Now I am all for y'know, gay kids (and kids in general) not killing themselves and whatnot, but this just seems odd to me. Are there a huge number of gay scientists that get ignored, or is the idea to emphasize the uh, gayness I guess, of the ones that are mentioned? It just seems like this sort of thing would be better suited to a human sexuality class than a history one.
Plus I guess I can't really grasp how this would be implemented. Like when you are talking about Greek philosophers do you talk about how they thought gettin' it on with other guys was groovy? Do you talk about how they were even bigger on pederasty, or do you leave that out because it's socially awkward and there is no pederast lobby? Please discuss, because I am somewhat mystified.
Well, consider Black History Month. You learn about Carver and peanuts, some guy and the traffic light, MLK and civil rights, etc...
I'd imagine a gay history unit could touch on perceptions of homosexuality at various points in history. You're a little off on your concept of Gay Greeks, incidentally.
In literature, Oscar Wilde comes to mind. Our English program in Ultra-Liberal Hippieland South Carolina had us reading The Importance of Being Earnest, and we didn't talk about the author at all. Joseph Conrad, Shakespeare, Toni Morrison, etc, etc all had at least a brief "about the author" blurb, but Oscar Wilde's life is apparently unworthy of discussion (despite being pretty interesting). I bet if you looked around, you might even find there were other gay artists at various points in time </sarcasm>
-----------
I could go subject by subject and point out some significant figures that happened to be gay, but the main point here is really:
Should someone's sexual orientation be highlighted in an educational setting?
This closely parallels the same question from 30-50 years ago:
Should someone's race be highlighted in an educational setting?
I'm willing to bet that most people's answers to both of those questions is the same, and probably falls along political lines.
It depends on how important sexuality was to their work.
For example, you can't understand Byron without knowing anything about his sexuality. You could probably make the same argument for Wilde, and definitely can for Mary and Percy Shelley.
I agree that there's no real need to highlight the sexuality/race/religion/favourite cat of someone you're learning about in class unless it's important to their line of work/why they were famous.
After having personally and recently had experience with the California education system, I am far more concerned about a child`s ability to do long division by 10th grade than I am whether or not they know that homosexuality exists and has since the beginning of human existence. The time and effort spent on this guys political crusade could be spent a hundred times better elsewhere.
Swordwind wrote:I agree that there's no real need to highlight the sexuality/race/religion/favourite cat of someone you're learning about in class unless it's important to their line of work/why they were famous.
Which is what they seems they're doing. Studying about Harvey Milk seems appropriate, it's not like they're pointing out "such and such famous person was gay and this makes it gay history".
What I find bizzare are people worrying over exposure to sexuality and gender identity over this. How sheltered do people want their kids to be?
Swordwind wrote:I agree that there's no real need to highlight the sexuality/race/religion/favourite cat of someone you're learning about in class unless it's important to their line of work/why they were famous.
Which is what they seems they're doing. Studying about Harvey Milk seems appropriate, it's not like they're pointing out "such and such famous person was gay and this makes it gay history".
What I find bizzare are people worrying over exposure to sexuality and gender identity over this. How sheltered do people want their kids to be?
Fox News wrote:The bill has drawn criticism from some churches and conservative groups that argue such instruction would expose students to a subject that some parents find objectionable.
I have to laugh at this; Parents may find the real world objectionable
Dogma is spot on here.... If their sexuality was important to their work, it should be discussed.
Kilkrazy wrote:The great thing about the USA is that anyone who disagrees with education in California can move to 49 different states.
All of which use textbooks approved by the fiefdom of Texas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
J.Black wrote:
I have to laugh at this; Parents may find the real world objectionable
But, of course, objecting to reality could never, ever have a material effect on a child; because parents have the right to control what influences them.
All of which use textbooks approved by the fiefdom of Texas.
Which seems like it must be a falsehood until you read up on it and realize that the lunatics have indeed been given the keys to the Asylum on this one...
The great thing about the USA is that anyone who disagrees with education in California can move to 49 different states.
The other great thing about the USA is that anyone who disagrees with education in California is fully within his/her rights to point at the whole backwards mess and laugh at it, whether they move or not.
Teach history. Teach what is important. If someone did something important, they should be included in the lesson plan regardless of race / sexual preference / ect.
People should not be included based exclusively on whether or not they fit X flavor, whether it be that they were gay / black / ect.
There shouldn't be special periods of time where history lessons are given about special groups. To do so not only devalues the message that they should be equal but also ends up continuing the idea that said group is different. There shouldn't be a black history month (or any equivalent), but rather, our history classes should be taught in such a way to make it so that the important events that took place (i.e. the Civil Rights Movement) are properly discussed.
Going out of the way to spend a month on Harvey Milk or whatever other interest happens to be taking root, simply takes away from the already dwindling historical knowledge of our children and replaces it with "highlights" that are often misconstrued and simply propagate stereotypes.
In a land of equality no one should be treated better than any one else, for we are all the same.
CT GAMER wrote:
Which seems like it must be a falsehood until you read up on it and realize that the lunatics have indeed been given the keys to the Asylum on this one...
Just remember that, no matter how many people enjoy pretending that Texas can declare independence, we have more guns and Mexico doesn't brook insubordination.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:Teach history. Teach what is important. If someone did something important, they should be included in the lesson plan regardless of race / sexual preference / ect.
Who decides importance? It isn't an intrinsic quality you know.
Manstein wrote:
People should not be included based exclusively on whether or not they fit X flavor, whether it be that they were gay / black / ect.
Good, we can stop talking about Hamilton and Franklin then.
Manstein wrote:
To do so not only devalues the message that they should be equal...
That has never been the message. If it had been, then we would be contemporaneously speaking of Mao and George Washington.
CT GAMER wrote:Anything that makes the fox news drones and their fanbois nervous is a good thing in my book...
What about terrorism?
Nice try.
Though I am still waiting for them to report that Bin Laden was cloned and thus the need to bomb the gak out of some more places most of their followers can't find on a map...
I think this was a BIG one for me when I went into Computer Science. For me, who knew the Father of Computer Science and Artifical Intelligence was homosexual. And the abuse he endured for being gay (administered chemical castration) by the UK government.
Manstein wrote:Teach history. Teach what is important. If someone did something important, they should be included in the lesson plan regardless of race / sexual preference / ect.
People should not be included based exclusively on whether or not they fit X flavor, whether it be that they were gay / black / ect.
There shouldn't be special periods of time where history lessons are given about special groups. To do so not only devalues the message that they should be equal but also ends up continuing the idea that said group is different. There shouldn't be a black history month (or any equivalent), but rather, our history classes should be taught in such a way to make it so that the important events that took place (i.e. the Civil Rights Movement) are properly discussed.
Going out of the way to spend a month on Harvey Milk or whatever other interest happens to be taking root, simply takes away from the already dwindling historical knowledge of our children and replaces it with "highlights" that are often misconstrued and simply propagate stereotypes.
In a land of equality no one should be treated better than any one else, for we are all the same.
I think this is pretty big also. We try to eliminate one form of racism for another form of racism. While teaching about racism in history is a good thing, teaching the history of racism is not.
Now I am all for y'know, gay kids (and kids in general) not killing themselves and whatnot, but this just seems odd to me. Are there a huge number of gay scientists that get ignored, or is the idea to emphasize the uh, gayness I guess, of the ones that are mentioned? It just seems like this sort of thing would be better suited to a human sexuality class than a history one.
Plus I guess I can't really grasp how this would be implemented. Like when you are talking about Greek philosophers do you talk about how they thought gettin' it on with other guys was groovy? Do you talk about how they were even bigger on pederasty, or do you leave that out because it's socially awkward and there is no pederast lobby? Please discuss, because I am somewhat mystified.
I fully support this. Now that California's students consistently lead the world in math, science, and problem solving scores, we can now devote time to more collateral issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: Yeah Alan Turing springs to mind, poor bloke topped himself because of his treatment due to his sexuality, so its pretty important!
He's British. Who cares. In the Frazzled new world order you'll be paying the US protection money. We have to lower that national debt somehow.
Statement confusing? Be a DCM and learn the secret...of the riddle of El Presidente Frazzled..
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:
dogma wrote:
All of which use textbooks approved by the fiefdom of Texas.
Which seems like it must be a falsehood until you read up on it and realize that the lunatics have indeed been given the keys to the Asylum on this one...
Just another sign that Texas is superior, rest of the states inferior. Its not our fault the next President is going to have a Texas accent. Viva Me!
Here's the interesting question though. Absent Harvey Milk, its not exactly relevant is it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:Teach history. Teach what is important. If someone did something important, they should be included in the lesson plan regardless of race / sexual preference / ect.
People should not be included based exclusively on whether or not they fit X flavor, whether it be that they were gay / black / ect.
There shouldn't be special periods of time where history lessons are given about special groups. To do so not only devalues the message that they should be equal but also ends up continuing the idea that said group is different. There shouldn't be a black history month (or any equivalent), but rather, our history classes should be taught in such a way to make it so that the important events that took place (i.e. the Civil Rights Movement) are properly discussed.
Going out of the way to spend a month on Harvey Milk or whatever other interest happens to be taking root, simply takes away from the already dwindling historical knowledge of our children and replaces it with "highlights" that are often misconstrued and simply propagate stereotypes.
In a land of equality no one should be treated better than any one else, for we are all the same.
dogma wrote:
No, of course not, because homosexuality has never been a significant issue in American, or global history. Its like race in that regard.
I think it was significant for the homesexual being persecuted.
If it isn't significant; please explain why calling something 'gay' has become another way of calling something 'crap'. There must have been some kind of dominating social reason for this becoming the case and, i suspect, this reason is historical...
dogma wrote:
No, of course not, because homosexuality has never been a significant issue in American, or global history. Its like race in that regard.
I think it was significant for the homesexual being persecuted.
If it isn't significant; please explain why calling something 'gay' has become another way of calling something 'crap'. There must have been some kind of dominating social reason for this becoming the case and, i suspect, this reason is historical...
dogma wrote:
No, of course not, because homosexuality has never been a significant issue in American, or global history. Its like race in that regard.
I think it was significant for the homesexual being persecuted.
If it isn't significant; please explain why calling something 'gay' has become another way of calling something 'crap'. There must have been some kind of dominating social reason for this becoming the case and, i suspect, this reason is historical...
I'm pretty sure dogma was being sarcastic there.
It's kind of hard to tell over the internet.
idk. I can buy that homosexuality has never had a major effect on global or American history, but I'm unsure how someone can argue race doesn't matter in American history. We kind of had a somewhat important Civil Rights movement related to the concept.
LordofHats wrote:
idk. I can buy that homosexuality has never had a major effect on global or American history, but I'm unsure how someone can argue race doesn't matter in American history. We kind of had a somewhat important Civil Rights movement related to the concept.
There are, and have been, an awful lot of Pride parades. Gay marriage is a big political issue, and DADT is oft discussed as well.
It's kind of an odd one. I mean, you can't understand the current socio-economic positions of various races without knowing what came before. With homosexuality it's not so much the case, they're persecuted, but it really hasn't caused greater impacts. You can't understand society without a knowledge of racism, but I'm not sure the same is true for homosexuality.
An actual course on the history of homosexuality would be very interesting, though. Just pointing out to people how persecution in homosexuality has waxed and waned over time would be invaluable. But it would only work as its own unit. I can't see any value in wrapping it into other points of history.
sebster wrote:An actual course on the history of homosexuality would be very interesting, though. Just pointing out to people how persecution in homosexuality has waxed and waned over time would be invaluable.
Pretty sure these exist in college. I agree with the "invaluable" part too. Although I would use the term "worthless."
Is there really any reason for kids to learn this in high school? Is there that much spare time in the learning environment?
sebster wrote:An actual course on the history of homosexuality would be very interesting, though. Just pointing out to people how persecution in homosexuality has waxed and waned over time would be invaluable.
Pretty sure these exist in college. I agree with the "invaluable" part too. Although I would use the term "worthless."
Is there really any reason for kids to learn this in high school? Is there that much spare time in the learning environment?
It's less a question of time and more a question of budget. If the school can afford a teacher for it without impacting core areas of study I say go for it.
Problem is I don't think many public schools have such flexible budgets. At high school, I think ensuring a proper understanding of general civics and US politics and American history (where there is certainly room for the mention of the subject) is more important than a dedicated class on the history of homosexuality. Such a class I think could more easily fit into the college environment (don't know if Seb specifically meant on or the other).
EDIT: Probably get less backlash from parents there too.
sebster wrote:An actual course on the history of homosexuality would be very interesting, though. Just pointing out to people how persecution in homosexuality has waxed and waned over time would be invaluable.
Pretty sure these exist in college. I agree with the "invaluable" part too. Although I would use the term "worthless."
Is there really any reason for kids to learn this in high school? Is there that much spare time in the learning environment?
I would say no.
Yes, yes there is
Really? Kids have that much free time from learning important crap like English, Math, history, and whatever physical sciences that they can study a course on the history of homosexuality?
I can think of at least 100 topics that would rate higher than "Gay History" on the importance chart.
sebster wrote:An actual course on the history of homosexuality would be very interesting, though. Just pointing out to people how persecution in homosexuality has waxed and waned over time would be invaluable.
Pretty sure these exist in college. I agree with the "invaluable" part too. Although I would use the term "worthless."
Is there really any reason for kids to learn this in high school? Is there that much spare time in the learning environment?
I would say no.
Yes, yes there is
Really? Kids have that much free time from learning important crap like English, Math, history, and whatever physical sciences that they can study a course on the history of homosexuality?
I can think of at least 100 topics that would rate higher than "Gay History" on the importance chart.
As a high school student, I agree with Biccat's statement.
This is pretty illustrative of why American High School students are so far behind the rest of the world in Math and Science. This is minutia.
Whether they were gay or not is irrelevant and it puts an unnecessary emphasis on their sexuality. If their deeds were worth noting, then their sexuality could be a minor footnote or a tangent into why they did something particular (like Wilde) or why they were persecuted (Turing). Not the complete onus as to why the are being taught about. This is not what MLK would've wanted, content of character (or preference in the sack as it were).
But, it's whatevs, if California wants to do this, that's their choice.
Schools are, and always have been, social engineering tools.
Student achievement in the US is hampered by American beliefs in "all men are created equal." We insist on equal educational opportunities for all students, which results in smart/advanced students being held back in a learning environment by classmates who (by dint of family background or personal preference) are not interested in learning, or, despite our claims to the contrary, are not equal to the task at hand.
A German-style system that divides students up into different scholastic goals (vocational training, college prep, etc...) would better suit a nation of our size and diversity.
But, since we're unwilling to "leave a child behind," we're stuck with trying to force "one-size-fits-all" educational standards on a diverse student population.
If we're not going to create excellent/informed students, can we at least generate students that are less hateful/misinformed on social issues?
kartofelkopf wrote:Schools are, and always have been, social engineering tools.
Student achievement in the US is hampered by American beliefs in "all men are created equal." We insist on equal educational opportunities for all students, which results in smart/advanced students being held back in a learning environment by classmates who (by dint of family background or personal preference) are not interested in learning, or, despite our claims to the contrary, are not equal to the task at hand.
A German-style system that divides students up into different scholastic goals (vocational training, college prep, etc...) would better suit a nation of our size and diversity.
But, since we're unwilling to "leave a child behind," we're stuck with trying to force "one-size-fits-all" educational standards on a diverse student population.
If we're not going to create excellent/informed students, can we at least generate students that are less hateful/misinformed on social issues?
I would disagree about "all men are created equal". They are indeed created equal, what they do with that equality is another story altogether.
Tell that to the Down Syndrome child, the crack baby, the child born with a limb reduction defect, etc...
The Founders weren't insisting that people are born with an equality of stature, intelligence, etc... but that they should all have equal rights (well, except for Blacks, Women, Native Americans, non-property owners, etc...). Our modern take on that, though, is all people are equal, and we should treat all people as though they are equally capable of a standard level of achievement/education. This is patently false.
Stormrider wrote:This is pretty illustrative of why American High School students are so far behind the rest of the world in Math and Science.
US schools actually do more or less average, with particularly good results for high achievers and trouble students, being offset by slightly low performances among the average students. When you consider the problems of relative levels of funding in the US (with certain schools having immense resources and more or less wasting them while other schools are horribly underfunded) it's pretty impressive the US does as well as it does.
This is not what MLK would've wanted, content of character (or preference in the sack as it were).
Minority awareness didn't end with MLK.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kartofelkopf wrote:A German-style system that divides students up into different scholastic goals (vocational training, college prep, etc...) would better suit a nation of our size and diversity.
Germany doesn't do much better in international comparisons than the US, in many measures it consistently does worse.
If you want to look at a country that consistently trounces everyone, year in, year out its Finland, and they achieve those results through a system designed around absolute egalitarianism. Of course, they do spend a lot more money on their system, and that ultimately seems to be the not-so magic answer to the issue.
biccat wrote:
Really? Kids have that much free time from learning important crap like English, Math, history, and whatever physical sciences that they can study a course on the history of homosexuality?
When was the last time you saw an American high school curriculum?
They aren't exactly rigorous, and almost always include electives.
biccat wrote:
Pretty sure these exist in college. I agree with the "invaluable" part too. Although I would use the term "worthless."
Invaluable means "of value beyond calculation" not "unworthy of value" or "of so little value as to be considered without it".
When you ascribe worth to something, even by its absence, you intrinsically value it; which is why "invaluable" isn't the negation of "valuable".
Stormrider wrote:
I would disagree about "all men are created equal". They are indeed created equal, what they do with that equality is another story altogether.
Last time I checked I was significantly taller than some men, and significantly shorter than others. I suppose you could claim that I didn't take full advantage of my growth potential, but then we get into a whole set of issues regarding will, and whether or not it exists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:It's kind of an odd one. I mean, you can't understand the current socio-economic positions of various races without knowing what came before. With homosexuality it's not so much the case, they're persecuted, but it really hasn't caused greater impacts. You can't understand society without a knowledge of racism, but I'm not sure the same is true for homosexuality.
I think the history of homosexuality dovetails into the larger issue of the history of taboo, and the use of accusations of it as political and social correctional tools.
Stormrider wrote:
I would disagree about "all men are created equal". They are indeed created equal, what they do with that equality is another story altogether.
Last time I checked I was significantly taller than some men, and significantly shorter than others. I suppose you could claim that I didn't take full advantage of my growth potential, but then we get into a whole set of issues regarding will, and whether or not it exists.
That's not what I'm getting at, all I'm saying that there is a chance for everyone in this country to be successful, whether they apply themselves or not is up to them. The equality comes from equality of opportunities and freedoms (now at least).
Stormrider wrote:
I would disagree about "all men are created equal". They are indeed created equal, what they do with that equality is another story altogether.
Last time I checked I was significantly taller than some men, and significantly shorter than others. I suppose you could claim that I didn't take full advantage of my growth potential, but then we get into a whole set of issues regarding will, and whether or not it exists.
I want will to exist, maybe I can will it into existance.
