(Schwarzenegger) would veto bill mandating inclusion of gays in textbooks

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/25/MNGL3J2CTK4.DTL

Greg Lucas, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Thursday, May 25, 2006

Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will veto legislation that would require public school instructional materials to contain discussions about the contributions of gay lesbian, bisexual and transgender people if the bill reaches his desk, a spokesman said Thursday.

The statement from the governor, who rarely takes positions on bills until they pass the Legislature, dooms the measure which also prohibits teaching or textbooks that reflect adversely on people because of their sexual orientation.

... Backers of the bill vowed to continue pushing it through the Legislature. The measure cleared the 40-member Senate two weeks ago on a 22 to 15 vote after a sometimes emotional debate.

"We're going to keep going. The governor is clearly doing pre-primary electioneering and I think it's kind of cowardly to do it on the backs of gay and lesbian kids," said the bill's author Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica.

He'll should catch up with the shrub soon at this rate.

Californians have a wide range of viewpoints on things.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is a bigot, just like everyone else in his party.

girly-men in our txtbooks. What about the childern??????????? *sarcasm*

waiting ...

Honestly I don’t think pushing the idea of sexual orientation in text books is any better than pushing religion. Let’s just focus on cleaning up the education system, improve it and promote teaching students to question authority rationally.

Things that should be taught in school that are a higher priority in my opinion are:
- How to start a personal business in California and how to use the SBA.
- How to look up voting information through the web and contact representatives.
- Promotion of involvement in the political process actively.
- Active community responsibility and volunteerism.

Those are things that I wish I had access to in High School as I look back. I also received the christian education side of things and I totally disagree with most of that crap. It seems all of us need to learn to show people the door instead of kicking them through it.

Personally I think Arnold is making the right choice. And I believe if it were a religious group pushing their agenda Arnold would likely do the same to them.

Actually, religious people are included in most history texts. Franciscan missionaries played a role in California history--& Texas history. Utah history cannot be told without mentioning the Mormons. This is not "pushing" religion--just telling the whole story.

I don't know where & when you went to High School--but my working class district offered no "Christian education." This was Texas, in the early 60's.

Get your business and/or political groups involved in youth activities.

And--what do you mean by "cleaning up" the education system?

I assume you don't have a problem with including the accomplishments of African Americans in a text book, and alot of people here will tell you it's more or less the same issue. I guess the most obvious question is why should we single out this group when we KNOW it will make some people angry and when we should just be teaching math and reading anyway? Why can't we just teach about people and events that are important in and of themselves regardless of the race/religions/sexual orientation of whoever was responsible for the event? The next question is, how do we even know who was gay in the first place? Speculation is that Shakespeare was gay for example, but how can you know for sure? I guess I haven't had enough time to form an opinion on this one although I generally HATE mandates in education.

I actually don't even think of the race card much anymore but I am from California and see every color every day. My guilty part would be that I assume many cultures would be in there as we have a lot of great history from all sorts of cultures. We have a lot of ugly history as well that young people should be aware of.

Now I totally support education of all civil rights movements and the importance of minority majority checks and balances. Instead of making it a gay issue why don’t they try and make it a civil rights issue to study the importance of class issues which are important to all Americans. I believe most Americans would accept this as important to their child’s education but to push one narrow class issue as more important than another will likely always backfire.

If you want people to accept this I suggest they do it another way. They should go and group up with religious groups, cultural minorities and any other group that has been discriminated against in our society. Then you bring this together and have literature about all these issues recommended with each group getting their side of the story. I think most Americans would accept that.

Otherwise what difference does it make who they were having sex with at night?

And I don't want to see the personal lives of private individuals hijacked to push current day agenda. Willa Cather's sexuality is a hot topic amongs Cather scholars. From what I've studied about her, she would be horrified to have her personal life up for grabs. She burned her private papers and asked others to do so as well. Her contribution is her work, not her personal life, and she deserves her privacy no less in death than she did in life.

he knows nothing but pander pander pander. Yikes, what a moran.

As I recall when I was in school, it didn't make a point of stating anyone's status with respect to gay, lesbian, or transgendered people. I don't remember anywhere seeing "Thomas Jefferson, a heterosexual, was the third president of the United States", or "The Birth of Venus was painted by Sandro Botticelli, a homosexual". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should try to exclude any contributions from anyone from any textbook, as long as it's important and relevant to the subject, but shouldn't we be teaching children the facts, and not getting into anyone's personal life unless it's important to the discussion?

Maybe I'd feel different if I had some idea what they were planning to add. I guess what I don't understand is how if a person's contribution was not important enough to be discussed before, how does their contribution become any more important simply because the person was gay, bisexual or transgendered?

