An interesting topic that is being discussed. Should it be included in the school curriculum? is it already in your local schools curriculum?
here are audio files of a local radio show that brought the topic up
[URL="http://www.robarnieanddawn.com/audio/04.18.11%20RAD%20Gay%20History%20In..."]audio clip 1
[URL="http://www.robarnieanddawn.com/audio/04.18.11%20RAD%20Gay%20History%20In..."]audio clip 2
[URL="http://www.robarnieanddawn.com/audio/04.18.11%20RAD%20Gay%20History%20In..."]audio clip 3
and here is the link to other audio files if you enjoyed the discussion
[URL="http://www.robarnieanddawn.com/index.php?q=node/339"]Rob,Arnie,and Dawn show
personally i am open to kids learning this but at the same time kids are not learning and retaining history knowledge like in the past. so maybe focusing on another group isn't good. or perhaps the little info they would get would intrigue them to do research or college courses would be created on focusing on gays in history. what do you think?
If by teaching about gay history people are afraid we're sending the message it's ok to be gay, than I'd say that's absolutely great! :) If it's true that half of America fears that (according to this clip 2), it's really sad that should be the reason to keep this out of the curriculum. That fear is naive Comon, are we really thinking everyone will turn instantly gay?!:eek: Not only that; it actually makes my stomach turns upside down... Because it actually emphasizes how gays are apparently not viewed as a perfectly normal part of society.
When it comes to teaching history; when I was in high school I liked getting it taught as an event in time. Explaining the important parties or persons involved, their backgrounds and relationships to eachother, the culture and timespirit, the chainreactions how one event let to another, not much as learning dates and definitions by heart. Part of many classes also was to pick a certain individual/organization/etc and write an essay about it. In this form of teaching; analyzing, finding appropriate resources and individual skills to make up and plan out your own tasks were considered key assets. And I must say that I liked this system! Instead of listening to a teacher like mindless sheep, it's nice to have your brains stimulated to think for themselves! :)
So, if it were up to me, there are 2 things:
-important people and their backgrounds should be part of historyclasses, regardless of their gender, ethnics, sexual preference. And some of them will be gay, black, female, etc. Those facts should evidently not be left out because of this unreasonable fear!!!
-some important events may be specifically related to a certain group. Such as the first female that graduated college and made it possible for other women. The first people that went public as gays and fought for their rights (and still are today). Those should be viewed as part of an event in history and specifically emphasized.
PS: "It's not some teacher -that went to some crappy 4 year college-'s job to teach my kid about sexuality"
If I get the quote correctly from clip 1... So; and what makes him qualified to do so? What sort of parenting academy did he attend? ;) So far; he makes me think of a song; where's your crown King Nothing?
I always enjoy reading your posts RR. yes Arnie the one you wholeheartedly disagree with is EXTREMELY conservative and not surprising he is from the stagnant south (Texas) to be exact. sadly he does represent many Americans' beliefs:( their affect on politics locally and nationally keeps America from being as accepting as your native country. they believe that if people are accepting of the gay lifestyle then more will try it and the world will go to hell in a hand basket as they say.
for the classroom i did not enjoy how history was taught in junior high and high school. it was just memorization of dates and names which i am not the best at remembering names. your example is much better and as you say makes the student think for themselves.
[QUOTE=RedRoses;267598]
-some important events may be specifically related to a certain group. Such as the first female that graduated college and made it possible for other women. The first people that went public as gays and fought for their rights (and still are today). Those should be viewed as part of an event in history and specifically emphasized.[/QUOTE]
Yes Harvey Milk should be in the history studies since he was the first openly gay politician that won in San Francisco and made huge strides for gays. i had never heard of him even though he was local. after watching a documentary done in the 80's i learned quite a bit about him and would have liked to do a report about him and his achievements.
[QUOTE=RedRoses;267598]PS: "It's not some teacher -that went to some crappy 4 year college-'s job to teach my kid about sexuality"
If I get the quote correctly from clip 1... So; and what makes him qualified to do so? What sort of parenting academy did he attend? ;) So far; he makes me think of a song; where's your crown King Nothing?[/QUOTE]
i know its really ridiculous the garbage that comes out of his mouth. thankfully he doesn't want to have children because he believes in controlling their minds and bodies according to his beliefs until they're out of the house at 18. he is an extreme prude!
if you ask Americans if we support gay rights about 60% say yes, if you as if you support same sex marriage the number drops to around 40%, but it seems that anti-gay sentiment is dying and being replaced with tolerance, we repealed DADT and more and more states are getting closer to legalizing same sex marriage
The DADT policy hasn't been completely repealed. Its still got some voting but most military bases are already working on it.
To be honest I don't see why everything has to be labeled. Are we talking about people important to gay rights? Or sitting there classifying people as gay or straight? I never see the "big deal" about race and creed in history. I don't understand why we had to always specify blacks and whites or english or french. I mean who cares? People want everyone to be "colorblind" then let's drop everything.
