LGBT history lessons heading for California classrooms

[nextormento]

Columbus is a true American hero. I'm glad we take time out of our lives to honor one of the worst people in American history every year for something he didn't even do.

We're not much better, but I remember we at least framed the "discovery" in the context of the Catholic Monarchs: it was a discovery from their perspective. We stress more on the figure and the expansionist will of Isabella anyway.

[Prokne]

It doesn't make sense to teach an entire school Russian history because you have 3 Russian exchange students. So when it comes to prominence, I would say that the number of people affected outweighs an individuals particularly strong feelings on the matter.

But that aside, my main concern is the divisions this kind of policy will propagate. American history is LGBT history. This isn't an 'us and them' situation, nor should it be made out to be one.

The purpose of the teaching of LGBT history in primary schools should be to explain how we got to today. A small percentage of Americans are LGBT, but almost everyone interacts with LGBT people, encounters LGBT art and artists, and considers it a more natural part of life than people did in the past. Even though someone isn't one of the group being taught about, the history is still very important because the culture we live in is highly influenced by that group. Then there is the added bonus that LGBT kids feel included when they might not have before.

I think the only people that make topics "us vs them" are the ones that want to drop a few lessons in for liberal points or the ones who don't listen to any history or topics that they don't think affect them. You really have to include LGBT history to understand why our country is the way it is today. You don't have to single it out as "this is the LGBT topic." And I don't think it is really useful to list a bunch of historical figures that might have been LGBT, for one because you need to do more than that and also doing so is very anachronistic.

[Serpha]

It's not a post about sexuality. It's a post about California educational guidelines.

And it turned out to be a bashing war.

[Konteil]

the aids epidemic and all the stuff that happened with the gay community during that time period is a rather important point in american history.

but that's all i can think of for "lgbt history". other than the legalization of gay marriage.

i remember hearing about stonewall being pretty important too so i guess tehre are a few things.

[Underverse]

I'm not really sure I see how teaching people about random nobodies just for the sake of being inclusive is adding value to education. That's why I mentioned a weed puller. It's just someone who is theoretically irrelevant to the unfolding of history, like any random IT guy would be today, not someone who provides a significantly thought provoking alternate perspective on history. If said weed puller randomly provided us with a very detailed account of something, then it might be worth exploring them and their account, but "Tokenius Gayvius was a Roman who helped maintain their roads by removing weeds. [End]" seems like a rather worthless inclusion and the exact type of thing you would disapprove of spending time on.

Yeah sorry I should have been more clear. Not necessarily random nobodies, but rather general cultural comparisons. This isn't for the sake of being inclusive; rather it's to give students more data points on human behavior, instead of providing them with a one-sided 'this is how we do it' historical explanation.

[Reeve]

I'm not really sure I see how teaching people about random nobodies just for the sake of being inclusive is adding value to education. That's why I mentioned a weed puller. It's just someone who is theoretically irrelevant to the unfolding of history, like any random IT guy would be today, not someone who provides a significantly thought provoking alternate perspective on history. If said weed puller randomly provided us with a very detailed account of something, then it might be worth exploring them and their account, but "Tokenius Gayvius was a Roman who helped maintain their roads by removing weeds. [End]" seems like a rather worthless inclusion and the exact type of thing you would disapprove of spending time on.

Well I agree a random weed puller isn't helpful. But teaching about general societal trends/culture isn't bad. I mean learning about the way that Greek men took young boys as lovers, and the related origin of the phrase "platonic relationship" is kind of cool knowledge to have, but beyond that, it shows that homosexuality is not just a modern thing.

[Cyberowl]

Anyway, posts about sexuality aren't allowed yet this one is still open?

Well, if they treat it like the civil rights movement I'm fine with that. California is full of homosexuals and more progressive people and if they teach about the Stonewall riots etc. I don't see why not; it helps understand the society. If they make it a social science unit...no thank you.

[Reeve]

And it turned out to be a bashing war.

Not really. It's been mostly pretty civil.

[Tyrianth]

This seems like a mistake to me. History should be taught by prominence, not by ethnicity or sexual orientation. I'm worried that these changes - and other changes similar to them - will really just have the effect of separating and classifying people even more, creating more social divisions that will come back to bite us in the end.

Members of the LGBT community should be taught that US history is their history. Not that they have their own special corner where they can sit and hear about some random San Francisco politician. Furthermore, many schools already have classes that people who are interested can take, which specifically look at gender and sexuality.

Thoughts on this?