I would add, though, that someone's contribution should not be considered less if they are of a particular orientation. Some of the fundies want to purge contributions by gay people. That would wrong, too, IMO.

I fully agree with the concept that sexual orientation should not even be mentioned in textbooks. What does it matter, in the long run?

People should be recognized for their accomplishments or contributions to soceity... not who they slept with. With exception to anything where orientation (like race) were specific to the acomplishment ie First homosexual to walk on the moon or something to that effect.

Saying that people should not be recognized for "who they slept with" is insulting. Being homosexual is much more than who one sleeps with.

excuse my ignorance...

about who one sleeps with? Then being a woman is no more than not having a penis, and being black is no more than having darker skin. These differences result in oppression and bigotry and are only a very small part of what people are.

Back to the point though... it's important for gay children to learn about gay figures in history, no matter whether their homosexuality influenced their contributions, just as it's important for black children to learn of important black people in history and for girls to learn about important women in history. It's equally important for straight children, white children and boys to learn of these people. I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp.

to do with who you sleep with... if you slept with people of the opposite gender you would be Heterosexual... if you slept with both you would be Bisexual.

Your sexual preference (and yes just like your race or gender) has NOTHING to do with your ability to contribute to society. Like I said unless your sexual orientation (like your gender or race) is specific to why your contribution is so special.... who cares who you sleep with!! No one is more amazing just because they are Gay or Straight and (personal opinion incoming) separating a persons accomplishments just because they are gay or straight is a LABEL.

But feel free to be insulted as you march to the Gay/Straight/Bi Registration Office so when you do accomplish something we will have your orientation on record (and maybe someone will be able to pull up a spreadsheet with your home address when the ultra right makes being gay a sexual offense or reinstated as a mental disorder.)

Please feel free to continue to ignore why it is important to discuss homosexuals' contributions to society. In the meantime, we should remove all references to any other oppressed minorities. Let our children grow up believing that only straight white men contributed anything of value.

Oh, and thanks for the little scare tactic at the end of your post. This is precisely why so many gay people in history stayed in the closet, and why many still do.

you sure you understand what I'm saying?

If someone paints a picture is it more beautiful because they were straight or gay?

If someone writes a play is it more entertaining because they were straight or gay?

Or does being Gay magically turn substandard art into works of genius? (art is only an example...)

If it is beautiful it is beautiful... end of story.

I don't think you really care what I am saying though... I think you feel like I am your enemy... sorry you have a chip on your shoulder but I personally believe there shouldn't be any labels.

I do have one question though... how would we label people in the books who were not openly gay when they made their contributions to society? Or did not become aware that they were gay until much later? Would we have to print multiple corrections? What about people where there is not enough evidence to say what orientation they were one way or the other? What about people who just tried being gay and then decided they were still straight?

Adding my edit after you added yours... it is called sarcasm... I just thought it didn't need a :sarcasm:

I don't have a chip. But I would very much like to have equal rights, and that starts with education. Obviously we can't out people in history who were closeted, because we have no facts about it. But we can talk about those who were openly gay. And that is where we have to start. It should be no different than knowing that George Washington was married to a woman. Or that Mozart was ladies' man. Why does THAT matter? Why would that be mentioned and then not mention a gay person's partner in the same context. Instead, gay historical figures are solitary, labeled bachelors or old maids, or not discussed at all.

No, there shouldn't be any labels. But there are. And because of it, I cannot marry my partner or be the mother of her child. Someday, with education, maybe that will change.

My friend (and yes I feel you could very well be) I do get it... I just believe it would be a far better (and easier) thing to do to teach children it doesn't matter what your orientation is then to say look what the gay person did (or the black person... or the woman.. or the man.)

I just feel that to seperate people (even for noble reasons) is still seperating. Positive role models are important yes but people don't think of Mozart and want to be a "ladies man" (some would say womanizer) they want to be a composer. And no I don't think he's being a ladies man is important at all to his works.

If we still don't see eye to eye my friend I am sorry... but at least in the end you and I want the same thing and I can be happy with that.

Laws like these have little relevance to children, for whom "gay" is little more than a slightly bad word to express contempt. These laws are mainly designed to pander to the Right and to (figuratively) poke Gays in the eye.

That's from "The-Adults-Are-In-Charge" Party and the man who gushes about how America and "Colly-Fawnya" gave him limitless opportunities.

--p!

You're making a strong argument for why this legislation is important.

