California lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history

[garbon]

You said that you want children to learn specifics over overarching themes. My contention is that overarching themes will actually stick with children better than specific details.  Sure, I knew all the state capitals in 5th grade - hell if I know those now.  Sure I knew precise dates for various events in WWI in 8th grade - not really sure about them now but I can still tell you broad themes/events about the conflict.

You have the right of it.  Facts not taught in conjunction with themes/stories are not retained, but themes and stories have to have some facts supporting them or they won't be retained.

Example:  I could teach that Mohandas Gandhi played on Hindu values in his independence campaign as a theme, but without any examples it won't stick.  I could also teach that the Chauri Chara incident involved mob violence against some Indian policemen, but that name won't stick, either.  If I teach that Gandhi responded to the Chauri Chara incident by fasting until the people abandoned the non-cooperation movement, exploiting the fact that Hindus believed that indirect consequences for their actions still created karma and delayed their spiritual advancement, students tend to remember the incident, why Gandhi responded as he did, and why his response worked.

Facts and frameworks reinforce one another, and aren't much use independently, at least for pre-college students.

Yeah I didn't mean to suggest that the details are unimportant, but that the overarching themes do have a big role to play.

[The Brain]

I get the feeling that some people here somehow think that "queer/gender studies" is anything even approaching science, and/or rely on what they are being told in school or read and not on what is supported by facts.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the sources regarding BDSM pre Sade and Sacher-Masoch are pretty scarce. Getting from there to "there were no BDSM fiends before the 18th century" doesn't make sense. I can certainly believe that a BDSM farmer in the 15th century didn't have a good name for what he was feeling or doing, and that the scene was primitive and that he probably didn't make BDSM his number one identity, but those are just shallow details. That fundamental facts about human sexuality would change in the course of a hundred years is not very intuitive and would need to be supported by the sources. Of course the sources don't get very meaty until the 18th century, which makes making negative statements about earlier centuries very difficult to support. My impression is that there are many similarities between the situations regarding BDSM and homosexuality in this regard.

I'm sure it's possible to define "gay" in a way that makes it hard to find examples in the sources that predate the 19th century, but my impression is that such a definition will have to be narrow enough to be near-pointless and/or still compatible with the meager sources from earlier eras.

[Razgovory]

Again as I said, there is much more to gay identity than fixating on the fuck part.

For a heterosexual person, the part that is defined by our sexuality includes everything from sex, to family, to parenthood, to marriage, to love etc. This is a huge part of one's life - some would argue that it is the most important, central part of personal happiness.

Telling that gay sexual orientation is about "who you fuck" is like telling a freshly "made" father that his entire experience is essentially about squirting some sperm into a vagina.

Edit: and then, on top of that, comes the entire commonality of experience that is shared by gays in Western culture and is quite unique (your first same sex crush on a straight friend, your coming out to your parents, your friends, etc., your experience with prejudice etc.). It can be compared to stuff like a bond that war veterans share, even if they did not get to meet each other until after the war - they know and lived through stuff other people have not.

You are comparing two separate things, fatherhood and sex.  These are not comparable.  And nobody cares about your schoolgirl crushes. 

PS.  You are not Western.  You will never be Western.  You apparently read about the gay experience, or see it on TV, but when you regurgitate it back at us it comes off sounding bizarre.  It's like reading an essay that's been translated through six different languages.

[LaCroix]

By that definition, you'd end up with a very small set of homosexuals. I had childhood attractions to girls.

when did it phase out, and why--if you know? if some gay people have childhood attraction to girls but then lose that later in life, and others simply never have it and are always attracted to boys, then i suppose the two can be merged into a more refined definition as they both have the same end point

[Valmy]

Yeah I didn't mean to suggest that the details are unimportant, but that the overarching themes do have a big role to play.

My claim was not that there should be no themes just that those are really overemphasized (I suspect becuase they are exciting political football).  The basic cause and effect of history has really suffered over the years (presuming, at least in Texas, it was ever done well which it probably was not.  Other states do far better).    Without those the themes do not really have much value....besides general transmission of conclusions we want them to have.

Freedom being good and minorities are valuable are nice things to learn but they really are not history.

[Ideologue]

I get the feeling that some people here somehow think that "queer/gender studies" is anything even approaching science, and/or rely on what they are being told in school or read and not on what is supported by facts.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the sources regarding BDSM pre Sade and Sacher-Masoch are pretty scarce. Getting from there to "there were no BDSM fiends before the 18th century" doesn't make sense. I can certainly believe that a BDSM farmer in the 15th century didn't have a good name for what he was feeling or doing, and that the scene was primitive and that he probably didn't make BDSM his number one identity, but those are just shallow details. That fundamental facts about human sexuality would change in the course of a hundred years is not very intuitive and would need to be supported by the sources. Of course the sources don't get very meaty until the 18th century, which makes making negative statements about earlier centuries very difficult to support. My impression is that there are many similarities between the situations regarding BDSM and homosexuality in this regard.

I'm sure it's possible to define "gay" in a way that makes it hard to find examples in the sources that predate the 19th century, but my impression is that such a definition will have to be narrow enough to be near-pointless and/or still compatible with the meager sources from earlier eras.

I can sort of see your point there.  I think gayness as a culture and a cultural phenomenon is recent.  Predominantly homosexual sexual behavior is likely older than homo sapiens itself.

[Martinus]

You are confusing two things. It's not about "gay culture", it's about the concept of "gay" in the culture.

When people say "gay culture", they think of stuff like clubs, drag queens and show tunes - it's not about that.

