Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Gay History in School Textbooks

Page 1 of 9 [ 133 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

15 Jul 2011, 5:55 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43768864/ns/us_news-life/

Quote:
California orders gay history in school textbooks

SAN FRANCISCO — California became the first U.S. state to require that public school textbooks include the accomplishments of gay, lesbian and transgender Americans as Governor Jerry Brown signed the mandate into law.

"History should be honest," said Brown in a written statement.

The measure won final passage from the state legislature earlier this month when it passed on a 49-25 party-line vote, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

"This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books," Brown said. "It represents an important step forward for our state.

The law also requires that public schools teach about the contributions of Pacific Islanders and the disabled.
California already mandates that schools include historical accomplishments by Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans and European Americans.

Republicans who opposed the legislation argued that it would write an agenda into school textbooks.

'Sexually brainwashed'
Randy Thomasson, president of the conservative SaveCalifornia.com, said Brown had "trampled the parental rights of the broad majority of California mothers and fathers who don't want their children to be sexually brainwashed."

"The only way parents can opt-out their kids from this immoral indoctrination is to opt them out of the entire public school system, which is no longer for morally sensitive parents and their children," Thomasson said.

It could still be several years before California students start reading about gay accomplishments in their textbooks.
The state's Department of Education has said that, because of the state's budget woes, new textbooks will probably not be adopted until 2015.

The bill was supported by gay rights organizations including Equality California and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network. Teacher groups also said the bill would help students prepare for a diverse and evolving society.

"There is no room for discrimination of any kind in our classrooms, our communities or our state," said Dean Vogel, president of the California Teachers Association.



I wonder why it is limited to "the accomplishments of gay, lesbian and transgender Americans?" Why not gay, lesbian, etc. people who lived in other countries?

Will they start with GLT people among the pre-Columbian American Indians? Or from the first English colonies onward?

Maybe some speculation as to which of the "Founders Fathers" were gay?

Or, will it be more like "no-one even thought about homosexuality until the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s?"

Nothing like a bit of sex to spice up a curriculum.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

15 Jul 2011, 9:04 pm

More attitude building + more fact stuffing > that much less thought.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

16 Jul 2011, 5:01 am

There should be no gay-American history, African-American history, or whatever hyphenated American history. That is all American history and the relevant parts should be taught but there should be no forced egalitarianization of history.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

16 Jul 2011, 7:05 am

If the movies are correct, then the first English settlers in Jamestown were all men and boys. The first English wenches came some years later.

I wonder how much buggery went on during those early years?



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

16 Jul 2011, 8:38 am

didnt they have the wooly underwaer with a flap on the "bottom"
perverted settlers :lol:


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

16 Jul 2011, 8:44 am

pandabear wrote:
If the movies are correct, then the first English settlers in Jamestown were all men and boys. The first English wenches came some years later.

I wonder how much buggery went on during those early years?


Ah, the naivete.

Captain John Smith, anybody? No colony set on inhabited land hassd lacked for female companionship. What price the Bounty on Tahiti? Going further, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, the Rape of the Sabines.

Herself''s Quebecois ancestors include the first [one of the first?] to marry an indigenous girl. Yes, the French sent over loads of Filles du Roi as soon as they could, but it was not absolutely essential.

It is only on shipboard you need to wonder.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

16 Jul 2011, 9:32 am

Funny how you can have gay history, black history, women's history, Hispanic history and it's called diversity but if you even propose a study of white man's history it all the sudden becomes hate, intolerance, and homophobia, etc...
:roll:



Descartes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,288
Location: Texas, unfortunately

16 Jul 2011, 9:39 am

Raptor wrote:
Funny how you can have gay history, black history, women's history, Hispanic history and it's called diversity but if you even propose a study of white man's history it all the sudden becomes hate, intolerance, and homophobia, etc...
:roll:


I think the purpose is to recognize members of social groups that have a history of social marginalization. Since white men have historically had it easy in our society, I guess there's no need for a hypothetical white history study.


_________________
What fresh hell is this?


WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

16 Jul 2011, 10:20 am

Raptor wrote:
Funny how you can have gay history, black history, women's history, Hispanic history and it's called diversity but if you even propose a study of white man's history it all the sudden becomes hate, intolerance, and homophobia, etc...
:roll:
Try going to Africa and offering to teach them about the history of black people. The only intelligent responses you get out of it will be something along the lines of what I'm about to say to you.

I have a lot more concern for my Highland Scot ancestry and the accomplishments of my English ancestors than I do for the fact that I am white. However, I find my French ancestry to be embarrassing. Not because it is French...but because they were jerks.

