have a point; if we’re going to bring in the legal ramifications isn’t it standard practice to focus on the relevant jurisdiction? IANAL, but that’s what I thought, for what it’s worth.
Indeed. It’ll just be something else to scribble down in class, regurgitate on test day, then promptly forget.
On the contrary most boys and a lot of girls thrill to descriptions of great battles, brilliant generals, and bloodthirsty tyrants. See Horrible History for a good example.
Because it often had little to do with their accomplishments. Because if so we must also note the adultery of John F. Kennedy.
Of course it should than fairly note that the urban homosexual subculture would eventually encourage the spread of HIV/AIDS.
While I don’t mind the bill in and of itself, no moral judgement for or against homosexuality must be made when teaching it.
It sounds like a bloody stupid idea to me. With the exception of people like Harvey Milk there’s no such thing as “gay history”, no more than there is a “people who eat cornflakes for breakfast history”. Bringing an individual’s sexual orientation into it is generally just going to be a massive non sequitor.
It is in California, and we’re talking about California, aren’t we?
Why not? We don’t teach Black history from a perspective that both sides had equally legitimate positions.
Why not note his adultery and his back pain. Same goes for Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Why you would include this in a section on 19th century America is confusing to me. It could certainly be something that’s mentioned in the section covering the 70s and 80s. Of course, the gay community doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It exists because they had been marginalized and criminalized in mainstream society for so long.
Just deciding to put homosexuals in history books without condemning or endorsing them is a moral judgment.
Order of original quote changed by me.
We can start here. There is no current consistent definition of gay, queer, homosexual, or other similar terms. People use these terms to self-identify. Most of these terms are recent as well. We have no way to identify the sexual orientation of most people from the past. Where we can, I have no objection to such references in history books. But we’ve seen a lot of revisionism lately. Was Abraham Lincoln gay? Some people have claimed he was. I know of no such identification from a man who left a detailed written record of his life, and consider the idea preposterous. Not the idea that Lincoln was gay, we can’t know what all of his sexual desires and practises may have been. But the idea that without reasonable evidence someone can assert that Abraham Lincoln was gay is absurd. We can look at ancient Greek civilization and see a record of homosexual practices, and there is no reason to exclude this from a detailed record of Greek history, but there is no reason to include this as part of the typical schoolbook that covers the entirety of Greek civilization in 1000 words or less.
I have no problem with integrating the subject of homosexuality into a historic narrative if it has historic significance. Any detailed discussion of Alan Turing should include the sad end to his life caused by prejudice and medieval thinking. But a timeline of figures in the development of computer science has no need to put an asterisk next to Alan Turing’s name to identify him as ‘gay’. And Turing has not been left out of the history books so far. His sexual orientation is often ignored, and that should be corrected in the appropriate places, but not added to make a political point when it has no relevance. The rest of your statement about urbanization and Boston marriages is an example of the problem. I don’t know of any basis for associating post Civil War socialogical changes with homosexuality. And as already addressed by others, ‘Boston Marriages’ were not based on homosexuality. Changing sexual norms have their appropriate place, but not as an inclusion in the current historical narrative that does not discuss them otherwise.
I don’t see a difference. There are few cases where homosexuality has historical significance that are not now appropriately covered. Those exceptions should be corrected. But ‘queer history’ is not anything like European, American, or Greek history. There is no ‘queerland’ to write a history of. Many of the categories of history have more to do with nationalism than actual history already. There is no point in adding more history based on popular concepts instead of actual historical relationships.
‘Black History’, and even ‘Women’s History’ does have a reasonable purpose, short term. These are case where people were excluded from the history books based on prejudice. It was not a case where people were included but not identified as ‘woman’ or ‘Black’, but instead they were simply left out. The specialized areas added in recent times should be intended as a means of correcting the record. But their long term inclusion in the general study of history is counter-productive. It maintains the concept of classifying people by characteristics instead of their actual contributions.
Creationism should be included in the study of philosophy, religion, and culture. But it should not be included as a scientific subject, except in defining it as non-scientific, and the significance of scientific understanding supplanting the concept. Homosexuality similarly does not present a historical subject on it’s own. The individual historical figures who can be identified as homosexual in some form have little or no relationship to each other, and don’t form a continuous theme.
