LGBT history lessons heading for California classrooms

[Underverse]

http://kmph-kfre.com/news/local/lgbt...nia-classrooms

In second grade, California students will learn about families with two moms or two dads. Two years later, while studying how immigrants have shaped the Golden State, they will hear how New York native Harvey Milk became a pioneering gay politician in San Francisco.

The State Board of Education unanimously approved those changes in classroom instruction Thursday to comply with the nation's first law requiring public schools to include prominent gay Americans and LGBT rights milestones in history classes.

Allyson Chiu, who just finished 11th grade at Cupertino High School, said the revisions would make LGBT students more comfortable. She and seven others spoke in favor of how the guidelines address gay issues.

Opponents remain concerned that the guidelines de-emphasize important historical figures and events to make room for LGBT icons of lesser or disputed note, said Pacific Justice Institute senior staff attorney Matthew McReynolds, whose Sacramento legal defense organization was involved in the repeal efforts.

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?

[Theodarzna]

http://kmph-kfre.com/news/local/lgbt...nia-classrooms

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?

Ugh, I pity History teachers now, setting up even a bare min. comprehensive curriculum is already a challenge with limited resources and time, if it becomes now a battle ground for X, Y, Z group wanting their special spotlight its really going to stretch thin history education. I think the problem is High School level history is just too general to being zeroing in on say Harvey Milk except as maybe a civil rights blurb. The problem is anything approaching a survey of US history is barely doable in one classroom.

[Deleted]

I don't know about your education system but over here History was always taught in themes from Vikings, Saxons, Greeks, Egypt, WW2, Victorian, etc. Then they were more detailed sections like history of women, black civil movement, black death, etc. Seems LGBT history would fit in, after all we're already taught homosexuality was illegal

[Deleted]

It really depends on what has to be removed from the curriculum (if anything) to make room for this. In my history class (this was in Chicago) we did learn about prominent African Americans, women, Native Americans, etc, in US history.


CA has been influenced by the gay community, both in Culture and Politics, so having a small blurb about it, as @Theodarzna bring up, is fine. One of the fathers of Computer Science, and AI research, Turing, was also gay... students having some knowledge of prominent gay people that have added to the human experience is a good thing, overall, in my opinion.

This I don't imagine you'll have 3 months worth of LGBT history to teach

[sarahtasher]

1)Boy, I see a very telling comparison between this thread and the one where people are screaming about how Muslims are bad ''kauze they hate gays''

2)Good luck teaching Western history without mentioning gays. Because, to be blunt, the posters boys of keyboard warriors, the Spartans..ish....

Also, an even cursory knowledge of the American Revolution....Von Steuben, dudes ?

[derpkitteh]

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.

[Rixis]

I don't know about your education system but over here History was always taught in themes from Vikings, Saxons, Greeks, Egypt, WW2, Victorian, etc. Then they were more detailed sections like history of women, black civil movement, black death, etc. Seems LGBT history would fit in, after all we're already taught homosexuality was illegal

Yeah but over here we seem to learn about a variety of things, over there, from what I gather it's American History allllll the way. Funny given how little of it they have /shrug.

[Sky High]

up until the teaching history about the LGBT community I'm on board.

[Deleted]

Yeah but over here we seem to learn about a variety of things, over there, from what I gather it's American History allllll the way. Funny given how little of it they have /shrug.

Perhaps though I don't really see how you could spread out 200 years of history in a 15 year period

[Serpha]

Something like that shouldn't be in history, leave it in SJW classes. Do we need to learn about Napoleon's sexual deviancy? or any other historical figure? NO!!!

[Deleted]

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.

Well there's the AIDS propaganda that shamelessly blamed homosexuals, then there's obviously the legality and persecution throughout history including WW2, there's also highlighting the numerous LGBT people that revolutionised the world plus the gay rights movement

[Theodarzna]

It really depends on what has to be removed from the curriculum (if anything) to make room for this. In my history class (this was in Chicago) we did learn about prominent African Americans, women, Native Americans, etc, in US history.


CA has been influenced by the gay community, both in Culture and Politics, so having a small blurb about it, as @Theodarzna bring up, is fine. One of the fathers of Computer Science, and AI research, Turing, was also gay... students having some knowledge of prominent gay people that have added to the human experience is a good thing, overall, in my opinion.

It depends on the teacher, I think honestly an LGBT history course is something best left for college, because too much on that venue is just going to be a drag for the teacher and most students. I guess it depends on how much it gets emphasized and what teacher is doing it. In general History education is shit in the United States before the college level.

