California state senator Sheila Kuehl introduced a bill to mandate that social studies courses in the state's schools should include the role and contribution to history and contemporary society of gays and lesbians along with several other groups already mandatorily included--women, blacks, Latinos, etc.
This seems like a fine idea and we can hope that similar bills are introduced in other state legislatures. I cannot imagine why the bill specifies only the social sciences and does not include literature and the arts, but you have to start somewhere.
Predictably enough, the homophobes are up in arms over the possibility that their innocent children--who have apparently never heard of Elton John, Rosie O'Donnell or Melissa Etheridge and have never, ever seen "South Park"--might actually learn that gays and lesbians exist and might even have contributed something to society.
The San Jose Mercury News quoted Karen England, executive director of the far right Capitol Resource Institute, as warning, "This is more than just accepting it, it's forcing our kids to embrace it, almost celebrate it." She says her institute prefers that parents teach their children about sexual orientation.
There are so many things wrong with her comment it is hard to know where to begin. First of all, most parents will probably not teach their children anything about "sexual orientation," by which England seems to mean people with orientations other than her own. Most parents don't have much information about gays in history because they themselves never learned about it in school either.
Second, teaching the facts about something does not mean "embracing" or "celebrating" them. I managed to learn a bit about heterosexuals in history without celebrating or embracing it. I learned about the solar system, osmosis, Christianity, and the Soviet Union without celebrating them. They are simply facts that have an impact on our world. The whole point of education is to learn such facts in order to make the world more fully comprehensible, no matter what we think about those facts.
England went on to say that she doesn't really care about people's sexual orientation because a person's contribution to history doesn't hinge on sexual orientation.
"I don't care if, or who, whatever historical figure they want to say is gay," she said. "If we're discussing history, who someone had sex with is inappropriate. I don't think most Californians want history and social sciences taught through the lens of who in history slept with whom."
England honey, we're not talking about sex acts. We're talking about people. But this is so typical. Every time we talk about gays and lesbians, the far right tries to reduce our lives to our sex lives--and then has the nerve to deny that sexuality has any impact on the rest of our lives. Of course it does.
Surely England does not mean to suggest that a heterosexual's sexual orientation has no impact on his or her life. Two examples. Example 1: If Engand's Henry VIII had not been heterosexual, he would not have kept marrying and disposing of his wives and finally establishing the Anglican church to justify his actions. Example 2: No one can doubt that publicity about President Bill Clinton's heterosexual activity certainly created political problems for him during his second term.
There are analogous examples for gay people, although it is easier to find examples in literature and the arts than in political history since research on gays is still an underdeveloped field.
If England's Edward II had not been gay, he might not have been deposed and murdered since his homosexuality so offended English nobles. Had Michelangelo not been gay, he surely would never have painted those voluptuous male nudes in the Sistine Chapel. Had Walt Whitman not been gay he would not have written so passionately about "adhesiveness" and "the love of comrades." Had Californian Harry Hay not been gay, he would not have founded the Mattachine Society. That gay composers Samuel Barber and Gian-Carlo Menotti were partners significantly influenced the subjects they wrote about and the musical styles they used. Etcetera, etcetera.
But someone might say we really should not have laws specifically mandating the teaching about the sexual orientation of important people. Instead, history and the arts should just be taught fully and honestly. Of course. But the problem is that it has not been and is not being taught fully and honesty and it won't be until legislation is passed to make that happen.
Teachers are not going to teach who is and is not gay if they don't know which people are gay. And where would they have learned that? Textbook manufacturers will not include the information unless they are legally mandated to do so. Teachers will not teach it unless it is in the textbook lest they get into trouble with conservative parents and school boards since even a small minority of parents can make enough noise to intimidate school administrators. And some teachers with attitudes like Karen England's will not teach it even if it is in the textbook unless the law says they must.
10 Comments for “Mandating Gay History”
posted by Scott on
I don’t think it’s necessary to teach gay history. I don’t think it’s necessary to teach black history or hispanic history or women’s history or this or that. Just teach history, period.
posted by Alec on
I think the problem is (once again) these groups want (for the moment) to separate the history of gays from the histories of other minority groups. But the argument for the inclusion of gay history is fairly undeniable. To this day I wonder how I learned about Greek history in high school without a discussion about homosexuality, or whether I could have anything intelligible to say about Whitman when I was a junior.