You're making way too much sense.

and still managed to accomplish something. It's the same reason we highlight women and blacks who were able to make contributions in history despite white male domination, lack of rights, bigotry and hatred. Their gender and race is important specifically because of that. The same way that sexual orientation is important in a historical figure if that person is gay.

are a major determining factor in the importance of one's accomplishment?

inspiration. And yes, often they are a major contribution and determining factor in the accomplishment itself. Why else do we highlight minorities' accomplishments? Or the accomplishments of anyone who traverses obstacles?

celebrating them, or anything else, but as I see it you have a finite amount of time in school to cover basically an infinite amount of material. You need to try to figure out which things are the most important to learn, and which you'll have to hope children will pick up on their own. With respect to these time constraints, if the change simply consisted of "the economist Keynes, a bisexual, help set US policy..." then this wouldn't be an issue to me since they are already covering this material. Adding someone they are not covering, simply because of their sexual preferences would mean omitting someone or something else.

On the note of mentioning a persons sexual preferences, I do see the advantage to providing positive role models. My issue is that whenever the fundies seem to try to run someone out of office, or their whatever their position because they're gay, progressives stand up (and rightly so) to say that a person's preferences are a personal matter and are not relevant to the job they do. It seems like what they're proposing would at least give the appearance that they are relevant and do matter to a person's job.

Alan Turing. Most extreme case of ingratitude ever. He saves everybody's ass from the Nazis, invents the computer, and society repays him by scorn and forced poisoning. He ended up killing himself biting a cyanide-laced apple -- hence Apple Computer's logo.

As a straight person, I presume, you're not fully aware of, or sensitized to, the double standard, so you don't see it.

EVERY TIME in history class that Thomas Jefferson's wife and family is mentioned, it is a reference to his heterosexuality. Every time in textbooks that they talk about his affair with Sally Hemmings, it is a mention of his heterosexuality. Every time ANY President's spouse is mentioned, or the fact that they were married, it is a reference to that President's sexuality. Every time ANY historical figure's spouse is mentioned (and they always are), it is a subtextual discussion of sexuality.

You are buying (and a lot of straight people do it, so you're not alone) the religious rights' definition of sexuality: that it is only what people do in bed.

But that is not what sexuality is. It is a fixed identity and affectional orientation which defines a human being's ENTIRE adult social structure. If one is straight, it means one will perhaps have a spouse of the opposite sex and perhaps have children and all the family history that that entails. If one is gay, this too circumscribes an entire adult, familial structure.

What gays are demanding, as far as history books go, is to have the facts about people's orienations laid out for examination. NOT WHAT THEY DO IN BED. But their adult social structures. If Buchanan, the only bachelor President, was gay, then present those salient facts about his alleged partner, if they are historically valid, as it informs us as to who he was. If Alexander the Great was gay, ditto. Examine how Walt Whitman's adult life impacted his poetry. Explore how Auden, arguably the most important poet of the 20th century, was impacted by his lifelong relationship with his partner, Chester Kallman. PUT THOSE HISTORICAL FACTS ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE DISCUSSIONS OF STRAIGHT PEOPLE'S LIVES. And future generations should know about current, noted gay Americans, who their same sex spouses were and what children they produced. Just exactly the same stuff you'd read about straight people.

Including the history of gay people in text books and history class does NOT mean talking about their sex lives, anymore than including straight people entails talking about theirs.

It means not rendering them invisible. It means not distorting history intentionally to pretend they didn't live full, rich lives, with all the joys, loves, accomplishments, heroics and demons that are routinely assigned straight folks.

"Every time ANY historical figure's spouse is mentioned (and they always are)"

In my experience anyway, they usually don't. We would read Walt Whitman and discuss his work, the same with Shakespeare. When learning Newton's laws, there was no mention of his marital status, same with Einstein. Yes, I will admit that they usually mention the presidents' wives in the textbooks, but I don't recall any mentions of the wives or relations of Henry Clay, Caesar Chavez, Christoper Columbus, Robert E. Lee, Beethoven, Charles Darwin, George III of England, Josef Stalin, Karl Marx or almost any other person. You can certainly find that information, it just wasn't presented in the textbooks. I'm sure that some of them were married, yet it never seemed important to the discussion of what they did.

and when it's irrelevant, there would be no need to discuss it.

But, often, it is.

I assure you, close dissection of Walt Whitman's poetry in ninth grade English class thirty years ago never mentioned that he was not heterosexual.

Yet, can you really fully understand the body of Whitman's poetry without that knowledge?

I do think that everytime a superfluous mention of a historic figures wife or family is mentioned, then that is a reference to that person's heterosexuality. There are times when being married or having children is part of that person's contributions--like William and Mary as co-monarchs of Britain. But in the same sentence must one also include the fact that William was likely bisexual and having sex with other men?

