New Jersey to Teach LGBT History in Schools

[Kannap]

There is nothing wrong with this as long as they don't go overboard with the identity politics or go full out SJW.

If they strictly stick to teaching LGBT history and not instantly devolve into “Look at how oppressed we were! OMG, look at all that oppressi— Oh, you wanted to actually know about Ferdinand I of Bulgaria?”

If you're proposing we don't teach about the oppression that's occurred throughout history then I assure you you'd quickly not have any American history classes.

[Vassenor]

There is nothing wrong with this as long as they don't go overboard with the identity politics or go full out SJW.

If they strictly stick to teaching LGBT history and not instantly devolve into “Look at how oppressed we were! OMG, look at all that oppressi— Oh, you wanted to actually know about Ferdinand I of Bulgaria?”

So we should whitewash the treatment of historically marginalized groups then?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

If they strictly stick to teaching LGBT history and not instantly devolve into “Look at how oppressed we were! OMG, look at all that oppressi— Oh, you wanted to actually know about Ferdinand I of Bulgaria?”

LGBT history is integral to understanding modern US history and politics.

Let us hope that it is ACTUAL history!

Believe it or not, I find the various interpretations of homosexuality throughout history highly interesting.

[Geneviev]

I didn't even know California teaches LGBT history in schools, so this probably won't do much in New Jersey either.

If Google did me right, it looks recent - like they started teaching LGBT history in schools in 2017.

They must not be teaching it in my school. But it's not surprising for California.

[Kannap]

Sounds like you have a lack of understanding of LGBT history, perhaps if you'd been taught in school?

No, I remember the McGreevey administration very well...

Regardless of whoever that is or what he did, if you think that scandal will be the highlight of LGBT history, then you have a lack of knowledge of LGBT history.

[Valrifell]

LGBT history is integral to understanding modern US history and politics.

Let us hope that it is ACTUAL history!

Believe it or not, I find the various interpretations of homosexuality throughout history highly interesting.

I mean, it's super hard to teach LGBT stuff without getting into the oppression angle. Because, you know, the whole gay rights movement started with a riot and was preceded by decades of institutional abuse and discrimination.

[The New California Republic]

Sounds like a good move. I'd actually like to take a sneak peek at some lesson plans to see what sort of things are going to be included.

[Kavagrad]

Let us hope that it is ACTUAL history!

Believe it or not, I find the various interpretations of homosexuality throughout history highly interesting.

I mean, it's super hard to teach LGBT stuff without getting into the oppression angle. Because, you know, the whole gay rights movement started with a riot and was preceded by decades of institutional abuse and discrimination.

It's almost as if our history is filled with oppression and persecution, huh?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

If they strictly stick to teaching LGBT history and not instantly devolve into “Look at how oppressed we were! OMG, look at all that oppressi— Oh, you wanted to actually know about Ferdinand I of Bulgaria?”

So we should whitewash the treatment of historically marginalized groups then?

If they strictly stick to teaching LGBT history and not instantly devolve into “Look at how oppressed we were! OMG, look at all that oppressi— Oh, you wanted to actually know about Ferdinand I of Bulgaria?”

If you're proposing we don't teach about the oppression that's occurred throughout history then I assure you you'd quickly not have any American history classes.

The oppression aspect is one aspect, but not the sole aspect.

I don’t just want to know about how oppressed they were, I want to learn about their representation in art, about known LGBT folk throughout history, its various interpretations and stances (such as the Native American two-spirits and the Classical Greek men-boy relations), the rise of the first movements...

Oppression as one cog in the complex machine of LGBT history is perfectly fine, making it solely about how oppressed they were is much less enticing.

[Dresderstan]

Let us hope that it is ACTUAL history!

Believe it or not, I find the various interpretations of homosexuality throughout history highly interesting.

I mean, it's super hard to teach LGBT stuff without getting into the oppression angle. Because, you know, the whole gay rights movement started with a riot and was preceded by decades of institutional abuse and discrimination.

I mean the Stonewall riots were historic, you can't ignore that.

