California considers teaching gay history

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3780274.html

If they're teaching about gay issues in a historical context, I think it's an exellent thing. If they're just going to discuss how certain gays have contributed to society, then it's ridiculous.

Lovelace (Lovelace), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 21:54 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion_news1357.article.jpg

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 21:58 (nineteen years ago)

I think they should teach the history of black Scandinavians living in the UK.

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 21:59 (nineteen years ago)

You have a good memory.

But I don't know if you were being mean there.

Lovelace (Lovelace), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 22:02 (nineteen years ago)

No, not mean. :-)

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 22:08 (nineteen years ago)

He's just being Encyclopedia Jaytannica again.

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 22:09 (nineteen years ago)

I'm glad I'm noticed!

Lovelace (Lovelace), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 22:13 (nineteen years ago)

nietzsche was way ahead of you people.

enrique pseudonym, Thursday, 13 April 2006 08:34 (nineteen years ago)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0394719859.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

enrique pseudonym, Thursday, 13 April 2006 08:35 (nineteen years ago)

That's fine, except that teaching a different perspective doesn't seem to be what it's about. It would be one thing to teach about a group of people throughout history--say how homosexuals or blacks have been treated through time, and how they've responsed to that treatment--but it's another thing entirely to teach a list of "greatest hits" by gays or blacks or anyone else in history. If a composer or a painter or a philosopher or a politician did great things and happened to be gay, we don't need a chapter of a book lumping his accomplishments together with the accomplishments of all other gay men and women. That's nothing more than a poltical move, not an attempt to understand the fullness of history by investigation the particularities of different groups in history.

mantilla, Thursday, 13 April 2006 11:56 (nineteen years ago)

basically it means educators should insert the phrase 'who was gay' into their classes.

eg, 'shakespeare who was gay wrote othello in 1604' or whatever.

it won't cause any great shake-up.

enrique's pseudonym, Thursday, 13 April 2006 11:59 (nineteen years ago)

o god no! a political move! in history! let's not politicize the teaching of history now! heavens to betsy! heavens to lou even!

j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 13 April 2006 12:08 (nineteen years ago)

nine years pass...

“Most histories are written by straight people who wouldn’t know, see the signs that a gay person does when they look at a person’s life,” Kramer said. “I mean, how could you write the life of Mark Twain without realising that he was hugely, hugely gay? The way he lived, who his friends were, and how his relationships began. And what he wrote about! I don’t know how you could avoid the assumption that he’s gay.” (Kramer is not the first to raise this possibility, but it is not a view accepted by most Twain scholars.)

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/21/larry-kramer-i-decided-i-was-going-to-write-a-history-of-my-american-people

the increasing costive borborygmi (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 15:50 (ten years ago)

see the signs that a gay person does when they look at a person’s life

It is usually a mistake to view history simply through the lens of our own social conventions. The social context in which Twain operated was quite different from our own. I would mistrust speculative 'insights' derived from viewing his life through the lens of our current social context.

I'd speculate that any man as wealthy and powerful as Twain became would have been able to construct a life that gratified all his sexual needs while maintaining a veneer of respectability. It wouldn't have been necessary to bury it, so much as to throw a sheet over it and be somewhat discreet. Having a lot of money would do the rest of the work for you. High society tended to be polite about such peccadilloes, if you had the necessary wit not to rub their face in it.

Giant Purple Wakerobin (Aimless), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 17:28 (ten years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.