California will be the first state to use LGBT-inclusive history textbooks in schools
52 replies, posted
[quote]
California has become the first state to approve LGBT-inclusive history textbooks for use in primary schools, the [URL="https://www.advocate.com/youth/2017/11/12/california-first-state-approve-lgbt-inclusive-history-books-k-8-schools"]Advocate reports[/URL].
The California State Board of Education on Thursday approved 10 textbooks for kindergarten through eighth-grade students that include coverage of the historical contributions of LGBT people, and rejected two that failed to include such coverage.[/quote]
[url]http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-lgbt-textbooks-20171113-story.html[/url]
Neat
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply?" - Asaratha))[/highlight]
[QUOTE]
“Approval of these textbooks means that California schools will now have access to approved materials that accurately represent LGBTQ people, and Equality California applauds the State Board of Education for this historic decision,” Zbur said. [/QUOTE]
Ahh, California. Many hate you, but you're such a great state.
[QUOTE=Mifil;52886907]Ahh, California. Many hate you, but you're such a great state.[/QUOTE]
A little bit of insanity is always the price for being on the bleeding edge, and I'm happy to pay that price. We accomplish a lot.
why? it's not that current textbooks don't talk about lgbt people, just they don't feel the need to say "oh and james buchanan was GAY how about that yall aint that some shit"
I guess its just that I don't think being lgbt has any bearing on your historical significance. maybe have it as a tidbit in a fun facts section but going out of your way to mention it just feels like it's missing the point.
[quote]“HMH feels that the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer are contemporary terms that may not map well on past lives and experiences,” the publisher said in response to the commission.[/quote]
Completely agree with this statement.
I don't mind a reference here or there if relevant, but if it is just nothing more than a blurb of interjection, and trying to apply modern conventions of LGBT on historical figures that didn't even think that way themselves, then I think that is a problem.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;52887236]As a historian, i have to say that's entirely a closed front world view. Alan Turing, for instance, ushered in an entire golden age of computing and was essentially executed by the state for the simple fact he loved men, not women.[/QUOTE]
Like this individual would be someone to highlight it on.
[QUOTE=butre;52887219]why? it's not that current textbooks don't talk about lgbt people, just they don't feel the need to say "oh and james buchanan was GAY how about that yall aint that some shit"[/quote]
I just hope it isn't in the realm of this hyperbole.
[QUOTE=butre;52887219]why? it's not that current textbooks don't talk about lgbt people, just they don't feel the need to say "oh and james buchanan was GAY how about that yall aint that some shit"
I guess its just that I don't think being lgbt has any bearing on your historical significance. maybe have it as a tidbit in a fun facts section but going out of your way to mention it just feels like it's missing the point.[/QUOTE]
As a historian, i have to say that's entirely a closed front world view. Alan Turing, for instance, ushered in an entire golden age of computing and was essentially executed by the state for the simple fact he loved men, not women.
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;52887232]Completely agree with this statement.
I don't mind a reference here or there if relevant, but if it is just nothing more than a blurb of interjection, and trying to apply modern conventions of LGBT on historical figures that didn't even think that way themselves, then I think that is a problem.[/QUOTE]
HMH is shit-tier moneygrubbers. If you were a graduate level historian you'd know that. They want to water down everything as not to offend people. History has a job to be offensive.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;52887236]
HMH is shit-tier moneygrubbers. If you were a graduate level historian you'd know that. They want to water down everything as not to offend people. [/QUOTE]
I fairly sure most graduate level history students don't really care or focus on modern textbook publisher debates since we actually study from first to secondhand sourced materials a lot of the time, but to me it doesn't matter what their background is because that statement rings very true.
Applying modern conventions onto historical figures that didn't think that way can create distortion in the facts.
[quote]They want to water down everything as not to offend people.[/quote]
I might agree with you if we weren't talking about grade school history textbooks where "only essentials" texts is what kids are expected to read. I don't think children need the sexualities of famous figures unless it was relevant to their achievements/career in someway like Alan Turing.
[quote]
History has a job to be offensive.[/quote]
When it is offensive, sure? Sometimes history is just inoffensive facts too. Not really sure what you were thinking of this statement besides trying to sound edgy.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;52887236]As a historian, i have to say that's entirely a closed front world view. Alan Turing, for instance, ushered in an entire golden age of computing and was essentially executed by the state for the simple fact he loved men, not women.