I do think when a historic figure's homosexuality is a part of their contribution, it should be noted. How can one study Michelangelo's art and not have a discussion of how his love for men informed it? But is that really an issue that can be dealt with in the lower grades of our public schools?

The biggest problem, as others have noted, is that there is rarely a clear historic record tha this person or that person in history was homosexual. For heterosexuality one has marriage records and the birth records of children. What do we have for homosexuality? It's usually gossip and innuendo. Very few people before the twentieth century found it possible or prudent to step forward and publically proclaim their love for members of the same gender.

I think as a general principle, I'm actually against a law that dictates what sort of mandatory inclusion is required in history textbooks.

I mean, I don't know so someone could please tell me, does CA have similar laws mandating inclusion of Jewish history, Black history, Latino history, etc. in history textbooks?

I don't know. I understand why the woman who authored the bill put this through, but I'm not sure if it was the right thing to do.

What I do know is that I wish Arnold would not have gotten into politics and not had tainted his legacy as a bodybuilder any further than he did with starring in that movie "Commando" (Oi! that was bad!). :(

When we studied historic figures a point was never made as to their sexuality. I understand the point about preventing books from saying "(Blank) was a horrible person because they were gay!", but studying history through the lense of sexual orientation is not appropriate, nor is it necessary.

That was an 8th grade World History class IIRC.

His sexual orientation did play into his interactions with others.

Some could, and I will emphasize "could" argue it lead to negative aspects of his personality. I personally don't agree with that, but there are right wingers who would try to spin it that way.

some people might consider negative aspects. That might lead to understanding how repression and bigotry can be translated to self-hatred. Considering the suicide rate among gay teenagers being so much higher than straight ones is argument enough that we should be educating our gay and straight children on this subject.

If it was a biographical class specifically on Alexander the Great, it would be worth studying, but there are more important topics to cover in the average public school history class.

what a tired argument. Homosexuals still do not have equal rights in this country, but it's not important enough to educate our children about that either, I guess.

need to be discussed?

Uh, because it's HISTORY, maybe?

and I don't mean baseball.

;-)

or a gender lense, both of which are HIGHLY appropriate.

Sexual orientation really doesn't have the same sort of impact as race and gender or even religion and certainly nothing close to social class, which surpasses them all.

How do you figure that? Homosexuals are oppressed and denied opportunities, and fundamental rights. How is it not the same? How is it not important to recognize and teach and learn about historical gay figures, the same way we teach children about women and other minorities?

Race, gender, social class, and many other things have.

I am an Irish Catholic, a group heavily persecuted against up until about the mid point of the last century. However, I do not demand special recognition. I also suffer from a variety of mental illnesses, arguably a category with much more significant historic impact and an even more disgusting history of persecution than homosexuality, but I do not desire whole chapters in history books devoted to it, even though it merits it just about as much as anything else.

If we look at history through a huge series of lenses, we will be bogged down by them.

no one is asking for whole chapters to be written here... but to not mention it at all is just more bigotry. We know about Irish Catholic persecution, because it has been written about and taught. This is not about one-upmanship re. persecution.

John F. Kennedy didn't have to pretend not to be Catholic to become our president, but he sure as hell would have had to hide being homosexual if he had been.

I remember it being in textbooks distinctly.

And even rarer, taught. But at this point I will direct you to post #44 which summarizes this entire subject perfectly.

Can you provide a concrete example or two of individual contributions from homosexuals that ought to be discussed, but aren't?

but that's not the point. No one is saying that their contributions aren't mentioned... it's that no one knows that those contributions come from homosexuals. Discussing their contributions without discussing the fact that they are gay, along with the obstacles they overcame getting there, or the fact that they had to live closeted in order to succeed... that's left out. And those discussions would go far to helping children understand that homosexuals are just as valid contributors to society as anyone else and that discrimination against them is destructive.

When I grew up, I heard nothing about homosexuals, except for very negative things. There was a lesbian couple living in our town, and they were treated as pariahs. That was my total exposure to homosexuality. It was destructive to me as a gay person, and it was destructive to all the straight kids who learned that it was ok to treat them that way and who also knew nothing about any valuable contributions made by homosexuals.

I'd love to live in a perfect world where homosexuals have equal rights and are not discriminated against, but until then, the only way out of that situation is to educate.

Gay/Lesbian/Bi students would like to know they aren't alone in the world.

...child's text book.



Perhaps Mr Schwarzenegger will also make a stand against steroid use and it's harmful effect on the body including the brain.

