Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

@reds8n: I'll have to try those sometime

reds8n wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

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?

reds8n wrote:*snip*

Thread won.

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.

reds8n wrote:

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

Indeed.

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.

reds8n wrote:

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.

I learned something this year I didn't know about... the stonewall riots.... its worth the read on wikipedia.

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?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

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

reds8n wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

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.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

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.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

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.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

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.

DarkPrince010 - We have very different ideas as to the purpose of school.

I thought it was to educate. Social engineering should not rear its ugly head there.

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.

Until we develop hypnotherapy, it is impossible NOT to have social engineering at school.