If there had been any doubt left that California is run by nutcases, it has been removed by the recent decision of the CA legislature to mandate “‘age appropriate’ lessons on the historical contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people”. State Senator Sheila Kuehl, the bill’s lesbian author and Bea’s roommate Camille’s boss (who is, incidentally, a Domer)*, defends her bill by saying, “”All we’re saying is let us also be reflected in history.” The bill was purportedly introduced “on the belief that presenting positive role models could help ease negative feelings and battle high suicide rates among gay and lesbian students.”
Now, I’m all for doing the best we can to increase tolerance of gays and lesbians and lower their suicide rates (though I wonder where they’re getting their data), but isn’t this going a little too far? I mean, should school textbooks note there was a gay rights movement and discuss its goals and accomplishments? Absolutely. But now we should start noting “gay firsts” (”the first gay CEO;,the first lesbian lawmaker, etc.) like we’ve done with African-Americans, religious minorities, and women? To an extent this makes sense, but creating chapters and lessons focused on this topic seems rather ludicrous. Should us short people start clamoring for recognition of short people in history? Napoleon Bonaparte seems to get a lot of publicity, but it’s usually not very positive. In fact, from the connection between Napoleon’s famous height (or lack thereof) and his warmongering exploits we have the derogatory term, “Little Man syndrome”, a syndrome which no doubt exists perhaps, but imagine the outcry if we started talking about “Terrorist Muslim syndrome”….
In any case, passage of the bill into law appears to be almost a fait accompli, so allow me to look for a silver lining. One unintended consequence I am hoping for is a newfound recognition of just how exemplary a historical institution Great Britain’s parliament is, as well as a growing appreciation for the benefits of British colonialism, given that British MPs and Britain’s upper class white men have been historically notorious for being cross-dressers and closeted fagalas. Is that too much to ask, or am I being dreamy?
CORRECTION: Camille’s boss is State Senator Christine Kehoe, not State Senator Sheila Kuehl. Sen. Kehoe is much more moderate, but is also a lesbian. I apologize for the mistake; I apparently confused my lesbian Democratic California senators whose last names begin with K.
May 12th, 2006 at 10:51:08 pm
Yeah imagine how the little people feel when they talk about Napoleon.
My kids are going to Catholic school.
May 12th, 2006 at 11:11:32 pm
How about we just teach about people who made history, regardless of who or what they are?
May 13th, 2006 at 1:21:40 am
David, that’s a nice ideal but fact is that a lot of people made history because of who or what they are. Would Rosa Parks be mentioned in any history book if she wasn’t black?
The problem with a mandate like that is that it creates this historical Easter egg hunt for gay people to talk about. I mean, Alexander the Great had male lovers, but I don’t think many people would argue that he was gay in the same social sense that people are today.
Another great example of this GLBT revision of history is the Abe Lincoln phenomenon. The fact of the matter is that we’ll never know if Abe really had a gay lover or not. There’s a great deal of evidence on either side of the debate but the haziness of it makes it difficult to claim Abe as a gay leader like so many would like to.
Sexual mores change so frequently throughout the course of history that attaching our label and concept of being gay on someone who lived in the 1700s is as foolish as it is misguided.
May 13th, 2006 at 3:00:39 am
JOE LOY, ALWAYS JOE LOY! THIS IS LEANNA!
I agree with David. Let us concentrate on really important and highly gifted people who have influenced or even created our cultural heritage: Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Caravaggio, Robert Mapplethorpe, Oscar Wilde.
And while we’re at it, let’s read those people the riot act about the biblical abominations they are committing. If I hear about one more consensual act between two same-sex consenting adult, I will SCREAM, and if I hear about one more person eating SHRIMP I will open my veins. The two worst abominations in the Torah and the Christian Bible (and for all I know the Koran). Thank goodness true believers don’t commit such abominable acts.
May 13th, 2006 at 5:34:46 am
But in Rosa Parks case the fact that she was black was significant to her contribution to history. Same with Martin Luther King Jr. If they made a significant contribution that is somehow tied to their homosexuality thats one thing, and you can focus on it, but why focus on famous Gays for the sake of them being gay?
Part of me understands that minorities are ignored not because they didn’t make contributions but because their contributions are overlooked by history because of who they were. But something rubs me the wrong way about mandating that we focus on things like that as well. I have no problem with private groups pushing for inclusion of these sorts fo things in history books. I have no problem with public awareness campaigns. And if the state, in reviewing various books finds that book which contains more info about significant contributions by gay peopel to fit the history curriculum best fine. But will this be an attempt to find legitimate historical contributions by people who happened to be gay? Or will it be an attempt to force into history contributions or events involving gay people that really weren’t signficant?
