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.
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.
Yes. And you will not that I stated the omissions should be corrected.
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.
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.
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.
Here’s 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.
I’m puzzled. What would constitute a meaningful understanding?
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.
I do not think that exemplifies what will happen in the California history curriculum as part of this bill.
It was a blanket response that I feel was directed to anyone involved in 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.
I don’t want to hijack this thread, but I don’t think conclusions about history are meaningful at all.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
California needs more focus on math and science and less focus on gay history. Teaching <enter minority group here> history is a waste of time.
People with disabilities? So JFK who siuffered from delibatating Addisons will also bve featured?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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
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: