Sorry, if you are not going to go out of your way to make mention that some historical figure was straight, then by trying to say they are gay is special recognition.Uzique wrote:
you're the only person here judging that they want to be "special". all i've said is they want an equal representation.lowing wrote:
Fine, so gays aren't that special after all, glad we agree.Uzique wrote:
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.
thanks for coming in line with my point of view, though.
wouldnt hurt.lowing wrote:
Sorry, if you are not going to go out of your way to make mention that some historical figure was straight, then by trying to say they are gay is special recognition.Uzique wrote:
you're the only person here judging that they want to be "special". all i've said is they want an equal representation.lowing wrote:
Fine, so gays aren't that special after all, glad we agree.
thanks for coming in line with my point of view, though.
It could influece youth to think differently (better) about gay people when you tell a boy that an important man from history, that he looks up to, is a homoseksual.
In all likelihood, it would be people who have gotten screwed out of history because of their sexual orientation. The law isn't looking to cram gay people in where they don't belong, but to give them credit where credit is due.
^thisDesertFox- wrote:
but to give them credit where credit is due.
Oh Ben Franklin you so crazy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
navy, department of
Tu Stultus Es
IF Thomas Jefferson were gay, would you say he is denied his place in history? and wouldn't the relevant reason to look up to him be his accomplishments rather than because he fucked guys? If their argument is being gay shouldn't matter, fine then DON'T fight to make it matter.DesertFox- wrote:
In all likelihood, it would be people who have gotten screwed out of history because of their sexual orientation. The law isn't looking to cram gay people in where they don't belong, but to give them credit where credit is due.
I can not think of a single historically significant figure that has been screwed out of their place in history because they were gay. Can you?DesertFox- wrote:
In all likelihood, it would be people who have gotten screwed out of history because of their sexual orientation. The law isn't looking to cram gay people in where they don't belong, but to give them credit where credit is due.
kinda answered your own question there
Tu Stultus Es
nope, all it tells me is no one that has contributed anything historically relevant did so because they were gay.eleven bravo wrote:
kinda answered your own question there
Malcom X
X hits the spot
X hits the spot
Name someone that was specifically excluded from the history textbooks because he was gay.DesertFox- wrote:
In all likelihood, it would be people who have gotten screwed out of history because of their sexual orientation. The law isn't looking to cram gay people in where they don't belong, but to give them credit where credit is due.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
was he gay?SEREMAKER wrote:
Malcom X
X hits the spot
[ ] Issue
it could be if you're back in CaliHurricane2k9 wrote:
[x] Issue
you could find out who was plugging butts because that had something to with the historically importance of said person
nothing like know that Rosa Parks was a rug muncher and refused to go to the back because her gf was back there during some dyke fight they had
It depends on the context. If we're talking about a gay figure in the fight for gay rights, then you would talk about someone like Harvey Milk. Having a section in a history textbook about the struggle for equality that gay people face(d) is perfectly valid. It's really no different than having a section on the woman's suffrage movement. It's all about context and staying within the correct time period.lowing wrote:
nope, all it tells me is no one that has contributed anything historically relevant did so because they were gay.eleven bravo wrote:
kinda answered your own question there
The point you are making that I agree with is that it would be absurd to point out historical figures outside of that context simply to make a point. To point out the contributions of women, or blacks, or any other groups during time periods where they were marginalized is in effect revisionist history. I don't care if it hurts some kids self esteem that his forebears were discriminated against. He should instead take heart and look at how far his people have come that they don't need to be singled out as outliers any longer. George Washington Carver popularized peanuts. Who care? There are black astrophysicists working side by side with Asians and whites and whatever else at NASA. We even have a black president! We need to stop apologizing for a past none of us had anything to do with and instead embrace where we have arrived at and work to make that better.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The way you put it, I can not help but agree. However the OP says:Jay wrote:
It depends on the context. If we're talking about a gay figure in the fight for gay rights, then you would talk about someone like Harvey Milk. Having a section in a history textbook about the struggle for equality that gay people face(d) is perfectly valid. It's really no different than having a section on the woman's suffrage movement. It's all about context and staying within the correct time period.lowing wrote:
nope, all it tells me is no one that has contributed anything historically relevant did so because they were gay.eleven bravo wrote:
kinda answered your own question there
The point you are making that I agree with is that it would be absurd to point out historical figures outside of that context simply to make a point. To point out the contributions of women, or blacks, or any other groups during time periods where they were marginalized is in effect revisionist history. I don't care if it hurts some kids self esteem that his forebears were discriminated against. He should instead take heart and look at how far his people have come that they don't need to be singled out as outliers any longer. George Washington Carver popularized peanuts. Who care? There are black astrophysicists working side by side with Asians and whites and whatever else at NASA. We even have a black president! We need to stop apologizing for a past none of us had anything to do with and instead embrace where we have arrived at and work to make that better.
"A bill to require California public schools to teach the historical accomplishments of gay men and lesbians passed the state Legislature on Tuesday in what supporters call a first for the nation."
This does not tell me that they are talking about historical discrimination struggles. They are talking about recognizing trying to make already historical events to include the fact that who ever made the contribution was gay. If they wanted to pass a bill that wants to highlight the discrimination and struggles of gays, then they should say it. What they want is to make it historically significant that they are gay.