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
HMH is shit-tier moneygrubbers. If you were a graduate level historian you'd know that. They want to water down everything as not to offend people. History has a job to be offensive.[/QUOTE]
yeah there are exceptions to every rule but for the most part in a school setting you study a time period rather than a specific person. I named James Buchanan in particular because his sexuality had no relevance to anything other than who he slept with, which is only of any significance if you're studying James Buchanan specifically.
Alan Turing in particular is probably outside the realm of what they teach in primary school anyway.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52887267]I think most graduate level history students don't really care or focus on modern textbook publisher debates since we actually study from first to secondhand sourced materials a lot of the time, but to me it doesn't matter what their background is because that statement rings very true.
Applying modern conventions onto historical figures that didn't think that way can create distortion in the facts.
I might agree with you if we weren't talking about grade school history textbooks where "only essentials" texts is what kids are expected to read. I don't think children need the sexualities of all famous figures unless it was relevant to their achievements/career in someway like Alan Turing.
When it is offensive, sure? Sometimes history is just inoffensive facts too. Not really sure what you were thinking of this statement besides trying to sound edgy.[/QUOTE]
History has a job to be offensive. Distorting the facts for the sake of saving someone's pride or making someone more comfortable with learning that history, brings more harm to it than using modern terms to describe something that happened in the past. While you can attempt to make the argument that "applying modern ways of thinking on the past makes the past incontinent," it also makes it so there isn't a point in applying your knowledge to those specific facts or figures, since someone in 602AD probably did it better. If you seek to "perserve" those viewpoints through snapshots of history, sure, it would make sense to do so, but history as a whole, or as a compendium of thoughts and beliefs? You make it so history isn't something someone in highschool or college can approach, because you're fundamentally changing the way you manage history. Doctoral scholars can do that, but people who aren't in Cornell, or have a higher education, you pervert from the path of knowledge.
While it isn't correct to apply modern viewpoints omnipresently in history, that doesn't change the significance someone had in the flow of history. What this seeks to do is less assign a sexual preference in history, and more show examples that people who are LGBT have importance in history as well. HMH is a full cop-out, especially when they make new editions literally every other year of the same book, that argument does less to apply in the way they state it would.
First and secondary sources are all good and well, but again, any graduate student worth their salt would use a compendium or encylopedia to discern certain aspects of their intent and historical significance. These textbooks, while focused on high-school or middle-school students, can still end up being used as a source, one that is inherently flawed, but a source nonetheless. When i did my senior thesis on a point in ancient greece, I used both HMH and Cengage as an example of mass media perversing the way that people learned about the ancient greeks and romans. In wide-spread applications, these books can do more harm than good.
LGBT history isn't "these figures in history that are already covered were gay!", it's examining events and moments that are important to LGBT communities and our understanding of human identity and struggle which haven't been previously taught due to the influence heteronormative societal trends have on school curricula. LGBT history wasn't seen as important enough to teach before, and now it is.
Please don't oversimplify it to "Buchanan/Turing/Wilde liked dudes!!!" because that is the slimmest cross-section of it there is.
[QUOTE=butre;52887302]yeah there are exceptions to every rule but for the most part in a school setting you study a time period rather than a specific person. I named James Buchanan in particular because his sexuality had no relevance to anything other than who he slept with, which is only of any significance if you're studying James Buchanan specifically.
Alan Turing in particular is probably outside the realm of what they teach in primary school anyway.[/QUOTE]
The funny thing about that is that most often times these textbooks pervert the way that that history is taught. they don't talk about sexuality in the USSR, Counter-Culture Sexual Reformation, The "Lesbians" of Ancient Greece, etc. not because they're irrelevant, but because it would hurt their pockets.
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;52887348]LGBT history isn't "these figures in history that are already covered were gay!", it's examining events and moments that are important to LGBT communities and our understanding of human identity and struggle which haven't been previously taught due to the influence heteronormative societal trends have on school curricula. LGBT history wasn't seen as important enough to teach before, and now it is.
