sexual orientation in history books

Been reading a bit of this in my home state, and thought it was a good discussion.

There will be a new bill going before California State reps that states that sexual orientation (homosexuality in particular) will be included in California school history books (starting in elementary).

The reasoning is that gays have been ostrasized and and made fun of in school because of the lack of awareness of gays in history.

Now my thoughts are sexual orientation need not be discussed in the classroom. . . at least until maybe college??? I don't see the relevance that stating someone's sexual preference in history books. . .unless it is directly linked to their choice.

To me it's another crazy bill, from the San Fran Libs. . .the main problem I have with my state.

Any ideas or thoughts on this?

JHC

You mean people had sex in the past? That's shameful!

I see your point in holding off on the "straight/gay" discussion until college, maybe an advanced-prep history course in high school. Unless it's relevant (i.e., James Buchanan as the first gay President, followed by the second gay president, the current Commander in Chief :p ).

Frankly it's one of those "could go either way" ideas (in terms of bad or good). Some kids might become more tolerant, others might snicker everytime they see a picture of J. Edgar Hoover. Depends, really

Well if it#s historically accurate tolerance they're after....what about some books where the pyraminds were built by black people, like the people in Egypt were at the time.

I think there's no need to raise the issue, but if raised it should be discussed honestly, fudgepackers have done many good things in history....not least inventing the device I'm using to make this post ( which is why i find online homophobes hilarious)

I took AP History in my junior year in high school. The book used was the first time I heard about gay and lesbian soldiers in WWII.

Cozzie,

Outof curiosity, what was the reasoning for having the sexual orientation of the soldiers? Did it have direct relevance with WWII or was it some addition that was a bit that was simply thrown in there? Really interested.

JHC

I guess it's just a fact that was thrown on there. That was a surprise to see the fact in the history book for the first time. It was a college level history book.

I feel that puting sexual orientation in history books to teach tolerance, won't have the desired effect they are trying to achieve.

I feel that it all starts in how parents raise their children. If the parents teach tolerance and show their children tolerance by example, then there is a greater chance of their children being tolerant. If they don't show tolerance, it won't matter what is in a text book at school, the chances of it working slim.

As far as I'm concerned itt all starts at home and until people start to understand this, things won't change.

Psy

That could be true. When I read it, I was mature enough to accept the historical fact. Don't forget, this was a college-level course taught in high school.

the earlier the better. Children need to learn diversity at a young age. Tolerance is nurture.

Psylocke Smythe wrote: I feel that puting sexual orientation in history books to teach tolerance, won't have the desired effect they are trying to achieve.

I feel that it all starts in how parents raise their children. If the parents teach tolerance and show their children tolerance by example, then there is a greater chance of their children being tolerant. If they don't show tolerance, it won't matter what is in a text book at school, the chances of it working slim.

As far as I'm concerned itt all starts at home and until people start to understand this, things won't change.

Psy

this is also true, but books can't hurt.

I understand the idea of tolerance, and agree that it has it's place. however, are history books putting in random facts that have correlation to the subject taught not confusing the topic?

Using Cozzie's example of WWII soldiers. . .what relevance does it have to the war and are other similar facts being put alongside it. For instance, if the discussion was on the amount of hetro vs. homo and how it effected the Army in it's battle tactics or interior friction. . .I could understand. What good does a random fact do, but confuse the students in what they are learning?

Here's a good article from today as a referance:

How politics are dumbing down students' textbooks

How does tolerance fit in a history book as a random fact thrown in at the last minute?

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: I understand the idea of tolerance, and agree that it has it's place. however, are history books putting in random facts that have correlation to the subject taught not confusing the topic?

Using Cozzie's example of WWII soldiers. . .what relevance does it have to the war and are other similar facts being put alongside it. For instance, if the discussion was on the amount of hetro vs. homo and how it effected the Army in it's battle tactics or interior friction. . .I could understand. What good does a random fact do, but confuse the students in what they are learning?