Anyways, homosexualty was frowned upon in most civilizations and accepted in others. Suicide used to be a proof of bravery to the romans and most people think its an act of cowardice or mental illness in modern times. As far as having a class dedicated completely to the study of homosexual history that should be a college class for people specializing in it otherwise 'homosexual' history should be taught in the overall history of America in high school, crammed in with the civil rights section in chapter 11, which is after the chapter on WW2 which takes up half of the book.
halonachos wrote:Anyways, homosexualty was frowned upon in most civilizations and accepted in others.
Ah, but even where it was frowned upon it was frequently ignored. History has a lot of characters who were gay, and while there's never been acceptance as often as not it never became anything more than mild disapproval. James Buchanan was almost certainly gay, and while there were rumours, they weren't enough to stop him attaining the Presidency.
The current focus in many Christian circles on really making a big deal out of homosexuality is quite unusual.
halonachos wrote:Anyways, homosexualty was frowned upon in most civilizations and accepted in others.
Ah, but even where it was frowned upon it was frequently ignored. History has a lot of characters who were gay, and while there's never been acceptance as often as not it never became anything more than mild disapproval. James Buchanan was almost certainly gay, and while there were rumours, they weren't enough to stop him attaining the Presidency.
The current focus in many Christian circles on really making a big deal out of homosexuality is quite unusual.
If I recall correctly I heard from somewhere that a lot of Roman leaders were homosexuals but they kept it quiet enough and nobody really cared. Then again if you have to compare the guy who likes guys to the guy who likes burning down Rome...
dogma wrote:I think the history of homosexuality dovetails into the larger issue of the history of taboo, and the use of accusations of it as political and social correctional tools.
As a point of example regarding politics or social taboos, it'd be quite useful, but I really doubt that as a subject by itself it merits teaching over other historical subjects.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:That's not what I'm getting at, all I'm saying that there is a chance for everyone in this country to be successful, whether they apply themselves or not is up to them. The equality comes from equality of opportunities and freedoms (now at least).
That's been quantitatively disproven. The US ranks among the worst nations in the developed world for social mobility. Who your parents are matters more in the US than it does elsewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:If I recall correctly I heard from somewhere that a lot of Roman leaders were homosexuals but they kept it quiet enough and nobody really cared. Then again if you have to compare the guy who likes guys to the guy who likes burning down Rome...
I think that's probably a big part of it, through history there was some other group to hate. Now if there's folk burning down Rome, we can define ourselves by how we all hate them. If the gays are the best group to hate, then we get right on hating 'em. But much of the time they weren't, so we got right on with hating some other group instead, and pretty much ignored that corner of town.
I think the Jews got it pretty bad in history, perhaps they were the guys that the others chose to persecute over homosexuals.
I agree with you though, there's always been some scape goat for any region and any country in history. Now that we really don't have one we're trying to find one.
That and the fact that Homosexual History shouldn't haven't priority over other history, it should be covered with Civil Rights and all of the movements should be covered. Just the basics like everything else though.
Stormrider wrote:
That's not what I'm getting at, all I'm saying that there is a chance for everyone in this country to be successful, whether they apply themselves or not is up to them. The equality comes from equality of opportunities and freedoms (now at least).
Equal opportunity doesn't exist either. For example, being 5'9 disqualifies me from a center in professional basketball. More realistically, being born into a middle class family provided me with a number of opportunities to make mistakes and continue on with my life which aren't accorded to people born to poor parents. Then we have to think about disabilities.
Now, it is true that everyone can be successful, at least insofar as the way success is understood is flexible.
The idea of interpersonal equality is nice and all, but it really isn't descriptive of reality. Its more like an ideal to which people aspire, or a mantra regarding the way people should be treated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
As a point of example regarding politics or social taboos, it'd be quite useful, but I really doubt that as a subject by itself it merits teaching over other historical subjects.
I don't see a way it can be taught without being a point of example regarding politics and social taboos. Even at the collegiate level courses on the history of sexuality (homo or hetero) are almost always framed using politics. The only exceptions are in behavioral psychology.
Either way, high school history courses are more about identity construction than actually conveying information, which is why this type of thing is being taught.
dogma wrote:
No, of course not, because homosexuality has never been a significant issue in American, or global history. Its like race in that regard.
I think it was significant for the homesexual being persecuted.
If it isn't significant; please explain why calling something 'gay' has become another way of calling something 'crap'. There must have been some kind of dominating social reason for this becoming the case and, i suspect, this reason is historical...
I'm pretty sure dogma was being sarcastic there.
It's kind of hard to tell over the internet.
idk. I can buy that homosexuality has never had a major effect on global or American history, but I'm unsure how someone can argue race doesn't matter in American history. We kind of had a somewhat important Civil Rights movement related to the concept.
I'm going with:
Also something about a minor legal dispute, what was it again, oh yea the case of Lee vs. Grant 1863 cert denied.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote:
biccat wrote:
sebster wrote:An actual course on the history of homosexuality would be very interesting, though. Just pointing out to people how persecution in homosexuality has waxed and waned over time would be invaluable.
Pretty sure these exist in college. I agree with the "invaluable" part too. Although I would use the term "worthless."
Is there really any reason for kids to learn this in high school? Is there that much spare time in the learning environment?
I would say no.
Yes, yes there is
Learn more math.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:It's less a question of time and more a question of budget. If the school can afford a teacher for it without impacting core areas of study I say go for it.
Problem is I don't think many public schools have such flexible budgets. At high school, I think ensuring a proper understanding of general civics and US politics and American history (where there is certainly room for the mention of the subject) is more important than a dedicated class on the history of homosexuality. Such a class I think could more easily fit into the college environment (don't know if Seb specifically meant on or the other).
EDIT: Probably get less backlash from parents there too.
Money is finite, and I know the California budget, though bloated, is under stress now.
Here's an idea. Teach the little bastards proper math, English and literature, science, debate and argument, economics, Spanish, and history. Then you can play "who's special interest is more important."
Or as noted, just teach it in the sociology departments in college. No one will care (oh wait they already do. See what I mean).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:This is pretty illustrative of why American High School students are so far behind the rest of the world in Math and Science. This is minutia.
Whether they were gay or not is irrelevant and it puts an unnecessary emphasis on their sexuality. If their deeds were worth noting, then their sexuality could be a minor footnote or a tangent into why they did something particular (like Wilde) or why they were persecuted (Turing). Not the complete onus as to why the are being taught about. This is not what MLK would've wanted, content of character (or preference in the sack as it were).
But, it's whatevs, if California wants to do this, that's their choice.
Frazzled wrote:
Here's an idea. Teach the little bastards proper math, English and literature, science, debate and argument, economics, Spanish, and history. Then you can play "who's special interest is more important."
You can't teach history or literature without succumbing to special interests, that's just the nature of disciplines which rely on what is, and isn't important enough to merit a particular amount of attention.
Civics is probably more important than literature anyways,
biccat wrote: Really? Kids have that much free time from learning important crap like English, Math, history, and whatever physical sciences that they can study a course on the history of homosexuality?
When was the last time you saw an American high school curriculum?
They aren't exactly rigorous, and almost always include electives.
However, you appear to have missed my point, and that is that there are more important subjects for students to learn than gay history.
There isn't a systemic rejection of gays in textbooks, if a person is historically significant they get talked about, regardless of sexuality. This is in contrast to the "whitewashing" of blacks from textbooks in the early to mid 20th century. If anyone could point out specific instances where important gay figures weren't discussed in textbooks because of their sexuality, this law would be important.
As it is, it's simply a push to incorporate more "progressive" elements into schools, not an educational concern.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote: Pretty sure these exist in college. I agree with the "invaluable" part too. Although I would use the term "worthless."
Invaluable means "of value beyond calculation" not "unworthy of value" or "of so little value as to be considered without it".
When you ascribe worth to something, even by its absence, you intrinsically value it; which is why "invaluable" isn't the negation of "valuable".
And "worthless" isn't the negation of "valuable" either.
You're picking nits where there are no nits to pick.
sebster wrote:Though I'm a little puzzled by the really aggressive tone you used. Didn't realise this was such an intense subject.
One wonders how you discern tone from the written word. Perhaps you're seeing something that wasn't there.
LordofHats wrote:The internet needs a color coding system for tone .
Blue can be sarcasm.
How you could read Dogmas post and not know that he was being quite obviously sarcastic is beyond me. The sentence itself was proof enough without requiring a colour scheme.
Although, after reading some of biccats posts, maybe your onto something after all.
biccat wrote:
Really? Kids have that much free time from learning important crap like English, Math, history, and whatever physical sciences that they can study a course on the history of homosexuality?
When was the last time you saw an American high school curriculum?
They aren't exactly rigorous, and almost always include electives.
However, you appear to have missed my point, and that is that there are more important subjects for students to learn than gay history.
There isn't a systemic rejection of gays in textbooks, if a person is historically significant they get talked about, regardless of sexuality. This is in contrast to the "whitewashing" of blacks from textbooks in the early to mid 20th century. If anyone could point out specific instances where important gay figures weren't discussed in textbooks because of their sexuality, this law would be important.
As has already been stated, this isn't about talking about the sexuality of people throughout history. It is about the history of LGBT, how it was viewed and would in all likelihood talk extensively about the Gay Rights movement.
In the same way, people don't talk about 'Black History' by going through a history lesson and then saying at the end "Btw, Shaka was black so that's why he killed those Brits". It would be about the Colonialism and the Civil Rights movement in general not "things black/gay people did".
I don't see why you think it's so unimportant. It's not like it's replacing Maths or Legal Studies.
biccat wrote:
Really? Kids have that much free time from learning important crap like English, Math, history, and whatever physical sciences that they can study a course on the history of homosexuality?
When was the last time you saw an American high school curriculum?
They aren't exactly rigorous, and almost always include electives.
However, you appear to have missed my point, and that is that there are more important subjects for students to learn than gay history.
There isn't a systemic rejection of gays in textbooks, if a person is historically significant they get talked about, regardless of sexuality. This is in contrast to the "whitewashing" of blacks from textbooks in the early to mid 20th century. If anyone could point out specific instances where important gay figures weren't discussed in textbooks because of their sexuality, this law would be important.
As has already been stated, this isn't about talking about the sexuality of people throughout history. It is about the history of LGBT, how it was viewed and would in all likelihood talk extensively about the Gay Rights movement.
In the same way, people don't talk about 'Black History' by going through a history lesson and then saying at the end "Btw, Shaka was black so that's why he killed those Brits". It would be about the Colonialism and the Civil Rights movement in general not "things black/gay people did".
I don't see why you think it's so unimportant. It's not like it's replacing Maths or Legal Studies.
but by its very nature is it is. Its the incredible thing about math. If you have finite monies and finite time, everything is a zero sum game.
As the California school system is having problems teaching little Johnnie to read and solve for 2+2, they should focus on that FIRST.
biccat wrote:
Really? Kids have that much free time from learning important crap like English, Math, history, and whatever physical sciences that they can study a course on the history of homosexuality?
When was the last time you saw an American high school curriculum?
They aren't exactly rigorous, and almost always include electives.
However, you appear to have missed my point, and that is that there are more important subjects for students to learn than gay history.
There isn't a systemic rejection of gays in textbooks, if a person is historically significant they get talked about, regardless of sexuality. This is in contrast to the "whitewashing" of blacks from textbooks in the early to mid 20th century. If anyone could point out specific instances where important gay figures weren't discussed in textbooks because of their sexuality, this law would be important.
As has already been stated, this isn't about talking about the sexuality of people throughout history. It is about the history of LGBT, how it was viewed and would in all likelihood talk extensively about the Gay Rights movement.
In the same way, people don't talk about 'Black History' by going through a history lesson and then saying at the end "Btw, Shaka was black so that's why he killed those Brits". It would be about the Colonialism and the Civil Rights movement in general not "things black/gay people did".
I don't see why you think it's so unimportant. It's not like it's replacing Maths or Legal Studies.
but by its very nature is it is. Its the incredible thing about math. If you have finite monies and finite time, everything is a zero sum game.
As the California school system is having problems teaching little Johnnie to read and solve for 2+2, they should focus on that FIRST.
I thought it was already established that California was doing okay by US standards?
Not that it really matters. School shouldn't be just about the basics (how much money have you made off algebra?), and as other posters have pointed out, school largely involves social conditioning. I would think that encouraging kids to not be homophobic would be a good thing.
kartofelkopf wrote:Well, consider Black History Month.
That's pretty much my feelings about it. If black/hispanic/asian/native American/redneck history month is okay certainly gay history month wouldn't be out of place either!
So you've switched it from history to behavior modification. Ah the truth comes out. Behavior modification takes a lot more effort and time then just a blurb or two in a history textbook, which is what all this should be, unless you make it a big damn deal.
California students are not doing well, and that in comparison to other average US students. Translation: they might beat some student from Somalia ducking AK fire, but thats about it.
I didn't say that it was an elective. I was merely making a point about about the relative significance of legislating a mandatory change to an existing curriculum in light of the fact that most high school curricula are a long way from being overloaded with information to be covered. I made this point because you seemed to be implying that American high schools students are overburdened by their present, average level of required work.
biccat wrote:
However, you appear to have missed my point, and that is that there are more important subjects for students to learn than gay history.
Sure, and considering the context of this particular change to California law, I imagine most of them are covered.
biccat wrote:
There isn't a systemic rejection of gays in textbooks, if a person is historically significant they get talked about, regardless of sexuality. This is in contrast to the "whitewashing" of blacks from textbooks in the early to mid 20th century. If anyone could point out specific instances where important gay figures weren't discussed in textbooks because of their sexuality, this law would be important.
As it is, it's simply a push to incorporate more "progressive" elements into schools, not an educational concern.
Many people would likely consider that an educational concern. Remember, the difference between relaying information to someone and trying to influence their personal beliefs is far from cut and dry.
biccat wrote:
And "worthless" isn't the negation of "valuable" either.
You're picking nits where there are no nits to pick.
It is, however, an antonym of invaluable, which was my point.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Not that it really matters. School shouldn't be just about the basics (how much money have you made off algebra?)
A lot, actually. Math is a vitally important skill.
Want to know how much I've made off of uh...(remembering HS courses) English literature? Nothing.
Oddly enough, English Literature was required (4 years of English courses required), while Algebra was an elective (only 2 years of math required).
Emperors Faithful wrote:I would think that encouraging kids to not be homophobic would be a good thing.
Is it better than personal finance? Better than Asian History (there are a lot more Asians than there are gays)?
This program requires schools to teach history slanted towards a preferred political group. It will necessarily take away from other curricula at their expense. The legislature should not be engaging in this behavior.
Frazzled wrote:So you've switched it from history to behavior modification. Ah the truth comes out. Behavior modification takes a lot more effort and time then just a blurb or two in a history textbook, which is what all this should be, unless you make it a big damn deal.
All education is fundamentally about behavior modification. Even teaching the hard sciences is about influencing the way people think and behave when they consider the relevant subjects, and often just reason and logic in general.
I don't think encouraging children to not be homophobic and teaching children personal finance are somehow mutually exclusive. Then again, I don't think the former requires a class. It's a behavior thing, generally speaking high schools don't have classes for behavior to begin with, instead having classes for academic knowledge. Behaviors are taught based off of the attitudes and actions of the teachers and other staff as they go about their duties.
I don't think encouraging children to not be homophobic and teaching children personal finance are somehow mutually exclusive. Then again, I don't think the former requires a class. It's a behavior thing, generally speaking high schools don't have classes for behavior to begin with, instead having classes for academic knowledge. Behaviors are taught based off of the attitudes and actions of the teachers and other staff as they go about their duties.
See here's the problem right there. There are limited monies for education. There are limited amounts of time to teach. Its not a teach both option. Something has to give and right now we suck vs. the rest of the world in the basics (a note to an earlier poster - I'd be heavily down with a highly modified German system but thats another topic).
Now if this were included in history appropriately then I'd not have a problem with it. I'm sure there's a chapter on the 60s. It can be added as part of the central locus of the fight for expanding rights. A couple of paragraphs should do it.
Because you can't have it all. As Frazzled said, there is a finite amount of time available during the school year. You cannot teach everything. Any new required courses will edge out some other school program. If we made a list of important high school subjects that kids should learn, I highly doubt that "gay history" would be high up on the list.
edit: or "black history" or "single white female history" or "American persecution of white Europeans".
Frazzled wrote:See here's the problem right there. There are limited monies for education. There are limited amounts of time to teach. Its not a teach both option. Something has to give and right now we suck vs. the rest of the world in the basics (a note to an earlier poster - I'd be heavily down with a highly modified German system but thats another topic).
Now if this were included in history appropriately then I'd not have a problem with it. I'm sure there's a chapter on the 60s. It can be added as part of the central locus of the fight for expanding rights. A couple of paragraphs should do it.
I'm not suggesting the ideas in the OP's article are good, I'm merely saying that an institution being against homophobia and teaching tolerance in general DOESN'T conflict with the class you suggested. For me, it's not a matter of one class or the other, but rather, tolerance needs to be taught in all classes instead of merely in one specific class.
Frazzled wrote:See here's the problem right there. There are limited monies for education. There are limited amounts of time to teach. Its not a teach both option. Something has to give and right now we suck vs. the rest of the world in the basics (a note to an earlier poster - I'd be heavily down with a highly modified German system but thats another topic).
Now if this were included in history appropriately then I'd not have a problem with it. I'm sure there's a chapter on the 60s. It can be added as part of the central locus of the fight for expanding rights. A couple of paragraphs should do it.
I'm not suggesting the ideas in the OP's article are good, I'm merely saying that an institution being against homophobia and teaching tolerance in general DOESN'T conflict with the class you suggested. For me, it's not a matter of one class or the other, but rather, tolerance needs to be taught in all classes instead of merely in one specific class.
You're still spreading the same amount of time. Some other topic will now fall away. While you're worrying about tolerance, little Chang is learning how to make phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range.
MISTER PRESIDENT WE CANNOT ALLOW A PHASED PLASMA RIFLE GAP!
Frazzled wrote:You're still spreading the same amount of time. Some other topic will now fall away.
... so you suggest we remove the entire code of conduct from all public schools?
You just changed the topic from teaching "gay history" to indoctrination to the student handbook. Which is it?
...
Melissia wrote:I'm not suggesting the ideas in the OP's article are good, I'm merely saying that an institution being against homophobia and teaching tolerance in general DOESN'T conflict with the class you suggested. For me, it's not a matter of one class or the other, but rather, tolerance needs to be taught in all classes instead of merely in one specific class.
I never changed the subject so much as I never really agreed in the first place?
Emperors Faithful wrote:Not that it really matters. School shouldn't be just about the basics (how much money have you made off algebra?)
A lot, actually. Math is a vitally important skill.
You actually made money from X = Y - ?
Want to know how much I've made off of uh...(remembering HS courses) English literature? Nothing.
Oddly enough, English Literature was required (4 years of English courses required), while Algebra was an elective (only 2 years of math required).