Please don't oversimplify it to "Buchanan/Turing/Wilde liked dudes!!!" because that is the slimmest cross-section of it there is.[/QUOTE]
this is a great example of what i'm trying to say
[QUOTE=butre;52887302]yeah there are exceptions to every rule but for the most part in a school setting you study a time period rather than a specific person. I named James Buchanan in particular because his sexuality had no relevance to anything other than who he slept with, which is only of any significance if you're studying James Buchanan specifically.
Alan Turing in particular is probably outside the realm of what they teach in primary school anyway.[/QUOTE]
So what you're basically saying is that making history textbooks more historically accurate is bad because their sexual orientation is not relevant, except for when it is?
Honestly I think your reaction is just founded on some weird insecurity and has no basis in logic at all
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;52887360]The funny thing about that is that most often times these textbooks pervert the way that that history is taught. they don't talk about sexuality in the USSR, Counter-Culture Sexual Reformation, The "Lesbians" of Ancient Greece, etc. not because they're irrelevant, but because it would hurt their pockets.
[/QUOTE]
Apparently we can't make an effort to have a more accurate depiction of history because it would offend people who don't like it being 'shoehorned' into the classroom
There's a lot of LGBT history that has unfortunately been "left out" in a lot of US History classes, but I'm rather sure the AP and IB curriculum have begun to add them now. Stonewall Riot, the Gay Liberation Movement, DOMA, the Kinsey Reports, etc,. It's better to have LGBT history "weaved" into the greater context of what was happening in a certain time period.
[quote=TheDestroyerOfall;52887347]
First and secondary sources are all good and well, but again, any graduate student worth their salt would use a compendium or encylopedia to discern certain aspects of their intent and historical significance. These textbooks, while focused on high-school or middle-school students, can still end up being used as a source, one that is inherently flawed, but a source nonetheless. When i did my senior thesis on a point in ancient greece, I used both HMH and Cengage as an example of mass media perversing the way that people learned about the ancient greeks and romans. In wide-spread applications, these books can do more harm than good.[/QUOTE]
Most graduate students worth their salt are not going to cite a modern high school or lower textbook for their primary information. Your thesis included a critique on mass media so obviously citing an actual modern grade school textbook would be useful to you for comparison and analysis.
Graduate students have the luxury of focusing on nearly anything they can make a historical thesis on, but I don't know anybody in my graduate classes that would be able to explain the history of contemporary textbook publishers, that is obviously something you focused in that others don't. I certainly won't have to for my thesis.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;52887347]History has a job to be offensive. Distorting the facts for the sake of saving someone's pride or making someone more comfortable with learning that history, brings more harm to it than using modern terms to describe something that happened in the past. While you can attempt to make the argument that "applying modern ways of thinking on the past makes the past incontinent," it also makes it so there isn't a point in applying your knowledge to those specific facts or figures, since someone in 602AD probably did it better. If you seek to "perserve" those viewpoints through snapshots of history, sure, it would make sense to do so, but history as a whole, or as a compendium of thoughts and beliefs? You make it so history isn't something someone in highschool or college can approach, because you're fundamentally changing the way you manage history. Doctoral scholars can do that, but people who aren't in Cornell, or have a higher education, you pervert from the path of knowledge.
[b]While it isn't correct to apply modern viewpoints omnipresently in history, that doesn't change the significance someone had in the flow of history.[/b] What this seeks to do is less assign a sexual preference in history, and more show examples that people who are LGBT have importance in history as well. HMH is a full cop-out, especially when they make new editions literally every other year of the same book, that argument does less to apply in the way they state it would. [/quote]
Your first paragraph largely flounders after you admit in the second one I have a point, but you are misunderstanding me if you think I want these people buried.
Go look at the examples I listed for good uses of representation and bad cases. You don't need to list why HMH is bad because I don't really care about the publisher itself at large, but the statement they made, by which you even acknowledged has credence.
What I don't want is a hypothetical where textbooks cherry-pick on individuals because of their sexuality instead of focusing on actual achievements and the key reasons why they are historically noted as the priority.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52887431]Most graduate students worth their salt are not going to cite a modern high school or lower textbook for their primary information. Your thesis included a critique on mass media so obviously citing an actual modern grade school textbook would be useful to you for comparison.
