BF2S Forums "Gay History" taught in schools now?

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing it's just another module, essentially, to history and sociology. it's just trying to incorporate recent social progressions and historical movements into the official syllabus of history teaching. what's the problem? some of the most definitive social change of the 20th century have been for civil rights of the individual. do you have a problem teaching about black rights in school? the fact is, whether or not you like it, that most of the cultural change and academic 'progress' since the 1960's onwards  has been in the disciplines of feminism and homosexuality. i see no problem in trying to address the historical 'black hole' from the 1950's onwards (or the decline of the official civil rights movement) to acknowledge that, yes, what has actually been happening has been a smaller and quiter revolution in sexuality. what's the problem? are you opposed to teaching history as it stands and as it factually is, or are you offended because much of later 20th century western social history concerns queers? i suspect it's the latter, old man.

we are constantly revising our account of history according to current social norms, views and expectations - constantly looking backwards to review what has happened through a different, shifting perspective. just as most historians were keen to view everything through the lenses of marxist criticism when it enjoyed a left-wing academic vogue, so now people are keen to look back at gender politics and the influence of sexuality on history. i see absolutely no problem with looking at history through a varied method of different critical perspectives. no one account of history is necessarily any more important or right than the other-- it's all a matter of application.

Because wether or not George Washington was gay has absolutely no bearing regarding his contributions to history. I do not care, nor does history, what Lincoln did in the bedroom as straight guy, but if he were gay, NOW it is historically relevant and we are supposed to consider that? Yeah right.

Kampframmer wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing it's just another module, essentially, to history and sociology. it's just trying to incorporate recent social progressions and historical movements into the official syllabus of history teaching. what's the problem? some of the most definitive social change of the 20th century have been for civil rights of the individual. do you have a problem teaching about black rights in school? the fact is, whether or not you like it, that most of the cultural change and academic 'progress' since the 1960's onwards  has been in the disciplines of feminism and homosexuality. i see no problem in trying to address the historical 'black hole' from the 1950's onwards (or the decline of the official civil rights movement) to acknowledge that, yes, what has actually been happening has been a smaller and quiter revolution in sexuality. what's the problem? are you opposed to teaching history as it stands and as it factually is, or are you offended because much of later 20th century western social history concerns queers? i suspect it's the latter, old man.

we are constantly revising our account of history according to current social norms, views and expectations - constantly looking backwards to review what has happened through a different, shifting perspective. just as most historians were keen to view everything through the lenses of marxist criticism when it enjoyed a left-wing academic vogue, so now people are keen to look back at gender politics and the influence of sexuality on history. i see absolutely no problem with looking at history through a varied method of different critical perspectives. no one account of history is necessarily any more important or right than the other-- it's all a matter of application.

Because wether or not George Washington was gay has absolutely no bearing regarding his contributions to history. I do not care, nor does history, what Lincoln did in the bedroom as straight guy, but if he were gay, NOW it is historically relevant and we are supposed to consider that? Yeah right.

I see you point and i agree with it.
But its important to teach people about the role homoseksuals have played in history, but in regard to their homoseksuality. Like Rosa parks. Discuss that groups history using a person that actually played a large role in its development.

As soon as they start teaching people about a person that has nothing to do with the devlopment of homoseksuality in history, but he just so happened to be gay, then theyre going to far.

Pug wrote:

Why stop at Gay history then lowing?

or do you not see this a discrination topic?

Pug wrote:

Good God.  Were you even educated in this country?

Kampframmer wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kampframmer wrote:

I see you point and i agree with it.
But its important to teach people about the role homoseksuals have played in history, but in regard to their homoseksuality. Like Rosa parks. Discuss that groups history using a person that actually played a large role in its development.

As soon as they start teaching people about a person that has nothing to do with the devlopment of homoseksuality in history, but he just so happened to be gay, then theyre going to far.

No it isn't, no more than it is important to teach the contributions of FAT people. What is relevant is, the contribution itself. Yeah he landed on the moon is relevant,  AND he sucks dicks, is not. Sorry sexual orientation is not something that needs to be taught in school because it is historically irrelevant

I dont think you got my point.
I agree with that it doesnt matter if someone that did something unrelated to homoseksuality is suddenly more important to educate about just because he was gay.
But it does matter if a gay persons actions helped the gay people progress and be more accepted in our society. Like Rosa Parks did for black people, hence why i mentioned her.

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Good God.  Were you even educated in this country?

Yeah I guess so, because I have never heard or used the word "discrination." I assumed you meant discrimination and answered accordingly.