Generally, people that pass English Literature are capable of writing legible paragraphs. That's something that shouldn't be under-valued, seeing as we are actually on the internet here. Imagine some of the posters here trying to write a report of any kind with that kind of grammah.
Also, here in Oz both English and Maths was mandatory in schools, even though most courses had English as a required subject.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I would think that encouraging kids to not be homophobic would be a good thing.
Is it better than personal finance? Better than Asian History (there are a lot more Asians than there are gays)?
Is discrimination against Asians really a huge problem where you come from?
I can see it now, Little Timmy running around the playground with Little Sarah's pet doll as she chases him and shouts "You're so Chinese, Timmy!"
This program requires schools to teach history slanted towards a preferred political group. It will necessarily take away from other curricula at their expense. The legislature should not be engaging in this behavior.
Frazzled wrote:You're still spreading the same amount of time. Some other topic will now fall away.
... so you suggest we remove the entire code of conduct from all public schools?
You just changed the topic from teaching "gay history" to indoctrination to the student handbook. Which is it?
All that Melissia has done so far is say that teaching basic subjects and teaching a subject that is likely to increase tolerance for homosexuals aren't mutually exclusive. Kids aren't going to be failing Maths because another subject mentions LGTB.
You didn't answer. Are you teaching tolerance, gay history, or are you now merely including it in the student manual of conduct (note mayhaps you did, but we did not have a class or anything at all about the manual except were given it and the usual 'if you %&$* up you're out' speech).
Black history, latino history, women's history, now gay history. When will they realize that the reason US kids do so poorly on history, in general, is because we are considering trivia as history to fulfill some minority's political agenda, rather than actually covering subjects that matter.
You know, when I was in school, we spent more time learning about George Washington Carver and his uses for peanuts than we did on John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison put together. I'm sure peanuts are a miracle food and all, but the Federalist Papers defined the country.
And no one ever told me who invented Spinach-Artichoke dip, which is much better than peanut butter, either.
Frazzled wrote:You didn't answer. Are you teaching tolerance, gay history, or are you now merely including it in the student manual of conduct (note mayhaps you did, but we did not have a class or anything at all about the manual except were given it and the usual 'if you %&$* up you're out' speech).
This doesn't address anyone's post. Anywhere. What post is this question directed at?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbeard wrote:You know, when I was in school, we spent more time learning about George Washington Carver and his uses for peanuts than we did on John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison put together.
Frazzled wrote:You didn't answer. Are you teaching tolerance, gay history, or are you now merely including it in the student manual of conduct (note mayhaps you did, but we did not have a class or anything at all about the manual except were given it and the usual 'if you %&$* up you're out' speech).
So you're saying your school didn't actually care that much about students following its behavioral rules?
I made my position very clear....
"I'm not suggesting the ideas in the OP's article are good"
IE, I don't think a specific class is necessary so much as the entire attitude of the school needs to reflect tolerance. Schools are where kids learn much of their social mores, and it's not just in the classroom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't know who any of those people are.
You wouldn't, he's mostly only important to early US history, having a profound influence upon the attitude of the colonies during their civil war against the UK due to his Federalist Papers, which are still used to interpret the constitution today.
Redbeard wrote:Great, another meaningless history month.
Black history, latino history, women's history, now gay history. When will they realize that the reason US kids do so poorly on history, in general, is because we are considering trivia as history to fulfill some minority's political agenda, rather than actually covering subjects that matter.
You know, when I was in school, we spent more time learning about George Washington Carver and his uses for peanuts than we did on John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison put together. I'm sure peanuts are a miracle food and all, but the Federalist Papers defined the country.
I disagree. Speaking as someone who has relatively recent experience with high school, the reason 'US kids do so poorly on history' is because the curriculum is crap. We didn't have black history, latino history, women's history, Republican/Democrat history, or whatever minority/political agenda you want to talk about.
The problem is that, when you get to high school, they stop with the 'different levels'/'focuses' of history that you had in middle school.
To give an example:
In 6th grade, I took what was called 'Classical History'. It was from Hammurabi to the Renaissance, and lasted the whole year.
In 7th grade, I took what was called 'European History'. It covered Europe and Russia starting with the rise and fall of the Roman Empire to the reconciliation of East and West Germany and the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In 8th grade(which was in 2001), I took what was called 'American History'. It covered the discovery and colonization of the New World and ended with the US intervention in Somalia.
That's 3 history courses, each one lasting all year and each one being fairly comprehensive. And no. That wasn't a private school, that was a public school curriculum.
By contrast, in high school I had to take ONE of TWO history classes. World History or Economics, Laws, and Politics.
The second one went in-depth on why the US is the way it is, the first one was basically a joke with a paragraph on what I've seen entire college courses available on.
biccat wrote:Yes, actually I do. Every day in fact.
I'm currently doing work with parabolic and elliptical mirrors. Unless you know about math and conic sections, you wouldn't understand these things.
Melissia wrote:When I finish my degree in Chemistry, I'll be making money off of applied math, too.
Wow, you people mad.
I think I'll stick with my Law course and stay away from numbers if I can help it.
Kanluwen wrote:To give an example:
In 6th grade, I took what was called 'Classical History'. It was from Hammurabi to the Renaissance, and lasted the whole year.
In 7th grade, I took what was called 'European History'. It covered Europe and Russia starting with the rise and fall of the Roman Empire to the reconciliation of East and West Germany and the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In 8th grade(which was in 2001), I took what was called 'American History'. It covered the discovery and colonization of the New World and ended with the US intervention in Somalia.
You covered the entirety of European History in a single year?
We had whole years dedicated to just one of the World Wars. I don't know how you can call that comprehensive.
Frazzled wrote:You didn't answer. Are you teaching tolerance, gay history, or are you now merely including it in the student manual of conduct (note mayhaps you did, but we did not have a class or anything at all about the manual except were given it and the usual 'if you %&$* up you're out' speech).
So you're saying your school didn't actually care that much about students following its behavioral rules?
***No. We did not waste time on the manual. If you violated the manual you were suspended or expelled. We didn't have a class. We didn't have training. You recieved a copy, signed a sheet saying you received a copy, and then it was your ass if you ed up. I'm not getting where you're going here.
I made my position very clear....
***I didn't get that. Please define what exactly you're saying. When would teaching occur and what would occur.
Kanluwen wrote:To give an example:
In 6th grade, I took what was called 'Classical History'. It was from Hammurabi to the Renaissance, and lasted the whole year.
In 7th grade, I took what was called 'European History'. It covered Europe and Russia starting with the rise and fall of the Roman Empire to the reconciliation of East and West Germany and the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In 8th grade(which was in 2001), I took what was called 'American History'. It covered the discovery and colonization of the New World and ended with the US intervention in Somalia.
You covered the entirety of European History in a single year?
Bear in mind that a 'single year' of the US public school system starts in early/mid August and ends at the start of June. There's around 3-4 weeks of break outside of summer.
We had whole years dedicated to just one of the World Wars. I don't know how you can call that comprehensive.
By that same vein I'm not sure how you can have whole years dedicated to one of the World Wars, especially as one class.
There's a lot of 'overlap' in Classical/European history. The parts that were 'overlapped' like the rise and fall of Rome and the Renaissance tended to be fairly 'brief primers' based on what you already learnt.
Kanluwen wrote:To give an example: In 6th grade, I took what was called 'Classical History'. It was from Hammurabi to the Renaissance, and lasted the whole year. In 7th grade, I took what was called 'European History'. It covered Europe and Russia starting with the rise and fall of the Roman Empire to the reconciliation of East and West Germany and the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 8th grade(which was in 2001), I took what was called 'American History'. It covered the discovery and colonization of the New World and ended with the US intervention in Somalia.
You covered the entirety of European History in a single year?
We had whole years dedicated to just one of the World Wars. I don't know how you can call that comprehensive.
Maybe its because European and other school systems cover foreign history just like we cover ours. In England they probably learn about the colonial era, War of 1812, WW1, the Great Depression(because it affected ENgland as well), WW2, and then that's really it for the american history they learn. We learn mostly about the parts the US was influential in in basic history and then European History doesn't really cover the wars, it covers more European exclusive history like the plague, Renaissance, Hundred Years War, and other European colonization, like the Boer War, and so on.
In middle school I didn't learn hose histories, I just had basic history each year. I did however learn Latin my first two years in middle school, and also learned algebra and geometry. In highschool I took World History, AP European History, AP US History, and AP Government. AP courses are college geared courses that will give you a letter grade as well as a chance to take a test that gives you college credit for it as well, neat courses seeing as though you can pay $80 and get a college credit worth $500 at least. In my AP European History class we had to read 'The Prince' and 'Utopia' for a summer reading project, both pretty good books and 'The Prince' answered a bit of the 'why don't people just rebel' question for dictators. In our European History class we knew WW2 left and right so we didn't cover it, we covered philosophers, inventions, and as said before European exclusive events. We did cover bits and pieces of why the wars started from a European view, but didn't devote an entire book to a subject we learn in US History. I guess that makes us a bit better than your school books, our books teach what they're supposed to teach. Sure WW2 was in Europe, but just about every single country in the world was involved and as said before its mostly covered in US History so its not in the European History book as much. So yeah, learning about WW2 should've been covered under your Australian History courses seeing as though Australia was in the war as well, I know because the US gave you tanks.
Its also funny when we compare American Math and Science scores of the average student to foreign countries. Once you guys start sending all of your students to higher level sciences instead of just teaching the ones who don't do math well vocational skills then maybe we can remeasure the math scores.
Again: In the US a student who doesn't do well in Math and doesn't really want to attend a high school is forced to take Math and go to high school. In other foreign countries students must take a test to see if they can go to a higher level school and the others are taught vocational skills. See the bit of difference there?
Kanluwen wrote:Bear in mind that a 'single year' of the US public school system starts in early/mid August and ends at the start of June. There's around 3-4 weeks of break outside of summer.
Yes, I realise that it's not 365 days of the year.
We had whole years dedicated to just one of the World Wars. I don't know how you can call that comprehensive.
By that same vein I'm not sure how you can have whole years dedicated to one of the World Wars, especially as one class.
You mean how we endured it or how we found enough stuff that was relevant to it? Becuase it's not that hard to do the latter, and the former depends largely on the student.
There's a lot of 'overlap' in Classical/European history. The parts that were 'overlapped' like the rise and fall of Rome and the Renaissance tended to be fairly 'brief primers' based on what you already learnt.
Still compacting the entirety of European history into a single year seems...half-baked?
Frazzled wrote:I'm not getting where you're going here.
I don't think you're really even trying...
To repeat myself for the umpteenth time, I said I don't agree with the ideas in the OP's article. Honestly, how the FETH more clear do I have to make myself?
We cover world wars in US history. When we teach European history, its different stuff because we know the world wars.
Its not compact, you'll be fairly surprised in how much we cover in European History.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I'm not getting where you're going here.
I don't think you're really even trying...
To repeat myself for the umpteenth time, I said I don't agree with the ideas in the OP's article. Honestly, how the FETH more clear do I have to make myself?
halonachos wrote: So yeah, learning about WW2 should've been covered under your Australian History courses seeing as though Australia was in the war as well, I know because the US gave you tanks.
WW2 was covered in our history lessons, but the year where we specifically covered Australian history (our final year) mostly involved either our experiences with the Indigenous people (not exactly a picnic) and the role of Australia in more modern events like East Timor.
WW2 was given 3/4 of it's own year of school study. The first 1/4 was about the Russian revolution (which can be considered patently awesome/terrible).
Kanluwen wrote:Bear in mind that a 'single year' of the US public school system starts in early/mid August and ends at the start of June. There's around 3-4 weeks of break outside of summer.
Yes, I realise that it's not 365 days of the year.
We had whole years dedicated to just one of the World Wars. I don't know how you can call that comprehensive.
By that same vein I'm not sure how you can have whole years dedicated to one of the World Wars, especially as one class.
You mean how we endured it or how we found enough stuff that was relevant to it? Because it's not that hard to do the latter, and the former depends largely on the student.
I'm kind of curious as to which World War it was now.
Or if you might be mistaking things that we cover as their own topics(such as Germany's depression after WW1 that led to Hitler becoming a Major Player) as part of the war proper.
There's a lot of 'overlap' in Classical/European history. The parts that were 'overlapped' like the rise and fall of Rome and the Renaissance tended to be fairly 'brief primers' based on what you already learnt.
Still compacting the entirety of European history into a single year seems...half-baked?
Compacting the entirety of European history into a single year, when you've already learned 'the basics' of a lot of European history the year before means it's not really "a single year".
Kanluwen wrote:Bear in mind that a 'single year' of the US public school system starts in early/mid August and ends at the start of June. There's around 3-4 weeks of break outside of summer.
Yes, I realise that it's not 365 days of the year.
We had whole years dedicated to just one of the World Wars. I don't know how you can call that comprehensive.
By that same vein I'm not sure how you can have whole years dedicated to one of the World Wars, especially as one class.
You mean how we endured it or how we found enough stuff that was relevant to it? Becuase it's not that hard to do the latter, and the former depends largely on the student.
There's a lot of 'overlap' in Classical/European history. The parts that were 'overlapped' like the rise and fall of Rome and the Renaissance tended to be fairly 'brief primers' based on what you already learnt.
Still compacting the entirety of European history into a single year seems...half-baked?
Why? We also have to deal with Asia, Africa, and most importantly the Americas. Europe's just like this place you know...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I'm not getting where you're going here.
I don't think you're really even trying...
To repeat myself for the umpteenth time, I said I don't agree with the ideas in the OP's article. Honestly, how the FETH more clear do I have to make myself?
I'm talking about your behavioral modification scheme. Define what you're talking about.
halonachos wrote: So yeah, learning about WW2 should've been covered under your Australian History courses seeing as though Australia was in the war as well, I know because the US gave you tanks.
WW2 was covered in our history lessons, but the year where we specifically covered Australian history (our final year) mostly involved either our experiences with the Indigenous people (not exactly a picnic) and the role of Australia in more modern events like East Timor.
WW2 was given 3/4 of it's own year of school study. The first 1/4 was about the Russian revolution (which can be considered patently awesome/terrible).
We learn about how we dealt with the natives as well, we learned that in elementary school.
Elementary school: Grades 1-5, history includes: Ancient History(Romans, Chinese, Greeks, etc), US History(very kid friendly version of how we dealt with the natives and slavery), World Wars, and then state history.
Middle School: State History, US History, and European History
High School: World History(ancient history), European History(more in depth, covers era by era), US History(in depth US History, Manifest Destiny, look that up in one of your text books and I doubt you'll find it), and Government(how the US government system works).
Kanluwen wrote:I'm kind of curious as to which World War it was now.
Or if you might be mistaking things that we cover as their own topics(such as Germany's depression after WW1 that led to Hitler becoming a Major Player) as part of the war proper.
We studied both of them, though WWI was more mixed in with the lead up to the war and the aftermath with the Treaty of Versailles. With WWII we studied the war proper, from Appeasement to the dropping of the Bomb.
Compacting the entirety of European history into a single year, when you've already learned 'the basics' of a lot of European history the year before means it's not really "a single year".
Probably my Colonial roots speaking here, but yes. That does still come across as rushed. By God man, pay proper homage to your European masters.
It's not simple. School is more than merely a place where you learn booksmarts. It's also a place where one learns social mores. From the earliest years, schools need to set the right attitude in their various staff, whom will attempt to distill the same values onto their students.
As it is, in many schools these days harmful actions based off of homophobia are perfectly acceptable despite it supposedly being against the rules.
We do pay homage to them and their 78 years of constant fighting between England and France that did absolutely nothing but diminish the population.
Apparantly Italy got its teeth kicked in during that war too. Good thing they had the banking families to help them out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:It's not simple. School is more than merely a place where you learn booksmarts. It's also a place where one learns social mores. From the earliest years, schools need to set the right attitude in their various staff, whom will attempt to distill the same values onto their students.
As it is, in many schools these days harmful actions based off of homophobia are perfectly acceptable despite it supposedly being against the rules.
My school had a 'Gay, Straight Alliance' club thing. Never went because I really didn't care about the worries of homosexuals in the modern era, for the most part lynching a homosexual is a social taboo compared to yesteryears.
Frazzled wrote:
Why? We also have to deal with Asia, Africa, and most importantly the Americas. Europe's just like this place you know...
I was always dissapointed that we never looked at Ancient Chinese History. By all accounts it seems kickass.
halonachos wrote:
We learn about how we dealt with the natives as well, we learned that in elementary school.
We did the same, though that mainly involved us getting our faces painted and throwing boomerangs around the place (a Health and Safety nightmare for the teacheres). Once we got to our final year things became much grittier.
High School: World History(ancient history), European History(more in depth, covers era by era), US History(in depth US History, Manifest Destiny, look that up in one of your text books and I doubt you'll find it), and Government(how the US government system works).
We used these to help supplement our texts.
So were you offered electives? Over here we had the choice between further Modern History or futher Ancient History.
Also, the Government System wasn't explained in history.
halonachos wrote:My school had a 'Gay, Straight Alliance' club thing. Never went because I really didn't care about the worries of homosexuals in the modern era, for the most part lynching a homosexual is a social taboo compared to yesteryears.
Mine still had students beat up because they acted "gay" and the offending parties essentially got away with a slap on the wrist, while the "gay" students were punished. This was ten years ago, but that's still quite recent.
halonachos wrote:We do pay homage to them and their 78 years of constant fighting between England and France that did absolutely nothing but diminish the population.
Bollocks, the English had a bloody good time an the French got a Saint out of the deal to boot!
The histories weren't electives, they were mandatory but we did have a choice between 'AP' and 'Core'.
We had three choices in levels of english as well: 'AP', 'Honors', and 'Core'. Not really electives but closer to the difficulty levels in a video game.
@Melissia:
Wow, you're school is messed up. We didn't get away with anything like that. Hell a black person calling another black person the n-word was frowned upon if a teacher heard it.
Frazzled wrote:Texas also has Geography and History of Texas.
Edit: my boy just aced his APs to place out of college history. Hurray for my wallet!
Not hurray for him, looking back AP courses were probably the worst choice ever. Sure you place out of general electives but you get slammed with Sophomore/Junior year stuff in the Freshman year. Starting out in Calc II with nothing to counterbalance that grade killed my GPA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
halonachos wrote:Wow, you're school is messed up.
No, my school was southern.
I live in Virginia, 25 minutes away from North Carolina. We're pretty southern as well, your school was just messed up.
Melissia wrote:It's not simple. School is more than merely a place where you learn booksmarts. It's also a place where one learns social mores. From the earliest years, schools need to set the right attitude in their various staff, whom will attempt to distill the same values onto their students.
As it is, in many schools these days harmful actions based off of homophobia are perfectly acceptable despite it supposedly being against the rules.
You presume much. Harassment and other violations are still..violations.
I'm in North Carolina, and we had the LGSA as well.
