New state law requires LGBT history in textbooks

the new history, Napoleon was a freedom fighter, Stalin was a humanitarian, Hitler tried to save the Jew's, Japan bomb Pearl Harbor out of self defense the US went to war for would domination, 1776 was a civil war, the civil war 1861 65 was not a war, but a colored mans fight for freedom, the war of 1812 was a US war to invade Canada, the Alamo was a theft of Mexican land. you get the hint, so this should be of no surprise.when i first seen the LGBT i thought WTF??? LGBT?? then after reading, i get it. do you?

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Please forgive my ignorance, but what contributions would those be and did the fact they are gay play any part in these contributions?

It has nothing to do with the fact that they were gay... it has to do with beating back the idea that being black, a woman, gay or anything means that you are less than....

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Why not? Because you don't like it? We teach black history, State history, womens sufferage movement...

Why do you want to leave out Gay history given that it has been such a civil rights issue?

Honestly.... you sound despicable

I am against black history too, it should just be history
but now we are going into sexual orientation with kids, that's even worse

And they are not talking about teaching about gay movements but gay contributors to society
have you even read the article or you just got emotional and decided to post a knee-jerk response?

Then you don't understand the effect in the 70's of having no black heroes for black children... not becuase they weren't there... but because they were not taught... they were left out... they were marginalized... much like women and homosexuals.....

Do you realize in my history book in the 80's there was no picture of Eli Whitney? When we learned about almanacs we were never taught about Benjamin Banneker

Just perhaps... You must learn...

Most Excellently Stated! Now, what can anyone DO about it? There are a lot of people t'd off about it but what about deactivating the problem and creating a real solution, thats what we need. We Need a HARVEY MOCHA (and i jest not). The Whole World is off kilter, maybe its due to the appending Zero Point. It's making everyone behave like mad men on crack. The Order of Nature is OFF Kilter im afraid...

Originally posted by ModernAcademia


Welcome to the social engineering state of America
I am against this because of the approach
"today we will discuss this historical gay figure"

If you want to talk about all historical figures fine, but do not mention sexual goddam orientation

Leno said the mandates apply broadly, though, telling reporters it would affect kindergarten through high school curriculum, "and, of course, in an age-appropriate way."

Kindergarden?
Really?

Look at Canada, they barely ever talk about the gay issue
There is no social engineering in Canada and they are fine
There's no massive gay beatings on the streets or anything like that
So why does the U.S. need it if right above the U.S. they don't need it?

I am completely against social engineering and that's exactly what this piece of BS is.

This sets a precendence, and soon other states might follow.

www.sfgate.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by Maxmars

Originally posted by The Empty Skies
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

Not that this was in America, but I think looking at someone like the author Oscar Wilde and how he was incarcerated in a labour camp because of his homosexuality would be suited for a module like this.

Perhaps this reasoning will surface, but I would have to ask, was Oscar Wilde important because he was gay? Was his contribution to society and literature a function of his homosexuality? Was it even 'known'?

If anything I would prefer the school system taught how opinions and morals are spread in the world, and why anyone should care who was, or is, gay.

Oscar Wilde was imprisoned because of his sexuality so yes, a fair important point. If you are inclined, read a ballard of Reading Gaol.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Why not? Because you don't like it? We teach black history, State history, womens sufferage movement...

Why do you want to leave out Gay history given that it has been such a civil rights issue?

Honestly.... you sound despicable

I am against black history too, it should just be history
but now we are going into sexual orientation with kids, that's even worse

And they are not talking about teaching about gay movements but gay contributors to society
have you even read the article or you just got emotional and decided to post a knee-jerk response?

Given your tag name, aren't you missing the point somewhat? This isn't a course per se, it's not even for every pupil to attend, but is part of social sciences. If it helps remove the stigma about peoples sexuality then why is this an issue?

reply to post by The Empty Skies

Edit: And yes, Wilde's trials for "indecency" on grounds on homosexuality were widely publicised by the press at the time. It was very well known.