Here's a good article from today as a referance:

How politics are dumbing down students' textbooks

How does tolerance fit in a history book as a random fact thrown in at the last minute?

JHC

i understand your point, but would you omit historical facts about black soldiers in WWII.

ghost rider wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: I understand the idea of tolerance, and agree that it has it's place. however, are history books putting in random facts that have correlation to the subject taught not confusing the topic?

Using Cozzie's example of WWII soldiers. . .what relevance does it have to the war and are other similar facts being put alongside it. For instance, if the discussion was on the amount of hetro vs. homo and how it effected the Army in it's battle tactics or interior friction. . .I could understand. What good does a random fact do, but confuse the students in what they are learning?

Here's a good article from today as a referance:

How politics are dumbing down students' textbooks

How does tolerance fit in a history book as a random fact thrown in at the last minute?

JHC

i understand your point, but would you omit historical facts about black soldiers in WWII.

Omition of black soldiers shouldn't happen, agreed, however I also don'e see the need of putting in ethinicity as well, unless of course it had a direct impact on the historical event.

Case in point: Navajo code talkers during WWII had a direct impact. With them, the Japanese could not decifer the radio transmissions, a VERY important advantage on the battlefield. So the Navajo Indians should be included with special note in history books.

The question I have is how did sexual orientation shape the battlefield, or history during the time period they decide to mention it? And if it does not have such a direct impact, is it worth mentioning at all?

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Omition of black soldiers shouldn't happen, agreed, however I also don'e see the need of putting in ethinicity as well, unless of course it had a direct impact on the historical event.

JHC

You are making the assumption that books are written from a purely military point of view. Some books are also written from a social history point of view and so it is absolutely correct that it is pointed out that the US army segregated black soldiers during WWII. With the way information is now freely available and the increasing amount of books published from every viewpoint, it is now impossible to compartmentalise and that can only be a good thing.

If you take the view that delicate subjects should be taken out of the history books because they have no relevance from one point of view, you end up with the situation of Japanese history books where generations of Japanese grew up unaware of the atrocities committed by their country during the war.

68Pontiac wrote: For instance, if the discussion was on the amount of hetro vs. homo and how it effected the Army in it's ...interior friction. . .I could understand.

James Thomas wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

Omition of black soldiers shouldn't happen, agreed, however I also don'e see the need of putting in ethinicity as well, unless of course it had a direct impact on the historical event.

JHC

You are making the assumption that books are written from a purely military point of view. Some books are also written from a social history point of view and so it is absolutely correct that it is pointed out that the US army segregated black soldiers during WWII. With the way information is now freely available and the increasing amount of books published from every viewpoint, it is now impossible to compartmentalise and that can only be a good thing.

If you take the view that delicate subjects should be taken out of the history books because they have no relevance from one point of view, you end up with the situation of Japanese history books where generations of Japanese grew up unaware of the atrocities committed by their country during the war.

68Pontiac wrote: For instance, if the discussion was on the amount of hetro vs. homo and how it effected the Army in it's ...interior friction. . .I could understand.

I think you are missing my question. I only used the military history as it was brought up by other posters. I am asking in regards of ALL history. I think the history of war has been brought up mainly because history books are mostly filled with that stuff, and less social history.

I agree that we should NOT change or smudge over our history books. At the same time, not every detail can possibly be covered, so choices need to be made on what is relevant and important in the classroom. Cozzie's example was a fact that seemed thrown-in-the-mix, it seems for the reason toshow that homosexuals fought in WWII. Now is that a relevant fact that needs to be in our history books? Omitting it is not blinding our eyes to history, it simply not reporting an extra fact not necessary for the student to understand WWII. Are we being so politically-correct that the history that is important is being lost amongst superfluous facts? Is it important to report sexual orientation, when it did not directly influence the history?

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

James Thomas wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

Omition of black soldiers shouldn't happen, agreed, however I also don'e see the need of putting in ethinicity as well, unless of course it had a direct impact on the historical event.