[Kannap]

Just remember October is LGBT history month and you'll be fine.

I've heard of June being Pride month and February being black history month but never heard October being about LGBT history.

President Clinton and President Obama have pronounced June as Pride Month, but October has been LGBT history month since 1994 in the United States, a decision made by LGBT people so I prefer it over Pride month - though Summer is the perfect weather for Pride festivals so June is a nice secondary.

October is LGBT history month in the U.S. and Canada, it's February in the UK.

[Thermodolia]

I've heard of June being Pride month and February being black history month but never heard October being about LGBT history.

President Clinton and President Obama have pronounced June as Pride Month, but October has been LGBT history month since 1994 in the United States, a decision made by LGBT people so I prefer it over Pride month - though Summer is the perfect weather for Pride festivals so June is a nice secondary.

October is LGBT history month in the U.S. and Canada, it's February in the UK.

October is best time for pride in Atlanta and the rest of the south though

[Dresderstan]

President Clinton and President Obama have pronounced June as Pride Month, but October has been LGBT history month since 1994 in the United States, a decision made by LGBT people so I prefer it over Pride month - though Summer is the perfect weather for Pride festivals so June is a nice secondary.

October is LGBT history month in the U.S. and Canada, it's February in the UK.

October is best time for pride in Atlanta and the rest of the south though

Probably because the weather isn't as scalding hot in the Fall than in the Summer. Then again there's the threat of hurricanes...

[Kannap]

So we should whitewash the treatment of historically marginalized groups then?

If you're proposing we don't teach about the oppression that's occurred throughout history then I assure you you'd quickly not have any American history classes.

The oppression aspect is one aspect, but not the sole aspect.

I don’t just want to know about how oppressed they were, I want to learn about their representation in art, about known LGBT folk throughout history, its various interpretations and stances (such as the Native American two-spirits and the Classical Greek men-boy relations), the rise of the first movements...

Oppression as one cog in the complex machine of LGBT history is perfectly fine, making it solely about how oppressed they were is much less enticing.

It's good to learn about all of the history, that's the brilliant thing about history: it's a very broad subject. But when learning about minority groups, oppression and how that oppression led to marching, protesting, and cultural advancement is a big part of their histories. If you're dropping oppression, you lose most of LGBT history, you lose most of African American history, and you lose the cruel treatment of Native Americans by the United States. These are large parts of history that cannot be tossed aside because white, heterosexual, cisgender men are tired of hearing about how much they oppressed people in the past.

[Aureumterra]

Don’t see anything wrong with teaching LGBT history. I just hope educators don’t see it as a platform to make direct political statement or the “We’re oppressed till this date by right wingers!” stuff

[Valrifell]

Don’t see anything wrong with teaching LGBT history. I just hope educators don’t see it as a platform to make direct political statement or the “We’re oppressed till this date by right wingers!” stuff

There's no side-stepping the issue, the history will be "this was bad" which will inevitably not jive with some people.

[Kannap]

I mean, it's super hard to teach LGBT stuff without getting into the oppression angle. Because, you know, the whole gay rights movement started with a riot and was preceded by decades of institutional abuse and discrimination.

I mean the Stonewall riots were historic, you can't ignore that.

Oppression is a large part of the history of all minorities - LGBT people included - because the oppression that these minorities faced needs to be acknowledged and understood while also using that understanding to springboard into riots, protests, advancement, sit-ins, pushes for progress, etc. that erupted in cultural revolutions against oppression. Then, of course, we come to modern history and current events and have to still understand no matter how much progress has been made, that forms of oppression are still present today.

[Kavagrad]

So we should whitewash the treatment of historically marginalized groups then?

If you're proposing we don't teach about the oppression that's occurred throughout history then I assure you you'd quickly not have any American history classes.

The oppression aspect is one aspect, but not the sole aspect.

I don’t just want to know about how oppressed they were, I want to learn about their representation in art, about known LGBT folk throughout history, its various interpretations and stances (such as the Native American two-spirits and the Classical Greek men-boy relations), the rise of the first movements...