It really doesn't say anything. It's incredibly vague and could mean anything.lowing wrote:
The way you put it, I can not help but agree. However the OP says:Jay wrote:
It depends on the context. If we're talking about a gay figure in the fight for gay rights, then you would talk about someone like Harvey Milk. Having a section in a history textbook about the struggle for equality that gay people face(d) is perfectly valid. It's really no different than having a section on the woman's suffrage movement. It's all about context and staying within the correct time period.lowing wrote:
nope, all it tells me is no one that has contributed anything historically relevant did so because they were gay.
The point you are making that I agree with is that it would be absurd to point out historical figures outside of that context simply to make a point. To point out the contributions of women, or blacks, or any other groups during time periods where they were marginalized is in effect revisionist history. I don't care if it hurts some kids self esteem that his forebears were discriminated against. He should instead take heart and look at how far his people have come that they don't need to be singled out as outliers any longer. George Washington Carver popularized peanuts. Who care? There are black astrophysicists working side by side with Asians and whites and whatever else at NASA. We even have a black president! We need to stop apologizing for a past none of us had anything to do with and instead embrace where we have arrived at and work to make that better.
"A bill to require California public schools to teach the historical accomplishments of gay men and lesbians passed the state Legislature on Tuesday in what supporters call a first for the nation."
This does not tell me that they are talking about historical discrimination struggles. They are talking about recognizing trying to make already historical events to include the fact that who ever made the contribution was gay. If they wanted to pass a bill that wants to highlight the discrimination and struggles of gays, then they should say it. What they want is to make it historically significant that they are gay.
Besides, what passes in California is largely irrelevant. Yes, it's a large market, but the text book companies have to sell the books in the rest of the country too.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well if it does not say anything then it is a pretty shitty law. The way I read it, how could it not be interpreted the way I described?Jay wrote:
It really doesn't say anything. It's incredibly vague and could mean anything.lowing wrote:
The way you put it, I can not help but agree. However the OP says:Jay wrote:
It depends on the context. If we're talking about a gay figure in the fight for gay rights, then you would talk about someone like Harvey Milk. Having a section in a history textbook about the struggle for equality that gay people face(d) is perfectly valid. It's really no different than having a section on the woman's suffrage movement. It's all about context and staying within the correct time period.
The point you are making that I agree with is that it would be absurd to point out historical figures outside of that context simply to make a point. To point out the contributions of women, or blacks, or any other groups during time periods where they were marginalized is in effect revisionist history. I don't care if it hurts some kids self esteem that his forebears were discriminated against. He should instead take heart and look at how far his people have come that they don't need to be singled out as outliers any longer. George Washington Carver popularized peanuts. Who care? There are black astrophysicists working side by side with Asians and whites and whatever else at NASA. We even have a black president! We need to stop apologizing for a past none of us had anything to do with and instead embrace where we have arrived at and work to make that better.
"A bill to require California public schools to teach the historical accomplishments of gay men and lesbians passed the state Legislature on Tuesday in what supporters call a first for the nation."
This does not tell me that they are talking about historical discrimination struggles. They are talking about recognizing trying to make already historical events to include the fact that who ever made the contribution was gay. If they wanted to pass a bill that wants to highlight the discrimination and struggles of gays, then they should say it. What they want is to make it historically significant that they are gay.
Besides, what passes in California is largely irrelevant. Yes, it's a large market, but the text book companies have to sell the books in the rest of the country too.
Because it could mean in context, like I described, or out of context like you fear. Or, anything in between. It really says nothing. No specifics whatsoever.lowing wrote:
Well if it does not say anything then it is a pretty shitty law. The way I read it, how could it not be interpreted the way I described?Jay wrote:
It really doesn't say anything. It's incredibly vague and could mean anything.lowing wrote:
The way you put it, I can not help but agree. However the OP says:
"A bill to require California public schools to teach the historical accomplishments of gay men and lesbians passed the state Legislature on Tuesday in what supporters call a first for the nation."
This does not tell me that they are talking about historical discrimination struggles. They are talking about recognizing trying to make already historical events to include the fact that who ever made the contribution was gay. If they wanted to pass a bill that wants to highlight the discrimination and struggles of gays, then they should say it. What they want is to make it historically significant that they are gay.
Besides, what passes in California is largely irrelevant. Yes, it's a large market, but the text book companies have to sell the books in the rest of the country too.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
From a Yahoo article:
Not sure how this is any different.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.
Well again, if it says nothing, no specifics, then what is it doing being a law?Jay wrote:
Because it could mean in context, like I described, or out of context like you fear. Or, anything in between. It really says nothing. No specifics whatsoever.lowing wrote:
Well if it does not say anything then it is a pretty shitty law. The way I read it, how could it not be interpreted the way I described?Jay wrote:
It really doesn't say anything. It's incredibly vague and could mean anything.
Besides, what passes in California is largely irrelevant. Yes, it's a large market, but the text book companies have to sell the books in the rest of the country too.
As I said numerous times now. Contributions made by women, blacks etc. that were historically relevant. are recognized because what they did was historically relevant, not because they were women or blacks.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
From a Yahoo article:Not sure how this is any different.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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
notice how MLK's accomplishments does include being black? Why should Joe BLow's historically revelant accomplishments include being gay?
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-06 15:45:07)
well shit bro, I personally would like to see the actual text of the bill. I have no idea what it entails. I'm sure that back in the day the textbooks made little mention of people like MLK or Malcolm X or Marcus Garvey. It's just the times changing once again.
you got him talking about saggers now
Tu Stultus Es