California May Require Teaching of American History
This is the worst headline I've seen in a while: "California May Require Teaching of Gay History." Here's the start of the story from the New York Times:
In California public schools, students are required to learn about black history and women’s history. And if a bill approved by the State Senate this week becomes law, the state will become the first in the country to mandate that schools also teach gay history.While the bill does not set specific requirements about what should be taught to students, it does say that contributions of gays and lesbians in the state and country must be included in social science instruction. So Harvey Milk, one of the first openly gay elected officials in the state, and Bayard Rustin, a civil rights activist, may take a prominent place in the state’s history books.
You know what? That's not called teaching gay history any more than teaching about the amazing and revolutionary contribution of Martin Luther King Jr. is teaching black history or talking about Clara Barton is teaching women's history or teaching about George Washington is teaching white male history. It's American history. Let me suggest a better headline: "California to Start Teaching More of American History, Instead of the Easy to Understand Parts that Make Us Extremely Proud Without Further Self-Analysis or Thought."
When a newspaper talks about something as "gay history," and it puts the word "require" into the headline, it sounds like a South Park skit gone wrong: I picture students tied to desks with pink boas constructed solely from the feathers of the Stereotype Mallard being instructed in the cultural importance of "watersheds" like "Will & Grace." Which -- by the way -- is a type of education I think every rational person would be very much against California mandating, no matter his or her sexual orientation.
The headline and following article make it sound like an agenda exists to change history. That's not what's happening. California seems poised to take a bold step toward the certainty of a fair, thoughtful, inclusive curriculum that would let those students who have struggled against prejudice -- prejudice instilled through years of an inaccurate rendering of a rose-colored American history -- know they are not only not alone, but truly living in a country where It Gets Better.
Go, California, go.
Photo above from the DemocraticUnderground discussion of the meaning of the Rainbow Flag.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
americans don't want hear to the truth, and at this late date, it's probably just as well.
I think that by segmenting history, we actually help the right-wing, because we inadvertantly accept their governing narrative paradigm, which assumes that "real" American history is distinct from the histories of those groups above.
I think we are all American and should all be discussed within the same course.
In Camden County, NJ, they discuss Walt Whitman in many places, but they pay very little attention to his homosexuality, which was integral to his identity. Walt Whitman was a great American poet and we should embrace him and all that he was.
Once you separate "gay history" from civil rights in general, the p0int is lost. Sure, Alexander the Great, Friedrich von Steuben, and James Buchanan were all probably involved in gay relationships. But is that relevant to their contribution to history? The father of Prussia's Frederick the Great killed a man with whom Frederick may have had a romantic relationship, an act which resulted in Frederick having a deep-seated hatred for his father. However, other than being an interesting side story, Frederick's relationship with that man did little to impact history. So what does adding stories like this add to the student's awareness of history? Not a whole lot, other than the fact that homosexual relationships have existed among leaders for a long, long time. I suppose that's worth knowing, but that fact in and of itself certainly has not been a major driver of historical events.
Human homosexuality has apparently been around since the dawn of humankind. California can maybe provide some insight about the period of the dawning of human kind... ...but better the monies be spent on modern science and math instruction and labs.
Who's this "us" you speak of ? And what's with the "Without Further Self-Analysis or Thought"? Teaching without thinking? Perfect. That's what this disgustingly anti-intellectual society wants.
If , however, California is REALLY interested in teaching gay history the ideal textbook would be "Gay L.A. : AHistory of Sexual Outlaws, Power Politics and Lipstick Lesbians" by Lillian Faderman and Stuart Timmons (Basic Books 2006) Loaded wioth information and fascinating stories from first page to last this book covers everything the 'phobes don't want to hear about.
As it is, gay people have all been erradicated from History books. When you tell people that Da Vinci and Michelangelo were gay, they usually pop a vein. Just like when you tell them that animals too have gay relationships. Homophobia has ensured that gay relationships in animals are all but written out of the picture.
So to teach "gay history", in whatever form it takes, I think is the way forward. At least until the day when we can learn about History without labels, that is, an all-inclusive version of it, and not today's excluding version.
What do you mean exactly by "Alexander the Great, Friedrich von Steuben, and James Buchanan were all probably involved in gay relationships. But is that relevant to their contribution to history?"