[Deleted]

Something like that shouldn't be in history, leave it in SJW classes. Do we need to learn about Napoleon's sexual deviancy? or any other historical figure? NO!!!

I'm guessing you're not native to England because over here we've taught snippets of history like this for over 20 years. Purpose of teaching history is to showcase human history and it's achievements whilst also learning of past mistakes

[Reeve]

We teach the history of civil rights, Jim Crow, etc. in our history classes. Dunno why we wouldn't also teach Stonewall and Obergefell v Hodges.

[sarahtasher]

You are right, people made up that they were gays before. There was no gay at all before the ''dumn SJW kommunists'' took over. Plutarch did not wrote this about about a very admired Spartan king. You know, Spartans, the role model of internet warriors...

Having removed his camp into Pharnabazus's province, he not only met with great plenty of provisions, but also raised great sums of money, and marching on to the bounds of Paphlagonia, he soon drew Cotys, the king of it, into a league, to which he of his own accord inclined, out of the opinion he had of Agesilaus's honour and virtue. Spithridates, from the time of his abandoning Pharnabazus, constantly attended Agesilaus in the camp whithersoever he went. This Spithridates had a son, a very handsome boy, called Megabates, of whom Agesilaus was extremely fond, and also a very beautiful daughter that was marriageable. Her Agesilaus matched to Cotys, and taking of him a thousand horse, with two thousand light-armed foot, he returned into Phrygia, and there pillaged the country of Pharnabazus, who durst not meet him in the field, nor yet trust to his garrisons, but getting his valuables together, got out of the way and moved about up and down with a flying army, till Spithridates, joining with Herippidas the Spartan, took his camp and all his property. Herippidas being too severe an inquirer into the plunder with which the barbarian soldiers had enriched themselves, and forcing them to deliver it up with too much strictness, so disobliged Spithridates with his questioning and examining that he changed sides again, and went off with the Paphlagonians to Sardis. This was a very great vexation to Agesilaus, not only that he had lost the friendship of a gallant commander, and with him a considerable part of his army, but still more that it had been done with the disrepute of a sordid and petty covetousness, of which he always had made it a point of honour to keep both himself and his country clear. Besides these public causes, he had a private one, his excessive fondness for the son, which touched him to the quick, though he endeavoured to master it, and, especially in presence of the boy, to suppress all appearance of it; so much so that when Megabates, for that was his name, came once to receive a kiss from him, he declined it. At which, when the young boy blushed and drew back, and afterward saluted him at a more reserved distance, Agesilaus soon repenting his coldness, and changing his mind, pretended to wonder why he did not salute him with the same familiarity as formerly. His friends about him answered, "You are in the fault, who would not accept the kiss of the boy, but turned away in alarm; he would come to you again if you would have the courage to let him do so." Upon this Agesilaus paused a while, and at length answered, "You need not encourage him to it; I think I had rather be master of myself in that refusal, than see all things that are now before my eyes turned into gold." Thus he demeaned himself to Megabates when present, but he had so great a passion for him in his absence, that it may be questioned whether, if the boy had returned again, all the courage he had would have sustained him in such another refusal. ...

[Imnick]

Learning about your own country's failings and social progress is important, and to be honest it's not like there's a dearth of material here.
It overlaps with a lot of other subjects too, like you can cover how after most people were rescued from the nazi concentration camps everyone there under suspicion of sodomy was left to serve their full sentence and were only retroactively pardoned relatively recently at the same time as the rest of World War II.

[Deleted]

It depends on the teacher, I think honestly an LGBT history course is something best left for college, because too much on that venue is just going to be a drag for the teacher and most students. I guess it depends on how much it gets emphasized and what teacher is doing it. In general History education is shit in the United States before the college level.

I'd argue history regarding social issues should be addressed before college since that's the time students encounter said issues. As I say I doubt these lessons will be intensity thorough nor overly time consuming, we're probably talking a few lessons max

[Kelthos]

As a gay man myself, if CA feels they can find time to fit LGBT history into the curriculum without taking something else out, go for it. Otherwise, I think I'd prefer mentions here and there as appropriate to whatever pre-existing topic they were going over, but I wouldn't want my kid to not learn about the Cold War or something because the state deemed learning about Harvey Milk was more important.

[Reeve]

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.

And the fact that you missed the Stonewall Riots and the police harassment that preceded them is a good reason we should be taught that history.

[gyrados]

imo they should teach ppl of the man by name of harvey milk who faught for gay rights js i mean he faught for something he believed in hell he died cause of it