What does not seem to be very well known today is that Oscar Wilde was the author of his own demise. What will certainly not be taught in public schools, or by the political action groups of gay militants, is that Oscar Wilde's troubles began over a tryst between he and Lord Alfred Douglas. Douglas' father, the Marquees of Queensberry, was not at all comfortable with the growing friendship between his son and Wilde and began writing letters to his son, angry letters threatening to disown his son, if he did not end the relationship with Wilde.

Lord Douglas rebelled against his father on the matter, which only entranced his father in his efforts. The Marquees of Queensberry resorted to threatening hotel and restaurant managers with beatings if he was to find his son with Wilde on their premises. The Marquees of Queensberry is of some note for developing amateur boxing rules known as "the Queensbury rules".

Not satisfied that his efforts were working, the Lord Douglas' father went to Wilde's house, accompanied by a prize fighter, to threaten Wilde. This had little effect, as Wilde responded to the threat with this remark:

"I do not know what the Queensberry rules are, but the Oscar Wilde rule is to shoot on sight."

The Marquees of Queensberry cut off all financial support to his son, writing a letter to him where he called him a "reptile" and claimed he was not his son. Lord Douglas' responded:

"If O. W. was to prosecute you in the criminal courts for libel, you would get seven years' penal servitude for your outrageous libels."

Douglas' father, unwilling to let the matter go, left a card at a club both Wilde and his wife belonged, (How many people know Oscar Wilde was married and had two children?), asking the porter to give it to Wilde when he came. The card read:

To Oscar Wilde posing as a somdomite

(The misspell is the Marquees not mine)

A few weeks later Wilde went to the club and the porter gave him the card. Wilde was understandably distraught and felt he had no recourse but to file charges of defamation against the Marquees of Queensberry.

On March 2nd of 1895 the Marquees of Queensberry was taken to the Vine Street police station where he was charged with libel. However, friends of Wilde, including George Bernard Shaw, pleaded with him to drop the libel suit and leave the country and write abroad. At a luncheon where Wilde, Shaw, and Wilde's paramour Lord Douglas, the young Douglas responding to these pleas shouted:

"Your telling him to run away shows that you are no friend of Oscar's.

At the trial, Oscar Wilde gave this testimony, lying not only about his age, (He claimed to be 39 but was in fact 41), but also about his homosexuality and trysts with numerous young men and boys. He lied under oath, but in order to perpetuate the notion that Wilde was "persecuted" you can be rest assured that public schools, or gay militant organizations will ignore this fact.

Then came the cross examination

During this cross examination, Edward Carson, the Marquees attorney, introduced into evidence letters written by Wilde to Lord Douglas. Because Wilde was a poet and literary figure, the letters alone could be dismissed as poetic hyperbole and not love letters to a homosexual lover. Carson also put Wilde's known writings, including The Picture of Dorian Grey, on trial as well. Particular passages were introduced into evidence to highlight Wilde's "wisdom".

Wilde, in his defense, answered to Clarke's cross examination:

"There is no such thing as an immoral work, books are well written, or badly written."

After a bit of a dog and pony show put on by Wilde and Carson over art and perversion, Carson then turned to the fact finding portion of the trial where Carson began asking Wilde about his homosexual relationships with other men. Wilde went from being pithy and flippant to visibly uncomfortable.

Carson continued his cross examination like a mad priest at the alter, and Wilde, like a sacrificial lamb, only too willingly fell into Carson's trap. Wilde had wound up so clearly incriminating himself on the stand that his own attorney advised him, given the statutory criminalization of homosexuality, that Wilde was in quite an untenable position.

Further, when it came time for Carson to make his opening statement, he promised to parade a slew of young men and boys that would testify to having sex with Wilde.

Wilde withdrew his charge of libel, but an inspector from Scotland Yard had requested a warrant for Wilde's arrest. The magistrate who would issue the warrant adjourned his court for an hour and half, presumably to give Wilde time to make his escape. Yet, Wilde was too Hamletian about his actions, and could not make a decision in time.

