New Jersey to Teach LGBT History in Schools

[The Emerald Legion]

I want general history classes to give people a general understanding of where the modern world came from. I don't really think that such an understanding would be complete if we pretended that the gays only existed briefly in Europe in the 40s and maybe also destroyed traditional marriage.

Well if you are talking Paris and weimar, it's the 20's not 40's, I think you need a history course young person.


That said for the third time. This is not about teaching gay history, it is about teaching tolerance.

Uh. Why would it be about teaching Tolerance?

[Ifreann]

I want general history classes to give people a general understanding of where the modern world came from. I don't really think that such an understanding would be complete if we pretended that the gays only existed briefly in Europe in the 40s and maybe also destroyed traditional marriage.

Well if you are talking Paris and weimar, it's the 20's not 40's, I think you need a history course young person.

I was talking about their presence in Hitler's concentration camps, something I imagine isn't likely to be cut from history classes.

That said for the third time. This is not about teaching gay history, it is about teaching tolerance.

Cool.

[Scomagia]

LGBT history remains history, so yeah, I wholeheartedly support it!

I wanna know about the hella gay Iberian Moors and Ferdinand I of Bulgaria’s bisexual tendencies!

The fact that someone with a cock also liked cock, or that someone with a vagina liked to munch box, is not necessarily relevant to their contributions to history.

If a physicist discovered something novel and groundbreaking, why would their orientation be particularly relevant?

[Olthar]

LGBT history remains history, so yeah, I wholeheartedly support it!

I wanna know about the hella gay Iberian Moors and Ferdinand I of Bulgaria’s bisexual tendencies!

The fact that someone with a cock also liked cock, or that someone with a vagina liked to munch box, is not necessarily relevant to their contributions to history.

If a physicist discovered something novel and groundbreaking, why would their orientation be particularly relevant?

Because they were probably snubbed due to their orientation, just like how the historical contributions of women and racial minorities are downplayed or outright erased in traditional history classes.

[Scomagia]

Then you want to push a curriculum that further fractions the time students have to learn general history? Seems like a shit way to teach, honestly. A lot of important history subjects are elective for the simple fact that, you know, you can't cram a thousand things into a general history course without reducing the value of each thing you teach.

I want general history classes to give people a general understanding of where the modern world came from. I don't really think that such an understanding would be complete if we pretended that the gays only existed briefly in Europe in the 40s and maybe also destroyed traditional marriage.

So, which parts of history are going to lose time in the curriculum? You have to rob the time from somewhere to teach LGBT history as a non elective. So, which parts of history should we water down to make space for this?

[Ifreann]

LGBT history remains history, so yeah, I wholeheartedly support it!

I wanna know about the hella gay Iberian Moors and Ferdinand I of Bulgaria’s bisexual tendencies!

The fact that someone with a cock also liked cock, or that someone with a vagina liked to munch box, is not necessarily relevant to their contributions to history.

If a physicist discovered something novel and groundbreaking, why would their orientation be particularly relevant?

If something novel and groundbreaking in physics was discovered, why would any information about the person or people responsible be particularly relevant?

[Ethel mermania]

Well if you are talking Paris and weimar, it's the 20's not 40's, I think you need a history course young person.


That said for the third time. This is not about teaching gay history, it is about teaching tolerance.

Uh. Why would it be about teaching Tolerance?

Because that is the purpose of the law, tbf, to the OP the title of the lead article is misleading.

Another poster posted the bill in a spoiler in this thread.

[The Emerald Legion]

The fact that someone with a cock also liked cock, or that someone with a vagina liked to munch box, is not necessarily relevant to their contributions to history.

If a physicist discovered something novel and groundbreaking, why would their orientation be particularly relevant?

If something novel and groundbreaking in physics was discovered, why would any information about the person or people responsible be particularly relevant?

As an encouragement so people make more groundbreaking discoveries.

[Scomagia]

The fact that someone with a cock also liked cock, or that someone with a vagina liked to munch box, is not necessarily relevant to their contributions to history.

If a physicist discovered something novel and groundbreaking, why would their orientation be particularly relevant?

Because they were probably snubbed due to their orientation, just like how the historical contributions of women and racial minorities are downplayed or outright erased in traditional history classes.