No other group is trying to re-write history to include something like the fact that some one being gay is historically relevant. What makes being gay so fuckin' special? Especially when all they do is bitch about wanting to be treated the same as everyone else. What are we supposed to do, point ount now who was also straight in history?

lowing wrote:

Kampframmer wrote:

lowing wrote:

I see what you are saying now, problem is though, where do you draw the line? As I said and it is ignored, fat people have an argument regarding discrimination as well, we gunna start teaching fat people achievement and equality now?

They want special recognition now, and that goes beyond wanting to be treated like everyone else.

No, because being fat is a choice (for some harder than others) and a negative one at that.
Beng gay is like being black, its not a choice and its not something negative. But as soon as people see it as something negative these groups will get a lower place in the society, which is a bad thing of course. So we sould educate out children about how these people managed to fight the unrightful oppression.

Ok replace fat with ugly people. They have no choice, they are ugly, and yes, ugly people face discrimination. How about FDR, he was in a wheel chair, handicapped. Big argument for discrimination of handicapped people, yet history remembers FDR for the president he was, not his disability. Reason is, his disability was not relevant to history, so there is no reason to grant special recognition to a gay guy for being gay. He should get recognition for curing polio or whatever the fuck he did.

If you want to have a class against the struggles of discrimination and how a country has evolved from it, fine, with my blessing, fuck this shit about singling out gays as something special and deserving their place in history because they are gay.
In other words, if they are already historically relevant, then they are already in the history books, what makes them being gay relevant to history?

Kampframmer wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kampframmer wrote:

No, because being fat is a choice (for some harder than others) and a negative one at that.
Beng gay is like being black, its not a choice and its not something negative. But as soon as people see it as something negative these groups will get a lower place in the society, which is a bad thing of course. So we sould educate out children about how these people managed to fight the unrightful oppression.

Ok replace fat with ugly people. They have no choice, they are ugly, and yes, ugly people face discrimination. How about FDR, he was in a wheel chair, handicapped. Big argument for discrimination of handicapped people, yet history remembers FDR for the president he was, not his disability. Reason is, his disability was not relevant to history, so there is no reason to grant special recognition to a gay guy for being gay. He should get recognition for curing polio or whatever the fuck he did.

If you want to have a class against the struggles of discrimination and how a country has evolved from it, fine, with my blessing, fuck this shit about singling out gays as something special and deserving their place in history because they are gay.
In other words, if they are already historically relevant, then they are already in the history books, what makes them being gay relevant to history?

With your handicapped/fat/ugly people statement you make the exact same point as with the gay's and i already agreed with it. If someone id something historically relevant that has nothing to do with them being handicapped/gay/ugly it should not be taking the spotlight with those people.

But people should be educated on how a certain individual/group within a group of people stood up against the people discriminating them for being ugly/handicapped/gay.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Good God.  Were you even educated in this country?

Yeah I guess so, because I have never heard or used the word "discrination." I assumed you meant discrimination and answered accordingly.

No other group is trying to re-write history to include something like the fact that some one being gay is historically relevant. What makes being gay so fuckin' special? Especially when all they do is bitch about wanting to be treated the same as everyone else. What are we supposed to do, point ount now who was also straight in history?

Please comment.  This is from the article, which explains why.  I don't know how I can really expand on it.

"California already requires public schools to teach the contributions made to society by women and by racial and ethnic groups that were historically discriminated against, such as blacks, Latinos and Native Americans.

Supporters of the latest bill said it would simply include gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals in that existing requirement, making it part of the curriculum in history and other social studies classes."



To be blunt about your logic...in other words, if gays are included they have rewritten history...while women, blacks, latinos and native americans have not?



Really?  You are contending that gays have never been a target of discrimination?

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-06 13:34:02)

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah I guess so, because I have never heard or used the word "discrination." I assumed you meant discrimination and answered accordingly.

No other group is trying to re-write history to include something like the fact that some one being gay is historically relevant. What makes being gay so fuckin' special? Especially when all they do is bitch about wanting to be treated the same as everyone else. What are we supposed to do, point ount now who was also straight in history?

every single group have tried to exert their influence or to get their equal and fair representation in history. EVERY GROUP.

what are you talking about? you could name at least 10 subversive, unorthodox and even 'radical' movements that have cropped up to protest against the official account in the last 10 years, even. extend that to the last century, and there are loads of movements arguing for fairness.

Fine, so gays aren't that special after all, glad we agree.