We didn't have many 'openly gay' students at my high school that I'm aware of, outside of a few lesbians(and let's face it--everybody loves lesbians--unless they're fat, and then it's just 'ewwww' ) and I don't remember too many people having bad things to say about homosexuality.
halonachos wrote:My school had a 'Gay, Straight Alliance' club thing. Never went because I really didn't care about the worries of homosexuals in the modern era, for the most part lynching a homosexual is a social taboo compared to yesteryears.
Mine still had students beat up because they acted "gay" and the offending parties essentially got away with a slap on the wrist, while the "gay" students were punished. This was ten years ago, but that's still quite recent.
Thats your school's fault. Gay, straight, martian who gives a ? (and thats the problem). Battery is battery.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
halonachos wrote:Wow, you're school is messed up.
No, my school was southern.
Mine was too and that wasn't tolerated. Everyone involved would have been expelled. But we're backwards that way...
halonachos wrote:My school had a 'Gay, Straight Alliance' club thing. Never went because I really didn't care about the worries of homosexuals in the modern era, for the most part lynching a homosexual is a social taboo compared to yesteryears.
Mine still had students beat up because they acted "gay" and the offending parties essentially got away with a slap on the wrist, while the "gay" students were punished. This was ten years ago, but that's still quite recent.
Thats your school's fault. Gay, straight, martian who gives a ? (and thats the problem). Battery is battery.
So? Never stopped any school from ignoring the antics of its sports team because they really really like sports, or ignoring the antics of gay-bashers because they policy-makers themselves don' approve of homosexuality.
Certainly it hasn't stopped society at large from discriminating against homosexuals, why would it stop our schools from doing so?
halonachos wrote:My school had a 'Gay, Straight Alliance' club thing. Never went because I really didn't care about the worries of homosexuals in the modern era, for the most part lynching a homosexual is a social taboo compared to yesteryears.
Mine still had students beat up because they acted "gay" and the offending parties essentially got away with a slap on the wrist, while the "gay" students were punished. This was ten years ago, but that's still quite recent.
Thats your school's fault. Gay, straight, martian who gives a ? (and thats the problem). Battery is battery.
So? Never stopped any school from ignoring the antics of its sports team because they really really like sports, or ignoring the antics of gay-bashers because they policy-makers themselves don' approve of homosexuality.
Certainly it hasn't stopped society at large from discriminating against homosexuals, why would it stop our schools from doing so?
Again you're presupposing what happened at your school with the rest of the US. My school didn't tolerate that sort of thing. Of course neither did we. I'm not saying we're better just way more aggressive.
Having said that, if we take your statement at face value than anything you just recommended is also blindingly irrelevant isn't it, and we might as well again just focus on: 1) Thaisboxing; 2) math. The circle is complete...
Frazzled wrote:Again you're presupposing what happened at your school with the rest of the US.
I think it's worse than ya realize. There's plenty of stories such as this every year, they just don't get much press these days outside of the GBLT community.
Frazzled wrote:Again you're presupposing what happened at your school with the rest of the US.
I think it's worse than ya realize. There's plenty of stories such as this every year, they just don't get much press these days outside of the GBLT community.
Tragic but so what? People are assaulted all the time for a whole host of reasons or none at all.
Thats why we have prisons, lawyers, and helicopter parents.
No, I'm fairly sure I'm not I witnessed a few of those assaults myself. And the resulting "punishments" after the proceedings. Heck, because of Zero Tolerance policies, the principle actually considered punishing THE WITNESSES. That last part was probably personal stupidity on his part and likely uncommon (Though not as much as you think, Zero Tolerance policies are always stupid, just look for stories of students with diabetes not being allowed their medicine because they thought it was a drug, despite the school nurse saying it was medicine...).
Automatically Appended Next Post: The US school system's actual educational quality ain't the only thing messed up. Their inability to intelligently discipline has always also been such.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And don't think this is an old thing either. Zero Tolerance policies have resulted in stupidities quite recently. Such as last year the administrators of one school ordered a twelve year old who doodled what basically amounts to "I like my friends" with absolutely no obscenity or anything remotely offensive in it on a desk to be arrested, handcuffed, paraded around in front of everyone else, and then sent to the precinct to be booked.
I can understand talking about a historical person's persecution due to his/her/its orientation. So long as the person warrants discussion based on achievement. (The example of the man who broke the enigma code is a good one)
But why talk about sexuality in school outside of sex ed? it is no more relevant than fetishes held by historical persons (I'm looking at you Napoleon!)
School is not the place to teach 'social understanding'. In fact, any attempt to do so is the same as teaching religion in school. Fine, imo, if purely an elective. But to force it into the minds of children is not acceptable.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:School is not the place to teach 'social understanding'.
And yet, school is the primary place where social understanding is learned.
But not taught.
Learning by interaction is fine. Homosexual students should not be prohibited from interacting with their peers (and I am unaware of this happening).
So children and teens will make their own minds up on how to interact with homosexuals the same way they learn to interact with Mexicans, whites, etc.
People are allowed to dislike other humans and/or groups. They may not harm or intimidate them.
"Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Except that they, by necessity, must do so in order to ensure a friendly learning environment for all students, not merely for the racists/misogynists/antisemites/homophobes/etc.
Melissia wrote:Except that they, by necessity, must do so in order to ensure a friendly learning environment for all students, not merely for the racists/misogynists/antisemites/homophobes/etc.
Really?
Necessity?
Are you are saying that it is impossible for there to be a friendly learning environment unless the teacher gets up and attempts to force the students to change their values?
If nothing is said on sexuality, how is the environment automatically unfriendly?
Does not wanting a child to be told that he has to believe that homosexuality is normal make a parent "racists/misogynists/antisemites/homophobes/etc"?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Are you are saying that it is impossible for there to be a friendly learning environment unless the teacher gets up and attempts to force the students to change their values?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:"Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
When people stop swinging their fists into gay people's noses with a much higher degree than the normal population that might start to apply.
I think you are missing the intent of that statement and taking it at literal face value.
Individuals are allowed to hate white people, but may not threaten or harm white people.
Individuals are allowed to hate black people, but may not threaten or harm black people.
Individuals are allowed to hate gay people, but may not threaten or harm gay people.
See what this means?
you cannot legislate acceptance. You can only enforce fair treatment.
As it applies to the OT, school is not the place for preaching acceptance any more than is the place to preach discrimination.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Are you are saying that it is impossible for there to be a friendly learning environment unless the teacher gets up and attempts to force the students to change their values?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Dear Lord! I hope you never have children!
You mean just because I actually observe the highly manipulative, greedy, and often downright malicious behavior of the majority of children and LEARN from said behavior about the nature of children instead of going gushy and thinking "d'aww! how cute!", I shouldn't be around children?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Are you are saying that it is impossible for there to be a friendly learning environment unless the teacher gets up and attempts to force the students to change their values?
Pretty much, yes. Children are sociopath a-holes.
Dear Lord! I hope you never have children!
Actually, she's smack on. Young children are exactly like that. It's not that I hate kids or anything, but when they're at a really young age it's simply not accurate to claim otherwise.
In fact, we currrently socially train said sociopathic-ness out of children as part of trying to make society itself a better place for everyone.
This is why we punish children for being mean or breaking rules in the first place, because otherwise they'll keep doing it because they're sociopathic a-holes who don't understand or necessarily care about social mores. They don't know how to behave yet. They're constantly learning all their lives-- up to and even in to adulthood.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I think you are missing the intent of that statement and taking it at literal face value.
No, I didn't, though I think you misunderstood mine.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Individuals are allowed to hate white people, but may not threaten or harm white people.
Individuals are allowed to hate black people, but may not threaten or harm black people.
Individuals are allowed to hate gay people, but may not threaten or harm gay people.
Violence towards gays and minorities doesn't come from people that are indifferent or accepting of others. Of course people are allowed to hate if they choose, but it is also a root cause of many problems. Considering that for longer than not homosexuals hide to hide who they were for fear of physical, mental, and community abuse, it isn't that far fetched to try and correct some of that by showing that gay people are not some weird thing to be treated like a monster in the forest but people like anyone else. How does one help reduce the levels of violence and discrimination? Education. The very fact people are pissing in their pants angry that schools can even mention that gay people are people to show just how much it needs to be taught.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:See what this means?
you cannot legislate acceptance. You can only enforce fair treatment.
As it applies to the OT, school is not the place for preaching acceptance any more than is the place to preach discrimination.
This is in no way close to legislating away hate, but allowing schools to talk about gay people openly. If you think they are teaching to discriminate, you aren't looking clearly at what this is and are another prime example of exactly why it should be told to our children.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I think we might be abusing the definition of "sociopath" here as well.
Not so much abusing it as not using it properly at all. Like calling a car a tree.
Monster Rain wrote:I think your idea that children don't have a conscience is... misguided.
I would agree that it's completely true.
The ego takes time to develop. Children begin only with the id, and considerable time is needed for the ego to take control. Children lack the simple 'humanity' that a fully developed and (relatively) mentally healthy adult would have. They aren't capable of the same kind of metaphorical understanding (it could be argued that many 'fully developed' adults aren't quite there yet either) or critical thinking that an adult is.
And during that age, many schoolchildren still haven't fully developed a conscience or respect others, with only the particularly well raised ones having done so. Disrespect isn't illegal, but it is something that should be discouraged, I think.
An ironic statement, considering this whole line of conversation started with someone calling an entire classification of people "sociopathic a-holes."
Monster Rain wrote:An ironic statement, considering this whole line of conversation started with someone calling an entire classification of people "sociopathic a-holes."
No it isn't. Some children develop faster than others, some children are trained better than others, etc. But most everyone starts at the same spot behaviorally, a needy little kid that wants everything and is willing to manipulate anyone without shame in any way possible to obtain anything that it desires, and doesn't understand the concepts of scarcity and sharing-- traits which in adults would be classified as mentally defective and in desperate need of counseling.
Melissia wrote:And during that age, many schoolchildren still haven't fully developed a conscience or respect others, with only the particularly well raised ones having done so. Disrespect isn't illegal, but it is something that should be discouraged, I think.
At what point do they develop that respect for others then? It was demanded of me before I even hit third grade and the children that this law should be affecting should be well over such age. As you point out only the well raised ones develop such respect early on but then I ask, what causes this? General parental enforcement? If so then shouldn't the parents also be the ones magnifying the respect to All other regardless of orientation? So that should instill tolerance on the well raised ones while the ones who develop later are forced to learn from their peers, having either learned or not learned such respect, and teachers, who by fact of being a teacher should be a role model, showing tolerance to all.
What I'm trying to get to here is that no matter the upbringing it is ultimately going to fall on either the personal biases of the parents or teachers as to how children learn tolerance, in the developmental years, and since teachers are rotated out every year the parents influence is magnified. This law, to me, seems nothing more then a point on which the anti-gay community can rabble around shouting 'gay agenda'
If you think I'm way off though please feel free to say why
Yes, Brats get a smack across their mouth, sociopaths become pariahs who deserve isolation. If they refuse to change, they will stay isolated. If they decide to stop being fething donkey-caves, then maybe they'll learn how to act as rational beings.
Azure wrote:As you point out only the well raised ones develop such respect early on but then I ask, what causes this? General parental enforcement? If so then shouldn't the parents also be the ones magnifying the respect to All other regardless of orientation?
Yes, but that just leads to parent bashing, and do we really want to get into that in this thread?
Children mimic their surroundings, in a household where the mother cooks and cleans the daughter will tend to believe that they should cook and clean. In role ambiguous families the children will tend to split duties because that's how they think it should be.
An anecdote of this would be the story of a family who had a mother who was in the military and a stay at home father; one day the father was pretending to march around and the daughter said that he was acting like a girl.
Family settings are very important in the development of a child's actions, schools can help but generally the home is where they learn.
As far as children being sociopaths, not so much. Children can be sociopaths but its far less likely. There's a psychological test that involves having children watch videos of three different types of behaviors; aggressive, passive, and ambiguous.
Typically children will identify aggressive(shoving a person) as aggressive and passive as passive(person being nice to another), the ambiguous one is where its all decided.
Socially aggressive children see it as aggression(a person bumping into another person) while most children see it as ambiguous.
Now I'm all for teaching the whole story of history, but I don't see much need for this, mostly because gay people were forced to be very secretive about their sexuality throughout history. This makes it hard for us today to identify past people as gay. Please add others, but the best example of gay history I can think of is Mr. Turing, the genius code-cracker and pioneering computer-man. His efforts greatly helped the Allies, and he belongs in history books. I don't see much other use for this act. In my American History class, we learned about the Stonewall Protests and other movements for equal rights.
Melissia wrote:Except that they, by necessity, must do so in order to ensure a friendly learning environment for all students, not merely for the racists/misogynists/antisemites/homophobes/etc.
Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fafnir wrote:"Today kids, we're going to watch a movie"
The teacher puts in a video of Margaret Cho.
One student laughs.
Thats student is then beaten to death.
"Excellent," says the teacher. "Now that we've culled the herd and seen the concept of Social Darwinism first hand, we can now discuss why teacher unions are awesome and how much I hate you all."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
micahaphone wrote:Now I'm all for teaching the whole story of history, but I don't see much need for this, mostly because gay people were forced to be very secretive about their sexuality throughout history. This makes it hard for us today to identify past people as gay. Please add others, but the best example of gay history I can think of is Mr. Turing, the genius code-cracker and pioneering computer-man. His efforts greatly helped the Allies, and he belongs in history books. I don't see much other use for this act. In my American History class, we learned about the Stonewall Protests and other movements for equal rights.
Frazzled wrote:Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.
Amusing, but not helpful to actually learn. The best way to make sure someone learns is to make them enjoy learning.
Frazzled wrote:Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.
Amusing, but not helpful to actually learn. The best way to make sure someone learns is to make them enjoy learning.
Do gooder nonsense that fits right along with the mantra "everyone's a winner!"
Learn or die. Chang's still building phased plasma rifles.
Frazzled wrote:Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.
Amusing, but not helpful to actually learn. The best way to make sure someone learns is to make them enjoy learning.
Enjoy learning... with forced social lessons.
If this legislation was about protecting children from rough-housing and enforcement of school policies against gay-bashing, then there'd be no problem.
But this legislation is all about "Gays are awesome, and if your parents say otherwise they are bigots! If you want an A in this class you have to agree with this state sponsored position!"
This would be no different than if I was forced to attend a born-again class that told me my religious views are wrong because I interpret the bible differently. It does not belong in school.
Frazzled wrote:
Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.
Though they also taught us we're not allowed to use the word fail, which I heavily disagreed with.
Out of curiosity, have you read about "The Tiger Mother"? It's a book where a Chinese mother is in America with her American husband, but insists on raising the students in a "Chinese" way. One event that stood out to me was how at the age of 3, the child was given a small piano and forced to repeat the mother exactly. When she inevitably refused, the mother put her outside into the cold and left her there. Eventually, fearing a neighbour would see and call social services, she begged the child back in.
The kicker there was the reason why, for me. Though I may remember it wrong, if so, please correct!
Frazzled wrote:
Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.
Though they also taught us we're not allowed to use the word fail, which I heavily disagreed with.
Out of curiosity, have you read about "The Tiger Mother"? It's a book where a Chinese mother is in America with her American husband, but insists on raising the students in a "Chinese" way. One event that stood out to me was how at the age of 3, the child was given a small piano and forced to repeat the mother exactly. When she inevitably refused, the mother put her outside into the cold and left her there. Eventually, fearing a neighbour would see and call social services, she begged the child back in.
The kicker there was the reason why, for me. Though I may remember it wrong, if so, please correct!
Exactly. Look what happened to the Tiger Mother's kids - at last word they are doing better any hippy tree hugger that cares to pipe up.
Lord of the Dance:
WSBS S T W I A LdSv 2 3 2 4 3 0 10 2
Special Attakcs:
1. Don't look me in the eyes.
2. Don't hurt me
3. Feel the rainbow.
I so want one!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Look I agree with someone up above that said the question is "why are they doing this or what's the agenda". Three answers come to mind.
1. To help kids identify with their own homosexuality and not feel burdened by it because other "great" homosexuals did just fine.
2. "Look, we are cool and do good things too so stop picking on us"
3. "Because we are also great at things we should be allowed to be treated as equals and have equal rights'
My response:
to 1: Although while helping little Johnny to identify with himself and other gay members of society may help his self esteem, I doubt it's going to do much to shield him from or improve the consequences of the general public opinion about homosexuality or the treatment he receives as a result to his lifestyle.
To 2: well doing things that are cool don't change who you are and what you believe in. Personally you could build the Taj Mahal but if you still act swishy and queer around me I'll call you "f_g" just like anyone else.
to 3: Well I believe everyone should be treated as equals so I agree with that part of their agenda because the world is a collection and conglomerate of many diff people that all need to be treated fairly and equally to improve human society. What I don't believe is "because we are equal therefore homosexuality is OK" ... No, I don't agree with that! Not in my eyes not in God's eyes. To love someone for who they are despite there flaws is God's nature, but to continue to allow them to behave in a sinful nature without repentance is not.
And Finally….. What the heck does all this have to do with HISTORY?
"shake and bake" :( suddenly takes on a whole new meaning! lolz
Frazzled wrote:Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.
Amusing, but not helpful to actually learn. The best way to make sure someone learns is to make them enjoy learning.
Do gooder nonsense that fits right along with the mantra "everyone's a winner!"
Learn or die. Chang's still building phased plasma rifles.
No, it's true. Psychological testing has proved that positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement.
it's just that negative reinforcement is more fun.
Frazzled wrote:Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.
Amusing, but not helpful to actually learn. The best way to make sure someone learns is to make them enjoy learning.
Do gooder nonsense that fits right along with the mantra "everyone's a winner!"
Learn or die. Chang's still building phased plasma rifles.
No, it's true. Psychological testing has proved that positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement.
it's just that negative reinforcement is more fun.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Enjoy learning... with forced social lessons.
You're going to get forced social lessions whether you like it or not. Parents force social lessons, fellow students force social lessons, schools force social lessons (what do you mean I'm not allowed to beat Jimmy into a bloody pulp, but I want to!) regardless of if this particular one is included. Now if you had bothered reading, you'd note that I didn't entirely agree with a dedicated class on "gay history", though certainly it'd be fine alongside black history or hispanic history if it's offered. No, what matters is the attitude of the administrators and teachers and how they explain and enforce their rules and how much more positively they can effect the atmosphere of their classes.
Is this going to be like the political correctness one? One person saying he never does it but is polite to people, one person saying even being polite to someone is political correctness?
So you suggest a bunch of bullies and a-holes set the social mores of the school instead of, you nkow, the ones who are supposed to be fething RUNNING the place?
Melissia wrote:So you suggest a bunch of bullies and a-holes set the social mores of the school instead of, you nkow, the ones who are supposed to be fething RUNNING the place?
Like they don't now?
Nice strawman argument. You're arguing indoctrination. I'm simply arguing that the manual code of behavior apply to everyone. Anything else is behaviorism nonsense. You don't need clases. you don't need touchy feely bs that doesn't work. You just need the hammer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, they kind of do.