Welp, we better just explode the number of mandatory history subjects. Atheists have been persecuted at least as long as gays. Better have a unit on that, too. What about the historical marginalization of the ugly? Gotta include that somewhere. Hey, mentally ill folks have been marginalized, we need to add a unit on that, too.

You can do this forever until you aren't teaching a damn thing. Or you can make these things electives and give them a proper amount of attention without robbing from the time available to teach general history.

[Ifreann]

Because they were probably snubbed due to their orientation, just like how the historical contributions of women and racial minorities are downplayed or outright erased in traditional history classes.

Welp, we better just explode the number of mandatory history subjects. Atheists have been persecuted at least as long as gays. Better have a unit on that, too. What about the historical marginalization of the ugly? Gotta include that somewhere. Hey, mentally ill folks have been marginalized, we need to add a unit on that, too.

You can do this forever until you aren't teaching a damn thing. Or you can make these things electives and give them a proper amount of attention without robbing from the time available to teach general history.

"general" = "cishet white dudes"

[The Emerald Legion]

Welp, we better just explode the number of mandatory history subjects. Atheists have been persecuted at least as long as gays. Better have a unit on that, too. What about the historical marginalization of the ugly? Gotta include that somewhere. Hey, mentally ill folks have been marginalized, we need to add a unit on that, too.

You can do this forever until you aren't teaching a damn thing. Or you can make these things electives and give them a proper amount of attention without robbing from the time available to teach general history.

"general" = "cishet white dudes"

Honestly, my general history covered more Arabian and middle eastern history than it did European.

[Valrifell]

"general" = "cishet white dudes"

Honestly, my general history covered more Arabian and middle eastern history than it did European.

Mine was almost exclusively European

[The Emerald Legion]

Honestly, my general history covered more Arabian and middle eastern history than it did European.

Mine was almost exclusively European

Odd. In Elementary school we did some basic American history that was mostly nonsense. Middle school and early high school we did Egypt, Mesopotamia, China. The closest we got to Europe was ancient Greece. And then we skipped straight to US history again.

[Scomagia]

The fact that someone with a cock also liked cock, or that someone with a vagina liked to munch box, is not necessarily relevant to their contributions to history.

If a physicist discovered something novel and groundbreaking, why would their orientation be particularly relevant?

If something novel and groundbreaking in physics was discovered, why would any information about the person or people responsible be particularly relevant?

In general history classes? It wouldn't be very relevant. In more specialized courses you'd have more time to delve into the specific biographies of important individuals. That's as it should be.

In a general history course on, say, the American Civil War you don't delve into much at all about the Christian beliefs motivating the leaders of either side. Why? Because that's too high a resolution look at the subject for a general overview.

[Scomagia]

Welp, we better just explode the number of mandatory history subjects. Atheists have been persecuted at least as long as gays. Better have a unit on that, too. What about the historical marginalization of the ugly? Gotta include that somewhere. Hey, mentally ill folks have been marginalized, we need to add a unit on that, too.

You can do this forever until you aren't teaching a damn thing. Or you can make these things electives and give them a proper amount of attention without robbing from the time available to teach general history.

"general" = "cishet white dudes"

And out comes the bigotry. Very tolerant of you.

Seriously, I never said anything of the sort. If a person made a relevant contribution to history it's fine to look at their contribution.

If you want to wander into the weeds with specifics of their identity, though, you need to have an elective class.

[Ethel mermania]

If something novel and groundbreaking in physics was discovered, why would any information about the person or people responsible be particularly relevant?

In general history classes? It wouldn't be very relevant. In more specialized courses you'd have more time to delve into the specific biographies of important individuals. That's as it should be.

In a general history course on, say, the American Civil War you don't delve into much at all about the Christian beliefs motivating the leaders of either side. Why? Because that's too high a resolution look at the subject for a general overview.

The second great awaking played a major role in changing northern attitudes towards slavery, and the Mexican American war had a strong role as well, both would be taught as precursors to the American civil war.

[Page]

It's a good start. I think schools should have an entire class dedicated to the history of civil rights and the struggle against oppression in the US, covering in comprehensive detail slavery, the suffragettes, labor unions, Jim Crow, Japanese internment camps, LGBTQ, mass incarceration, police brutality, and more.