If its the former I have no problem with that, but if its the later, if we try and raise to significance events that weren’t and start including them JUST because they involved gays? Thats just wrong.
May 13th, 2006 at 11:22:17 am
Becky makes an interesting and very relevant point: being ‘gay’ didn’t mean the same thing for most of history as it does now. The social context was too different for it to be have the same meaning.
I think the bill, as presented here and in the “MTV Think news” (huh?), is ridiculous, inasmuch as it will prompt textbook writers to rewrite textbooks to promote gay role models; AFAIK, I’ve never had a textbook that criticized a historical figure for his (or her) sexuality. In fact, unless it was part of a historical issue (e.g., Oscar Wilde’s public trial for “gross indecency”) I don’t think it’s been mentioned at all. That is, Alexander’s exploits as conqueror of the known world were far more important than speculations on his sexuality.
Whatever. I oppose conservatives’ general bigotry against gays and generally support things like same-sex marriage and such, but it seems to me that this is just a particular legislator’s pet issue and an opportunity for others to make a stand on the side of either inclusiveness or conservative morals. The end effect is not the point.
May 13th, 2006 at 12:45:46 pm
One huge problem with this is that up until a few decades ago, people did not openly admit to being gay. How much of these textbooks are going to use pure conjecture? For instance, there is no definitive evidence that Eleanor Roosevelt was a lesbian, though it is often assumed that she was. Are the textbooks going to say for sure that she is? Also, President James Buchanan may have been gay, but who knows for sure? And what about the countless figures in history who were never identified as gay but possibly were? As for folks like Harvey Milk, if it weren’t for the fact he became a symbol for the gay community because of his murder, would his actual contributions to society put him in a history book?
May 13th, 2006 at 1:53:12 pm
To the surprise of many, I’m actually going to largely agree with David on this one. It makes sense to me to mention someone’s orientation only when that oreintation is relevant to their impact on history. Oscar Wilde’s highly publicized trial; Alan Turing’s loss of security clearance and subsequent removal from crtyanalysis after being convicted of gross indecency for having a male lover (and ensuing suicide at a fairly young age)–these sorts of events shaped the contributions of these individuals, and thus it’s perfectly sensible to bring up their orientation when teaching about these figures. I feel the same way about the contributions of minorities and women–George Washington Carver wasn’t good at being a black inventor; he was a good inventor who happened to be black. He belongs in maintstream history courses, not specialized awareness campaings like Black History Month, which in my opinion serve to degrade his accomplishments to merely being exceptional within a smaller group rather than exceptional within society at large.
Also, as Becky quite reasonably points out, the modern conception of what it is to be gay is, well, modern. Much of history doesn’t work that way. The social impact of homosexual relations depends a whole heck of a lot on the society in which they occur.
Part of the problem with identity politics in the history classroom is that groups which are marginalized during a given era typically do make fewer contributions during that time period than groups which aren’t. That’s part of being marginalized. It’s a lot easier to change the world if you have access to political power, to education, to wealth, and to people who won’t dismiss what you say because of some characteristic like race, gender, or whatnot. For all we know, during Isaac Newton’s time there was some peasant woman in England with an even keener mind for math–and perhaps who wouldn’t have spent so much of her life in pursuit of alchemy–but without access to the educational opportunities he had, she didn’t make the breakthroughs that he did, and so we don’t know anything about her because her accomplishments were less significant. One of my history profs at USC was actually an editor of a women’s history journal, but in the classes she taught, significiantly more time was spent on men than on women. The reason is that she taught medieval history, and a paraphrasing of her statements on the subject is “Except for a few saints and queens, the vast majority of women in the middle ages spent their lives giving birth and spinning thread. There’s only so much time you can spend talking about spinning. Our records from the time are primarily about war, the clergy, and politics, and for the most part, that means men.”
None of this, of course, is to say that straight white Christian men are better than other groups of people. But it was Europe that conquered the rest of the world, and the ones who had power, education, and wealth for most of European history were primarily the straight Christian men–true, the Jews also had some money, forming the basis of banking and a lot of the merchant classes, but they were regularly persecuted by the state, forced to leave or convert, and had their property seized–and so it’s really unsurprising that they were the ones who made a lot of the most significant contributions to European society for a very long time. Those sorts of things clearly change. These days, if you go to a general practioner under the age of 45, are you at all surprised if the doctor’s a woman instead of a man? If you’re on a coast, are you surprised if the doctor’s of Indian rather than European descent? As marginalization drops, contributions move more toward a distribution mirroring demography.* Keeping track of yet another set of “firsts” is not something on which I’m keen, other than perhaps to note that moves toward equality for a given group are relatively recent in the historical record. Especially because, if taken to the logical extreme, we should then be keeping track of the “first” of every marginalized group to do something. I do not care to memorize who the first transgendered Aluetian Islander to get a medical degree from an Ivy League school is. If that doctor develops some great procedure/vaccine/drug for use in medicine or biology, I’ll take a look at his/her biography as part of the general interest of who came up with this great new idea, but as the contribution will almost certainly be based on career, rather than personal identity, those personal characteristics really aren’t all that relevant to the contribution.
