southcitymom
Well-Known Member
I'm not following you - what crap is being done in secret? Certainly this law we are discussing is in the public eye.
I have never heard of an elementary school coming out day - what is that?
CA Schools Curriculum: Inclusive of Historical Accomplishments of Gay Men & Lesbians
- Thread starter Emma Peel
- Start date
- Status
I'm not following you - what crap is being done in secret? Certainly this law we are discussing is in the public eye.
I have never heard of an elementary school coming out day - what is that?
miimaa
Well-Known Member
How about polygamy? Kody Brown and the sister wives seem happy enough and I don't care how they live but imo lifestyle choices and sexual orientation doesn't need to part of public school history curriculum.
It's funny you should mention George Washington. At least when I went to school, Martha was always mentioned with him in early grades. Since our country had a Father, it had to have a Mother, I suppose.
What's even funnier is that there is considerable evidence that Washington's chief adviser, the virtual architect of the military victory, had a male partner. Washington himself may have had similar feelings; he certainly surrounded himself with officers who did. I'm NOT saying this is something we need to teach in high school, because it really raises complicated issues of historical methodology and social construction. (I.e., can we call them "gay" if they themselves had no such concept?)
But it does serve to illustrate the problem: everyone throughout history is assumed to be straight simply because gay people are never mentioned in history class.
No wonder middle schoolers treat gay kids as freaks!
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
"Lifetstyle choices" (which is not a meaningful term when it comes to chatting about gay rights because all families have made a lifestyle choice) are ALL that are discussed in any history course....I'm really not following your arguments in this thread.
We absolutely discussed polygamy in my school classes, usually in relationship to Biblical elements that influenced art, music, etc...
Fair question. The answer is no; in most cases, it simply isn't important enough to make the lesson plan.
But neither should we imply that every historical figure is straight by never mentioning that anyone was gay.
And what of Martha? Also private?
What is an elementary school "coming out day"? I doubt I'd approve.
Unfortunately, children have to be protected from some parents. Gay children in particular need to be protected from parents who treat the subject as unmentionable.
I have some experience in this area.
ETA children are a sacred trust, not the personal property of their parents. "Parental rights" should be limited.
I think it would be pretty silly to teach about Brigham Young and the movement to colonize Utah without mentioning polygamy, don't you?
miimaa
Well-Known Member
So the readers here don't think I'm homophobic - I'm not.
I have a gay friend and love him like a brother. He is an awesome, intelligent, kind, caring human being and everyone loves him. He has told me many details about his life that I don't need to know. IMO what he enjoys in the privacy of his home is his business. My grandson knows him and thinks he is a great person. My grandson, 10yo, in his mind believes that gay means two ladies that love each other or two men that love each other and that is all he need to know.
It is the wording 'historic accomplishments of gay men and lesbians' that is making me frown because why does sexual orientation need to be brought into a discussion about an inventor or pioneer? In school we often don't learn about the personal life of such figures. Martin Luther was married but that is not discussed when he is studied. How many high school graduates know that Abraham Lincoln had four children? They may know his wife was named Mary and even if he had been a gay man what does that have to do with anything?
I have a gay friend and love him like a brother. He is an awesome, intelligent, kind, caring human being and everyone loves him. He has told me many details about his life that I don't need to know. IMO what he enjoys in the privacy of his home is his business. My grandson knows him and thinks he is a great person. My grandson, 10yo, in his mind believes that gay means two ladies that love each other or two men that love each other and that is all he need to know.
It is the wording 'historic accomplishments of gay men and lesbians' that is making me frown because why does sexual orientation need to be brought into a discussion about an inventor or pioneer? In school we often don't learn about the personal life of such figures. Martin Luther was married but that is not discussed when he is studied. How many high school graduates know that Abraham Lincoln had four children? They may know his wife was named Mary and even if he had been a gay man what does that have to do with anything?
miimaa
Well-Known Member
IMO just as silly as teaching the historic accomplishments of gay and lesbian persons.