In case you are really dense, a person from Ethiopia, when he got through laughing with you, would say, "it is a lot more important to me that my family can trace their lineage back to Ezana of Axum. I never really thought about the fact that I am black. White people would be more interesting to know about. They are strange to me, and their customs are confusing."



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

16 Jul 2011, 10:29 am

Descartes wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Funny how you can have gay history, black history, women's history, Hispanic history and it's called diversity but if you even propose a study of white man's history it all the sudden becomes hate, intolerance, and homophobia, etc...
:roll:


I think the purpose is to recognize members of social groups that have a history of social marginalization. Since white men have historically had it easy in our society, I guess there's no need for a hypothetical white history study.


What about the contributions of Linguists - A pretty marginal class, I get slurs here when I reveal my linguistic interests.

Contributions? Do we learn about Eliot, my ancestor Roger Williams, Dyneley-Prince, Zeisberger, Swadesh, Bloomfield, and the other indefatigable workers who helped build our country and preserve the heritage of the aborigines?

It is not that big a joke. Thde only linguist most Americans get to hear about is Chomsky, and him they know NOT for his linguistic work [which is a sick joke].



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,924
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

16 Jul 2011, 10:38 am

Descartes wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Funny how you can have gay history, black history, women's history, Hispanic history and it's called diversity but if you even propose a study of white man's history it all the sudden becomes hate, intolerance, and homophobia, etc...
:roll:


I think the purpose is to recognize members of social groups that have a history of social marginalization. Since white men have historically had it easy in our society, I guess there's no need for a hypothetical white history study.


Maybe rich white men have historically had it easy, but that is about it.....I don't how there would be a specific white people history, I mean a lot of what you learn about in history already talks about general white related topics....to an extent. And white history only goes back so far because in the beginning of human existance there were no white people.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

16 Jul 2011, 10:48 am

Your "Western Civilization" classes would count, by and large, as "White Man's History." Generally, White Christians are portrayed as the protagonists, while the invading Turks and Moors are the antagonists.

Now I'm wondering: how much buggering was going on during these wars?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,924
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

16 Jul 2011, 10:52 am

pandabear wrote:
Your "Western Civilization" classes would count, by and large, as "White Man's History." Generally, White Christians are portrayed as the protagonists, while the invading Turks and Moors are the antagonists.

Now I'm wondering: how much buggering was going on during these wars?


I hate how white and christianity always has to be put together.....yes I am white, no I am not a christian and I think that particular religion has done and still does quite a bit of damage to the world.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

16 Jul 2011, 10:56 am

Descartes wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Funny how you can have gay history, black history, women's history, Hispanic history and it's called diversity but if you even propose a study of white man's history it all the sudden becomes hate, intolerance, and homophobia, etc...
:roll:


I think the purpose is to recognize members of social groups that have a history of social marginalization. Since white men have historically had it easy in our society, I guess there's no need for a hypothetical white history study.


I wasn't actually advocating a white male history month but pointing out the one sided diversity.
Why not just have American history (state history, city, county, etc...) and leave race, sexual orientation, and gender out of it? By attempting to teach diversity by giving minorities their own unique history idetntity and mandating that others study it only breeds exclusion and resentment.
I think at this time in our history it's time to either recognize each other as Americans with a shared history or just split up into smaller countries. Do one or the other and just move on...........



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

16 Jul 2011, 11:04 am

This is obvious brainwashing. If all teens heard that the rebel military would not have been developed if it wasn't for a gay general, they would think that the US military is gay by origin, and they wouldn't' want to enlist.

Who is going to fight wars for the rich?


_________________
.


Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

16 Jul 2011, 11:32 am

pandabear wrote:
Your "Western Civilization" classes would count, by and large, as "White Man's History." Generally, White Christians are portrayed as the protagonists, while the invading Turks and Moors are the antagonists.

Now I'm wondering: how much buggering was going on during these wars?


Okay. Let is work this out:

We are told - by the panda and others - that the people whio cannot stop talking about sex are full of churning lust and those who cannot stop talking about homosexuality are troubled by repressed homosexual tendencies.

We see that Panzerbear can hardly talk About the First Continental Congress without speculating as to how many of the delegates had same sex partners.

Which ought to imply?????

Well, for me [but you have to realize I was in my late 20s before I caught on that homosexuals existed] it implies that the White and Black Beast [or is it Black and White?] is not to be taken seriously.

Me, I have a hard time being sure if he WANTS to be taken seriously.