What's relevant is a concept of a "gay experience/identity" which, despite the prevalence of homosexual behaviours in the past, is a new thing. In the past, even if a person was 100% homosexual and engaged in homosexual acts, he would be still not viewed as being something different from a heterosexual - it would just be treated as someone with a deviant/weird kink. He would still be expected (and himself likely expect) to get wife or kids, or at least stay celibate and/or in some sort of a "confirmed bachelor" set up.

The mainstream cultural concept of a same sex couple living in a relationship (whether long term or not) akin to that a heterosexual couple has (not just "brothers in arms" or "two friends" or whatnot) is a new one.

[Martinus]

Freedom being good and minorities are valuable are nice things to learn but they really are not history.

Err, how do you mean? The humanity's yearning for freedom is one of the most important, over-reaching theme in history. What makes Stonewall riots different in this respect from Spartacus' revolt, or Milk's assassination different from that of MLK's?

[Razgovory]

MLK wasn't assassinated by a disgruntled coworker, and the Stonewall riot did not involve military action or raiding and banditry.

[Valmy]

Freedom being good and minorities are valuable are nice things to learn but they really are not history.

Err, how do you mean? The humanity's yearning for freedom is one of the most important, over-reaching theme in history. What makes Stonewall riots different in this respect from Spartacus' revolt, or Milk's assassination different from that of MLK's?

I am not sure I ever referred to Spartacus, the Stonewall Riots, Harvey Milk, or Martin Luther King Jr or what the differences or similarities between them might be.  But knowing about the Stonewall Riots at all might help one understand the gay movement no?

[Martinus]

Freedom being good and minorities are valuable are nice things to learn but they really are not history.

Err, how do you mean? The humanity's yearning for freedom is one of the most important, over-reaching theme in history. What makes Stonewall riots different in this respect from Spartacus' revolt, or Milk's assassination different from that of MLK's?

I am not sure I ever referred to Spartacus, the Stonewall Riots, Harvey Milk, or Martin Luther King Jr or what the differences or similarities between them might be.  But knowing about the Stonewall Riots at all might help one understand the gay movement no?

Sorry I may have misunderstood your point. I'm not sure what it was now.

[Valmy]

Sorry I may have misunderstood your point. I'm not sure what it was now.

I should not have gone off on this tangent to begin with since it is mostly my frustration with the recent changes in the Texas curriculum and the ever expanding twisted political nature of the history curriculum that is really hamstrung by trying to pound political ideology into the kids...meanwhile their knowledge of the basics of American history are among the worst in the country.  One of the characteristics is they just keep adding more and more themes.

[MadImmortalMan]

What's relevant is a concept of a "gay experience/identity" which, despite the prevalence of homosexual behaviours in the past, is a new thing. In the past, even if a person was 100% homosexual and engaged in homosexual acts, he would be still not viewed as being something different from a heterosexual - it would just be treated as someone with a deviant/weird kink.

Isn't that kinda the point of equality? Having homosexual relationships be considered just as normal as hetero ones? The whole "gay identity" concept seems to be more of a thing that spotlights different-ness. Like a self-alienating mechanism. It seems to me the focus ought to be making homosexuality part of the accepted mainstream rather than giving it its own separate "Gentile" identity.

He would still be expected (and himself likely expect) to get wife or kids, or at least stay celibate and/or in some sort of a "confirmed bachelor" set up.

The mainstream cultural concept of a same sex couple living in a relationship (whether long term or not) akin to that a heterosexual couple has (not just "brothers in arms" or "two friends" or whatnot) is a new one.

This I understand.

[Martinus]

I don't think this is about "spotlighting different-ness", it's a simple recognition of a fact that, by sharing similar experiences, you have something in common (and something that is difficult to understand for people who do not share this experience). I suppose the more tolerant the societies become of gays, the less distinct this experience will be (and probably the identity will be less strong, as the current prejudice/persecution is likely fueling this to an extent), but I think that until there is a major shift in cultural mores, the process of a young gay person coming to terms with his or her sexuality during the formative years will still be somewhat traumatic.

[Malthus]

Sorry I may have misunderstood your point. I'm not sure what it was now.

I should not have gone off on this tangent to begin with since it is mostly my frustration with the recent changes in the Texas curriculum and the ever expanding twisted political nature of the history curriculum that is really hamstrung by trying to pound political ideology into the kids...meanwhile their knowledge of the basics of American history are among the worst in the country.  One of the characteristics is they just keep adding more and more themes.

To my mind, this is sorta the problem.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching gay history, or Black history, or the history of women, or whatever. All are legitimate parts of history, which after all included gays, Blacks, and women.

The problem is that the relative importance to be attached to these sub-groups is seperated from history as a whole and made subject, not to the requirement to explain history in sensible (and hopefully memorable and entertaining) manner, but to present-day political concerns - which are often as not intended to "correct" perceived imbalances in the narrative used in the past to teach the kiddies.

The problem of that approach is of course that the kiddies being taught today have no idea what was taught in the past, and so this approach makes no sense to them and appears instead as a context-less mish-mash of themes that are boring and unmemorable.

Canadian history in Ontario, when I was growing up, was a particular victim of this process, having been hijacked by earnest educators with an agenda formed by 1960s socialism. What passed for history was an earnest parade of hard-done-by natives, minorities, workers and women. Which is not to say that natives, minorities, workers and women were not hard done by, but rather that the historical context in which they were hard done by got short shift: the curriculum was a "corrective" to a narrative structure that we were not in fact provided with. 

This lead to the widespread notion among Ontario schoolkids that the history of Ontario was the most boring in the universe - hell, many were surprised to find out that Toronto had once been burned down in a war, and that the Niagra penninsula was once the site of battlefields - our history teaching made little mention of stuff like that.