In a sense, this debate is linked to radical conservative opposition to multiculturalism in the classroom. But do not be fooled. At its best, multiculturalism is simply comprehensive history. Otherwise, I am to believe that tea had its origins in England.
posted by Brian on
It seems Mr. Varnell and Ms. England are weighing in on the same side, but I’m afraid I have to agree with Ms. England. I am a gay man, a father, a writer, a great cook, an uncle, brother, son, gardener, polyglot, teacher, and cryptic crossword fiend. Being gay is an essential part of who I am, but it doesn’t define me any more than the crosswords do. The straights and narrow-minded work hard enough to keep us in a cultural and moral apartheid, why would we want to help them with an historical one? If society can see gay people for what they contribute and their sexuality as incidental to that, it seems to me that builds a far stronger bridge of mainstream acceptance. What Mr. Varnell advocates only serves to fuel the fire of the absurd notion that gays want special treatment, and actually assists Ms. England in turning the spotlight on sexuality. I’d rather be remembered as a father and a writer (ok, yeah, as a good cook too). My sexuality is no one’s business but my own. p.s. Propping up the Tudor dynasty trumped both faith and sexuality, Henry VIII needed an heir and, gay or not, would have secured one. Edward II did, and his son, Edward III was one of mediaeval England’s mightiest kings.
posted by Darren on
This is *not* a good idea. It “ghetto-izes” gays as a separate category of people, when the goal should be inclusion. I don’t want to see Gay Americans, only Americans.
If such a bill were expanded outside of California, would we mention Hermann Goering? Or, because he’s a “bad guy”, do we not mention his sexuality because it might make gays feel bad about themselves?
posted by Darren on
This is *not* a good idea. It *ghetto-izes* gays as a separate category of people, when the goal should be inclusion. I do not want to see Gay Americans, only Americans.
If such a bill were expanded outside of California, would we mention Hermann Goering? Or, because he is a bad guy, do we not mention his sexuality because it might make gays feel bad about themselves?
posted by Darren on
This is *not* a good idea. It *ghetto-izes* gays as a separate category of people, when the goal should be inclusion. I do not want to see Gay Americans, only Americans.
If such a bill were expanded outside of California, would we mention Hermann Goering? Or, because he is a bad guy, do we not mention his sexuality because it might make gays feel bad about themselves?
posted by Chiron on
Agree with Paul and with Alec, who wrote above “…the argument for the inclusion of gay history is fairly undeniable.” AND “At its best, multiculturalism is simply comprehensive history.”
Brian and Darren: in history courses almost everywhere, gays already ARE in the ghetto. Too often that thread of our lives is systematically excised, deliberately villainized, ignorantly misrepresented, or else just innocently overlooked when the history is recounted to the next generation. The examples Paul cites are cogent. You would never have learned about Edward II of England or Prince Alexei in Russia without the proponents of comprehensive historical study.
Scott: Noone on either side would disagree with you when you say “Just teach history, period.” But if you don’t think it’s necessary to introduce the influence of sexual orientation on human history, then you’re jumping ahead to a world without any sexuality whatsoever. Too many books, records, and people have been burned to suppress an inconvenient truth than to trust the powers-that-be to exercise good judgement and wash our hands of the activism that has yet to be done.
posted by Chiron on
Agree with Paul and with Alec, who wrote above “…the argument for the inclusion of gay history is fairly undeniable.” AND “At its best, multiculturalism is simply comprehensive history.”
Brian and Darren: in history courses almost everywhere, gays already ARE in the ghetto. Too often that thread of our lives is systematically excised, deliberately villainized, ignorantly misrepresented, or else just innocently overlooked when the history is recounted to the next generation. The examples Paul cites are cogent. You would never have learned about Edward II of England or Prince Alexei in Russia without the proponents of comprehensive historical study.
Scott: Noone on either side would disagree with you when you say “Just teach history, period.” But if you don’t think it’s necessary to introduce the influence of sexual orientation on human history, then you’re jumping ahead to a world without any sexuality whatsoever. Too many books, records, and people have been burned to suppress an inconvenient truth than to trust the powers-that-be to exercise good judgement and wash our hands of the activism that has yet to be done.
posted by Darren on
Chiron, why do I need to know who people are attracted to, or who they sleep with, to understand history? I have no idea if Isaac Newton was straight, gay, married, or a permanent bachelor–and it doesn’t matter at all. He still invented calculus.
posted by HyunJu on
I\\’ve heard that Socratist was homosexual, and he said what he loved was only philosophicalness and Archimedis, who was an parter for him.
I do not know gays that much, perhaps because it is hard to meet gays in my society, which is very stric and doesn\\’t accept the things that different from nomalization.
Therefore, I would mind if gays are near by me.- I\\’m sorry, but..
If I knew about gays, and there were some programs trying to make it understood, we will be able to keep harmony altogather in one society.
Amm… It was hard to write in English, but I would like to participate in news in the world.