Though, again, I'm not sure who the bullies and a-holes are. I assume it was Melissia shorthand for "the students."
Yes vs. the bullies and a-holes who work for a union.
Melissia wrote:So you suggest a bunch of bullies and a-holes set the social mores of the school instead of, you nkow, the ones who are supposed to be fething RUNNING the place?
No, but how about those teachers and principles who are supposed to 'run the fething place' do so without legislators dropping pants and farting all over history teachers?
I am all for penalties for people who are violent. I am all for proper codes of conduct.
I don't see why we should brainwash kids to say gay=cool.
Look at drama club students. they get teased. Are we going to need Drama Month in history classes now?
This legislature is either pointless (abuse is already against the rules) or insidious (trying to undermine parents).
It's hard to "undermine the parents" when there's already so many horrible failures disguised as parents to begin with.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:No, but how about those teachers and principles who are supposed to 'run the fething place' do so without legislators dropping pants and farting all over history teachers?
Stop claiming I support the class in the OP when I repeatedly and specifically said that I don't.
Melissia wrote:Stop claiming I support the class in the OP when I repeatedly and specifically said that I don't.
My apologies.
I am now confused what exactly you are supporting then.
Are you saying this law is not good? Your statements about indoctrinating the students to welcome homosexuality appeared to support the purpose of the law.
I am not being snide. I am honestly apologizing if I misunderstood, though I am still a little doubtful that I actually did.
Melissia, while I agree that the best way to get people to learn is to make them enjoy it, nothing short of brainwashing in kindergarten will be able to do this. You can't customize people's personalities like that.
And seriously, have they found enough material to make an entire class out of gay history? No offense to homosexuals, but people were so forced to hide it that I don't think you'll be able to find much data before the 1900s, or you'll have to teach a lot of speculation, like "Queen Elizabeth might have been a lesbian", or "Shakespeare wrote some sonnets to men/from a woman's perspective, maybe he was gay?"
Melissia wrote:Stop claiming I support the class in the OP when I repeatedly and specifically said that I don't.
My apologies.
I am now confused what exactly you are supporting then.
Are you saying this law is not good? Your statements about indoctrinating the students to welcome homosexuality appeared to support the purpose of the law.
I am not being snide. I am honestly apologizing if I misunderstood, though I am still a little doubtful that I actually did.
micahaphone wrote:And seriously, have they found enough material to make an entire class out of gay history?
It isn't a class. They are just putting segments about gay history into courses. Talking about WWII? Might mention Alan Turing. Doing a Civil Rights section? You might mention the Stonewall riots. There is no separate class; it is just the inclusion of some information that was not included before.
micahaphone wrote:And seriously, have they found enough material to make an entire class out of gay history?
It isn't a class. They are just putting segments about gay history into courses. Talking about WWII? Might mention Alan Turing. Doing a Civil Rights section? You might mention the Stonewall riots. There is no separate class; it is just the inclusion of some information that was not included before.
Sorry, my mistake for being confused. If gay people did something significant, let it be taught. I was taught all of the above in my American History class. Maybe California currently has a more conservative view in its curriculum?
micahaphone wrote:And seriously, have they found enough material to make an entire class out of gay history?
It isn't a class. They are just putting segments about gay history into courses. Talking about WWII? Might mention Alan Turing. Doing a Civil Rights section? You might mention the Stonewall riots. There is no separate class; it is just the inclusion of some information that was not included before.
Alright. But with only a couple of weeks to cover the entirety of WWII, how does one budget time for a tangent such as Alan Turing? His work would apply, but his person life and problems post war are not really vital to WWII history. No more than taking time out for Patton post war situation, or Montgomery's. See the problem. it does not serve to educate the student about WWII, but serves to make a statement on homosexuality.
Compound that by every period or lesson plan and you end up with a mess for the students/teachers.
Senate Bill No. 48
CHAPTER 81
An act to amend Sections 51204.5, 51500, 51501, 60040, and 60044 of
the Education Code, relating to instruction.
[Approved by Governor July 13, 2011. Filed with
Secretary of State July 14, 2011.]
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 48, Leno. Pupil instruction: prohibition of discriminatory content.
Existing law requires instruction in social sciences to include a study of
the role and contributions of both men and women and specified categories
of persons to the development of California and the United States.
This bill would update references to certain categories of persons and
additionally would require instruction in social sciences to include a study
of the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other cultural groups,
to the development of California and the United States.
Existing law prohibits instruction or school sponsored activities that
promote a discriminatory bias because of race, sex, color, creed, handicap,
national origin, or ancestry. Existing law prohibits the State Board of
Education and the governing board of any school district from adopting
textbooks or other instructional materials that contain any matter that reflects
adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap,
national origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in these provisions
by referring to race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, and
sexual orientation, or other characteristic listed as specified.
Existing law prohibits a governing board of a school district from adopting
instructional materials that contain any matter reflecting adversely upon
persons because of their race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex,
handicap, or occupation, or that contain any sectarian or denominational
doctrine or propaganda contrary to law.
This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in this provision
to include race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual
orientation, and occupation, or other characteristic listed as specified.
Existing law requires that when adopting instructional materials for use
in the schools, governing boards of school districts shall include materials
that accurately portray the role and contributions of culturally and racially
diverse groups including Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican
Americans, Asian Americans, European Americans, and members of other
ethnic and cultural groups to the total development of California and the
United States.
96
This bill would revise the list of culturally and racially diverse groups to
also include Pacific Islanders, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
Americans, and persons with disabilities.
Existing law provides that there shall be no discrimination on the basis
of specified characteristics in any operation of alternative schools or charter
schools.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that alternative and
charter schools take notice of the provisions of this bill in light of provisions
of existing law that prohibit discrimination in any aspect of their operation.
This bill also would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 51204.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:
51204.5. Instruction in social sciences shall include the early history of
California and a study of the role and contributions of both men and women,
Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian
Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other
ethnic and cultural groups, to the economic, political, and social development
of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis
on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.
SEC. 2. Section 51500 of the Education Code is amended to read:
51500. A teacher shall not give instruction and a school district shall
not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of
race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation,
or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.
SEC. 3. Section 51501 of the Education Code is amended to read:
51501. The state board and any governing board shall not adopt any
textbooks or other instructional materials for use in the public schools that
contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of race
or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or
because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.
SEC. 4. Section 60040 of the Education Code is amended to read:
60040. When adopting instructional materials for use in the schools,
governing boards shall include only instructional materials which, in their
determination, accurately portray the cultural and racial diversity of our
society, including:
(a) The contributions of both men and women in all types of roles,
including professional, vocational, and executive roles.
(b) The role and contributions of Native Americans, African Americans,
Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European
Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with
disabilities, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups to the total
development of California and the United States.
96
Ch. 81 — 2 —
(c) The role and contributions of the entrepreneur and labor in the total
development of California and the United States.
SEC. 5. Section 60044 of the Education Code is amended to read:
60044. A governing board shall not adopt any instructional materials
for use in the schools that, in its determination, contain:
(a) Any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of race or
ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation,
occupation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.
(b) Any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to
law.
SEC. 6. It is the intent of the Legislature that alternative and charter
schools take notice of the provisions of this act in light of Section 235 of
the Education Code, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability,
gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or other
specified characteristics in any aspect of the operation of alternative and
charter schools.
O
96
micahaphone wrote:And seriously, have they found enough material to make an entire class out of gay history?
It isn't a class. They are just putting segments about gay history into courses. Talking about WWII? Might mention Alan Turing. Doing a Civil Rights section? You might mention the Stonewall riots. There is no separate class; it is just the inclusion of some information that was not included before.
Alright. But with only a couple of weeks to cover the entirety of WWII, how does one budget time for a tangent such as Alan Turing? His work would apply, but his person life and problems post war are not really vital to WWII history. No more than taking time out for Patton post war situation, or Montgomery's. See the problem. it does not serve to educate the student about WWII, but serves to make a statement on homosexuality.
Compound that by every period or lesson plan and you end up with a mess for the students/teachers.
For Mr. Turing, give him a paragraph in the textbook, or mention the breakthrough in cryptography as an essential part of the war. Then give two sentences telling what happened to him after the war. "He deserved medals, but instead got chemically castrated for being gay. He was important in the creation of early computers and has 'the Turing Test' named after him, because he created it".
micahaphone wrote:
For Mr. Turing, give him a paragraph in the textbook, or mention the breakthrough in cryptography as an essential part of the war. Then give two sentences telling what happened to him after the war. "He deserved medals, but instead got chemically castrated for being gay. He was important in the creation of early computers and has 'the Turing Test' named after him, because he created it".
okay, but what does the 'gay" part have to do with anything?
Do text books currently state "Mr X did this historical thing and was straight."?
I doubt it.
So are we giving special (read unequal) treatment to one group and not the other?
There is no point to any inclusion of any sexuality (gay or straight or fetishes) in history unless sexuality is the subject matter (which is should not be in a history class). It is a tangent at best.
micahaphone wrote:
For Mr. Turing, give him a paragraph in the textbook, or mention the breakthrough in cryptography as an essential part of the war. Then give two sentences telling what happened to him after the war. "He deserved medals, but instead got chemically castrated for being gay. He was important in the creation of early computers and has 'the Turing Test' named after him, because he created it".
okay, but what does the 'gay" part have to do with anything?
Do text books currently state "Mr X did this historical thing and was straight."?
I doubt it.
So are we giving special (read unequal) treatment to one group and not the other?
There is no point to any inclusion of any sexuality (gay or straight or fetishes) in history unless sexuality is the subject matter (which is should not be in a history class). It is a tangent at best.
Okay, yeah. The only relevant thing I can think of to teach would be the movements and efforts for equal rights, like the Stonewallers. I learned about them alongside other people working for equal rights, like suffragists and civil rights advocates.
Monster Rain wrote:When you put it that way, Ahtman, this whole thing seems like sensationalistic, manufactured controversy.
Perish the thought.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Alright. But with only a couple of weeks to cover the entirety of WWII, how does one budget time for a tangent such as Alan Turing?
The same way you fit anything into a survey course that is meant to teach a broad overview of a subject that you will teach for a month that one could spend years studying. One does not become a historian based solely on the information taught in High School. There are all sorts of things we teach now that we didn't 40 years ago. Women and minorities of all stripes that were overlooked have been included and so they should; these people were also instrumental in forming the fabric of our history. We pick and choose all the time what gets included.
Leave no special interest behind
That is how politics works. Get enough support and you get things accomplished. This isn't limited to them silly homosexuals. Ever heard of the NRA? Focus on The Family? Parents Television Council?
micahaphone wrote:Okay, yeah. The only relevant thing I can think of to teach would be the movements and efforts for equal rights, like the Stonewallers. I learned about them alongside other people working for equal rights, like suffragists...
micahaphone wrote:For Mr. Turing, give him a paragraph in the textbook, or mention the breakthrough in cryptography as an essential part of the war. Then give two sentences telling what happened to him after the war. "He deserved medals, but instead got chemically castrated for being gay. He was important in the creation of early computers and has 'the Turing Test' named after him, because he created it".
You just accomplished what this bill is trying to do, you radical gay sympathizer.
micahaphone wrote:For Mr. Turing, give him a paragraph in the textbook, or mention the breakthrough in cryptography as an essential part of the war. Then give two sentences telling what happened to him after the war. "He deserved medals, but instead got chemically castrated for being gay. He was important in the creation of early computers and has 'the Turing Test' named after him, because he created it".
You just accomplished what this bill is trying to do, you radical gay sympathizer.
You know me: extremist to the end. Next thing you know I'll be forcing pregnant teens to get abortions while trying to hand out free prescription drugs to old people, whether they need them or not.
micahaphone wrote:[Next thing you know I'll be forcing pregnant teens to get abortions while trying to hand out free prescription drugs to old people, whether they need them or not.
I suspect the above sentence may have induced a few certain contributors on this thread to soil themselves.
Overall, I see what Melissa is saying, and agree with her. Mandating education of certain groups does somewhat detract from the overall spectrum of material covered, but I believe the positive benefit from displaying the influence of gay people and their impact on history is fully acceptable for the purpose of displaying additional social factors for world events. Pre-Civil Rights books lacked mention in many cases of important black people and movements in history (I'd highly doubt a pre-1960s/70s General History High School textbook would have mentioned the successful slave revolts in the Bahamas, which weakened French control in the Gulf of Mexico and was a probable influence in the decision to allow the U.S. to make the purchase of the Louisiana Territory), which resulted in students being deprived of basic understandings for certain events. Looking at the textbooks we had in my high school and junior high, it was not uncommon for the paragraph of biographical info on a certain person to read "John Doe, an African-American, was a devoted Catholic who led his community to support position X during War Z." One line of text, such as mentioning those about Mr. (Dr.?) Turing would not nessessitate the removal of paragraphs about the importance of the Enigma device itself.
In 50 years, if we didn't mention ethnicity, what would set Barack Obama apart from previous and future Democratic presidents? Would his election have been entirely built upon the push for a Democratic president, or would his ethnicity have possible had an effect? Ignoring factors like this simply result in a handicapped understanding of social events. Gen. Lee, say you want to ignore the bit about Turing being castrated for being gay. Fine. Why not remove the bit about MLK being assassinated for being an influential African-American, and simply say he was killed by someone who disagreed with his ideals? Removing the factor of ethnicity or sexuality in major events of an influential person stymies the ability to understand said person's actions and motivations.
micahaphone wrote:[Next thing you know I'll be forcing pregnant teens to get abortions while trying to hand out free prescription drugs to old people, whether they need them or not.
I suspect the above sentence may have induced a few certain contributors on this thread to soil themselves.
Overall, I see what Melissa is saying, and agree with her. Mandating education of certain groups does somewhat detract from the overall spectrum of material covered, but I believe the positive benefit from displaying the influence of gay people and their impact on history is fully acceptable for the purpose of displaying additional social factors for world events. Pre-Civil Rights books lacked mention in many cases of important black people and movements in history (I'd highly doubt a pre-1960s/70s General History High School textbook would have mentioned the successful slave revolts in the Bahamas, which weakened French control in the Gulf of Mexico and was a probable influence in the decision to allow the U.S. to make the purchase of the Louisiana Territory), which resulted in students being deprived of basic understandings for certain events. Looking at the textbooks we had in my high school and junior high, it was not uncommon for the paragraph of biographical info on a certain person to read "John Doe, an African-American, was a devoted Catholic who led his community to support position X during War Z." One line of text, such as mentioning those about Mr. (Dr.?) Turing would not nessessitate the removal of paragraphs about the importance of the Enigma device itself.
In 50 years, if we didn't mention ethnicity, what would set Barack Obama apart from previous and future Democratic presidents? Would his election have been entirely built upon the push for a Democratic president, or would his ethnicity have possible had an effect? Ignoring factors like this simply result in a handicapped understanding of social events. Gen. Lee, say you want to ignore the bit about Turing being castrated for being gay. Fine. Why not remove the bit about MLK being assassinated for being an influential African-American, and simply say he was killed by someone who disagreed with his ideals? Removing the factor of ethnicity or sexuality in major events of an influential person stymies the ability to understand said person's actions and motivations.
MLK's whole being was civil rights. Turing helped kill Nazis.
But lets keep Turing and Harvey Milk. Is that it? If so who the hell cares?
I'm not saying we need to overwhelm the schools with only teaching about LGBTQ/African-American/Native-American/Flavor-of-the Month in classes, but iirc, the law seems to simply be enforcing the inclusion of these points so teachers can't skip them (as they probably would in several states, and possibly some schools even in California). Just as when the Civil Rights movement finally got legislation, we didn't suddenly only learn about the Black panthers and George Washington Carver for the entire year, but it did become integrated (grudgingly in some areas) into the curriculum. Did Black History Month abolish racism? Hell no (Unfortunately), but it did raise awareness of the importance of black individuals in history, and helped show that White people weren't the only ones with rich histories and important individuals.
The main reason we don't have as much rich history for the LGBTQ community atm is because it's not as visibly obvious as skin color, so it wouldn't have been as easy to track historically in the records. This doesn't mean it's less prevalent than important black individuals; It just means we know less about LGBTQ individuals in a historical context.
I'm not saying we need to overwhelm the schools with only teaching about LGBTQ/African-American/Native-American/Flavor-of-the Month in classes, but iirc, the law seems to simply be enforcing the inclusion of these points so teachers can't skip them (as they probably would in several states, and possibly some schools even in California). Just as when the Civil Rights movement finally got legislation, we didn't suddenly only learn about the Black panthers and George Washington Carver for the entire year, but it did become integrated (grudgingly in some areas) into the curriculum. Did Black History Month abolish racism? Hell no (Unfortunately), but it did raise awareness of the importance of black individuals in history, and helped show that White people weren't the only ones with rich histories and important individuals.
The main reason we don't have as much rich history for the LGBTQ community atm is because it's not as visibly obvious as skin color, so it wouldn't have been as easy to track historically in the records. This doesn't mean it's less prevalent than important black individuals; It just means we know less about LGBTQ individuals in a historical context.
Sorry I thought he was the enigma guy? If not who gives a gak about him?
Again your point goes back to mine though. Absent one or two dudes its like...and? Unless their big focus was homosexual rights (like Milk or MLK) or in some way groundbreaking (first woman on the moon) their special interest doesn't mean dquat. its not...you know...historic.
Turing was the Enigma guy. In addition to that, he had major contributions to the field of electronics and computing.
As for the non-historic angle, then why tell kids about the Native Americans as more than a footnote? They don't have any MLK-scope historical figures, and they're a vastly outnumbered minority. Sure, they have their own history, but they're such a small proportion of the population it's a complete waste to talk about them when we could be teaching more algebra and grammar to the students.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I am not being snide [snip] though I am still a little doubtful that I actually [misunderstood].
... so yes, you ARE being snide. I should probably just put you on my ignore list, but I'm givin' ya the benefit of he doubt and instead...
I quote myself:
Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:Is it better than personal finance?
Better? Why not have both?
I don't think encouraging children to not be homophobic and teaching children personal finance are somehow mutually exclusive. Then again, I don't think the former requires a class. It's a behavior thing, generally speaking high schools don't have classes for behavior to begin with, instead having classes for academic knowledge. Behaviors are taught based off of the attitudes and actions of the teachers and other staff as they go about their duties.
Isn't actually reading instead of merely skimming a post fun?
darkPrince010 wrote:Why not remove the bit about MLK being assassinated for being an influential African-American, and simply say he was killed by someone who disagreed with his ideals? Removing the factor of ethnicity or sexuality in major events of an influential person stymies the ability to understand said person's actions and motivations.
What did MLK? Race Equality. The racially motivated assassination is a part of that historical context. His extramarital affairs are not (and thus not mentioned).
What did Turning do? Crack a code and start computers. His trials with his sexuality are not a part of that historical context.
If the class were on him alone (or another homosexual person), than yes it is a big part of his (their) personal story. But it is not a big part of the history of nations. That is the point.