* (With an obvious influence from subculture. Maybe it’s stereotypical/prejudicial/racist/whatever of me to even notice this, but in my years of higher education at private schools, I’ve encountered very few students of Indian descent studying to be anything other than engineers, doctors, scientists, or mathematicians. In each of those fields though, they make up at the very least a large minority, and in some cases even a plurality or a majority. I’m betting that there’s at least some sort of internal cultural pressure here, rather than that somehow in Indian populations there’s a strong genetic predisposition towards ability with numbers as opposed to, say, law, which is also considered a prestigious field in this country as a whole)
May 13th, 2006 at 3:32:03 pm
To clarify, roomate Camille, the Domer, works for Senator Kehoe, a Dem from San Diego (who is also a lesbian). My good friend (from Santa Monica). People often get Kehoe and Kuehl confused, including Andrew. Senator Kehoe is a lot less likely to run this type of legislation than Kuehl.
May 13th, 2006 at 4:18:59 pm
On the claim that marginalized groups do in fact make less significant contributions, a note must be added. Is not the judgment of what constitutes a “significant contribution” highly relative to the perspective from which those contributions are being judged?
The fact that historical records are typically available only of dominant rather than of marignalized groups are available is not sufficient to support the claim that their contributions were in esse more significant.
May 13th, 2006 at 5:57:01 pm
When Becky raised the possibility that Lincoln was gay, that got me thinking: if true, would that be the only aspect of the Lincoln story that isn’t widely known?
In the average high school junior US History survey course, there is around a 100% probability that somewhere along the way Lincoln will be described as the “Great Emancipator”, Lincoln will be the guy “that freed the slaves” - and there is probably a 75% chance that the text of the actual Gettysburg address will be studied.
Other historical facts associated with Lincoln (including, potentially, his homosexuality) will be ignored, with almost 100% probability:
*That his wife, Mary Todd, came from a prominent slave-holding family.
*That the emancipation proclamation EXEMPTED from the cessation of slavery the five border states (Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri) that had slavery but had not seceded from the Union.
*That Lincoln personally was not an abolitionist.
*That in the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, Lincoln trapped Douglas into advocating the Freeport Doctrine (e.g. territories could choose for themselves to be anti-slavery). In so trapping Douglas, Lincoln effectively alienated Douglas from southerners - even though Douglas was advocating a progressively anti-slavery view.
Why won’t those other factors get mentioned? Probably a couple of reasons, which are somewhat related:
1) the survey history course is fairly high-level, so the material covered is just going to be the stuff that is ‘consensus important’
2) the other facts about Lincoln are not very nice to think about (unlike his historical role as the Great Emancipator).
The guy who is teaching the American history class, let’s say he’s also the baseball coach more worried about tomorrow’s game against Central, he doesn’t want to engage an extended debate on what Lincoln’s true role in Civil War America was. How much credit does Lincoln truly deserve as the emancipator, vs. a guy freeing slaves as a tactic against his agrarian enemy? People just don’t want to go there.
As a result, I disagree with those on this thread that say that “only important historical facts be studied”. That may be the case for those who are majoring in, or interested in, history.
In the general survey course, the material that is covered is that with which people have an emotional connection, or is conventional wisdom, etc.
In this regard, then, while I don’t support the gays and lesbians in their activities, I must admit their effort in California appears to be pretty shrewd. Get your group on the list for whom history is framed nicely, and pretty soon people will feel good about your group, as the article suggested.
Mass consumption history has a large component of “what feels good to talk about”.
(BTW - interesting you brought up Alan Turing, Mike. Another hugely important historical figure about whom most folks know nothing, in large part because his story is so unpleasant.
Turing was the genius who spent several months building a massive computing machine that broke the ‘unbreakable’ Nazi Enigma encryption machines. It was an extraordinary achievement of intellect, math and engineering. As a result, the Allies were able to determine where the German U-Boats were each night - thus destroying the German naval blockade, and eventually (some would argue) allowing the Allies to win the war.
Of course, Britain didn’t admit that they had broken Enigma until the 1970s (they would give it to their colonial leaders, unsuspecting that all their communications were transparent to Mother England). In the meantime, Turing was busted for being gay, and in spite of his status as the “Man who Saved England”, forced to endure several humiliations typical of the unenlightened days of the 1950s. The humiliations drove him to suicide.
