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.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

J.Black wrote:

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:

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.

LordofHats wrote:
I'm going with:

I was indeed being sarcastic.

The internet needs a color coding system for tone .

Blue can be sarcasm.

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?

I would say no.

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

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.

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

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.

biccat wrote:

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

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.

biccat wrote: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.

I'd agree with your overall point, that there's more important things to teach.

Though I'm a little puzzled by the really aggressive tone you used. Didn't realise this was such an intense subject.

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".

dogma wrote: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".

That was deep bro.

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.

dogma wrote:

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).

dogma wrote:

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

LordofHats wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

J.Black wrote:

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.

Agreed on all points.

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,

dogma wrote:

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.

First, this isn't an elective. "a California law which compels the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender history into educational textbooks and curricula." If it were, I wouldn't give a crap. But legislatures don't legislate elective laws, because then people might not do what they want.

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:

dogma wrote:

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.

First, this isn't an elective. "a California law which compels the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender history into educational textbooks and curricula." If it were, I wouldn't give a crap. But legislatures don't legislate elective laws, because then people might not do what they want.

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.