The class is focused on event. What people did, not who they were sleeping with. Unless we want every single person in every single history book to have a alittle biography box about their sexuality and religious beliefs. Then text books would weigh 45 lbs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I am not being snide [snip] though I am still a little doubtful that I actually [misunderstood].
... so yes, you ARE being snide. I should probably just put you on my ignore list, but I'm givin' ya the benefit of he doubt and instead...
I quote myself:
Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:Is it better than personal finance?
Better? Why not have both?
I don't think encouraging children to not be homophobic and teaching children personal finance are somehow mutually exclusive. Then again, I don't think the former requires a class. It's a behavior thing, generally speaking high schools don't have classes for behavior to begin with, instead having classes for academic knowledge. Behaviors are taught based off of the attitudes and actions of the teachers and other staff as they go about their duties.
Isn't actually reading instead of merely skimming a post fun?
You took me for snide. I apologize (again) as that was not my intention.
Given that the OT is not about a separate class, your quote about not needing a separate class does not really put you in the "against the legislation" camp directly. Combine this with your posts about instilling acceptance into children... well. Can you see how I may have been lead to a false conclusion?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Can you see how I may have been lead to a false conclusion?
Yes, by not actually bothering to read the posts and instead skimming over them.
Now THAT was snide.
You rudely insist that I did not read your post. However, as I pointed out, your post does not clearly state where you stand on the OT, but you have added a lot of support for indoctrination (which appears to be the purpose of the law in the OT).
I apologized for misunderstanding your position. I still do not understand your position on the OT.
@Gen. Lee: Well, if you read my earlier post, you'd have seen I gave an fictional example of how unnessesary information is still included in information on an important historical figure:
darkPrince010 wrote:Looking at the textbooks we had in my high school and junior high, it was not uncommon for the paragraph of biographical info on a certain person to read "John Doe, an African-American, was a devoted Catholic who led his community to support position X during War Z."
(While this is a fictional example, I guarantee you I could find 95+% of the basic high school history books in the US have unneeded details like this included)
Should the history books devote pages on Turing's sexuality, or MLK's religion? Probably not ,outside of a book where that volume of information would be needed. Should the history books at least mention it? Yes, or else remove all unnessesary references in the history books and pare them down a couple pages. I guarantee you legislation to this effect would get shot down by groups who want to keep the religious affiliations (as long as they aren't dirty pagans) of Captain Bill Smith or Inventor Hank Anybody intact, even if they have zero bearing on their accomplishments. Everyone has special interests, but saying some interests are more special then others is a poor choice.
Also, a bit OT, I truly don't understand why some people cannot understand the clearly-argued points of view on here, especially when said views are reiterated quite explicitly...
darkPrince010 wrote:@Gen. Lee: Well, if you read my earlier post, you'd have seen I gave an fictional example of how unnessesary information is still included in information on an important historical figure...
Should the history books devote pages on Turing's sexuality, or MLK's religion? Probably not ,outside of a book where that volume of information would be needed. Should the history books at least mention it? Yes, or else remove all unnessesary references in the history books and pare them down a couple pages. I guarantee you legislation to this effect would get shot down by groups who want to keep the religious affiliations (as long as they aren't dirty pagans) of Captain Bill Smith or Inventor Hank Anybody intact, even if they have zero bearing on their accomplishments. Everyone has special interests, but saying some interests are more special then others is a poor choice.
Also, a bit OT, I truly don't understand why some people cannot understand the clearly-argued points of view on here, especially when said views are reiterated quite explicitly...
So we have lines on every single heterosexual that they are straight? No? but.. but... you said we should not say some special interests are more important than the others! Maybe sexuality has nothing to do with what a person does (outside of sexual things). A christian may stand against slavery based on his faith. Did Turning (sorry to abuse the poor guy but he is a good example) crack German codes to impress dudes? Of course not!
And I sincerely hope your last line was not about my understanding of Melissa. She stated that she did not support a separate class (a statement that has nothing to do with the OT) and proceeded to spout out posts to support the law in the OT, then denied being for the law in OT followed by snide remarks about my not reading her contradictory posts. I know full well where she stands on indoctrination of youth (or sociopathic brats, as she calls them) and where she stands on homosexuality. I even have a very good idea of what she thinks of politics and religions. But her posts were pro- OT law followed by a declaration against it. Such Bi-Polar posts do not make a "clearly-argued point", Sir.
Do we have lines on every person saying they're Caucasian? No, because it's the implied majority in the US. This is why noted African-Americans in history books have their ethnicity noted, whether or not it was directly tied to their accomplishments. Not doing so might change the reader's interpretation of the person and their motivations otherwise.
As to the topics, there have been several misinterpreted posts before your discussion with Melissa. I personally believe I understood her stance clearly after her second or third post. My interpretation of her view (along with the three points you seem to be confusing) are as follows:
The law is good (1), not because it forces inclusion of gay historical figures into the teaching curriculum (2), but rather because this exposure ito these figures in the formative school environment will foster recognition and acceptance of gay individuals and their culture (3) (or at least angered tolerance in some of the more bigoted parts of the US).
Also, her comment on children is fairly accurate, as social expectations of what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior and attitudes towards others does develop during the early school years. While sociopathic implies that they have rejected these social programmings (which makes it somewhat inapplicable towards children), it is in the right ballpark.
darkPrince010 wrote:Also, her comment on children is fairly accurate, as social expectations of what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior and attitudes towards others does develop during the early school years. While sociopathic implies that they have rejected these social programmings (which makes it somewhat inapplicable towards children), it is in the right ballpark.
Sure, if you don't know anything about children or psychology.
Not having learned something yet doesn't mean that you are incapable of learning it.
darkPrince010 wrote:Also, her comment on children is fairly accurate, as social expectations of what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior and attitudes towards others does develop during the early school years. While sociopathic implies that they have rejected these social programmings (which makes it somewhat inapplicable towards children), it is in the right ballpark.
Sociopaths are incapable of relating to other people (they are incapable of empathy). Children are perfectly capable, if not more capable than adults in some ways, of empathy. Being socially inexperienced and sociopathic are not comparable concepts.
I'm not saying we need to overwhelm the schools with only teaching about LGBTQ/African-American/Native-American/Flavor-of-the Month in classes, but iirc, the law seems to simply be enforcing the inclusion of these points so teachers can't skip them (as they probably would in several states, and possibly some schools even in California). Just as when the Civil Rights movement finally got legislation, we didn't suddenly only learn about the Black panthers and George Washington Carver for the entire year, but it did become integrated (grudgingly in some areas) into the curriculum. Did Black History Month abolish racism? Hell no (Unfortunately), but it did raise awareness of the importance of black individuals in history, and helped show that White people weren't the only ones with rich histories and important individuals.
The main reason we don't have as much rich history for the LGBTQ community atm is because it's not as visibly obvious as skin color, so it wouldn't have been as easy to track historically in the records. This doesn't mean it's less prevalent than important black individuals; It just means we know less about LGBTQ individuals in a historical context.
Sorry I thought he was the enigma guy? If not who gives a gak about him?
Again your point goes back to mine though. Absent one or two dudes its like...and? Unless their big focus was homosexual rights (like Milk or MLK) or in some way groundbreaking (first woman on the moon) their special interest doesn't mean dquat. its not...you know...historic.
Turing practically invented the programmable computer, his work is what allows you to post on DAKKA
Ah. I stand corrected. I do fully admit then that sociopathy is innapropriate (I thought it meant rejection of social norms or expectations). Sorry about that
However, unless I have been deeply misguided on the subject, childhood is a very important formative period for ideals and predjudices. This makes it important to expose them to people different from themselves early on, and reinforce the idea that they are their equals. While I do agree the "Everyone is a winner" mentality is a bit annoying, I'd rather have my child exposed to that than the "You are of the master race/sexuality, and thus will be victorious" mentality.
Initially I was against this myself, but now that it's been made clear that this isn't an entirely seperate class, but an inclusion into other pieces of history, I honestly don't see the argument against it.
darkPrince010 wrote: This makes it important to expose them to people different from themselves early on, and reinforce the idea that they are their equals. While I do agree the "Everyone is a winner" mentality is a bit annoying, I'd rather have my child exposed to that than the "You are of the master race/sexuality, and thus will be victorious" mentality.
I am not worried about the "everyone is a winner" stuff.
I AM worried about children being told that their parents are 'wrong' about their deeply held religious beliefs. I worry that children will be 'tested' on their acceptance of homosexuality. I am worried that, given time constraints, that real history will be pushed into the back and 'social reprogramming' will come to the fore.
So if their deeply held religious beliefs say that America Must Die, you have no problems with parents teaching that to their children?
And are we REALLY going to get into a religious debate now? It's okay to be racist/misogynist/homophobic/antisemite as long as you base your hate on religion! YAAAAAAY!
If a child says their parents call black people n*****r, why is it any more or less wrong to say that's a bad thing to say as compared to 'f****t"? Deeply held religious beliefs are important, but should not take presedence over the laws of the land (Religiously accepted discrimination of minorities should not supersede laws against discrimination just as religiously-encouraged naked frolicking should not supersede public nudity laws).
We don't "test" kids on their acceptance of other races now (Teachers don't give kids a pop equality quiz every couple weeks), so I doubt this law will do little more than add a sentence or two to the end of a couple of biographical entries (like poor, abused Mr. Turing...), and possibly add another paragraph or two into chapters for stuff like the Civil Rights movement.
I would be fully with you in objecting it if it was going to be that severe of a law, but it reads as simply an addition to an already long list of things not to use for prejudice.
Melissia wrote:So if their deeply held religious beliefs say that America Must Die, you have no problems with parents teaching that to their children?
And are we REALLY going to get into a religious debate now? It's okay to be racist/misogynist/homophobic/antisemite as long as you base your hate on religion! YAAAAAAY!
Sexual morality exists as a concept. But different people have different ideas on where the line is. Who is right? What do we teach?
If we validate one alternate lifestyle, why not the others? Is homosexuality better than others? Is it more natural than an adult man with a 12 year old girl?
There is absolutely no valid reason to discuss sexuality in a history class.
Funny enough, religion is where morals should be discussed. You may think they are all a bunch of evil greedy hate-mongers, but religion gave us the abolishment of slavery, sufferage, age of consent above 12 (1885+), civil rights movements, and so on...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
darkPrince010 wrote:If a child says their parents call black people n*****r, why is it any more or less wrong to say that's a bad thing to say as compared to 'f****t"? Deeply held religious beliefs are important, but should not take presedence over the laws of the land (Religiously accepted discrimination of minorities should not supersede laws against discrimination just as religiously-encouraged naked frolicking should not supersede public nudity laws).
And existing rules in place prohibit bullying and harming homosexuals. So what is the point of the law?
What "religiously accepted discrimination" are we talking about? That homosexuality is not right? How is that discrimination? Who decides what is right and wrong? What happens to those who disagree with you?
You are accepting the moral absolutism of accepting homosexuality. But I highly doubt you'd support moral absolutism in other areas. The world really is a place full of shades of grey.
It is better to avoid the moral and philosophical debates and instead go with history in a history class.
The point of the law is simply to bring more attention to the impact of homosexual people in history. Bullying and harassment will be less of an issue once generations begin to grow up without preconceived prejudices against certain groups, either due to outright discrimination that they grew up in or simple ignorance (and thus possible fear of the unknown or unfamiliar).
As for the religious argument, I also don't want to get into a religious debate. I'll simply say that I personally believe that discriminating against sexuality based on religious beliefs is as close-minded as discriminating against race or other religions based on your religious beliefs.
As for history, history is history, and that's all that should be in the history class. However, all factors affecting events in history should be discussed, no matter how much the impetus in question may offend or irk certain other special interest groups. Otherwise, you're only getting a partial image of the event in question.
darkPrince010 wrote:While I do agree the "Everyone is a winner" mentality is a bit annoying, I'd rather have my child exposed to that than the "You are of the master race/sexuality, and thus will be victorious" mentality.
Yeah, definitely agree that the 'everyone is a winner' stuff is horrible and only helps in producing confident but useless people. But I'd argue teaching tolerance is the opposite, because at the core of tolerance is humility.
darkPrince010 wrote:As for history, history is history, and that's all that should be in the history class. However, all factors affecting events in history should be discussed, no matter how much the impetus in question may offend or irk certain other special interest groups.
So they should just stick to history, even if it offends a certain special interest group?
darkPrince010 wrote:Bullying and harassment will be less of an issue once generations begin to grow up without preconceived prejudices against certain groups, either due to outright discrimination that they grew up in or simple ignorance (and thus possible fear of the unknown or unfamiliar).
That may be true, but History class is not the place for social engineering.
darkPrince010 wrote:As for the religious argument, I also don't want to get into a religious debate. I'll simply say that I personally believe that discriminating against sexuality based on religious beliefs is as close-minded as discriminating against race or other religions based on your religious beliefs.
So we should not discriminate against bestiality, necrophilia, etc. because of religious beliefs? And before you say that such things are against the law, if we use that argument we have to accept that homosexuality was against the law too. Why can one change and not the other?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: But I'd argue teaching tolerance is the opposite, because at the core of tolerance is humility.
And what class is about tolerance? Is it history? Math? Chemistry? What curriculum covers humility? It is not the role of a school to teach humility and tolerance. That is the role of a parent.
To address your points: 1) Yes, we should stick to history, even if it offends special interest groups. As long as it represents all valid sides of an issue equally, it should be included (By valid I mean history should teach historical facts, unfiltered insofar is possible by biased viewpoints. Similar to why science classes should teach scientific facts and proven theorems instead of creationism and religious dogmas).
2) You seem to misunderstand. Social engineering does not mean the children will be strapped into chairs and forced to change their viewpoints. The social "engineering" in this regard is simply having the school environment be openly supportive of the LGBTQ community and it's historical figures, which will foster better relations between students of that culture as well as the rest of the student body.
3)No, we shouldn't discriminate based on religious beliefs. However, therein lies the gray area. A better idea than solely relying on disparate religious dogmas for our laws could simply be to use health reasons for those laws: the risk of introducing a transgenic (animal to human) disease, especially the more virulent ones, increases when in close proximity to animals. Ever wonder where STDs like HIV come from, especially when HIV are mere base pairs from being different from SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus)?
4)True, parents should be the main role models for kids. But when kids are more and more being left at school as a pseudo daycare, or when parents are leaving children with poor social skills (that they should have developed at home) at school, invariably they will derive a great deal of their social skills (including concepts of humility and tolerance) from their teachers and classmates. As for what class covers tolerance and humility, I'd say personally that History would fit that niche nicely. Tolerance can be taught by showing the atrocities committed by others all the way from persecution of others with differing religious beliefs in the Middle Ages all the way up to the hate crimes perpetrated against supporters of the Civil Rights Movements of the 60s and 70s. When kids are shown the fire hoses turned on children, and told that all they were doing was peacefully protesting, you can bet the kids will (hopefully) be able to draw the conclusion that these were intolerant and unacceptable actions. Humility is greatly displayed by History as well; What culture invented the written word first? (Mesopotamia/Egypt) Who invented paper? (China) Gunpowder? (China again) Biological warfare? (The mongol empire with Black Death bodies as ammo, and later the British with the infamous smallpox blankets). Which country has the largest English speaking population? (China, by population). Exposing kids to history helps give them the humility that they need in order to appreciate how the world came to be in it's current state, instead of a narrow-minded view that would result from ignoring relevant aspects of history.
School's shouldn't have to teach these things to kids, but in the absence of good parenting (which can happen all too often), it becomes the main alternative.
sebster wrote:But I'd argue teaching tolerance is the opposite, because at the core of tolerance is humility.
But you can still easily be tolerant and confident.
You can be tolerant, humble, and confident all at once. Heck, I'm all for injecting some humility lessons into the elementary school. Too much of "you're special and amazing just the way you are" and you get d-bags. Then again, too much humility just might get us a bunch of depressed 6th graders.
Eh, I think there's a middle ground in there somewhere. It'd be better imho if we simply encouraged students to pursue what they're good at, and recognize them for those talents, but not simply say that anything and everything they do deserves a gold star.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:And what class is about tolerance? Is it history? Math? Chemistry? What curriculum covers humility? It is not the role of a school to teach humility and tolerance. That is the role of a parent.
Learning shapes a person. That's the point of it. Values and knowledge aren't seperate things.
Arguing that kids should go to school and learn all these facts about how the world works while they undergo some seperate process to build their moral code is tosh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:But you can still easily be tolerant and confident.
Humility and confidence aren't mutually exclusive.
I'm not saying we need to overwhelm the schools with only teaching about LGBTQ/African-American/Native-American/Flavor-of-the Month in classes, but iirc, the law seems to simply be enforcing the inclusion of these points so teachers can't skip them (as they probably would in several states, and possibly some schools even in California). Just as when the Civil Rights movement finally got legislation, we didn't suddenly only learn about the Black panthers and George Washington Carver for the entire year, but it did become integrated (grudgingly in some areas) into the curriculum. Did Black History Month abolish racism? Hell no (Unfortunately), but it did raise awareness of the importance of black individuals in history, and helped show that White people weren't the only ones with rich histories and important individuals.
The main reason we don't have as much rich history for the LGBTQ community atm is because it's not as visibly obvious as skin color, so it wouldn't have been as easy to track historically in the records. This doesn't mean it's less prevalent than important black individuals; It just means we know less about LGBTQ individuals in a historical context.
Sorry I thought he was the enigma guy? If not who gives a gak about him?
Again your point goes back to mine though. Absent one or two dudes its like...and? Unless their big focus was homosexual rights (like Milk or MLK) or in some way groundbreaking (first woman on the moon) their special interest doesn't mean dquat. its not...you know...historic.
Turing practically invented the programmable computer, his work is what allows you to post on DAKKA
So he's the Enigma guy, as I originally said. Note him for Enigma (maybe, its just a factor not a reason for the war or effect after the war). You could even put in a footnote about his preferences, but its absolutely not relevant to his accomplishments or why he's famous. Thats the problem.
Like I said, if they are important because their accomplishment was directly related to their preference then its relevant. If not, its not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:...religion gave us the abolishment of slavery, sufferage, age of consent above 12 (1885+), civil rights movements, and so on...
I lol'd. Fairly hard.
But I also cried a little.
Why, you can't handle, you know, reality?
*The ending of slavery in the US was started by abolitionists, predominantly deeply religious people who felt slavery was an abomination to God and Jesus teachings.
*Civil Rights in 50s and 60s were started and led by extremely brave southern preachers. Sorry to rain on your parade.
That the attempt to try to make religious extremists look better by claiming that they helped social progress when normally they oppose it is misleading.
Frazzled wrote:Why, you can't handle, you know, reality?
Religion was used as a justification for slavery and segregation.
And extremely religious people used their faith to support them against those.
I am inclined to agree with frazz here, donkey-caves will be donkey-caves regardless of what form justification takes. I mean look at mengele doing horrible things for [and I do use the term loosely] science.