Wasn't it Joseph Smith that started the polygamy movement?
miimaa
Well-Known Member
snipped
It just never occurred to me to think straight or gay. Some people accomplish very impressive things and it does not matter what their sexual orientation is and IMO does not need to be discussed in elementary school. I want children to learn that CARING about people and things other than the self will bring them great happiness.
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
UBM
This is the complicated aspect from a practical standpoint. Sexuality being a spectrum and our identifyers being relatively modern, how do we implement meaningful course materials?
Some gay role models (Harvey Milk) are obvious and stand out....others made their mark without identifying themselves as what we might call them today. That's a challenge, to be sure!
miimaa
Well-Known Member
I don't think of people that way... as straight or gay. I think of people as lazy or hard working, takes care of their family or doesn't, good to dogs or not, honest or dishonest, dependable, makes good decisions or messing up their life with dumb decisions like messing with drugs. Gay is not a disease nor do I think it is a special class of citizen.
miimaa
Well-Known Member
I have to quote myself because I wrote that wrong.
Yes polygamy would be discussed as it should be.
Another amusing example: Abraham Lincoln. Still controversial, but he let a young man share his bed for years in the White House, where there was no shortage of bedrooms. For me, this is college-level stuff because it can't be taught fairly without a complex discussion of historical methods.
Maybe I'm not being fair to high school history classes. I know contemporary texts teach the process of history as well as the "facts." Maybe they could handle the issue of "gayness" in history. But unless much stronger evidence is found, I don't think Washington or Lincoln should be called "gay" in middle school texts.
The point is not that every historical figure must be identified by sexual orientation, but that such mentions shouldn't be restricted to heterosexual marriages. Because in doing the latter, we give the impression that nobody in history formed a same-sex partnership.
And that is (a) inaccurate; and (b) unfair to gay kids and their friends, who are left with the impression that gay people exist outside of history and society and (most erroneously) culture.
The fact is that something we would call "gay culture" has existed since at least the 18th century. (I'm talking "gay" in the modern sense and not the man/boy relationships famous in Greek and Japanese history.) Its contributions to (ETA mainstream) culture and military history have been enormous. Gay kids should know that people like them have history, too.
It's also a fact that some classic works are incomprehensible without some mention of same-sex love. See The Iliad, the entire plot of which depends on Achilles' love for Patroclus. Of course, high schoolers probably don't read The Iliad any more and that's too bad for other reasons.
(BTW Isn't it odd that in an argument about teaching history, there are very few posts where we discuss what is true?)
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
UBM
I want this too!
This whole discussion has also made me think how much simpler this will all be when homosexuals can marry across the nation - then it doesn't have to be all about sexual orientation (which just seems to make everyone think about sex and get all uncomfortable), but about the true essence of a relationship (love, devotion, partnership).
A 1st grader can easily understand and absorb the bigger picture when a teacher says that Martha was George Washington's wife. In the future, when we have a more common language of marriage, it will be just as easy to say that John was the spouse of Eric (someone historical figure of note). Of course, it's going to be a while before this is feasible, but I look forward to it.
Joseph Smith founded the Mormon Church, including the principle concerning polygamy. After Smith was assassinated by a lynch mob in Illinois, Brigham Young took the Mormons to Utah.
It's certainly a part of American history that should be mentioned outside Utah, and, yes, polygamy is part of the story that must be taught. Doing so will not cause rampant polygamy to break out among high schoolers.
Yet more excellent arguments for gay marriage:
- it recognizes that gay relationships aren't just about sex;
- it provides visual evidence that role models exist for gay kids.
miimaa
Well-Known Member
Vincent Van Gogh -- would seem obvious he was gay and would make study / discussion of his life and accomplishments more interesting. Why else would a person cut off their ear if not for love (or lunacy)?
King Ludwig of Bavaria -- sponsored Richard Wagner allowing him opportunity to write fabulous operas
NOW I am off to my kiddie pool and a vodka tonic as it is very hot and humid here. Good weekend all.
King Ludwig of Bavaria -- sponsored Richard Wagner allowing him opportunity to write fabulous operas
NOW I am off to my kiddie pool and a vodka tonic as it is very hot and humid here. Good weekend all.
- Status