I'm fine with it when it's at a young age (such as grade 2). Grade 2 students won't be learning anything too prominent in history and It'll help younger children be more open and accepting of people who are different than they are. Especially if they come from a not-so-accepting family. At later grades, when history classes become more indepth then yes I agree that it should be prominence focused.

Furthermore, many schools already have classes that people who are interested can take, which specifically look at gender and sexuality.

I don't know of any school that allows 2nd graders to pick elective classes.

[Deleted]

Like what?

On the small stage, there are plenty of important events. But I'm not sure how important these things actually are.

The AIDS epidemic
The Civil Rights Movement

to name two

[Underverse]

The purpose of the teaching of LGBT history in primary schools should be to explain how we got to today. A small percentage of Americans are LGBT, but almost everyone interacts with LGBT people, encounters LGBT art and artists, and considers it a more natural part of life than people did in the past. Even though someone isn't one of the group being taught about, the history is still very important because the culture we live in is highly influenced by that group. Then there is the added bonus that LGBT kids feel included when they might not have before.

I think the only people that make topics "us vs them" are the ones that want to drop a few lessons in for liberal points or the ones who don't listen to any history or topics that they don't think affect them. You really have to include LGBT history to understand why our country is the way it is today. You don't have to single it out as "this is the LGBT topic." And I don't think it is really useful to list a bunch of historical figures that might have been LGBT, for one because you need to do more than that and also doing so is very anachronistic.

By definition, putting the history of a bunch of individuals into the 'LGBT History' category is creating an 'us vs them' mentality. It's promoting the idea that there is no overlap between the LGBT community and the non-LGBT community. It's promoting the polarization of sexuality. I don't think this is the right way to do things unless you're trying to foster cultural divisions.

Maybe as a biologist, I just don't see the relevance in teaching this. We can derive higher-resolution approximate truths from biological observations. We don't need history to justify our decisions in this regard.

[Deleted]

And it turned out to be a bashing war.

Only you and 2 others showed aggression

[Underverse]

The AIDS epidemic
The Civil Rights Movement

to name two

Sure.

Why are these being put into the category of LGBT history?

They affect many, many more people. If anything categorizing these as LGBT history is destructive - especially with the AIDS epidemic.

I just don't see a need to approach these issues from the LGBT angle. It's possible to present facts without this bias.

[Deleted]

Columbus is a true American hero. I'm glad we take time out of our lives to honor one of the worst people in American history every year for something he didn't even do.

More importantly, this is an ongoing insult to the Proud Nordic people.

[Deleted]

Sure.

Why are these being put into the category of LGBT history?

They affect many, many more people. If anything categorizing these as LGBT history is destructive - especially with the AIDS epidemic.

I just don't see a need to approach these issues from the LGBT angle. It's possible to present facts without this bias.

Because homosexuals were used as a scapegoat and caused immense trouble still felt today

[morislayer]

Just me, but history to me is sexuality exclusive. At no point in human history, from Egypt-present day, think sexuality is a prominent factor in dictating decades & centuries of chronicles of people.

And they are second graders...shouldn't they be learning the state capitols? Dinosaurs, spelling bees and shit? Little young to force feed acceptance and tolerance towards a child who doesn't even understand sexuality.

[Deleted]

I think you're overestimate what these lessons will entail...

[Tyrianth]

By definition, putting the history of a bunch of individuals into the 'LGBT History' category is creating an 'us vs them' mentality. It's promoting the idea that there is no overlap between the LGBT community and the non-LGBT community. It's promoting the polarization of sexuality. I don't think this is the right way to do things unless you're trying to foster cultural divisions.

Maybe as a biologist, I just don't see the relevance in teaching this. We can derive higher-resolution approximate truths from biological observations. We don't need history to justify our decisions in this regard.

There's nothing wrong with grouping individuals into categories. People are different and some people share the same differences, I don't see this as creating an "us vs them" mentality. I see this as a "humans are diverse, here's an example of a group of people, who were generally despised by the general population, who helped shape our modern society".

[Deleted]

Just me, but history to me is sexuality exclusive. At no point in human history, from Egypt-present day, think sexuality is a prominent factor in dictating decades & centuries of chronicles of people.

And they are second graders...shouldn't they be learning the state capitols? Dinosaurs, spelling bees and shit? Little young to force feed acceptance and tolerance towards a child who doesn't even understand sexuality.

But sexuality is mainstream, kids know about gay people and thus ask questions like "why is gay marriage bad?" "why don't some people like gays?" etc. Isn't it important teaching the reasons?

[BuckSparkles]

The indoctrination continues.

Oh well, California is so far gone anyways. Doesn't surprise me.