If gays teach my kids awesome. If straights teach them...awesome...it doesn't matter. As long as someone doesn't tell my kid which is "better" then I don't have any issues with it.
Thanx, Big, just trying to make my contribution :)
Ducy, from my point of view; the importance of teaching history is to learn from the past.
This means putting our life today in perspective. How we may be grateful for the life we lead and rights that we've earned. Remembering those that died fighting for equal rights. How our culture was forged by centuries. How what one man wrote over a 1000 years ago can still be relevant in how we think today.
This also means learning from the mistakes. We should remember how an entire nation can follow one man blindly. How populists use the psychology of "divide and conquer" to turn groups against eachother. Turning one group into black sheep. Hatred rising to a point these "sheep" -in fact: our own brothers and sisters!- are slaughtered. We need to remember and learn and hope that this will teach us that the human raise is one. I agree with you, Ducy; I'd like us all to be colorblind! But we must remember what happens if we don't... And apparently, given the repetition in historic events and studies on psychology, humans are quite susceptible to blind hatred and cruelty.
It means learning about the irony of life. Everything has been done before. And yet; it's your own tune that makes the music of today :)
i hear the argument to be colorblind but what about this. what if history wasn't taught to us that all of the important black figures in the civil rights movement or inventors weren't black. they just taught their names and what they did. there is nothing distinctive about black names because most are English so no one could tell what race they were. then young black students wouldn't have anyone to identify with and show that they can achieve as well. the same works with any group. i dont think it has to focused on the fact that the person is gay but just mentioned because i think it has been hidden from us.
side step - RR and anyone else what do you think about this argument that people are biologically bigoted. here is a discussion
RR please don't mistake my post. I wasn't directing it towards you (if that's how you took it)
Big my question is why do black teens need black role models or figures to identify with? If society was colorblind they could identify with anyone. One of my best friends is thai. When I look at him or talk to him I don't think "He's thai" I don't see his dark skin or narrowed eyes. He's just my friend. I would fight for him and do w.e. to protect him (He's a Devil Doc. If anyone understands that)
I am not trying to detract from the importance of figures like MLK. But when you read a book and it says "Stewart Smith, a BLACK student." Or "Howard Ling, a CHINESE teenager." I really don't see why it must be specified. If Stewart Smith was a prominent law student that fought for equality then just say it. If Howard Ling helped cure cancer then say it. But I don't see how it changes anything. Who cares would it have changed anything if they were Italian? Its like when the news talks about "The First Hispanic Boxing Champ" who cares that he's hispanic? His fame isn't because he's a champ...his fame is all based on his race. He accomplished something others have...but since he's hispanic it makes it "important". So much for colorblind right? I think society just needs to remove the labels. It just encourages differences. Obama is a major historical figure now because he's the first black president. Its his skin color that is making him famous...not his policies or the way in which he one...its all just because his skin color.
i used to think exactly like that ducy but it does make a difference. i watched the Cosby show and looked up to Michael Jordan as a kid and didn't care what skin color they were. but there were also people that looked like me who were role models too. if someone doesn't have successful people to identify with then it can affect where they feel they can be successful. i will give you an example, me being a short guy i never thought that i could play pro football because the players are so big and tall. that changed when i saw Darren Sproles who is my height at 5'6" is the starting RB for the San Diego Chargers. i wish he was around when i was a kid to show me it was possible.
now black kids can truly believe they can become president because of obama. and if what if no one is history is openly gay. then kids may think something is wrong with themselves or they have to hide their sexuality to be successful in society. you will never get rid of labels ducy, it is human nature to do so.
to your example of the Hispanic boxer. it matters because it would have never been allowed to happen in the past. same with Tony Dungy being the first back head coach to win a super bowl.
ps i dont think obama was voted president black he is black. i think it was a deciding factor to pick him over Hillary Clinton because they are both liberals.
I think the importance would be that if these facts are hidden because of fear for minorities, that's wrong. It's a simple fact that doesn't need hiding. And there are some events in history in which that little fact becomes major when it is specifically related to a certain group.
Not only that; it's because people are not colorblind. It's revealed in those little psychological tests in which people are asked; a father and a son are in a car crash. It is clear the boy needs emergency surgery. Once at the hospital the surgeon of duty says: "I'm sorry but I can't perform surgery on my own son". This tiny example causes people to be confused, because our mind is full of stereotypes (my answer at the type was rated most tolerant, though not the intended one; I had made the parents into a gay couple ;)). Another example: my colleagues were astonished to find a tall black man to be the guy with the Amsterdam-accent they had been speaking to for the past months. I am one of those weird people that never "pictures" who I'm talking to on the phone, but most of us do. And his ways of speech had made them to picture him "different". Off course this was not because they thought less or more of people based on the color of skin; they actually felt pretty awkward and much fooled by their own brains.
My point being: also in history class, you may sometimes need to explicitly break those stereotypes.
thats actually a good idea but too many americans would disagree because it has "gay" in it. But good point