What kind of stand would you like him to take? Anabolic steroids are already illegal. What more should he do? Make them "extra illegal"? :)

I mean hell, he fully admits he used them. Why shouldn't he have? He was a competitive bodybuilder at a time when dinnabol (what he used) was perfectly legal. His physician gave them to him.

Now, of course, his Arnold Classic is an IFBB event and the IFBB still does not do any testing, but whatever. If you want to shoot synthol and end up like Gregg Valentino...you're free to be a dumba*s. :)

...raising the issue of why his mental state may be the way it is.

I don't know anything about his "mental state"...

I just hate it that someone who I can admire so much for one aspect of their lives (bodybuilding, not his acting), has to go and tarnish that image by being a Republican governor.

Much like how (and I live in Pittsburgh, Steeler Country Central) Lynn Swann is trying to be the Republican Governor here.

How can he tarnish his "hero" and "legend" status among Yinzers like that? (jerk)

The article suggests that the law will force textbooks to have gay history sections and teach children about homosexuality. The law merely states that sexual orientation will be acknowledged if it is historically significant.

The point is to show that many great men and women were homosexuals who contributed greatly to society. Much the same way that many Blacks were important to shaping our society. Being gay and living in an intolerant society can greatly shape a persons actions much the same way being Black and living through segregation shaped the lives and actions of Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King Jr. There are many great moments in history that are glossed over because people are so afraid of acknowledging the existance of good gay role models.

I applaud the legislation and it is a shame that the media is distorting the intention. Nobody is trying to indoctrinate children to the gay lifestyle.

So I'm curious now, what historical events have been shaped by ones homosexuality? Not merely for the fact that they might have been gay.

It's a serious question.

examples off the top of my head. It could be that I've never cared very much what the sexual orientation of a historical figure was.

I find repulsive your obtuse, cavalier, and seemingly intentional dismissal of the struggles gay people must face to get the least, littlest recognition at all for anything. I clearly recall having to push twice as hard- in literally everything- as anybody else just to get half the credit from the people around me and gee, GUESS WHAT? It continues to this very day.

I would have loved to have known there were people out there who accomplished something with their lives who happened to be gay. I would have been able to actually pick a role model I could look up to, an adult I trusted and admired, instead of having to figure out everything for myself while surrounded by bigoted assholes telling me (and, in my parents' case, actually doing everything they could to make this happen) that I wouldn't amount to jack shit because of the fact. I could have looked to that person, well-known and respected and perhaps admired for their achievements. It might have given me just a little bit of hope- maybe enough to keep me from being crushed for the rest of my life.

I didn't have that; I can't tell you who my role model was when I was a kid because I didn't have one. There wasn't one single adult I was taught about or exposed to that I can honestly say I felt I could look up to because the fact that an adult might be gay just wasn't ever mentioned. There were several musicians I could have looked up to- I was a musician myself at the time- and didn't because I didn't know any of them that were "like me". Yes, that really was and is that important.

I could say one hell of a lot more, but I think I settle for this: if you figure out that you're gay as a teenager, suddenly, knowing who is and is not or was and was not gay matters a whole hell of a lot, and if it doesn't matter to you, it will matter a whole lot to the people around you.

Maybe only gay people themselves "get it". You quite obviously don't.

edited to add: this is what happens when we don't get to talk about it at all:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2308812&mesg_id=2308825

I'm not a history buff, gay or otherwise, so I'm not a great person to respond but here is my attempt.

There was the stonewall uprising in New York, I think in the 60's, where police were regularly raiding and harrassing gay bar patrons with impunity. These patrons finally had enough and actually fought back against the raid. I believe there were many injuries and people were jailed. This was the beginning of the gay rights movement. A significant event in history and never discussed outside of gay circles.

There are people like Elenor Roosevelt whose extensive work in the women's rights movement is often cited without acknowledging her homosexuality which was probably a huge factor in her motivation to forge change for women.

There are innumerable creative people who's creativity came as a direct result of the injustices of discrimination and gay hatred. Their works are lauded without any mention of the struggles that shaped their work because nobody wants to acknowledge homosexuality.

Others can chime in with more accurate info and links but I hope this illuminates my point.

I'm not sure ANYONE wants to head about Eleanor's sexual preferences.....

But you're absolutely right. The New York incident that you mentioned... If a single incident led to the gay rights movement, a movement that is shaping how our society is developing right now, a movement that is on the forefront of political discussion in America, then it should ABSOLUTELY be in textbooks.

