California lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history

[Neil]

Aside from being a martyr for your cause, he wasn't really a big deal.

I beg to differ.
His contribution to the war was significant. But it was nothing compared to his contributions to modern computation theory.
The Church-Turing thesis is a cornerstone of computer science.

And that's not significant enough to warrant inclusion in high-school level history courses.  Computation theory isn't historically significant.

[Neil]

I would like Grumblers input on that.  Seems to me that espionage was a significant aspect of the Cold War and the Cambridge Five are a very famous/infamous example.  It may be that they would not find their way into US text books if US texts focus on American content only but its hard to think about talking about cold war intrigue and not mention at least Burgess and Mclean (sp?).

Kim Philby should have been hanged.

Having been educated in French, most of my history classes revolved around events that took place in Quebec, but even when I was instructed in English during my later years of high school, the Cold War wasn't really discussed in depth.  I can't imagine getting into it very much, seeing as how espionage, while romantic, was just a small part of the enormous struggles of the Cold War, and the proxy wars and the economic conflicts are probably more important.

In a couple of generations, it'll be interesting to see how history looks back upon the massive espionage campaigns that China is waging against the civilized world.

[jimmy olsen]

The idea that there were no gay people before the 19th century is hilarious.

There were plenty of guys having sex guys, if that's what you mean.  As I understand it, it was more of a fucking/getting fucked dynamic.

Why do you believe this?

I actually have no idea, now that you ask.   I think I read it in a book on Greece somewhere, but I guess I can't source it.  Is it not the case?

It's a pretty outrageous claim that something this fundamental would change in such a short time so it better have some outrageous evidence, 'sall.

I took a class on the History of American Sexuality and that's what was taught.

[garbon]

We already have minority and woman stuff so I guess this is just logical.  Of course I would rather kids be taught, you know, the basic facts of what happened before we tough on specific themes like this.  My experience is that generally the curriculum spends alot of time telling us the themes (freedom good!  Capitalism good!  Minorities are nice to!  and in Texas: Christianity is why American exists!) without actually teaching the history.

I think (hope?) this is more according to the lines of having a lesson or two on the gay movement (like Stonewall etc.) which is also history, as much as Brown vs. Board of Education is. And telling kids so-and-so was gay, where it was relevant (for example Turing's sexuality was important, Newton's probably wasn't). I think it is more about not "white-washing" (or straight-washing) history than anything else.

I am just telling you how it works over where I live.  Mentioning Turing or Newton (much less who they had sex with...or didn't in Newton's case) in an American history class?  LOL.

And history classes famously never get past WWII so actually getting to the gay movement in context is not likely.

To be honest, why do children actually need the specifics? Until they hit a certain age, it isn't like they'll actually remember any details.

[garbon]

The idea that there were no gay people before the 19th century is hilarious.

There were plenty of guys having sex guys, if that's what you mean.  As I understand it, it was more of a fucking/getting fucked dynamic.

Why do you believe this?

I actually have no idea, now that you ask.   I think I read it in a book on Greece somewhere, but I guess I can't source it.  Is it not the case?

It's a pretty outrageous claim that something this fundamental would change in such a short time so it better have some outrageous evidence, 'sall.

I took a class on the History of American Sexuality and that's what was taught.

Yeah it is pretty mainstream to suggest that the term gay doesn't carry well outside of the 20th/21st century, western world. Scholarship-wise, that is.

[Ideologue]

See, I knew I wasn't making that shit up.

[garbon]

See, I knew I wasn't making that shit up.

Yeah there's ample literature about who gays can claim as "ancestors" and how far back it really goes as far as a social convention. After all, in the past many men who were fucking men only did it as a past-time - it wasn't an identity as we perceive it.

[Martinus]

although I can't think offhand of a gay who made a historically significant contribution to society

Alan Turing.

How was he gay and not just homosexual when going with your distinction of the two? As far as I know, he didn't have any of the traits or interests that are stereotypical for gays and neither did he take part in gay culture.

He only had sex with other men and identified as such. The "being gay is cultural" is not about liking showtunes. 

Besides, how do you know what his interests were anyway?

[The Brain]

The idea that there were no gay people before the 19th century is hilarious.

There were plenty of guys having sex guys, if that's what you mean.  As I understand it, it was more of a fucking/getting fucked dynamic.

Why do you believe this?

I actually have no idea, now that you ask.   I think I read it in a book on Greece somewhere, but I guess I can't source it.  Is it not the case?

It's a pretty outrageous claim that something this fundamental would change in such a short time so it better have some outrageous evidence, 'sall.

I took a class on the History of American Sexuality and that's what was taught.

Yes a lot of what is taught is complete BS. I'm more interested in the reasoning behind this belief.

[The Brain]

although I can't think offhand of a gay who made a historically significant contribution to society

Alan Turing.

How was he gay and not just homosexual when going with your distinction of the two? As far as I know, he didn't have any of the traits or interests that are stereotypical for gays and neither did he take part in gay culture.

He only had sex with other men and identified as such. The "being gay is cultural" is not about liking showtunes. 

Besides, how do you know what his interests were anyway?

Oscar Wilde doesn't qualify as gay in Martworld?

[Richard Hakluyt]

The standard homosexual relationship in ancient Greece was between an older male (the active partner) and a youth (the passive partner). This was considered "normal" and acceptable especially in aristocratic circles. It was much more difficult if a man fancied a spot of passive homosexual sex after his youth was over since this was considered "womanly" and deviant.

[Martinus]

Oscar Wilde had a wife and kids but I have no problem qualifying him as "gay". I am not an expert on queer/gender theory, so garbon would probably be a better person to answer, but as far as I understand it, the concept of "being gay" is mainly about identity in the Western culture - essentially a recognition of one's sexuality as an integral part of one's identity.

Oscar Wilde made no secret that his marriage with Constance was more a relationship of friends than of lovers, nor he made secret of his love for Bosie.

[Martinus]

For the record, the term "homosexuality" (and the notion of someone being a "homosexual") is also quite young, having originated in the 19th century. Before that, homosexual relationships were either recognized in very special cultural framework (like the pederasty of ancient Greece or Japan) or were considered "something you do" as opposed to "something you are".

So, men did not necessarily self-identify as homosexual even if they happened to have sex only or predominantly with men. This self-identification is a necessary component of being "gay".

[Martinus]

The standard homosexual relationship in ancient Greece was between an older male (the active partner) and a youth (the passive partner). This was considered "normal" and acceptable especially in aristocratic circles. It was much more difficult if a man fancied a spot of passive homosexual sex after his youth was over since this was considered "womanly" and deviant.

True, but then it goes beyond the question of sexuality and more into the realm of sexual behaviour at large, which also includes stuff like fetishism. I think discussions about gay sexuality fixate too much on specific sexual practices (notably, anal sex) but the thing is really about intimacy with a person of the same sex. Once you have this as culturally acceptable (even if within some specific confines), the question of what sex act is acceptable and what isn't becomes secondary (I mean, even with the heterosexual sex much more accepted, I bet there are specific practices which would be considered deviant, even if practiced between a husband and a wife).

Incidentally, I believe the Greeks were more into frottage than anal in the first place (even with the younger partner as the passive one).

[The Brain]

What is the exact definition of "gay" that you are using? I've been trying to avoid asking that question but I fear I need the exact definition.