History should be science. It should be based on fact. There are already too many ways in which it is not. IMHO, we should not be exacerbating this problem. The study of homosexuality has it’s place in cultural studies, sexual studies, political studies, and even as these subjects within history. But not by inserting homosexual tokens to accomplish social change in the very general historic context presented in public schools.
Aside from Martin Luther King and Billy Dee Williams there’s no such thing as Black History. True or false? What about Women’s History? Is that real? Can you actually make a case that there is no such thing as gay history? Go to your local university and check our their library. I promise you that you will be able to find books about homosexuals in the United States in the 19th century, the formation of gay activism around World War II, etc., etc. You can find similar books about African Americans, Chinese immigrants and even the Irish. Gay history is every bit as legitimate as other types of history. A lot of good work has been done on queer history in the past 20 years.
You’re the mod, you tell me. Or cite me to any board rule on point.
The post to which I replied made an inaccurate statement of law, in that the claim that sexual orientation is a protected class was not limited to any particular jurisdiction. I figured I’d fight some ignorance by providing correct information. Thought that kind of thing was welcome here.
Eh. I don’t think you clarified much. If you added/confirmed that sexual orientation was indeed a suspect class in California, that would have been clarifying. Your post is confusing as it stands.
It shouldn’t be, when read in context.
Come on. How is anyone who is not familiar with California law supposed to know whether your words “most states” includes California or not? It’s only not confusing to someone who is already familiar with this area of California law.
Bloodthirsty tyrants? But I thought you loved and glorified innocent life. You should be disgusted by that.
Somehow, even without mentioning his adultery, my history books still managed to convey that he was heterosexual. Perhaps your school district doesn’t have the funding for decent books.
This is from someone who is busily trying to rewrite the Iraq War as some sort of Glorious People’s Adventure. When you decide to stop applying smiley faces to current events, I might pay attention to what you have to say about what should be portrayed about homosexuals.
On the contrary for a statement that starts “personally.” Really? On the contrary, I, Dangerosa, History dilettante, possessor of a History minor with an emphasis on Women’s Economic History, personally thrill to descriptions of great battles, brilliant generals, and bloodthirsty tyrants? Gee, you learn something new about yourself every day.
Keep it in perspective – that’s why historians tend to ignore them. It is possible for a prof to cover – and thoroughly cover – two semesters of European History 101 without ever mentioning the Jews until he gets to the Holocaust (or, rather, let’s say, the Dreyfus Affair), for the exact same reasons he can omit mentioning Switzerland: Because for most of European history the Jews, while some might have achieved great things as individuals, were collectively a group things happened to, not (as antisemites believed) a group that did things.
How would one go about making a moral judgment for homosexuality while teaching it? “Why aren’t you gay, little Jimmy”?
Although that gets back to my original point about “History as Events” - you CAN study History as “this is what life was like at these points in time for these groups of people” - hard to do in a high school type survey class - but we do it - an example I suspect is fairly universal for Americans (although I’d guess most of us got it in Social Studies and not History) is a discussion about the Immigrant Experience coming over from Europe, going through Ellis Island, and ending up in a tenement in NYC. That leads into some event history - such as child labor laws. That obviously isn’t the universal immigrant experience (in Minnesota it tends to get taught that many of those people left NYC, moved to Minnesota, and farmed - particularly people from Germany, Norway and Sweden).
If you teach History as “History of Political Events” - with our traditional emphasis on American (and to a lesser extent, European) history, you get "White Straight Christian Male did X, and then White Straight Christian Male did Y. You almost have to look for excuses to throw in women and minorities until recent history. We end up making big deals out of Fredrick Douglas or Susan B Anthony (not that they weren’t big deals). I’d prefer to make a bigger deal out of Seneca Falls, and a less big deal out of Susan B Anthony.
But I think its going to be darn hard to look for excuses to throw in GLBT history without behaving in claiming. Or focusing on the Arts (where you can find earlier examples of people who were out). Or ending up with “J. Edgar Hoover was a crossdresser.” Which I think would be insulting.
Also, it doesn’t look like this has to be gay history - just an acknowledgment of gay contributions. So you might (and I haven’t read the text of the law, and only skimmed the article) be able to meet this requirement during art and music class. Which, frankly, would be a shame since it would only serve to enforce stereotypes, but it might be the best way to do this in a school setting.