I'm still unconvinced of the necessity of a law to put it there, however. :(

discussed. And precisely why such discussion is important, so that people now can be honest and open instead of hiding such an important part of themselves. Most of the historical influence I am aware of from known homosexuals is literary, notably, for example, Oscar Wilde, who was imprisoned for being gay, and whose writing was influenced by the experience.

Andy Warhol, Virginia Woolf, Gertrude Stein, Sappho, among so many others, all influenced literature in part because of their sexual orientation. But the greater point here is that it is important for children, whether they are a minority race, or gay, to have role-models, and for those who are not oppressed to recognize the contribution of those who were and still are. That is the reason why the open discussion about the sexuality of people in history is important.

I think straight people have a hard time understanding this because being heterosexual has no effect on their lives. They think, who cares about someones sexuality and what does that have to do with anything anyway.

They have no experience with government sponsored anti-straight marriage amendments, or having doctors intentionally undertreat you because you are a fag with AIDS and your death would be welcomed. They have no experience with parental abandonment, inability to make friends or loss of job all because of something you didn't ask for and can't change.

Someone's sexuality is only unimportant if you are straight. The rest of us have had our lives shaped dramatically by our sexuality. It effects everything we do and say. We are who we are because of these struggles and to minimize that, to say that acknowledging someone's sexuality is irrelevant to history, as somehow pandering to the gay community, is ignorant.

Walk in my shoes and then tell me sexuality is irrelevant to history.

And welcome to DU! :toast:

we just weren't told they were gay, because there contribution had nothing to do with their orientation. Sure you can always say that someone's orientation shaped what they did, but most schools don't spend the time to do a character study of the contributor, and (for better or worse) the contribution stands on it's own.

Francis Bacon, Botticelli, Caravaggio, Charles IV of Spain, Allen Ginsburg, John Maynard Keynes, and Cecil Rhodes were all gay or bisexual, though it never came up in our discussion of them, nor do I think it necessarily has relevance to their work. It was easy enough to find a list of famous gay people though, so any school child with access to a computer and a little bit of curiosity could easily find out. With this information so easily available now, does the school need to be adding material just to make a point that some of the people they've learned about already are gay, bisexual, or transgendered (IMHO, the better scenario), or teaching about the contributions of less significance simply because the contributors were gay, bisexual, or transgendered (the worse scenario).

As I've already said on this thread. I don't think they should exclude anyone's contribution for reasons of sexual preference, as long as it is and important contribution. By the same token, I don't think they should be adding a less significant contribution (at the expense of removing other material) simply because the person was gay.

"we just weren't told they were gay, because there contribution had nothing to do with their orientation. Sure you can always say that someone's orientation shaped what they did, but most schools don't spend the time to do a character study of the contributor, and (for better or worse) the contribution stands on it's own."

I'm sure the students reading the material who ARE gay, would have appreciated knowing that someone like them did great things. Part of education is building confidence. Schools don't do character studies of contributors under any circumstances. The textbooks are written by historians so I don't understand your second point.

"It was easy enough to find a list of famous gay people though, so any school child with access to a computer and a little bit of curiosity could easily find out."

They can also do the same thing with famous black people or famous wars or famous entrepeneurs etc... The difference is that if they have to find the material on their own, it delegitimizes the material. If they read it in class and can be given historical background and can ask questions, the information is much more likely to be thought of as important. Your assertion is that gay history is not as important as 'regular' history.

"I don't think they should exclude anyone's contribution for reasons of sexual preference, as long as it is and important contribution. By the same token, I don't think they should be adding a less significant contribution (at the expense of removing other material) simply because the person was gay."

Nobody is claiming that historical figures are denied their spot in history because they were gay. We are saying that history books are denying that historical figures are gay by omitting that information. It is always assumed that someone is straight until stated otherwise. This is the problem. Students who are gay have no idea that people like them have been contributing because that information is deemed irrelevant. It may be irrelevant to straight people, but it is not irrelevant to gay people.

Your last sentence is a little troubling for me. You seem to think that the textbooks will get rid of significant contributions just to satisfy the 'less significant' gay material requirement. That is not what the legislation is about. Nothing will be removed. This law will force heterosexuals to acknowledge the existance of gays in history--nothing more--no special treatment, no big chapters on gays in history, just a simple acknowledgment that some historical figures are gay. The failure to acknowledge this leads students to think that all historical figures are straight which is inaccurate and unfair to gay students who need to know that they are not alone.

This legislation is meant to stop the marginalization of gay students--to let them know that they are valid members of society. If the people on the democratic underground can't understand this, then I fear for our future as a democratic society.