[Scomagia]

In general history classes? It wouldn't be very relevant. In more specialized courses you'd have more time to delve into the specific biographies of important individuals. That's as it should be.

In a general history course on, say, the American Civil War you don't delve into much at all about the Christian beliefs motivating the leaders of either side. Why? Because that's too high a resolution look at the subject for a general overview.

The second great awaking played a major role in changing northern attitudes towards slavery, and the Mexican American war had a strong role as well, both would be taught as precursors to the American civil war.

And in an elective on American history you would cover that. In a general overview you may or may not, depending on the teacher and general curriculum. Again, if you try and push too much information into a general history course you will end up teaching diddly squat. This is why history electives exist in the first place.

[Ifreann]

If something novel and groundbreaking in physics was discovered, why would any information about the person or people responsible be particularly relevant?

In general history classes? It wouldn't be very relevant. In more specialized courses you'd have more time to delve into the specific biographies of important individuals. That's as it should be.

In a general history course on, say, the American Civil War you don't delve into much at all about the Christian beliefs motivating the leaders of either side. Why? Because that's too high a resolution look at the subject for a general overview.

Why does anything about the leaders of the opposing sides of the American Civil War matter? If it's not necessary to point out gay historical figures, is it important to point out anything about historical figures? Is it important to identify historical figures at all? USA President 16 vs CSA President 1, Union general 1 vs Confederate general 1. Cut out all the extraneous information.

[Valrifell]

Mine was almost exclusively European

Odd. In Elementary school we did some basic American history that was mostly nonsense. Middle school and early high school we did Egypt, Mesopotamia, China. The closest we got to Europe was ancient Greece. And then we skipped straight to US history again.

We gleamed over most of the first civilizations and skimmed towards the Renaissance. One of my first assignments was a report and presentation on a Renaissance painter.

Though this is probably because it was essentially a pre-req to US history, which is required for high schools in the state, iirc.

[Yusseria]

cause if there's anything crucial to history it's the sexuality of historical figures, not what they actually did.

[Valrifell]

cause if there's anything crucial to history it's the sexuality of historical figures, not what they actually did.

Which is why nobody teaches Ulysses Grant as:

White
Male
Straight
Or an alcoholic

Wait a minute, I was taught all those things!

[Yusseria]

cause if there's anything crucial to history it's the sexuality of historical figures, not what they actually did.

Which is why nobody teaches Ulysses Grant as:

White
Male
Straight
Or an alcoholic

Wait a minute, I was taught all those things!

you were? pfft, your education was weird. also, i don't get why anyone would explicitly mention he was white. that's pretty easy to tell from the pictures.

[Scomagia]

In general history classes? It wouldn't be very relevant. In more specialized courses you'd have more time to delve into the specific biographies of important individuals. That's as it should be.

In a general history course on, say, the American Civil War you don't delve into much at all about the Christian beliefs motivating the leaders of either side. Why? Because that's too high a resolution look at the subject for a general overview.

Why does anything about the leaders of the opposing sides of the American Civil War matter? If it's not necessary to point out gay historical figures, is it important to point out anything about historical figures? Is it important to identify historical figures at all? USA President 16 vs CSA President 1, Union general 1 vs Confederate general 1. Cut out all the extraneous information.

I never said it wasn't necessary to point out important people who were gay. It isn't necessary in a general history class to point out people because they were gay. If they did important things then sure, talk about them, but leave in depth discussion on their sexual proclivities for an elective. Aggregate gay historical figures in a specialized elective so you give appropriate time to the subject.

You're so concerned with pushing ideology that you don't even seem to give a damn whether students are actually getting a comprehensive understanding of what you want taught. The only way to teach LGB history is through an elective because that's the only situation in which you're getting sufficient time to actually follow the thread of LGB leaders throughout history. Anything else is tokenization, really.

[Bienenhalde]

Republicans are the party most opposed to LGBT rights. Democrats are the party most supportive of LGBT rights. If you want to be non-partisan, then you want to teach lies, even if only by omission.

Not all Republicans are anti-LGBT and not all Democrats have been pro-LGBT. This issue is not nearly as simplistic as you wish to make it. Good thing you are not a social studies teacher.