I don't understand how you can think that being gay is irrelevant to someone's character and life experience. Furthermore, it seems like you yourself carry some sort of light homophobia when you use the words "gay relationships". It is as if you could not stomach them being gay and "gay relationships" acts as some sort of euphemism to mean "but they weren't really gay, they just had sex with men". I have seen this my entire life and I just don't buy it.
How can you say that Frederick the Great's relationship with a man "did little to impact history"? Are you for real? If he were straight, would a relationship with a woman not impact History? How could it not? Are we not affected by all that makes up our lives?
Knowing that someone was gay or straight or both or neither or something else contributes completely to our understanding of History. Its called getting the full picture.
Or that "that fact in and of itself certainly has not been a major driver of historical events". How can you say this? Can you tell me exactly what drives people and historical events? I am sure you are aware of the fact that most academic circles today believe Adolf Hitler was gay. If you know anything about the history of the III Reich, then you know how that little historical ditty was affected by his sexuality. And him as anyone else who moved History one way or another.
Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Oscar Wilde, Queen Christina of Sweden, Federico Garcia Lorca, Tchaikovsky, Edward II, Richard II, Richard the Lionheart, William Rufus, Queen Anne, Louis XIII, Andy Warhol, etc etc etc.
I don't see how you can say that any of these people's sexuality did not affect world History.
"At least until the day when we can learn about History without labels..."
What you are preaching is adding more labels. How about you, along with everyone else, quit adding labels and just work to get rid of the ones we have. Getting rid of labels is a good idea, but, you will never get rid of them if you keep adding more.
How about we encourage kids to actually read, write and cope with our changing world?
Hate to burst some bubbles, but teaching "gay history" won't stop bigots and bullies. Tolerance doesn't come from a textbook, it comes from having parents that teach their children to have the love and grace to ACCEPT people as they are.
The Civil Rights Act ensured protection against discrimination against the GLBT community. So, even the suggestion was in direct conflict with constitutional law. It never made sense to me...it still doesn't.
My young grandchildren do not have an issue with gay rights and I do not believe the majority of youth do.
We do need strong laws against every type of harrassment but our congress seems preoccupied with their own self-serving bias, to repeal a draconian law.
The headline wasn't great but what they're trying to do is... it's all about making our American History more accurate and inclusive.
rated.
"kids should be taught how to read and right"
Spoken like someone who never got hassled every day from kindergarten to graduation for the crime of being themselves. Sad to be so blind, you really emulate your nom de plume, now, go make friends with Elton like him!
I'm proud to say Polynesian culture has NEVER left our Mahu out of our large extended family ... oh, should Texas teach the History of Native Americans? If so, should they teach that the original inhabitants of Houston and Galveston practiced Gay Marriage?
Dude, being a hater is a waste of life's vast opportunity- too bad, sooooo sad.
Alas.
To my chagrin, he had no idea who Samuel Gompers was. A white male that did more to produce the American middle class than any human alive. A man who helped institute the pecuniary means for leisure and the so called American Dream. My son could however rattle off a dozen or so accomplished women and African Americans.
The white male patriarchy that feminists, angry blacks, gays etc so despise and covet .. take for granted supreme contributions in science , medicine and law. White men have created the leisure for minority activism. Forget not the advances in AIDS research, mother infant mortality and limitless technological advances.
Salon is a warm fuzzy place for people of every stripe. There is…. too much of a good thing. All this gay pomp is really nothing but self serving rubbish. Keep your private life to yourself and be a person first .. not a sexual statement. Gays don't have a monopoly on being persecuted , so suck it up. Shut up and actually develop an intellectual history worth writing down.
There is no hard evidence that Walt Whitman or Alexander the Great were queer. As Procopius said loosely, its irrelevant anyhow.
The history of the gay rights issue is still in the making, so only some truth in learning and less politically agenda driven education might be nice.
There is a place to post your thoughts on the site.
I posted mine, but maybe more folks should go there too?
As for Whitman and Alexander, I'm sorry you have not been educated enough to know that there is more than enough evidence to confirm what they both were. As have been thousands of others all along History. I'm sorry you might not like it, but it is just a fact, your homophobia aside.
In Alexander's case, when his male lover died, he was completely undone by this loss.
Ancient sources said that he lay upon Hephaestion's body for a day and a night and finally had to be dragged off by his friends.
That for another 3 days he remained mute, in tears and fasting.
That when he rose he sheared off all his hair and ordered all ornaments in the city broken off the walls and the manes and tails of all horses be sheared.