If it helps, most SCHOOL BOOKS do not do character studies of the people they discuss. In my high school history book's section on George Washington, there was some information on his military background, a good bit on the Revolutionary War, and more on his being the first president. They didn't mention anything about him being a deist, and (surprisingly, since I dug it out and checked it) no mention of Martha. In other words, they didn't get into his personal life. If you're at a school that reads the biographies by historians for your information, then I'm sure it would be included, but in my US History HS textbook that covered Columbus-Reagan, then didn't really get into anyones personal profiles.

"They can also do the same thing with famous black people or famous wars or famous entrepreneurs etc... The difference is that if they have to find the material on their own, it delegitimizes the material". Seriously? Since when did information not explicitly taken from a classroom lose it's value? We learned all about Cecil Rhodes in class, along with the historical context and the opportunity to ask questions. I found out later that he was gay. I didn't have any new questions as a result of finding this out, because it wasn't relevant to his accomplishments.

"Your assertion is that gay history is not as important as 'regular' history." This is absolutely NOT my assertion. My assertion is that HISTORY is neither gay nor straight! Was the first person in outer space, Yuri Gagarin, gay or straight? Does it matter? If he was straight, should we also learn about the first gay person in outer space? Isn't the important part that SOMEONE went to outer space and this heated up the space race and affected international relations.

"That is not what the legislation is about. Nothing will be removed. This law will force heterosexuals to acknowledge the existance of gays in history--nothing more--no special treatment, no big chapters on gays in history, just a simple acknowledgment that some historical figures are gay". So what you're saying is that simply a brief mention for example "John Maynard Keynes, a bisexual man, helped to shape the economic policy..." is all this bill will provide for? This is all they're doing? They will add no new course material, which would mean the removal of old course material? Having not ready the text of the bill, I don't know this for sure, but for some reason I find it hard to believe that this is all the bill is about.

Just as we learned about the first black person in outer space and the first woman in outer space.

"That is not what the legislation is about. Nothing will be removed. This law will force heterosexuals to acknowledge the existence of gays in history--nothing more--no special treatment, no big chapters on gays in history, just a simple acknowledgment that some historical figures are gay". It looks like you want to add material here, which would necessarily mean that you would have to remove material since there's only a fixed amount of time. Who was the first gay person, black person or woman in outer space? Other than being not heterosexual white men, did they actually do something important to the discussion of space travel or science in general? If their contribution, and not just their race, gender or sexual preference, was important then by all means discuss them. If it was someone who went up as a passenger and had no significant role in the mission, should they spend class time discussing them as opposed to presenting other important material? For every historic first, do we need to make sure to cover the first person, the first gay person, the first woman, the first black person, etc to accomplish each feat?

is ridiculous. What's a few more words here and there? We already educate children about the first woman in outer space, so why wouldn't we mention the first gay person? Did the first woman in outer space actually "do something important to the discussion of space travel?" Sounds to me that you would want to strip current education of women's contributions as well, by that logic.

Don't turn it into my wanting a special place in history for the first gay whatever. It was your example.

I'm astounded that this conversation even happens here. Amazing how heterosexuals can tell homosexuals how unimportant it is to educate anyone about them. Fucking amazing.

"Don't turn it into my wanting a special place in history for the first gay whatever. It was your example." Isn't this EXACTLY what you're asking for, though? Regardless of their actual contribution, we should mention them anyway. There are a lot of gay people that are already discussed because of their contributions, and it's not really an issue to me to mention that they're gay, but if you're going to spend any significant extra time on the discussion, simply because of their sexual preferences, then you will necessarily be taking time from someone or something else.

Incidentally, who was the first gay person in space?

"Should we also learn about the first gay person in outer space? Yes." It seems you don't know who the first gay person in space was (nor do I), or any contributions they may have made. It's enough that they were gay and in space to merit their inclusion into the discussion at school. This is exactly what I'm talking about!

I'm done here too.

Neither one of us knows who was the first gay astronaut, whether or not the first gay astronaut was out of the closet. If he was in the closet (and I would guess he/she was) then education could change that for future generations of homosexuals. It would no longer be necessary for a gay person to hide their identity, to marry someone in order to protect their livelihoods and even their acceptance in their own family and circle of friends.

If he was out, then why haven't we heard about him, just as we heard about the first woman and black astronauts? These are two sides to the same coin, and the coin is all about pretending that homosexuals don't exist, not educating our children about their contributions for fear of enabling them to be more accepting of homosexuality... and maybe, god forbid, becoming homesexuals themselves. What people don't know is that hiding this from children only creates agony and sadness for those who are gay. They think they will never find happiness. (After all, what fairy tales do children read that have a prince and prince living happily ever after?) And why on earth would they choose to be honest about their own sexuality, if they see other children teasing people they perceive to be gay, and calling tacky things "gay," and not knowing of homosexuals that have accomplished anything at all. Who would want to be gay with all that? When I was a child, I didn't know that a gay person could have happiness and joy and success in life, because I was taught (through omission) that they could not.