Maybe a student will need to cite a class textbook from the soviet union for analysis, but I don't know anybody in my graduate classes that would be able to explain the history of contemporary textbook publishers, that is obviously something you focused in that others don't. I certainly won't have to for my thesis.
Your first paragraph largely flounders after you admit in the second one I have a point, but you are misunderstanding me if you think I want these people buried.
Go look at the examples I listed for good uses of representation and bad cases. You don't need to list why HMH is bad because I don't really care about the publisher itself at large, but the statement they made, by which you even acknowledged has credence.
What I don't want is a hypothetical where textbooks cherry-pick on individuals because of their sexuality instead of focusing on actual achievements and the key reasons why they are historically noted.[/QUOTE]
The entire point of this is that LGBT history is disproportionately glossed over, and they're trying to fix that. Nobody's trying to oversaturate high school education with the Gay Agenda™.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;52887388]So what you're basically saying is that making history textbooks more historically accurate is bad because their sexual orientation is not relevant, except for when it is?
Honestly I think your reaction is just founded on some weird insecurity and has no basis in logic at all
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
Apparently we can't make an effort to have a more accurate depiction of history because it would offend people who don't like it being 'shoehorned' into the classroom[/QUOTE]
my reaction is more cautionary than dismissive. like I said before, put it in a fun facts section or something. going out of your way to point it out in many cases is missing the point.
It would make sense to me to not skip over events that are incredibly relevant to a population that is comprised of 3%-4% of all of the people who have ever lived.
It's there for the same reason you'd study any minority's history.
To see the reason why it's not in the books to begin with, just look at those who speak up against it now.
[quote]"HMH feels that the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer are contemporary terms that may not map well on past lives and experiences," the publisher said in response to the commission.[/quote]
So they try to change history books to accurately reflect the fact that such things as homosexuality are not new concepts and the opposition's reaction is to plug their ears and say that such things are new concepts.
Fucking incredible how dense some people can be.
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=butre;52887482]my reaction is more cautionary than dismissive. like I said before, put it in a fun facts section or something. going out of your way to point it out in many cases is missing the point.[/QUOTE]
Pointing out that people who are repeatedly shamed, assaulted, discriminated against and otherwise humiliated for who they are can still become pivotal figures in our shared history does not seem like missing the point to me.
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;52887267]When it is offensive, sure? Sometimes history is just inoffensive facts too. Not really sure what you were thinking of this statement besides trying to sound edgy.[/QUOTE]
If someone being gay is offensive to you then you need to rethink your entire life.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52887520]So they try to change history books to accurately reflect the fact that such things as homosexuality are not new concepts and the opposition's reaction is to plug their ears and say that such things are new concepts.
Fucking incredible how dense some people can be.
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
Pointing out that people who are repeatedly shamed, assaulted, discriminated against and otherwise humiliated for who they are can still become pivotal figures in our shared history does not seem like missing the point to me.
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
If someone being gay is offensive to you then you need to rethink your entire life.[/QUOTE]
you kinda missed the point here but again that goes back to my point of studying a specific person vs studying a time period. most of the ones who became pivotal figures in history did it by staying in the closet anyway and that's certainly not what we want to teach kids.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52887520]So they try to change history books to accurately reflect the fact that such things as homosexuality are not new concepts and the opposition's reaction is to plug their ears and say that such things are new concepts.
Fucking incredible how dense some people can be.
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
Pointing out that people who are repeatedly shamed, assaulted, discriminated against and otherwise humiliated for who they are can still become pivotal figures in our shared history does not seem like missing the point to me.
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
If someone being gay is offensive to you then you need to rethink your entire life.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how you did it, but you missed the point in every single person you quoted.
[QUOTE=butre;52887219]why? it's not that current textbooks don't talk about lgbt people, just they don't feel the need to say "oh and james buchanan was GAY how about that yall aint that some shit"
I guess its just that I don't think being lgbt has any bearing on your historical significance. maybe have it as a tidbit in a fun facts section but going out of your way to mention it just feels like it's missing the point.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is saying to devote a huge chunk of the books to writing about how they are LGBT. When talking about most presidents and important historical figures in history books, they mention something about their wife, children, and family. Nothing really long, just a brief introduction and recap of family life. Why is that not in line with telling their sexual orientation?