He forbade all music in the city and ordered every town in the empire to carry out mourning rituals.
Then he sent envoys to Ammon's oracle at the oasis of Siwah in Egypt to ask that divine honors be granted to his dead friend.
Hephaestion's body was embalmed and carried on to Babylon, where it was cremated on a pyre, in a funeral on which he planned to spend astronomical sums.
You don't think this is proof enough? You think this was just his good buddy? Yeah right.
Parents should teach their children to respect other people, but for that to happen, they should have learnt it themselves. You can't teach what you don't know. I am not advocating that that knowledge only comes in books, certianly not. But it is not a bad place to start.
Please tell me why children should not be taught about bestiality and polygamy? Do these things not exist? It is only information. I don't think children would be taught how to have sex with an animal exactly, but to know that some people do, and to venture a theory as to why they do it, is not exactly Satanism. It is more akin to Anthropology and Sociology.
And I am sorry that your sitcoms have been ruined by people's gayness. Perhaps you should turn off your tv set and read a few books.
From your comments, I hope and pray that none of your children are gay, for their sake.
It is no pic nic having a bigot for a parent.
That's what I keep tellingthe breeders, but they won't shut the fuck up about their wives and children.
When you write "Just go about what ever you want, but don't go bragging about it and it definitely has no place in school."
First of all, heterosexual people brag their whole lives about their amorous conquests. I don't see why homosexual people should have a lesser right to do so than them. As for it having no place in school...I'm sorry? You don't think gay children and teenagers don't have a right to know that their sexuality is perfectly normal? Heterosexual children seem to be offered that option daily. So either all children know about sexuality, or none of them do. Personally I opt for the first choice. The more we can teach the young the better their lives will be.
Furthermore, I don't see why "screwing 100 women" is a bad thing. If you like women, and you are lucky enough to find 1000 who will have sex with you, what is the problem?
It is strange that you should try to figure out why people are gay. Why are people straight? or why are people black? Why are people Chinese?
Is it so hard to just accept gay people as people, period?
Also, gay people don't want to be seen as normal. We are normal. It is the people who think we are not who are abnormal. There is nothing "normal" about not being gay. Homosexuality occurs freely in nature, amongst humans and also other animal species. As for evolution and the end of the species, there have been homosexual individuals from beginning of time. We are not all evolving that way, we already evolved that way. There is no problem in the evolution chain. I think you should talk to some scientists about this if you really don't understand it. I am not a scientist, so I cannot explain it.
And we don't want to be segregated in history, but it would be nice not to be written out of it altogether. Like, for example, when someone is gay, like Alexander the Great, or Lincoln or Ghandi, people should not learn that they were, in fact, straight. Just like they should not learn incorrect facts about them. It would be preposterous to be taught that Lincoln was black, if for no reason other than he was not black. But we think it is perfectly ok to learn that he was straight, when all evidence points in the opposite direction.
As you suggest, I would be quite happy if people just learned what we contributed to History, as you say, however, for that to happen, people have to learn that we existed in the first place. Thus far, we've just been written out and we all learn that it was only heterosexual men and women who did everything, and that just isn't the case.
PS: I'm glad to read that you would be ok if your children turned out gay. For their sake.
Just like color is irrelevant for greatness and achievement. If his gayness was integral to his poetry, who cares. I call him extremely gifted in expressing himself with rare sensibility. You are telling me that comes from being gay? Sometime I guess it can but who cares? You ruined my whole concept of Alexander. I now picture him smooching with Hephaestion. A college level course on gay history may be appropriate.It could be called... OMYGOD I HAD NO IDEA. Greece and Rome in their decline were absorbed by sexual lewdness debauchery . They are gone and we are headed there fast. That much history I do understand.
Did you know Liberace was gay??... Man, I never saw that coming.. . Charlie Daniels too... imagine that.
If it were up to me you all could marry, adopt, file jointly and ass bugger until your dupas collapse.
Erhenstein's father would really appreciate his son referring to heteros as 'breeders". Procreation is the only means of sustaining your community. Without breeders your ranks would dwindle quickly. You wouldn't last 100 years. Hollow cries of homophobia. You make no reasonable argument for teaching our children gay history. The notion is absurd. Outing someone living or dead is a no no... taboo...you know that.
I attacked your absurd post not you. Your insults and namecalling are womanly. You must be a real swishy puff.