Illinois has passed a law requiring all schools to teach US history emphasizing the contributions of LGBT individuals. Not just public schools, but apparently private schools as well.
The reason behind it is to provide gays with more role models and reduce harassment.
“An inclusive curriculum will not only teach an accurate version of history but also promote acceptance of the LGBTQ community,” she continued.
Accurate version of history??
This is sets a sketchy precedent, as the version of history without many gay “contributions” is quite accurate — unless we count people like Leonard Bernstein or Gore Vidal as American heroes.
I’m expecting some attempts to retrofit big names with a “queer identity” e.g. by the way, we just discovered George Washington was gay.
I think there was a gay guy that essentially saved all of our collective asses in WWII, but whose life was pretty much ruined when he was found out after the war.
But anyway, I imagine that heteros have no intrinsic superiority in comparison to LGBT’s in matters of contributing effectively to history.
As far as our knowledge of history, I just want it to be as accurate as possible. If some of those we think of as the leading characters of our history were L or G or B or T, so what? Let’s just have the most accurate view, whatever it might be.
I think there was a gay guy that essentially saved all of our collective asses in WWII, but whose life was pretty much ruined when he was found out after the war.
This law is about US history, but the reality about Alan Turing is that he was good but overrated. He couldn’t have done anything without the Poles: https://daily.jstor.org/polish-codebreakers/
But anyway, I imagine that heteros have no intrinsic superiority in comparison to LGBT’s in matters of contributing effectively to history.
Clearly that is nonsense.
As far as our knowledge of history, I just want it to be as accurate as possible. If some of those we think of as the leading characters of our history were L or G or B or T, so what? Let’s just have the most accurate view, whatever it might be.
No kidding. The most accurate version of history — the one which lacks gay contributions — is currently being taught. The point is this type of academic social justice advocacy has the tendency to veer into complete bullshit like rewriting history in order to include marginalized groups who weren’t really involved.
Oneguy you say that it is clearly nonsense to say that one’s sexual orientation if hetero, is intrinsically superior to persons who are L or G or B or T (in regards to making contributions to history).
How is that so clear?
Also how do you know “The most accurate version of history (is) the one which lacks gay contributions…” ?
I imagine that many important figures in history may have been in the closet about sexual orientation. It doesn’t threaten me if they are outed post mortem.
Bayard Rustin, an important black activist in the time of MLK, jr., was openly gay.
Billie Holliday and Emily Dickinson were bi.
Sally Ride was the 1st lesbian in space.
Athena, the goddess, (rumored to be a lesbian).
I just don’t think that sexual orientation likely correlates with more or less efficacy in being an important historical figure. But LGBT persons were (and still often are) targets of discrimination and hatred. So why not point out the ones who were important in history, in order to highlight that sexual orientation is not some sort of character deficit or badge of inferiority?