Also, as the article states, a lot of this has to do with several prominent authors, including Ralph Waldo Emerson, Emily Dickinson, and Walt Whitman. Knowing their sexuality might give some insight onto the mindset of these very influential authors and reveal some themes in their work that might not have been noticed before.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52887431]
What I don't want is a hypothetical where textbooks cherry-pick on individuals because of their sexuality instead of focusing on actual achievements and the key reasons why they are historically noted as the priority.[/QUOTE]
As a counterpoint, their sexuality might have a direct relevance on their historical importance. Social-history, subaltern studies, women studies etc. have produced many histories based around categories of people that have been underrepresented in the historical record. This includes going off the beaten track away from the big events/great people style of history. It's a bit beyond high-school history, but if they're specifically looking to teach an LGBT history as part of a wider history course that's fine, because that is just one history of the many they'd presumably teach.
[QUOTE=Derposaurus;52887595]Nobody is saying to devote a huge chunk of the books to writing about how they are LGBT. When talking about most presidents and important historical figures in history books, they mention something about their wife, children, and family. Nothing really long, just a brief introduction and recap of family life. Why is that not in line with telling their sexual orientation?
Also, as the article states, a lot of this has to do with several prominent authors, including Ralph Waldo Emerson, Emily Dickinson, and Walt Whitman. Knowing their sexuality might give some insight onto the mindset of these very influential authors and reveal some themes in their work that might not have been noticed before.[/QUOTE]
I dont know about today but when I was in school those figures were taught in our literature class, and they were not shy to mention sexual orientation there. or at very least, my teachers didn't shy away from it.
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52887441]The entire point of this is that LGBT history is disproportionately glossed over, and they're trying to fix that. Nobody's trying to oversaturate high school education with the Gay Agenda™.[/QUOTE]
The point of this isn't to force gay stuff into the history books, it's to make history more representative of what actually happened in reality.
what sort of goofball are you if you think dude on dude relationships only happened after the 1950s
[editline]13th November 2017[/editline]
Genocide is a term that was only really invented after world war 2 but I don't think it would be controversial to call the decimation of native american population during north american colonization a genocide.
[QUOTE=butre;52887482]my reaction is more cautionary than dismissive. like I said before, put it in a fun facts section or something. going out of your way to point it out in many cases is missing the point.[/QUOTE]
Is there anything in the story that would suggest that California is going to go out of their way to point it out in the way that you seem worried about?
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
I honestly just don’t understand how there could be an objection to wanting textbooks that cover the contributions of the broadest possible church of humanity
[QUOTE=killerteacup;52888002]Is there anything in the story that would suggest that California is going to go out of their way to point it out in the way that you seem worried about?
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
I honestly just don’t understand how there could be an objection to wanting textbooks that cover the contributions of the broadest possible church of humanity[/QUOTE]
the fact that they rejected textbooks specifically because they didn't cover it is what has me so apprehensive.
I have no objection to them covering it, I just have an objection to them covering it for the sake of covering it, especially since in most cases it'll add nothing to the point the book is trying to get across.
[QUOTE=butre;52888054]the fact that they rejected textbooks specifically because they didn't cover it is what has me so apprehensive.
I have no objection to them covering it, I just have an objection to them covering it for the sake of covering it, especially since in most cases it'll add nothing to the point the book is trying to get across.[/QUOTE]
How is leaving out an important part of history ever a good thing?
Honestly, you could say that covering ANYTHING is "covering it for the sake of covering it." All history is important, and if LGBT history (which is a huge and important part of 20th century history especially) isn't there, was the textbook really any good or comprehensive in the first place? I'd argue no, it isn't.
I think this should be an introductory lesson for a bigger LGBT History studies class, there is just too much out there to fit in a tiny lesson.
[QUOTE=butre;52888054]the fact that they rejected textbooks specifically because they didn't cover it is what has me so apprehensive.[/quote]
"School rejects textbooks that don't accurately reflect history"
[quote]
I have no objection to them covering it, I just have an objection to them covering it for the sake of covering it, especially since in most cases it'll add nothing to the point the book is trying to get across.[/QUOTE]
Your objection is entirely unfounded given the fact that we don't know the contents of the textbook.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.