On April 26th of 1895, Wilde's first criminal trial began. The prosecution brought in a bevy of boys to testify that they had sex with Wilde, including this testimony by Charles Parker. During this trial, Wilde was not so effusive while on the stand, but even so, this was the testimony where Wilde's prosecutor confronted Wilde over a letter from Lord Douglas with now infamous remark:

Love that dare not speak its name.

When the prosecution asked Wilde what this meant, Oscar Wilde gave a memorable answer:

"The love that dare not speak its name" in this century is such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare. It is that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art like those of Shakespeare and Michelangelo, and those two letters of mine, such as they are. It is in this century misunderstood, so much misunderstood that it may be described as the "Love that dare not speak its name," and on account of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an elder and a younger man, when the elder man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him. That it should be so the world does not understand. The world mocks it and sometimes puts one in the pillory for it.

Ultimately, the jury of this first criminal trial of Oscar Wilde concluded they could not reach a verdict on most of the charges, although they did acquit Wilde on one charge of gross indecency.

Wilde had a mere three weeks of liberty, out on bail, while he awaited his second trial. At the second trial Solicitor-General Frank Lockwood focused mainly on the strongest witnesses against Wilde, and gave a particularly damning closing argument before the jury convened. In less than four hours the jury came back with their verdict.

The so called "persecution" of Oscar Wilde was in fact a prosecution. Certainly it could be argued that the legislation criminalizing homosexuality was persecution, but there is well document evidence that Oscar Wilde was given every opportunity to flee this oppression, but he failed to take up this opportunity. Instead, he perjured himself under oath while charging another man with the crime of libel. That he was instead convicted of "indecency" instead of perjury is actually the shameful thing about this moment in history, that wants to repeat itself over and over.

Consider the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, where most people educated by public schools today believe he was not impeached simply because he was not removed from office but censured instead. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. However, many a public school teacher, as well as many talking heads of the main stream media, could not refrain from dismissing the charges against him, simply because the lie was over sex.

Never mind that there are plenty of people sitting in federal prison for lying under oath about sex, the public school system allowed far too many teachers to advocate their own personal opinion that the impeachment process was nothing more than a Republican partisan attack.

The facts, and certainly the truth, have little to no place in a public school system that is on paper only, local and state, but is undeniably under the control of a national government agenda. That agenda does not bode well for We the People.

i'm going to be unpopular for one moment .... The food chain, the propaganda on Television Movies and Commercialism, the pressure to fit in ... The chemicals in the FOOD CHAIN... has anyone done a study to show that chemicals and doctor pushing drugs have changed children's chemistry causing a change in how they feel on a physical level??????? Of course not.

Why? DIVIDE AND CONQUER thats why, did you think that the BIG WIGS WHOM OF WHICH NOBODY LIKES RUNNING THE PLANET LIKE YOU sorry for the caps,And are not changing the Natural Order of Humanity and Life in General for no apparent reason?

They Hate You and they want to destroy everything good by again Dividing and Conquering US. Does anyone notice this or are people much too busy FIGHTING for thier RIGHTS?

Sorry but it's time to wake up, the Cinderella Story Book is coming to an End now.

I'm sorry, but even as a liberal I have to draw the line somewhere. Sexuality should not be taught in schools, period. I've always been open minded and adopted a "live and let live" mind-set but a child should be allowed to learn about sexuality in their own time-frame, when they are naturally curious and have their own questions to address to their own family.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday signed a controversial bill to add the topic to the social sciences curriculum. Read more: www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2011/07/14/BAL61KAHVQ.DTL#ixzz1SCB1gBwY

As others have pointed out - this is relevant to a social science curriculum. I don`t see the issue with it .

I agree wholeheartedly.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
I'm sorry, but even as a liberal I have to draw the line somewhere. Sexuality should not be taught in schools, period. I've always been open minded and adopted a "live and let live" mind-set but a child should be allowed to learn about sexuality in their own time-frame, when they are naturally curious and have their own questions to address to their own family.