I was lucky. I reconciled this early in my adult life, though not early enough to not go through a lot of self-loathing and paranoia. I still brace myself for the reaction I might get from someone who would judge me for being gay. I still put up walls when I'm around people I don't know well yet, for fear that they will judge me for my being gay before knowing anything else about me.

What does someone's sexuality have to do with it? Everything. And we weren't the ones that made it that way.

they should never discuss heterosexual's family life either.

No Dolly Madison, no Martha Washington, no Lou Hoover.

Render them all invisible.

Right?

with respect to the subject, I don't see the need to mention them. If you're discussing the History of the White House (the specific building, not just the occupants) then certainly Dolly Madison should be mentioned because of her contributions. If you're talking about the federalist papers, I don't know that she adds anything to the discussion. Einstein was married, but I never see a mention of his wife when discussing his work. Does it matter with respect to his accomplishments? If you're studying biographies of famous people, then by all means include it, but if you're just interested in their "work product" does it add any value? Does the fact that Sir Isaac Newton never married have any importance in a Physics class? Sometimes it's unavoidable as you can hardly discuss John Adams without mentioning that his son was also President (and at least implying that he was heterosexual and married), or if you're discussing politics or political activism (Harvey Milk, for example), but in many cases it's not relevant to the discussion. John Maynard Keynes was a bisexual but I don't see how this has any more relevance to the classroom discussion than the fact that Mozart was a womanizer.

You can't discuss Lincoln without discussing Mary Todd and their children because they shaped WHO HE WAS. You can't discuss Auden without exploring his relationship with Chester Kallman, because you won't be armed with historical background knowledge to be able to parse his work.

My argument is to simply treat history without any bias whatsoever. THe bias, until recently, was to render gays and lesbians invisible. If there is to be a discussion of Sally Hemmings (Jefferson's lover), then there should be a discussion of Lorena Hickock (E. Roosevelt's lover), because they both impacted the lives of historical American figures.

This all about ending bias in history and being able to examine it in an encompassing, honest fashion instead of through the lens of a limiting and narrowing prejudice.

I'm sure that ALL people are shaped by their personal relationships, whatever they may be, but is there time to discuss the personal relationship of EACH person? I'm sure that all of the people I mentioned in earlier posts were shaped by their relationships, but it doesn't seem relevant to their work product. Should their be a discussion of all of Karl Marx significant relationships so we can better get to know the man, or is the time better spent doing a review of his work and moving on to labor unions, for example? Should a class cover a handful of poets in great depth or survey a larger number of poets and their work? In an ideal world with unlimited time, I'm all for this, but that's not the case in the current school structure.

but many times it is. But the argument here is not how often it is relevant, the argument is that when it IS relevant, it should be openly and freely examined. As in the examples I provided above. History is about knowledge, not hiding things to conform to religious correctness or cultural biases.

being black to being homosexual, that's just ridiculous. it's possible to hide one's sexual orientation, but it's not possible to hide the color of your skin.

of equality any less real, just because we can pretend to not be who we are? Now, THAT's ridiculous.

And no, it's not possible for many kids to "hide" who they are. That's why they get beat up at school.........along with other effeminate kids who are perceived to be gay. Not to mention adults who 'hide' and are found out.

"I hate da gays, but love ze weed!"

Hey, he just won Mr Olympia for a 6th straight time when that photo was taken! He deserved a good toke. :)

Just because you blazed up in your 20's doesn't make you unfit to be a politician. It's not his toking, orgies, whatever that make me dislike him as a politician, it's his POLITICS!



Why Arnold, Why? Why did you have to disgrace yourself by becoming a Republican politician? :(

It's what I do. :evilgrin:

FWIW, he might not have won so many championships if it were not for smoking weed and then lifting weights!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I mean, next thing you know, gay textbooks will want to get married. This will endanger the traditional marriage of male books to female books. I mean, come on folks, this is America, land of processed cheese and nutjobs.

...of saying things without saying them. Best of both worlds -- you get the effects of having said them, and if accused of having said them, you have plausible deniability! What a DEAL! :mad:

James Baldwin... I'm not even going to start a list...

their orientation is relevant... Wilde went on trial because of his homosexuality and tchaikovsky killed himself because he was depressed in major part to his problems leading an authentic life.

obscurantism.