JHC

You are making the assumption that books are written from a purely military point of view. Some books are also written from a social history point of view and so it is absolutely correct that it is pointed out that the US army segregated black soldiers during WWII. With the way information is now freely available and the increasing amount of books published from every viewpoint, it is now impossible to compartmentalise and that can only be a good thing.

If you take the view that delicate subjects should be taken out of the history books because they have no relevance from one point of view, you end up with the situation of Japanese history books where generations of Japanese grew up unaware of the atrocities committed by their country during the war.

68Pontiac wrote: For instance, if the discussion was on the amount of hetro vs. homo and how it effected the Army in it's ...interior friction. . .I could understand.

I think you are missing my question. I only used the military history as it was brought up by other posters. I am asking in regards of ALL history. I think the history of war has been brought up mainly because history books are mostly filled with that stuff, and less social history.

I agree that we should NOT change or smudge over our history books. At the same time, not every detail can possibly be covered, so choices need to be made on what is relevant and important in the classroom. Cozzie's example was a fact that seemed thrown-in-the-mix, it seems for the reason toshow that homosexuals fought in WWII. Now is that a relevant fact that needs to be in our history books? Omitting it is not blinding our eyes to history, it simply not reporting an extra fact not necessary for the student to understand WWII. Are we being so politically-correct that the history that is important is being lost amongst superfluous facts? Is it important to report sexual orientation, when it did not directly influence the history?

JHC

Presumably some of your best friends are gay?

If you're serving in WWII, and your life and that of your comrades is under threat every single day, the I'd say a bit of physical intimacy would probably be pretty fucking important to you as a human being. And given that war has endlessly been portrayed as the ultimate 'male' referent, I'd say it's pretty fascinating culturally, socially, politically and - oh yes - historically.

History is heterosexist, and I guess you'd like to keep it that way. Is this a lesson ion how conservatives would like to keep history straight and boring, do you think?

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

James Thomas wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

Omition of black soldiers shouldn't happen, agreed, however I also don'e see the need of putting in ethinicity as well, unless of course it had a direct impact on the historical event.

JHC

You are making the assumption that books are written from a purely military point of view. Some books are also written from a social history point of view and so it is absolutely correct that it is pointed out that the US army segregated black soldiers during WWII. With the way information is now freely available and the increasing amount of books published from every viewpoint, it is now impossible to compartmentalise and that can only be a good thing.

If you take the view that delicate subjects should be taken out of the history books because they have no relevance from one point of view, you end up with the situation of Japanese history books where generations of Japanese grew up unaware of the atrocities committed by their country during the war.

68Pontiac wrote: For instance, if the discussion was on the amount of hetro vs. homo and how it effected the Army in it's ...interior friction. . .I could understand.

I think you are missing my question. I only used the military history as it was brought up by other posters. I am asking in regards of ALL history. I think the history of war has been brought up mainly because history books are mostly filled with that stuff, and less social history.

I agree that we should NOT change or smudge over our history books. At the same time, not every detail can possibly be covered, so choices need to be made on what is relevant and important in the classroom. Cozzie's example was a fact that seemed thrown-in-the-mix, it seems for the reason toshow that homosexuals fought in WWII. Now is that a relevant fact that needs to be in our history books? Omitting it is not blinding our eyes to history, it simply not reporting an extra fact not necessary for the student to understand WWII. Are we being so politically-correct that the history that is important is being lost amongst superfluous facts? Is it important to report sexual orientation, when it did not directly influence the history?

JHC

Presumably some of your best friends are gay?

If you're serving in WWII, and your life and that of your comrades is under threat every single day, the I'd say a bit of physical intimacy would probably be pretty fucking important to you as a human being. And given that war has endlessly been portrayed as the ultimate 'male' referent, I'd say it's pretty fascinating culturally, socially, politically and - oh yes - historically.

History is heterosexist,

Yes, thats totally true Martin, but I think you miss 68's point - which is simply that the fact needs to be inserted in a relevant way. Obviously it is easy to see that colour segregation in WWII was an issue & there is historical relevance; but was there any sexual-preferance segregation? any unusual statistics about the ammount of gays who fought/died in specific wars/battles? - in which case, give the facts & theorise about possible reasons. Or were they all thrown in together without a thought? - in which case, why mention it?