So - does the baseball coach want to discuss Alan Turing?
May 13th, 2006 at 6:13:32 pm
If they were significant though, why aren’t they remembered? Now I’m sure we can find some significant contributions that have been convieniently left out or glossed over, etc because of who the contribution came from.
On the other hand as I point out above, I fear that you will see people coming through the history books and foisting on us as significant contributions that really weren’t but are being included just because the contributor was gay.
May 13th, 2006 at 9:46:42 pm
If history books are going to discuss the fact that Truman Capote was gay, are the same books going to discuss how H.G. Wells was a hedonist who banged the crap out of any woman he could find? Or that Charlie Chaplin had a curious fascination with under-aged girls? Or that Hitler might not have been able to get it up at all? That FDR, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton screwed around on their wives (RR when he was married to big Jane), or that Truman, Carter and Nixon probably didn’t?
It just seems to me that a person’s sexuality or sexual orientation shouldn’t be weighed against what they accomplished or didn’t accomplish in their lives.
May 13th, 2006 at 10:16:06 pm
And while we’re at it, let’s read those people the riot act about the biblical abominations they are committing. If I hear about one more consensual act between two same-sex consenting adult, I will SCREAM, and if I hear about one more person eating SHRIMP I will open my veins. The two worst abominations in the Torah and the Christian Bible (and for all I know the Koran). Thank goodness true believers don’t commit such abominable acts.
Leanna, I’d imagine you’d be a little more educated about these areas of biblical scholarship. Old Testament rules regarding homosexuality being immoral are clearly carried forward to the New Testament. On the other hand, the laws of kashrut are Jewish laws and do not carry forward to the New Testament: Jews and Messianic Jews must still abide by them, but Gentile Christians are not obligated under those laws for they have no jurisdiction over non-Jews. There are volumes of Talmudic discussions that make clear what Old Testament Jewish laws are for all peoples and what Old Testament Jewish laws are for Jews only. Additionally, there is plenty of Christian scholarship that explains why laws against homosexuality and other moral issues carry forward to the New Testament, but laws on dietary restrictions and ritual purification do not.
May 14th, 2006 at 3:04:26 am
If they were significant though, why aren’t they remembered?
Simply because they were not considred significant by those writing the historical record.
Much of the difficulty here lies in the fact that there is no neutral way of understanding what the phrase “significant contribution” itself means.
May 14th, 2006 at 9:57:10 am
Prior to Western culture medicalizing human sexuality and behvior, no one cared– or people cared far less in general than they do today– about some artificially constructed medical/psychological categroies like “gay,” “straight,” or “bisexual.” People have become kind of obsessed with defining and categorizing themselves and others.
But how much can a few lessons about gays– using our terminiology– really hurt? It all depends on how far they take it, I think. It sounds fine if it’s done in a limited way so that much of the school day does not come to be centered around it. If it encourages discussion among students, it’s a good thing. It all depends on how indidiviual teachers handle it.
But more importantly, how will the ideas be presented in calculus? ;-)
May 14th, 2006 at 1:31:08 pm
So, if something was not recorded and therefore not part of the historical record, exactly how will you responsibly teach it?
May 14th, 2006 at 2:23:23 pm
I agree with everyone who says that only important stuff should be taught. As several have noted, there can be differences of opinion about what constitutes ‘important’.
This is probably shocking, but, if it were up to me, all survey courses would dive deeply into content :).
I’ll still maintain that the survey course practically doesn’t go into the important details. Maybe this is just my politics, but I believe the “other” facts about Lincoln cf ending slavery are indeed very very important.
Important, in how they relate to the compromise to settle the Presidential election in 1876, which compromise sold out the reconstruction and paved the way for Jim Crow laws well into the 20th centuries, which laws perpetuated the economic slavery of blacks in the South.
Important in how Jim Crow laws got replaced with entitlements and the culture of the welfare state, which go much further to explain the racial composition of the people in the Superdome than the possibility that George W. Bush “hates blacks”.
These facts are hugely significant, but they aren’t going to be included in your survey history course. Fact is, I bet 95%+ of high school juniors could provide no substantial information about Rutherford B. Hayes’ presidency, to say nothing of how it might relate to the persistent lack of economic enfranchisement for southern blacks.
But I am off topic - my point is just to reiterate that the ‘important’ facts are probably not the ones that are taught in the survey history course, rather the ones that are taught are the ones that feel good or are politically correct.
In this respect, then, I believe the gays and lesbians will probably help their cause greatly in California by permanently establishing themselves as “among the politically correct”.
October 15th, 2006 at 12:06:19 pm
gay adult