California lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history

[grumbler]

As distorting as the old eurocentric and patriachal patriotic narrative-type history was, at least it contained interesting-to-children stories - even if they weren't accurate - and provided an essential framework.

But isn't this more of a chicken-and-egg kind of thing? These stories are "interesting" because we have built entire culture around such stories being "interesting".

No.  Those stories were the ones that stayed prominent, because they were interesting.  History isn't built consciously - it is what is left when people have forgotten the bits that bore them; as Napoleon noted, it is "a set of lies agreed-upon."  You aren't going to change that, either.    The essence of 1984 is how far you would have to go to even try.

Also, consider to what extent your "children" means "boys".

Both girls and boys enjoy stories of people trying to change their societies, or struggling against the repression of their societies.  Turing works not because he is gay, but because his work (and eventually life) is interrupted by people trying to "cure" him.  If he had been persecuted for religion or gender it would work equally well; what is important isn't that he was gay, but that he was persecuted.  That holds for boys and girls both.

[dps]

Turing works not because he is gay, but because his work (and eventually life) is interrupted by people trying to "cure" him.  If he had been persecuted for religion or gender it would work equally well; what is important isn't that he was gay, but that he was persecuted.  That holds for boys and girls both.

Yes, and this is one of the reasons that trying to teach "gay history" or even "black history" in primary and secondary education (where history classes are primarily just survey courses in the first place) is problematic.  You're trying to teach history to a bunch of kids who are often already predisposed to look at it as boring and irrelevant, and by, in your example, focusing on Turing's sexuality, you're focusing on the uninteresting and unimportant part of the story. 

[Razgovory]

I always found "Black history" terribly dull.  It seemed to be aimed at making African Americans feel better about their heritage.  As a consequence I always felt it was not meant for me.  I remember we watched some kind of video about African American history, with a bunch of notable accomplishments.  I got in trouble when I scoffed at the line "We (presumably meaning African-Americans), built the pyramids."   I pointed out that I could have said, "We built the Kremlin or the Great Wall of China", and would have been about as correct.

[ulmont]

I am more than my job, who I fuck, the hobbies I have and the games I like to play. I think fixating on one thing to define you isn't healthy.

I dunno, "my job, who I fuck, the hobbies I have and the games I like to play" pretty much sums me up.

[Oexmelin]

History isn't built consciously - it is what is left when people have forgotten the bits that bore them

Sure, it is. Which is why we have it as a genre in the first place. And reducing the numerous selection processes that happen to "boredom" seems disingenuous, for it posits precisely that what constitute "boredom" is constant through time...

[dps]

I always found "Black history" terribly dull.  It seemed to be aimed at making African Americans feel better about their heritage.  As a consequence I always felt it was not meant for me.  I remember we watched some kind of video about African American history, with a bunch of notable accomplishments.  I got in trouble when I scoffed at the line "We (presumably meaning African-Americans), built the pyramids."   I pointed out that I could have said, "We built the Kremlin or the Great Wall of China", and would have been about as correct.

And this show the other reasons why this approach to teaching history is problematic.  It is aimed at making members of certain groups feel good about themselves, rather than actually teaching anything;  and while it's a method that claims to be inclusive (it can be summed up as "hey, let's not leave out the contributions of women and minorities"), it's actually exclusionary.

[Ideologue]

There are two interesting things in history, how people killed each other, and how people fucked.  So, on that level, gay history has got a lot going for it.

[grumbler]

Sure, it is. Which is why we have it as a genre in the first place. And reducing the numerous selection processes that happen to "boredom" seems disingenuous, for it posits precisely that what constitute "boredom" is constant through time...

Reducing history to any single process for the purposes of discussion may be simplistic but isn't always disingenuous.

It is disingenuous to assert that "it posits precisely that what constitute "boredom" is constant through time" when what is regarded as "history" changes through time, as any good historical scholar knows.  What constitutes "history" doesn't change because some cabal reconstructs history, but because peoples' interests change.  British history used to include memorizing long lists of monarchs, as American history did long lists of presidents.  Not so much any more, and this isn't because the History Cabal has changed - it is because people no longer believe in the Heroic/Villainous Leader model of history.

[Viking]

Isn't gay history the list of people you call after you get the results of your blood test?

(sorry, couldn't resist) 

[Razgovory]

There are two interesting things in history, how people killed each other, and how people fucked.  So, on that level, gay history has got a lot going for it.

I find other things in history interesting besides these two.  In fact,  I'm not particularly interested historical sexual antics.

[alfred russel]

What constitutes "history" doesn't change because some cabal reconstructs history, but because peoples' interests change.  British history used to include memorizing long lists of monarchs, as American history did long lists of presidents.  Not so much any more, and this isn't because the History Cabal has changed - it is because people no longer believe in the Heroic/Villainous Leader model of history.

That is a sign of dumbing down standards, not progress. If you don't know who was president during the 1820s, then you aren't very knowledgeable about that period. I'll grant that becoming knowledgeable about periods so that you can recite a list isn't the same as memorizing a list, but one way or another I'd expect a college bound American high school grad to be able to recite a list of presidents.

[garbon]

but one way or another I'd expect a college bound American high school grad to be able to recite a list of presidents.

Well you are out of touch with the times.

[garbon]

I always found "Black history" terribly dull.  It seemed to be aimed at making African Americans feel better about their heritage.  As a consequence I always felt it was not meant for me.  I remember we watched some kind of video about African American history, with a bunch of notable accomplishments.  I got in trouble when I scoffed at the line "We (presumably meaning African-Americans), built the pyramids."   I pointed out that I could have said, "We built the Kremlin or the Great Wall of China", and would have been about as correct.

And this show the other reasons why this approach to teaching history is problematic.  It is aimed at making members of certain groups feel good about themselves, rather than actually teaching anything;  and while it's a method that claims to be inclusive (it can be summed up as "hey, let's not leave out the contributions of women and minorities"), it's actually exclusionary.

Aww, white people.

[Razgovory]

It's funny, but the one thing that was not touched on in Black History month was the African role in the slave trade.  The fact that African kings were willing participants in a trade they found quite profitable was somehow left out.

[Oexmelin]

It is disingenuous to assert that "it posits precisely that what constitute "boredom" is constant through time" when what is regarded as "history" changes through time, as any good historical scholar knows.  What constitutes "history" doesn't change because some cabal reconstructs history, but because peoples' interests change.  British history used to include memorizing long lists of monarchs, as American history did long lists of presidents.  Not so much any more, and this isn't because the History Cabal has changed - it is because people no longer believe in the Heroic/Villainous Leader model of history.

There is no need to make reference to a "History Cabal" for remarking that people who wrote history, and selected deeds, did so conscienciously in order to emphasize this or that point, nor to simply remark that the writing of history in the form we recognize is extremely recent. If one holds that these authors have no relevance - which may be a valid point - because it is the context in which they wrote which is important, then it becomes more difficult to brush aside Marty's point about having culturally bound notions of what is, or isn't interesting. It thereafter poses the difficult problem of explaining change in such culture (when, why, did notions of what is remarkable, or interesting shift from great men to economics, from elites to people) and thereafter becomes also difficult to wish to censor individual, or collective initiatives, in the name of a cultural change that will emerge spontaneously.