CA to teach gay history

[Yoshi]

How about this? If it's worthy of being taught, just put it in the fucking history books. We're gonna eventually run out of time for things like math and science making sure every little group is fully appreciated.

They would put it in the history books but then some students would ignore it and/or fail that section of class. This way, if they fail the class then they will be forced to retake it and pay attention.

[Yoshi]

they already know. the MSM has seen to that. It's really part of the general dumbing down of students. There are so many social engineering subjects taught, that there is little time to teach anything that might be necessary. California is generally backwards and upside down. If businesses are taxed so much that they are forced out of state, it's a good thing. Overregulation is considered a lure to foreign investment. Graduating illiterate and unedcated children will make them more competitive internationally.
its liberal child abuse

try using both eyes, ears and what's left of your dead brain numb nuts

Some things they teach in school are pointless...biology..when will you NEED to know how to dissect a frog or other animal. that should be optional, just as this class should be. Making it forced will cause commotion, no doubt about it, but sometimes kids ned to be forced out of their comfort zxone. if their parents are anti-gay then the only thing they will learn is to be equally against it. this way they can form their own opinion.

[CueSi]

So to be a good conservative, you must:
-Hate the poor or hold them in contempt.
-Hate anyone to the left of you politically
-Hate and hold contempt, disdain and disgust for gays
-Hate the French because they didn't go along with us in the Iraq War
-View the world, and thus politics, through a Biblical lens

You're exaggerating to make your case. . .you know this. This is what the DU does...and while YES, there are people on CU that have this mind set, not everyone has it and you know this.

And as to this. How about everyone learn proper history (and stop stopping after WWII!!) and stop giving this and that grief group a disjointed over focus? If students learned proper American History, they'd know about Ponce De Leon, Benajmin Banneker, Paul Revere, George Washington, Phillis Wheatley, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Antietam, Appamatox, Jim Thorpe, The Alamo, Wilma Mankiller, Rosa Parks, Ceasar Chavez(yes, he's a commie to a degree, but still important, dammit), Stonewall, Bayard Rustin without losing anything.

~QC

[Rockntractor]

You're exaggerating to make your case. . .you know this. This is what the DU does...and while YES, there are people on CU that have this mind set, not everyone has it and you know this.

And as to this. How about everyone learn proper history (and stop stopping after WWII!!) and stop giving this and that grief group a disjointed over focus? If students learned proper American History, they'd know about Ponce De Leon, Benajmin Banneker, Paul Revere, George Washington, Phillis Wheatley, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Antietam, Appamatox, Jim Thorpe, The Alamo, Wilma Mankiller, Rosa Parks, Ceasar Chavez(yes, he's a commie to a degree, but still important, dammit), Stonewall, Bayard Rustin without losing anything.

~QC

Was Stonewall Michaels brother?

[CueSi]

Was Stonewall Michaels brother?

Stonewall was part of the 60's/70's riot-of-the-week era. . .Less important than the Watts Riots, more important than the McDuffie Riots.

Unlike the zoot suit riots of the 1940's which actually got a SONG written about it. I'm surprised California hasn't taught about THAT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IqH3uliwJY



~QC

[lacarnut]

You're exaggerating to make your case. . .you know this. This is what the DU does...~QC

I don't think he is exaggerating. A moderate which he claims to be would not post BS like this. Therefore, I think he is a liar and a fraud.

[Novaheart]

You're exaggerating to make your case. . .you know this. This is what the DU does...and while YES, there are people on CU that have this mind set, not everyone has it and you know this.

And as to this. How about everyone learn proper history (and stop stopping after WWII!!) and stop giving this and that grief group a disjointed over focus? If students learned proper American History, they'd know about Ponce De Leon, Benajmin Banneker, Paul Revere, George Washington, Phillis Wheatley, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Antietam, Appamatox, Jim Thorpe, The Alamo, Wilma Mankiller, Rosa Parks, Ceasar Chavez(yes, he's a commie to a degree, but still important, dammit), Stonewall, Bayard Rustin without losing anything.

~QC

Inclusion isn't over focus. The gay rights movement is a legitimate part of the history of civil rights struggle from female suffrage to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the race riots of 1968 and onward. The Stonewall "Riot" may not have involved massive numbers of people, or the theft and destruction of the 14th Street riots, but it was historically significant that gay people finally fought back against a corrupt and criminal police department engaging in an activity that the gay community had endured since the 19th Century. It also wasn't the start of the gay rights movement.

The highlights of gay history can probably be covered in less than an hour, thanks to us being largely written out of it by later generations. However there is considerable reference in literature, which apparently Christianized Europe wasn't quite as eager to vandalize.

[CueSi]

Inclusion isn't over focus. The gay rights movement is a legitimate part of the history of civil rights struggle from female suffrage to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the race riots of 1968 and onward. The Stonewall "Riot" may not have involved massive numbers of people, or the theft and destruction of the 14th Street riots, but it was historically significant that gay people finally fought back against a corrupt and criminal police department engaging in an activity that the gay community had endured since the 19th Century. It also wasn't the start of the gay rights movement.

The highlights of gay history can probably be covered in less than an hour, thanks to us being largely written out of it by later generations. However there is considerable reference in literature, which apparently Christianized Europe wasn't quite as eager to vandalize.

Isn't that what I just said in the last paragraph?

Just as you said about Afrocentrism, it's possible it could happen with gay history in parts of the country as well. Case in point: The rumor mongering about Abraham Lincoln. I dropped a class because the professor believed that theory wholeheartedly. So just like black Americans claiming Cleopatra, I will come to your grave and tell you I told you so if 50 years from now, he's on a poster like this one-------------> I mean, Mrs. FDR is on there already and no one's got solid proof of that shit that I know of. I want inclusion, but fugg a GSA network and this shit right HERE.

~QC

[Novaheart]

Isn't that what I just said in the last paragraph?

Just as you said about Afrocentrism, it's possible it could happen with gay history in parts of the country as well. Case in point: The rumor mongering about Abraham Lincoln. I dropped a class because the professor believed that theory wholeheartedly. So just like black Americans claiming Cleopatra, I will come to your grave and tell you I told you so if 50 years from now, he's on a poster like this one-------------> I mean, Mrs. FDR is on there already and no one's got solid proof of that shit that I know of. I want inclusion, but fugg a GSA network and this shit right HERE.

~QC

I don't mind the speculation (as long as it is somewhat supported and labelled as such, but not in classrooms) as much as the "gay until proven straight" practiced by some. It's amusing socially to employ "gay until proven straight" but not academically.

There have been entire organizations and cultural pressure though in certain countries and groups to deny the evidence though for figures like King James, Alexander, and various other significant figures. they really jump through hoops to do this. The gay history of the early Christian priesthood has been deliberately all but erased, yet no one seems to tire of going on and on about the relative handful of priests who have engaged in homosexual sexual abuse and trying to paint the gay community with that while never making similar accusations about heterosexual abuse other than to condemn abuse but not heterosexuality.

[lurkalot]

I don't get it. If a person did something worth note in history, why does it matter who he/she slept with?