Oppression as one cog in the complex machine of LGBT history is perfectly fine, making it solely about how oppressed they were is much less enticing.

The issue is that the instances of homosexuality and non-traditional (by modern western standards) gender identity being accepted are the exceptions to the rule throughout written history. For every society that accepted LGBT people, there were many more that ostracised, persecuted and killed us. Our history is one of oppression, and to shift the focus away from that is to teach an incomplete history. To focus on the few that were relatively unscathed in their societies for the sake of being "interesting" is to do a disservice to those that suffered and died for who they were.

[Kannap]

President Clinton and President Obama have pronounced June as Pride Month, but October has been LGBT history month since 1994 in the United States, a decision made by LGBT people so I prefer it over Pride month - though Summer is the perfect weather for Pride festivals so June is a nice secondary.

October is LGBT history month in the U.S. and Canada, it's February in the UK.

October is best time for pride in Atlanta and the rest of the south though

We have it in September in Asheville, it's very nice then.

[Kannap]

Don’t see anything wrong with teaching LGBT history. I just hope educators don’t see it as a platform to make direct political statement or the “We’re oppressed till this date by right wingers!” stuff

It's almost as if LGBT history - or the history of minorities in general - has been ripe with oppression even well into the modern day.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

The oppression aspect is one aspect, but not the sole aspect.

I don’t just want to know about how oppressed they were, I want to learn about their representation in art, about known LGBT folk throughout history, its various interpretations and stances (such as the Native American two-spirits and the Classical Greek men-boy relations), the rise of the first movements...

Oppression as one cog in the complex machine of LGBT history is perfectly fine, making it solely about how oppressed they were is much less enticing.

The issue is that the instances of homosexuality and non-traditional (by modern western standards) gender identity being accepted are the exceptions to the rule throughout written history. For every society that accepted LGBT people, there were many more that ostracised, persecuted and killed us. Our history is one of oppression, and to shift the focus away from that is to teach an incomplete history. To focus on the few that were relatively unscathed in their societies for the sake of being "interesting" is to do a disservice to those that suffered and died for who they were.

The truth is, ignoring either of the two aspects of LGBT history (the oppression and the representation aspects) would make it incomplete.

[Aureumterra]

Don’t see anything wrong with teaching LGBT history. I just hope educators don’t see it as a platform to make direct political statement or the “We’re oppressed till this date by right wingers!” stuff

There's no side-stepping the issue, the history will be "this was bad" which will inevitably not jive with some people.

I was mainly referring to educators who will directly tell students to take political stances regarding modern day issues, but again, there’s nothing wrong with teaching the history of an oppressed group as long it it doesn’t devolve into the aforementioned rhetoric.

[Dresderstan]

There is more to history of minority groups than just oppression, it shouldn't solely focus on that aspect alone. Things like the culture, and the likes should not be ignored and sidestepped in favor of "oppression is bad m'kay." There needs to be balance.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

There is more to history of minority groups than just oppression, it shouldn't solely focus on that aspect alone. Things like the culture, and the likes should not be ignored and sidestepped in favor of "oppression is bad m'kay." There needs to be balance.

Perfectly balanced, as all things should be...

[Kavagrad]

The issue is that the instances of homosexuality and non-traditional (by modern western standards) gender identity being accepted are the exceptions to the rule throughout written history. For every society that accepted LGBT people, there were many more that ostracised, persecuted and killed us. Our history is one of oppression, and to shift the focus away from that is to teach an incomplete history. To focus on the few that were relatively unscathed in their societies for the sake of being "interesting" is to do a disservice to those that suffered and died for who they were.

The truth is, ignoring either of the two aspects of LGBT history (the oppression and the representation aspects) would make it incomplete.

The issue isn't in what is ignored. Neither should be ignored, we need more positive LGBT figures from history to represent us. The issue is that if the oppressive side of our history isn't the focus, then it misrepresents what the majority of LBGT people have historically been through, and what many continue to go through. Discussing the exceptions to the rule is fine, it shouldn't be ignored, but it should in no way come close to overshadowing the realities of our history for the vast majority.