I think it all depends on the age of the student. If they're so young they haven't been taught the facts of life yet, there's no need to bring up a confusing topic like sexual orientation, because it doesn't really make any sense yet.

On the other hand, there is relevance in discussing sexual orientation at later ages-- for example, the fact that gay soldiers served in WWII has relevance today, because the military bans gays from service today.

as has been mentioned before, history is not about battles, kings and queens, and memorizing dates (or at least it shouldn't be). in many schools you'll find a more hermeneutic approach towards the teaching of history, which encompasses literature, sociology, politics, anthropology, and so forth.

if a person's sexual orientation is relevant to the subject it should certainly be included within the text. one example is j. edgar hoover. hoover's fear of his own homosexuality led him to persecute homosexuals by using his power within the FBI. likewise, as comrade wrote, banning gays and lesbians from the military is a part of american history and should be discussed and debated. as should gay marriage and the potential constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

i don't think the california legislature plans on including corner boxes in textbooks that read: 'gay moments in american history,' but wishes to include legal precedents and disagreements that affect homosexuals, the treatment of homosexuals in america throughout history, and instances where a person's sexual orientation has affected his or her political position (harvey milk, for example) or how a person has been denied a position because of his or her sexual orientation.

history is not a study of dead, white, straight men. however, i have a copy of my grandfather's history book from the teens. its title? eugenics.

On the surface this sounds good and appropriate, and don't misunderstand me, I do think it is important to discuss. However, if something is added to the class something else needs to be either condensed or omitted. What information will disappear if sexual orientation is discussed in history class?

Now tolerance and understanding should be taught, but if every ethnicity and diversity had it's "tolerance" history included, there would be no time to discuss U.S. history.

Slavery, civil rights, Women's rights, and the holocaust are all "nation-changing" events. Off the top of my head I can not think of any "nation-changing" events for sexual orientation. Gay marriage is not history yet, so it is better discussed in some sort of govt. course. A minor correction, as gays are not necissarily banned from the military as there is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and even so I don't see it as "nation-changing" history. What could be mentioned other than sidebars on historical events? And what information will be displaced for this new addition?

JHC

Come one - all history is implicitly "straight" and the legislation is (I presume) being introduced to correct that to a small degree. I find it diffficult to understand the idea that schoolkids are too young to deal with issues of non-straight sexuality but mature enough to learn about mass slaughter???!!!?? From my own personal history I can tell you that shagging was a lot more important to me at 15 than tanks and guns and dead bodies.....

The question just seems implictly homophobic, whether that's intentional or not. The queers aren't taking over or displacing "proper" history, they're just finally getting a voice is all. About time, I reckon.

68Pontiac wrote: Off the top of my head I can not think of any "nation-changing" events for sexual orientation.

well, for one, the stonewall riots of 1969 were a turning point for gay and lesbian rights. why should the fight for gay and lesbian rights have any less meaning than any other civil rights movement? we learn about plessy v. ferguson and brown v. board of education, so why not romer v. evans, the supreme court decision that declared unconstitutional colorado's amendment 2, which would deny homosexuals access to anti-discrimination laws? the passing of amendment 2 by the voters of colorado opened the door for similar propositions in other states. i would consider this 'nation-changing.'

AgentWood wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Off the top of my head I can not think of any "nation-changing" events for sexual orientation.

well, for one, the stonewall riots of 1969 were a turning point for gay and lesbian rights. why should the fight for gay and lesbian rights have any less meaning than any other civil rights movement? we learn about plessy v. ferguson and brown v. board of education, so why not romer v. evans, the supreme court decision that declared unconstitutional colorado's amendment 2, which would deny homosexuals access to anti-discrimination laws? the passing of amendment 2 by the voters of colorado opened the door for similar propositions in other states. i would consider this 'nation-changing.'