Melissia wrote:That the attempt to try to make religious extremists look better by claiming that they helped social progress when normally they oppose it is misleading.
Slaves were kept for monetary reasons since before writing in nearly ever culture. But it took people of faith to start the ball rolling to free them, both in the US and Britain.
Just because people have a chip on the shoulder about Christians on this board doesn't make them right.
Frazzled wrote:Just because people have a chip on the shoulder about Christians on this board doesn't make them right.
Just because you want to jump to defend religious extremists (who said anything about Christians? oh wait, only you) dosen't mean you're right, either.
Even the homophobia justified by religious extremists across the globe today is often inherently contradictory to their own faith.
And are you REALLY trying to drag this back on to a religious discussion?
Frazzled wrote:Just because people have a chip on the shoulder about Christians on this board doesn't make them right.
Just because you want to jump to defend religious extremists (who said anything about Christians? oh wait, only you) dosen't mean you're right, either.
Even the homophobia justified by religious extremists across the globe today is often inherently contradictory to their own faith.
And are you REALLY trying to drag this back on to a religious discussion?
You do realize that the liberal state of California (I live here, and I mean it when I say LIBERAL) failed to get half of its population on board for gay marriage, right?
Does that mean over half of the state of California is "religious extremists"?
And history does show that religion was the driving force for much of the good we know. You can plug your ears and go "Na na na na..." but that wont change. Why do you refuse to see any good associated with religion?
That may be true, but History class is not the place for social engineering.
Indeed. probably worth mentioning then that homosexuals people have also made many worthy contributions to our history.
And the truth shall set you free. Apparently.
This is getting a little spiky here people. Whilst I'm sure that this, the 12,345th time we've hashed over this argument will, of course, be different from the 12,344 times before we've done this dance, please take a moment to compose yourselves before posting. Several warnings have, regrettably, already been sent to various members, we'd much rather not have to take this further.
.. you're on the OT board of a wargaming site people, relax, if someone is wrong.. it really don't matter too much.
Just laugh it off, or chalk it up to cynicism/ naivety, take amoment to enjoy the power and beauty of your youth; oh nevermind; you will not
Understand the power and beauty of your youth until they have faded.
But trust me, in 20 years you'll look back at photos of yourself and
Recall in a way you can't grasp now how much possibility lay before
You and how fabulous you really looked….You're not as fat as you
Imagine.
Don't worry about the future; or worry, but know that worrying is as
Effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing
Bubblegum. The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that
Never crossed your worried mind; the kind that blindside you at 4pm
On some idle Tuesday.
Do one thing everyday that scares you
Sing
Don't be reckless with other people's hearts, don't put up with
People who are reckless with yours.
Floss
Don't waste your time on jealousy; sometimes you're ahead, sometimes
You're behind…the race is long, and in the end, it's only with
Yourself.
Remember the compliments you receive, forget the insults; if you
Succeed in doing this, tell me how.
Keep your old love letters, throw away your old bank statements.
Stretch
Don't feel guilty if you don't know what you want to do with your
Life…the most interesting people I know didn't know at 22 what they
Wanted to do with their lives, some of the most interesting 40 year
Olds I know still don't.
Get plenty of calcium.
Be kind to your knees, you'll miss them when they're gone.
Maybe you'll marry, maybe you won't, maybe you'll have children, maybe
You won't, maybe you'll divorce at 40, maybe you'll dance the funky
Chicken on your 75th wedding anniversary…what ever you do, don't
Congratulate yourself too much or berate yourself either – your
Choices are half chance, so are everybody else's. Enjoy your body,
Use it every way you can…don't be afraid of it, or what other people
Think of it, it's the greatest instrument you'll ever
Own...
Dance…even if you have nowhere to do it but in your own living room.
Read the directions, even if you don't follow them.
Do NOT read beauty magazines, they will only make you feel ugly.
Get to know your parents, you never know when they'll be gone for
Good.
Be nice to your siblings; they are the best link to your past and the
People most likely to stick with you in the future.
Understand that friends come and go, but for the precious few you
Should hold on. Work hard to bridge the gaps in geography and
Lifestyle because the older you get, the more you need the people you
Knew when you were young.
Live in New York City once, but leave before it makes you hard; live
In Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft.
Travel.
Accept certain inalienable truths, prices will rise, politicians will
Philander, you too will get old, and when you do you'll fantasize
That when you were young prices were reasonable, politicians were
Noble and children respected their elders.
Respect your elders.
Don't expect anyone else to support you. Maybe you have a trust fund,
Maybe you have a wealthy spouse; but you never know when either one
Might run out.
Don't mess too much with your hair, or by the time you're 40, it will
Look 85.
Be careful whose advice you buy, but, be patient with those who
Supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of
Fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the
Ugly parts and recycling it for more than
It's worth.
It has been a driving force for good, but does that by extension mean all of the viewpoints inspired by religion are then good ones? For example, Christian edicts against murder or theft are, imo, "good" laws, while those cherry-picked to condemn homosexuality are not. And as has been stated earlier, morality is a "gray" issue, and does not (and should not) be a black or white thing, just as people obey certain laws from their religion but not all of them.
As for Proposition 8, the anti-homosexuality camp was funded heavily by the LDS church, likely outweighing by an order of magnitude the funding the LGBTQ community in California would have been able to raise. This led to a massive ad campaign from a single point of view, with far fewer ads in support of gay marriage then opposed to it. Does that necessarily mean that everyone who voted against the bill was against gay marriage before the multimillion dollar ad campaign? I would suspect a sizable percentage were people on the fence about the issue (as there always is regarding social laws and changes) that were swayed by sheer force of advertisement from the opposing point of view.
The argument I hear over and over again from the Christian camp regarding gay marriage (not sure what other religions views are on the matter) is that gay marriage will ruin the sanctity and purity of "regular" marriage. Did interracial or cross-religion marriage ruin the "purity" of traditional Christian marriage? No, and neither will gay marriage.
Frazzled wrote:Why, you can't handle, you know, reality?
*The ending of slavery in the US was started by abolitionists, predominantly deeply religious people who felt slavery was an abomination to God and Jesus teachings.
*Civil Rights in 50s and 60s were started and led by extremely brave southern preachers. Sorry to rain on your parade.
You're talking about times when almost everyone was religious. If anything got done, the people involved were likely religious. You can't hang a lot on making a causal link to good actions being carried out with practice of religion unless you accept the colossal amount of evil done by religious people in the same period. And again, some evil was done in the name of religion, and some evil was done by people who while religious, were doing it irrespective of their beliefs.
And before getting to excited about religion ending slavery, lets not forget that to end slavery in the US you had to fight a civil war against those strongly christian southern states that were determined to keep it.
You do realize that the liberal state of California (I live here, and I mean it when I say LIBERAL) failed to get half of its population on board for gay marriage, right?
Does that mean over half of the state of California is "religious extremists"?
Campaigning does a lot to sway the result, and interestingly the Church of Latter Day Saints poured millions into the campaign to overturn gay marriage even though they are largely based in Utah, and they certainly aren't liberal but it suited them to interfere to get the result that would please them. It shows where their priorities lie when looking to throw money around.
That may be true, but History class is not the place for social engineering.
Indeed. probably worth mentioning then that homosexuals people have also made many worthy contributions to our history.
And the truth shall set you free. Apparently.
Anything that homosexual individuals have done that warrant inclusion in history books should Definitely be there. I am not disputing that. But why bring up sexuality? Is their work (which can be great) only worth mentioning due to their sexual orientation? Would their deeds be as important had they been straight?
You can throw out that the Mormons pumped money into campaign ads. but you do realize that the No on 8 crowd outspent the Yes on 8 crowd, right? So your point is beyond useless.
(other than to be biased against religion, which is okay, right?)
Gen. Lee Losing wrote: Would their deeds be as important had they been straight?
.. I would suggest perhaps the more pertinent question is would they have achieved more if they weren't subject to such prejudice.
What else might Turing have achieved, or what other works might Wilde have created if their fates had been different, off the top of my head.
At one hand, the frustration of being oppressed could very well have gotten the creative juices flowing. On the other hand, it could also easily have stifled it or forced it down an inferior road, and we will never know.
@Gen. Lee: Does more $ mean moral superiority or a valid factual point? If so, if a dictator outbids a democratic candidate in an election, does that make his position valid then? If I were to campaign that dihydrogen monoxide was a public health hazard and poured millions of dollars into it, would that mean that it was a fact that it was a hazard that should be removed from the public's access?
@reds8n: QFT. This is exactly why raising awareness and promoting tolerance of these groups is so important
I was actually leaning more towards the untimely death aspect, but I can see, as can we all one would hope, that a subjects sexuality, in the context of their place in history may well be of interest.
For example prior to Wilde's trial it was not uncommon for men in Victorian London to "promenade" arm in arm, pretty much in the campest marching/walking style that one could imagine. The Wilde trial "blows up" and this changes radically.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote: Would their deeds be as important had they been straight?
.. I would suggest perhaps the more pertinent question is would they have achieved more if they weren't subject to such prejudice.
What else might Turing have achieved, or what other works might Wilde have created if their fates had been different, off the top of my head.
Great speculation, and would make an excellent paper by a student. But as course material for children I think it is overly focused on an aspect of the person that is not relevant to history (at this level). For an advanced course, sure.
Tchaikovsky was a famous composer, and I love his work. But should time from the core line of history be shortened to include him? His work really does not make that big a foot print, and his sexuality is less "important" to history than his musical work.
How much does one's sexuality (of any stripe) matter in the context of history? For those who were assassinated because of it, that is part of history. include it. But 10 years after they did something important they faced discrimination? Not really essential to understanding history. Leave it out.
Time in history classes is finite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
darkPrince010 wrote:@Gen. Lee: Does more $ mean moral superiority or a valid factual point? If so, if a dictator outbids a democratic candidate in an election, does that make his position valid then? If I were to campaign that dihydrogen monoxide was a public health hazard and poured millions of dollars into it, would that mean that it was a fact that it was a hazard that should be removed from the public's access?
More money means nothing.
But I am not the one saying mormons 'bought' prop 8. Money does not determine votes.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:How much does one's sexuality (of any stripe) matter in the context of history? For those who were assassinated because of it, that is part of history. include it. But 10 years after they did something important they faced discrimination? Not really essential to understanding history. Leave it out.
Sexuality and its expression is vital to understanding whole cultures, as for single individuals, well there's a such thing as context. Knowing some background things about a person, like their religion, their sexuality and the broad events of their life is not only interesting but gives you a more rounded understanding of that person and helps you perhaps think about what made them who they were. You can't just look at a person's achievements like a scoresheet and move on without exploring their actual history.
frgsinwntr wrote:I learned something this year I didn't know about... the stonewall riots.... its worth the read on wikipedia.
That Wikipedia article heavily quotes one side. As I read it, and poor law was passed. (Note I disagree with the law that was passed here) then organized crime knowingly broke the law. Police arrived to arrest those involved. People refused to comply and acted with violence against officers doing their job. There was a riot.
I fail to see any good here. (on either side, really)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:How much does one's sexuality (of any stripe) matter in the context of history? For those who were assassinated because of it, that is part of history. include it. But 10 years after they did something important they faced discrimination? Not really essential to understanding history. Leave it out.
Sexuality and its expression is vital to understanding whole cultures, as for single individuals, well there's a such thing as context. Knowing some background things about a person, like their religion, their sexuality and the broad events of their life is not only interesting but gives you a more rounded understanding of that person and helps you perhaps think about what made them who they were. You can't just look at a person's achievements like a scoresheet and move on without exploring their actual history.
In an advanced class, I agree with you.
But we are talking Elementary thru High school. There is no time for in depth look at every person mentioned. Why give extra time to one group and no the others?
Great speculation, and would make an excellent paper by a student. But as course material for children I think it is overly focused on an aspect of the person that is not relevant to history (at this level).
I really don't see how one can claim that the premature death of a person, due to causes that are entirely linked to the societal norms and values of a time with regards to their sexual orientation, is irrelevant or not worthy of mentioning.
I'm not sure if it is your intent or not, but it does seem as if your are arguing that the sexual orientation of a person bears no relevance whatsoever as to their fated role in history. And I don't see how one can argue that. At least honestly anyway.
Suddenly, as far as I'm aware, apologies if I've missed a relevant fact earlier in the thread, you're suddenly bringing "Won't somebody think of the children 11!!!" as an argument, which isn't really an argument as such, more just a general appeal to emotionality.Specifically one's own emotionality.
Again, if that's not your intent, apologies.
I agree that for certain ages/classes this isn't of interest or relevance. If it's little...err... whateveryouguyscallyourfirstfewyearsatschool .. first graders is it ?.. Pre school ? ... learning to read, 'rite and 'rithmetric, and their end of year production is another stunning rendition of "The Cat in the Hat" then there's no need to go there. basic dates and overview is fine.
But I cannot see any reason at all why, for example, teenage children should not have this issue raised.
.. if only, one could hope, to aid them when they find their way onto internet forums
Great speculation, and would make an excellent paper by a student. But as course material for children I think it is overly focused on an aspect of the person that is not relevant to history (at this level).
I really don't see how one can claim that the premature death of a person, due to causes that are entirely linked to the societal norms and values of a time with regards to their sexual orientation, is irrelevant or not worthy of mentioning.
I'm not sure if it is your intent or not, but it does seem as if your are arguing that the sexual orientation of a person bears no relevance whatsoever as to their fated role in history. And I don't see how one can argue that. At least honestly anyway.
Premature death from social issues? Who are you referring to that was executed? I may have missed that. (that would be a part of history and could be included)
I would say that premature death from depressed suicide is as relevant as premature death from alcoholism. Both tell a lot about the person in question and address ills in society. But in high school history classes, there is not time to cover the basics, let alone all the many fascinating tangents history has to offer.
This is not "Think of the children" as you accuse. it is simple matter of a law taking time away from the main body of history to cheer on one interest group. make a separate class that is optional. Have after school programs. Whatever. Time in the class is finite. Don't force children to listen to <political cause of the month> at the expense of real basic history.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:In an advanced class, I agree with you.
But we are talking Elementary thru High school. There is no time for in depth look at every person mentioned. Why give extra time to one group and no the others?
You seem to by of the mind that children can't cope with a few more details particularly regarding sexuality. You don't need to labour the point and broadly this approach to history doesn't apply to a single group. It's entirely legitimate to discuss things like sexuality, race, religion and the like that will affect historical characters. It's probably the case that race and religious persuasion are mentioned and people don't notice, it's only because sexuality is a new thing to make a point of including that attention has been drawn. I doubt that in previous teaching of history teachers have not discussed events outside of WW2 that happened to the most prominent figures that took part in it, it's about context, and doesn't swallow that much class time if done properly. What else is the class time there for but to learn? History is not merely the teaching of facts and figures.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:In an advanced class, I agree with you.
But we are talking Elementary thru High school. There is no time for in depth look at every person mentioned. Why give extra time to one group and no the others?
You seem to by of the mind that children can't cope with a few more details particularly regarding sexuality. You don't need to labour the point and broadly this approach to history doesn't apply to a single group. It's entirely legitimate to discuss things like sexuality, race, religion and the like that will affect historical characters. It's probably the case that race and religious persuasion are mentioned and people don't notice, it's only because sexuality is a new thing to make a point of including that attention has been drawn.
No. I am of the mind that if you have about 35 minutes of real teaching time (after attendance and homework collection, etc) than just a few minutes can equal a full tenth of your lesson for the day. That is wasted time.
Why shouldn't high school mention sexuality? High School is where students usually end up starting to try to figure out the very confused subject of human sexuality to begin with. Why not help them along, showing examples throughout history, whenever said examples would come up in history class anyway? It's not like we don' already say "he was hispanic" or "she was black".
Melissia wrote:Why shouldn't high school mention sexuality? High School is where students usually end up trying to figure out the very confused subject of human sexuality to begin with.
In sex ed. Yes.
In History. no.
Children are not able to independently decide on sexual matters. We live in an society with an age of consent law. If you argue that teenagers can (and should) explore sexuality, why have an age of consent law? You are, in fact, saying teenager may consent to sexual activities.
Melissia wrote:It's not like we don' already say "he was hispanic" or "she was black".
"Judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin." MLK was a brilliant man.
We probably shouldn't even be saying skin colors.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote: I would say that premature death from depressed suicide is as relevant as premature death from alcoholism. Both tell a lot about the person in question and address ills in society. But in high school history classes, there is not time to cover the basics, let alone all the many fascinating tangents history has to offer.
His sexuality led to the loss of his job as a cryptographer, the very job he is known for in WW2 and when threatened with prison his accepted hormone injections that led to his depression and suicide. I can't see how the manner of his death can really be separated so easily from his role in WW2 as though he'd just been knocked down in a car accident or something that didn't share a causal relationship with his life.
No. I am of the mind that if you have about 35 minutes of real teaching time (after attendance and homework collection, etc) than just a few minutes can equal a full tenth of your lesson for the day. That is wasted time.
Why has the time been wasted? You have a very narrow idea of what history classes have to contain down to the minute.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Melissia wrote:Why shouldn't high school mention sexuality? High School is where students usually end up trying to figure out the very confused subject of human sexuality to begin with.
In sex ed. Yes.
In History. no.
Children are not able to independently decide on sexual matters. We live in an society with an age of consent law. If you argue that teenagers can (and should) explore sexuality, why have an age of consent law? You are, in fact, saying teenager may consent to sexual activities.
WTF? Mentioning the sexuality of a historical character it now arguing for teenagers to "explore sexuality" which brings into question the age of consent law?!
Mad, and that's the "won't anyone think of the children" attitude you claimed not to have.
Actually... usually our classes were 55/85 minutes, with five minutes between classes, and an A/B shedule (M/W/F having the 55 min class, T/TH having ~85 minutes).
This is because they wanted to get us used to said schedule as it was often used in many colleges, especially public ones.
@ Gen. Lee: You're obfuscating the point. Exploring sexuality at no point means they are actually having sex. This is the period of puberty during which teens become aware of the gender(s) they're attracted to.
Also, the "minutes" you claim this will waste will be mere seconds, since the mention of sexuality won't be a seperate topic. Instead, a lesson will "drastically" expand to go from "...and he was catholic and black, when he did X" to "...and he was catholic, black, and gay, when he did X." This imo isn't enough to obstruct from the main subjects being taught.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I would say that premature death from depressed suicide is as relevant as premature death from alcoholism. Both tell a lot about the person in question and address ills in society. But in high school history classes, there is not time to cover the basics, let alone all the many fascinating tangents history has to offer.
His sexuality led to the loss of his job as a cryptographer, the very job he is known for in WW2 and when threatened with prison his accepted hormone injections that led to his depression and suicide. I can't see how the manner of his death can really be separated so easily from his role in WW2 as though he'd just been knocked down in a car accident or something that didn't share a causal relationship with his life.
What purpose does going deeper into his life serve? If the class were on his life, than yes.. go deeper.
If we are learning about WWII, what does the rest of his life have to do with WWII?