You don't have a problem with Strangers pushing their Sexuality Adgenda on Children who really dont think about Sex until their teens? Something doesnt smell right with that comment.

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday signed a controversial bill to add the topic to the social sciences curriculum. Read more: www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2011/07/14/BAL61KAHVQ.DTL#ixzz1SCB1gBwY

As others have pointed out - this is relevant to a social science curriculum. I don`t see the issue with it .

edit on 15-7-2011 by UmbraSumus because: sp

I think up to a certain age, the parent(s) should have the final decision whether to allow their child to attend or not attend a class teaching the history of gay people. In high school, I think it should be the choice of the student whether they want to learn about 'American History' or 'Gay History'. I for one am not gay, therefore, I don't see the relevance in being forced to attend a 'Gay History' class. Maybe they should offer classes on 'Diversity' that way they can get all aspects of people in one class versus the focus one diverse statement.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

It has nothing to do with the fact that they were gay... it has to do with beating back the idea that being black, a woman, gay or anything means that you are less than....

bigotry will always exist. the best we can do is not make more of it in public schools. shoving things down people's throats, especially young kids, makes them hate it. no one's accomplishments are due to their sexual orientation or skin color, so why should it be highlighted?

this has no place in academia. our public schools are a joke.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


You don't have to worry about anything remotely like that law being passed in TN. In fact, teachers in K-8 are not allowed to even refer to "gay" in any way, even if a middle school student (13-14 year old) comes to them with an issue about his or her own sexual orientation. So we now have both the ends of the spectrum in the US. Way too left in CA and way too right in TN.

Besides, any internet research on an historical figure will lead the student to discover things about that person they would not learn in school.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

It has nothing to do with the fact that they were gay... it has to do with beating back the idea that being black, a woman, gay or anything means that you are less than....

bigotry will always exist. the best we can do is not make more of it in public schools. shoving things down people's throats, especially young kids, makes them hate it. no one's accomplishments are due to their sexual orientation or skin color, so why should it be highlighted?

this has no place in academia. our public schools are a joke.

When you teach any history you are shoving it down someones throat...

That's why we also teach black history... Womens sufferage... and now we also teach LBGT history...

What you are advocating is turning a blind eye to the bigotry...

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Please forgive my ignorance, but what contributions would those be and did the fact they are gay play any part in these contributions?

It has nothing to do with the fact that they were gay... it has to do with beating back the idea that being black, a woman, gay or anything means that you are less than....

Such a simple concept but apparently so hard to understand.

reply to post by The Empty Skies


Star for you. However, Wilde isn't someone I'd want my 9 year old learning about just yet. High school maybe, not elementary school.

Walt Whitman was another writer persecuted for his homosexuality.

Focusing on their sexuality takes away from their accomplishments. If they've struggled under oppression like the above two examples, that is an important part of their history. However just adding, btw Leonardo Da Vinci might have been a homosexual man misses the point of all his great works.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

New state law requires LGBT history in textbooks

www.sfgate.com

Public schools in California will be required to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans starting Jan. 1

Textbooks now must include information on the role of LGBT Americans, as well as Americans with disabilities

They said the law will help make public schools a safer place for LGBT students as well as give those students, and their classmates, examples of accomplished and important LGBT people.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Check out this whiny book that is showing up in schools... www.theblaze.com...

Originally posted by awareness10
You don't have a problem with Strangers pushing their Sexuality Adgenda on Children who really dont think about Sex until their teens? Something doesnt smell right with that comment.

"Something doesnt smell right with that comment."

That`s because it is your warped `creation` not mine . I never said it .

---------

How each subject will be broached and the age of the students is not something elaborated upon in the article (there seems to be a certain amount of flexibility suggested about this point in the article).

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-gender issues are appropriate, relevant topics to cover on a social science curriculum.
When should such topics be covered i.e. age of students and the language/nature of the discussion (age appropriate) - are certainly things to take into consideration.

Lets not lose our minds here ..... eh !