I agree..

I had something typed and then I see that Christy is saying everything I want to say...

My second degree is in Women's Studies. Did you study that as well?

68Pontiac wrote:

Off the top of my head I can not think of any "nation-changing" events for sexual orientation.

How about the Harvey Milk incident? I have only learned about it a couple years of ago when I heard of a high school named after him.

A food for thought. The times eventually showed that racism and sexism go hand in hand. Take the Civil Rights Movement for instance (I read a book about this for my college's summer reading program). An overwhelming majority of Southerners were afraid of school integration because they were afraid that their daughters would marry black men. To put the sexism and racism in an equation, James Baldwin said something along these lines to a white man (paraphrase), "Sir, you are not afraid of me marrying your daughter, but afraid of marrying your wife's daughter.

Thank you for some of those topics. I was not aware of Harvey Milk for one. Read up a little and found his life interesting. So I now realize there are a few "nation-changing" events.

This is what I was hoping for from this thread. I know alot of people start threads only to hear themselves talk or to have others agree with them, but I am really interested in other's opinions, especially those that are different from mine.

Now with that said, one of my questions wasn't really answered.

Now tolerance and understanding should be taught, but if every ethnicity and diversity had it's personal "tolerance" history included, there would be no time to discuss U.S. history.

I know a few NOOLers are wrapping around the axel because it's entitled "sexual orientation", but for the moment let's forget that.

At what point are we retelling important history correctly vs. putting politically charged items in our history books?

That is my concern in a nutshell.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: On the surface this sounds good and appropriate, and don't misunderstand me, I do think it is important to discuss. However, if something is added to the class something else needs to be either condensed or omitted. What information will disappear if sexual orientation is discussed in history class?

Now tolerance and understanding should be taught, but if every ethnicity and diversity had it's "tolerance" history included, there would be no time to discuss U.S. history.

Slavery, civil rights, Women's rights, and the holocaust are all "nation-changing" events. Off the top of my head I can not think of any "nation-changing" events for sexual orientation. Gay marriage is not history yet, so it is better discussed in some sort of govt. course. A minor correction, as gays are not necissarily banned from the military as there is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and even so I don't see it as "nation-changing" history. What could be mentioned other than sidebars on historical events? And what information will be displaced for this new addition?

JHC

The "Don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibits witch hunts. However, the policy of the military is still to ban gays from service. If you're gay, and you're out, you won't be allowed to enlist, and you'll be discharged if you're already serving. Put that in the context of heterosexuality-- imagine a policy that said "don't ask, don't tell" that applied to any expressions of sexual orientation. Show the guys a picture of your girlfriend? You're out. Wear a wedding ring? Tell the guys about the girl you just met? You're out. Only that doesn't happen, because military policy only bans expressions of gay sexual orientation.

Given that set of facts, it's possible to imagine a discussion about Alexander the Great, for example, or Julius Caesar, or Richard the Lionhearted, when discussing sexual orientation and military service.

Or if we're in the arena of public service, could an openly gay man or woman be elected to the Presidency? In the context of that discussion, it's been hypothesized that Abraham Lincoln was gay. James Buchanan lived with a man who is thought to have been the first gay vice-president, and it's generally well-known now that Eleanor Roosevelt was lesbian.

Or if we're talking about intolerance, discussing Oscar Wilde's sexuality seems particularly relevant.

If the idea is to teach tolerance, discussing the sexual orientation of revered figures like Abraham Lincoln, Eleanor Rossevelt is one way to establish the fact that gay men and women have contributed to our history and culture. And if the idea is to discuss contemporary issues such as gay marriage, gay service in the military or public arena, etc, the sexual orientation of historical figures becomes relevant to the discussion.

ChrissMari wrote: I had something typed and then I see that Christy is saying everything I want to say...

My second degree is in Women's Studies. Did you study that as well?

never took a class in women's studies. i did go to barnard, though. surely, that must count for something. ;)

AgentWood wrote: never took a class in women's studies.

I did. :D