The purpose of this law, and the stated purpose of those on here who support it, has nothing to do with history class. The purpose is social engineering. You want to change the hearts and minds of young people. That is not the purpose of a history class.
Every person has a whole story. History classes don't go into whole stories of individuals. They don't have time!
Should we explore the deep aspects of Abraham Lincoln's christian beliefs? it played a big part in his work to free slaves. How would you feel if students were learning in-depth Christian theology in a history class? Against it, right? Not that Christian theology is wrong and shameful, but it does not belong in a history class! Right?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Premature death from social issues? Who are you referring to that was executed? I may have missed that. (that would be a part of history and could be included)
It's wiki but etc etc yadda yadda
Turing's homosexuality resulted in a criminal prosecution in 1952, when homosexual acts were still illegal in the United Kingdom. He accepted treatment with female hormones (chemical castration) as an alternative to prison. He died in 1954, several weeks before his 42nd birthday, from cyanide poisoning. An inquest determined it was suicide; his mother and some others believed his death was accidental.
Oscar Wilde
Wilde was imprisoned first in Pentonville and then Wandsworth prisons in London. The regime at the time was tough; "hard labour, hard fare and a hard bed" was the guiding philosophy. It wore particularly harshly on Wilde as a gentleman and his status provided him no special privileges.[130] In November he was forced to attend Chapel, and there he was so weak from illness and hunger that he collapsed, bursting his right ear drum, an injury that would later contribute to his death.[131] He spent two months in the infirmary.[131][132]
Apologies of the awkward C&P job. The prevalent attitudes to sexuality played a major role in both their deaths. I fail to see how it is in anyway irrelevant not to mention it and, by default, related issues.
Just as Hemingway's death is closely linked to his lifestyle and the political situation of the time.
You appear to be advocating the idea of studying a person in isolation to their geopolitical situation at their time, which is highly odd. Would you argue that, for example, that Pope John Paul's religion should not be mentioned when discussing his work opposing communism ? Why is one factor relevant but another not ?
I would say that premature death from depressed suicide is as relevant as premature death from alcoholism. Both tell a lot about the person in question and address ills in society. But in high school history classes, there is not time to cover the basics, let alone all the many fascinating tangents history has to offer.
I agree that one cannot cover everything. I don't believe anyone is arguing otherwise. But what is and isn't taught in history, to an extent any class, changes -- perhaps too regularly, but that's another thread altogether -- and, frankly, aside from your personal or theological conviction/disapproval of homosexuality as a lifestyle ( so to speak) you're not really presenting any argument as to why this shouldn't be something that is touched upon.
I would agree that it's probably not a subject that an entire... err... semester ? ( is that right ?) should be spent on, largely because I don't think that, in most people's cases, sexuality is the major "talking point" or key fact in a lot of cases. But too not mention it at all smacks far too much of simply trying to hush it up, sweep it under a carpet and hoping it goes away.
This is not "Think of the children" as you accuse. it is simple matter of a law taking time away from the main body of history to cheer on one interest group. make a separate class that is optional. Have after school programs. Whatever. Time in the class is finite. Don't force children to listen to <political cause of the month> at the expense of real basic history.
I fail to see how homosexuals are not part of "the main body of history". It's not like they're a new invention or a fad.
If anything the exclusion of any mention of homosexuals playing a part in the "main body of history" is an intellectual dishonesty, and for that reason alone should be fought against by all those who claim to care about truth and justice.
WTF? Mentioning the sexuality of a historical character it now arguing for teenagers to "explore sexuality" which brings into question the age of consent law?!
Mad, and that's the "won't anyone think of the children" attitude you claimed not to have.
I was addressing the "Teens are having sex, so why not change the purpose of history classes" argument (which is ridiculous ) with an exaggerated counter argument to highlight the ridiculous nature of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:You appear to be advocating the idea of studying a person in isolation to their geopolitical situation at their time, which is highly odd.
i am saying that high school level history classes do not study persons. They study broad eras in history.
On this point I hang my whole argument.
If studying an individual, that all this stuff is relevant. if studying a period, than side stories are wasting valuable time.
If it is nessessary, then sure, go deeper. But this law simply requires the mention, the addition of the 2 or 3 words also explaining their sexual orientation, not adding paragraphs about the effects of said orientation unless it's extremely relevant (Like Harvey Milk).
As for the social engineering, this dead horse is showing the whip-marks: History class isn't designed specifically for social engineering, School as a whole is, and that means that the classes will by proxy instill values and ideas in the students.
As for your comment on skin colors, we shouldn't have to state their skin color. But until we can firmly shake the notion that history of note was made predominantly by Straight Catholic Caucasians, pointing out the differences is needed to help students understand that anyone can affect history, not just WASPs.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Children are not able to independently decide on sexual matters.
Says who? Parents deciding for their children their sexuality (Such as performing sex-change operations on babies born as hermaphrodites or similar abiguity) can cause massive long-term psychological trauma.
As for people in history, history isn't simply a collection of events devoid of individuals. If someone was important to an event, be it the Rennaisance, WW2, or progression of English Literature, then they should mention them (as we already do), but with the addition of their sexuality if it was different then the norm. We're not unnessesarily cramming minor individuals into the books, we're simply appending those that are already in the history books.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Every person has a whole story. History classes don't go into whole stories of individuals. They don't have time!
Should we explore the deep aspects of Abraham Lincoln's christian beliefs? it played a big part in his work to free slaves. How would you feel if students were learning in-depth Christian theology in a history class? Against it, right? Not that Christian theology is wrong and shameful, but it does not belong in a history class! Right?
You seem to be pretending that mentioning a person's sexuality is akin to giving a blow by blow account of gay sex and the history of gay politics. It isn't, and nor is mentioning a person's religious influences for historical context the same as teaching christian theology.
There are RE classes for teaching theology. But in history class I think it's well worth taking a moment to discuss the religious beliefs of a person, I don't think it is clever to pretend that religion didn't shape them and the same applies to sexuality.
I recall that when we covered evolution in biology class the subject of Darwin's religion was discussed, and even those of Einstein, the point wasn't laboured it was given for a bit of historical context to the man, as an atheist I do not believe it beneficial to airbrush out these details.
Social engineering does raise it's head in schools, whether you like it or not. Social development, like everything else, does not occur in a vacuum, and the environment in which it occurs can have profound impact on the resulting individual's beliefs.
As opposed to the usual social engineering which says to kids that homosexuality should be hidden and not talked about because you should be embarrassed of it? Because THAT certainly doesn't help them learn. You know, the social engineering you are suggesting we do.
Interesting. I personally would have not kicked the student for his comment, but definately for his t-shirt (Which, if their code of conduct was anything like ours, would have violated a half-dozen rules). So the teacher overall removed a source of a negative environment towards a social group, but did so for the wrong justifications. Legally, he's probably in the wrong, but morally, not so much imo.
As for the flag debate, freedom of speech is fine as long as it doesn't promote illegal activities or organizations that promote/promoted illegal activities (Sorta why people don't wear swastika belt buckles...). And to forestall your inevitable comparison to marijuana leaf t-shirts, those aren't allowed in schools either, and in any case promotes misdemeanors as opposed to war crimes.
I'm pretty sure that everything that isn't taught in math class can be found objectionable by some people. History class teaches the negative sides of our country, English class makes us read books about ideas and lifestyles that some parents don't want their kids to know about, and then in Science they teach evolution (I remember my middle school teacher was able to sneak it in by calling it "change over time").
Also, I do not believe that religion can be argued for or against in this context, as you can probably name any cause under the sun that some religion has either fought for or fought against.
What kind of person wears an anti-gay t-shirt and thinks it's okay to say "I don't accept gays" in a classroom probably before smirking behind a claim of 'free speech'. What a git.
You think that is a good example to argue against this supposed evil of 'social engineering', allowing bigots to say what they like. Hell if homosexuality wasn't treated as something weird and to be hidden away maybe there would be a few less people who would believe homosexuality is wrong. People like that douchebag are the reason that education needs to be more inclusive not less.
The teacher did the right thing in asking the bigot to leave. If the person had a racist t-shirt and said "I don't accept blacks" and the teacher had shown them the door there wouldn't have been any action taken, he's have been cheered for it. Schools and teachers are supposed to make them pleasant safe places for people to come and study, you don't let people exhibit prejudice unchallenged.
What kind of person wears an anti-gay t-shirt and thinks it's okay to say "I don't accept gays" in a classroom probably before smirking behind a claim of 'free speech'. What a git.
You think that is a good example to argue against this supposed evil of 'social engineering', allowing bigots to say what they like. Hell if homosexuality wasn't treated as something weird and to be hidden away maybe there would be a few less people who would believe homosexuality is wrong. People like that douchebag are the reason that education needs to be more inclusive not less.
The teacher did the right thing in asking the bigot to leave. If the person had a racist t-shirt and said "I don't accept blacks" and the teacher had shown them the door there wouldn't have been any action taken, he's have been cheered for it. Schools and teachers are supposed to make them pleasant safe places for people to come and study, you don't let people exhibit prejudice unchallenged.
Who is wearing an anti-gay shirt in this story? I did not read anything like that! Try again.
In this story a student asked how wearing the stars and bars buckle, like the Gen Lee from Dukes of Hazard (no relation), is different than wearing a rainbow flag buckle.
the teacher explained that the General Lee from Dukes of Hazard represents oppression. Buckle was removed. Boy stated that he does not accept gays on religious grounds. Teacher began a debate that ended with a "put out or get out" stance from the teacher.
Ah, my mistake. The teacher was wearing an anti-gay-bullying shirt. In that case, while objectionable and possibly crossing some rule about keeping school a friendly environment, the bigot (my own opinion) unfortunately did not cross any major rules I know of from our CoC.
However, the school board saying that he "forcefully initiated a controversial issue" b/c of the shirt he wore against bullying is completely BS. If it was a shirt simply saying "Accept gays" or something like that, maybe. However, his shirt was against anti-gay-bullying. So discriminating in a harmful manner towards someone is a "contoversial issue" if he's gay? What about wearing a "Don't bully Islamic People" shirt, or a "Don't bully Hispanic People" shirt? That was a completely innapropriate action by the board, and shows how some groups still believe that not abusing someone based on their lifestyle choices or gender is still a "controversial issue," instead of being seen as wrong as most other people see it.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Alright. But with only a couple of weeks to cover the entirety of WWII, how does one budget time for a tangent such as Alan Turing? His work would apply, but his person life and problems post war are not really vital to WWII history. No more than taking time out for Patton post war situation, or Montgomery's. See the problem. it does not serve to educate the student about WWII, but serves to make a statement on homosexuality.
Compound that by every period or lesson plan and you end up with a mess for the students/teachers.
History is almost always taught with interjections about individuals of note. I learned about Patton's life in a unit on WWII, and I learned about Lincoln's life in a unit on the Civil War. History curricula are not static narratives. They would be terribly ponderous, and difficult to follow if they were.
Think about reading a story in which there are too many characters to keep track of, and you get the idea. If you're going to teach about "great men" then you need to at least preface his chronological inclusion in the narrative with some kind of summation of who he is, otherwise no one will remember him when he is mentioned again.
Put differently, would you remember who General George S. Patton was if all you knew about him was that he commanded an army in a war? Of course not, you remember him because he was an infamous commander in an infamous war, and his personal characteristics were discussed in a way which made him memorable.
darkPrince010 wrote:Ah, my mistake. The teacher was wearing an anti-gay-bullying shirt. In that case, while objectionable and possibly crossing some rule about keeping school a friendly environment, the bigot (my own opinion) unfortunately did not cross any major rules I know of from our CoC.
Yes I misconstrued that, it was the teacher wearing an anti-gay-bullying t-shirt, not the kid wearing an anti-gay shirt.
But it's a bit of a worrying attitude from the school board though, apparently it's 'confrontational' to wear a t-shirt that identifies an opposition to certain types of bullying, in this case homosexuality.
My thoughts exactly. It does also reveal why the school board may have been a bit quick to put him on leave (Which undermines his credibility with his students and peers significantly, as someone above mentioned)
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Who is wearing an anti-gay shirt in this story? I did not read anything like that! Try again.
In this story a student asked how wearing the stars and bars buckle, like the Gen Lee from Dukes of Hazard (no relation), is different than wearing a rainbow flag buckle.
the teacher explained that the General Lee from Dukes of Hazard represents oppression. Buckle was removed. Boy stated that he does not accept gays on religious grounds. Teacher began a debate that ended with a "put out or get out" stance from the teacher.
That isn't social engineering so much as social interaction.
Social engineering is the deliberate attempt to condition people to believe a certain thing. If that distinction isn't made, then all social interaction is social engineering (which is an argument that can be made).
Teaching history is probably one of the better examples of social engineering because its about instilling a type of cultural identity in kids (you don't need to know history to survive except in the sense that society expects you to know it, and engage with it in a particular way). Really, as I said before, that's part and parcel with all education, though more so with some disciplines than others.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
So he's the Enigma guy, as I originally said. Note him for Enigma (maybe, its just a factor not a reason for the war or effect after the war). You could even put in a footnote about his preferences, but its absolutely not relevant to his accomplishments or why he's famous. Thats the problem.
Turing is famous in large part because he was persecuted for his sexuality despite his achievement.
Melissia wrote:Saying you're against bullying gays is apparently immoral.
I think the reason the teacher was suspended here isn't that the school board had anything against gays, but because he was wearing a shirt that was informal, and mentioned a highly controversial topic that could cause arguements.
Still, it's a poor reason to suspend someone and the kid deserved everything he got.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
i am saying that high school level history classes do not study persons. They study broad eras in history.
They study individuals all the time, generally in the context of broad eras of history. You can't study broad eras of history without studying people, unless WWII is just a war between the Allied and Axis powers which was won by the Allies.
Melissia wrote:Saying you're against bullying gays is apparently immoral.
I think the reason the teacher was suspended here isn't that the school board had anything against gays, but because he was wearing a shirt that was informal, and mentioned a highly controversial topic that could cause arguements.
Still, it's a poor reason to suspend someone and the kid deserved everything he got.
He got everything he got because in his faith he doesn't accept homosexuality? Sure, if its in ones lack of faith to say that they don't accept the belief in God that many others share then that person should be punished as well right?
Just because someone has a belief against something in their religion doesn't mean they should be punished for it, when the belief becomes physical aggression or any other form of aggression then you punish them. The teacher was just looking for some trouble by wearing a shirt like that and saying that a person should remove a piece of clothing that the teacher deemed offensive. Maybe the student was from the south or had southern heritage and that's why they were wearing the confederate flag, maybe he was just a Dukes of Hazzard aficionado, maybe it just looked cool. The kid said that for religious reasons he doesn't homosexuality, that squares it down to just about every single religion on Earth except in certain cases church by church/ mosque by mosque/synagogue by synagogue. The kid has the right to believe homosexuality is wrong, he doesn't have the right to beat the hell out of someone because of it though.
halonachos wrote:Just because someone has a belief against something in their religion doesn't mean they should be punished for it, when the belief becomes physical aggression or any other form of aggression then you punish them.
He spoke out his hatred of homosexuals, which is aggression in verbal form.
halonachos wrote:Just because someone has a belief against something in their religion doesn't mean they should be punished for it, when the belief becomes physical aggression or any other form of aggression then you punish them.
He spoke out his hatred of homosexuals, which is aggression in verbal form.
He said he does not accept them.
Is that "hatred"? Maybe he does hate them. Maybe he feels sorry for them. Maybe he views them as misguided souls.
But the fact that you automatically equate non-acceptance with hate says a lot about this issue.
Melissia wrote:Saying you're against bullying gays is apparently immoral.
I think the reason the teacher was suspended here isn't that the school board had anything against gays, but because he was wearing a shirt that was informal, and mentioned a highly controversial topic that could cause arguements.
Still, it's a poor reason to suspend someone and the kid deserved everything he got.
He got everything he got because in his faith he doesn't accept homosexuality? Sure, if its in ones lack of faith to say that they don't accept the belief in God that many others share then that person should be punished as well right?
Just because someone has a belief against something in their religion doesn't mean they should be punished for it, when the belief becomes physical aggression or any other form of aggression then you punish them. The teacher was just looking for some trouble by wearing a shirt like that and saying that a person should remove a piece of clothing that the teacher deemed offensive. Maybe the student was from the south or had southern heritage and that's why they were wearing the confederate flag, maybe he was just a Dukes of Hazzard aficionado, maybe it just looked cool. The kid said that for religious reasons he doesn't homosexuality, that squares it down to just about every single religion on Earth except in certain cases church by church/ mosque by mosque/synagogue by synagogue. The kid has the right to believe homosexuality is wrong, he doesn't have the right to beat the hell out of someone because of it though.
I was talking about the way he tried to force his teacher in to an arguement over a controversial topic. People at my school do it all the time when they're annoyed that not everyone agrees with them, and it's pathetic. I bet people wouldn't be treating this the same way if he was talking about blacks or jews, for example.
And to be honest, if your religion teaches intolerance, why are you following it?
(Don't respond to that point. Threadlock will ensue.)
"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to suffering"
Non-acceptance wouldn't be as big of an issue if it weren't for so many examples where non-acceptance of homosexuals has not simply stopped at the nonaggressive verbal, but degenerated into name-calling and ridicule at the very least (let alone physical violence). If I could fool myself into believing that his non-acceptance was simply that, and that he would not display aggression, bullying, or abuse towards homosexuals, then I'd have no problem with his statement. However, given the current climate of non-acceptance and hate towards the LGBTQ community from many angles, I might as well ask for a pony and the Space Shuttle for [Generic Holiday Celebration] too...
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:But the fact that you automatically equate non-acceptance with hate says a lot about this issue.
The fact taht you equate homosexuality with pedophilia says far, FAR worse things about you.
They both (along with many other bizarre things) are an alternate form of sexual preference to heterosexuality. That is fact.
Are they equal in their deviation? No, I really don't think so.
When I made the point you are referring to (what, like last year?) it was to state that there are many alternates (also, I;d like to state that I was incrrect in the term I was using. I was addressing Ephebophilia in that discussion, but did not have the term on hand). Why should one be sustained and the other criminalized?
If both types are "born that way baby!", who is to say that one is right and the other wrong? I was questioning who has that moral authority.
In essence you took an example from my main point (moral authority)and constructed in your mind all of my beliefs. You don't know me, so don't presume to know my mind.
TrollPie wrote:
And to be honest, if your religion teaches intolerance, why are you following it?
(Don't respond to that point. Threadlock will ensue.)
Then don't ask, Troll.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:They both (along with many other bizarre things) are an alternate form of sexual preference to heterosexuality. That is fact.
Pedophilia and heterosexuality are not mutually exclusive.
yes. Same with pedophilia and homosexuality. Your point?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:yes. Same with pedophilia and homosexuality. Your point?
... that homosexuality and pedophilia are in no way equivalent. You might as well say that eating candy is equivalent to cannibalism because they're both less common than eating pizza.
?
ed up. I'm not getting where you're going here.
