Gay history?...I suppose if we're talking about a psycho-social phenomena and its impact on cultural values (law, economics, mores)...sure. But really, that's jumpin' the damn gun don't you think? History is advanced social study; it's not facts and dates and tiny slices of what-you thought-you-knew. It's a complex of various convergent and divergent thought processes and perspectives. Straying into the verbose now...It is my considered opinion that we shouldna even teach kids history until they understand a few basic concepts; i.e. we should teach them anthropology and the basics of social frameworks first; building blocks like the realities of tribe, village, town, wealth, leadership and the roles and responsibilities that homo sapiens have had a tendency to define for others and ourselves. Historical understanding depends on those foundational blocks, so you got to have some to get some. Feels foolish to me that any high school graduate can wax sentimental and versed about the ridiculously thin, narrow, decayed junk we sanction, a pile of nearly random useless facts. I don't think we can build useful structures from that compost. My conceit? If folk haven't made a study of history, shouldn't pretend they have cause they glanced up against a heavily redacted textbook or two and can get some so-far-from-context-you-can't-see-context-from-here data points to bolster the rhetorical monologue so proudly spewed in a social network.
Ok, rant-tangent...check, apologies. Defining 'history' with a delimiter always puts me there, as though there is 'a' history to carve up like roast beast. Intellectual history, Social history, Military history, Economic history, Diplomatic history...etc, have all been defined cause somebody wanted to put a lens over the whole of the past to call out some details limiting their thesis to an acceptable myopia which can scoot by the Doctoral review board. Works in a professional context (e.g. 'Gay' history may have some revelatory research vectors)...I understand research requirements and the necessary focus to make your work relevant/contributory to the body of knowledge and all that, but the usefulness of those limits disappears the second you defend/publish into that very rarefied space. Those things are not supposed to leak out of academe to be mishandled and misunderstood by, for example, the don't-really-know-or-care-they-missed-an-education-after-16-years-of-'school' folks that we elect whenever they need a mallet to bang some piece of self-serving policy into an historical/patriotic mold. It happens a lot, perverted history sewn into a jingoist flag to wave at constituents so everyone feels ok about doing something wrong or stupid for someone else's profit; look around and tell me I'm wrong.
So now California mandates teaching 'Gay' history, and people are offended in both directions (not enough, too much). The simple truth of this is that we do delete 'Sexual' history from primary education, but we delete it all. There is no call-to-arms to include 'Adulterous' history as a curriculum anchor, even though statistically speaking it is more prevalent than homosexuality (which has its share of scarlet A's) and a significant historical factor in the lives of men/women both common and great. I don't see anyone fighting for 'Exploitation' history, or 'Prostitutional' history...ok, pejoratives in, even mainstream 'Married' history or 'Bachelor' history or...you get my point.
So, excepting most Natural History (not headed into the creationist heresy today)...Affirmative-Action history: Women's history, Black history...ok, legally defined minorities based on biology get a nod. Gay and Lesbian folks will say they are biologically a minority, and an oppressed one to a degree that gives them equal we-need-to-balance-the-books-across-a-few-generations-to-destigmatize rights. I think it's that biological piece that makes that idea stand up to scrutiny...if you believe same-sex love/sex/commitment has a gooey center. The science is out from what I can tell, no gene for Gay has been publicized (would it be? yes, just not here in the US), but if you care at all for the circumstantial/anecdotal evidence, hormonal triggers are in Watson and Crick's stairway to heaven; a biological basis for attraction and aesthetic leanings. Hell, if you go back to my anthropology-first-cause History's-advanced-understanding-and-should-be-the-poetry-learned-after-your-ABC's, you can't help but see that culturally, there is a possible line of inquiry about the level of contribution from the gay community that merits a note or two. In some 'primitive' cultures a boy picked to fill the shamanic role (intercessor with the unknowable, speaker for the dead, master of the natural world, divinatory authority, et al) would be separated from the male segment of society and dressed as a woman for his early life. We are informed by the existant tribes that do this that it is to give him a full brain, since his role is to work for all the people. That role, that of the wisest, is transgendered/bisexual for practical, spiritual, and social reasons. Wise indeed to create a mediator role with a more divergent thought process, a wider world view, a more compassionate connection with the whole community...it's how we all got here, globally so (Chukchi, Sea Dayak, Patagonians, Araucanians, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Navajo, Pawnee, Lakota, Ute, and the tribes of Burkina Faso in Africa to name a few). Some folks prefer female shaman right out of the jade gate, but that is an understudied area vis-à-vis the sex roles of those wise women.
Anyway, I dont like it...the idea of quota'd historical knowledge and analysis, and would vote against a law requiring it if I was West Coast ya'll. The History of the Gay Culture in the United States? Cultural Survey of Homosexuality at X time or place? Sure...college courses about ethnography and social movements. But 'Gay History' for high schoolers or younger? Terrible idea, and speaks to the complete and utter lack of Historical professionalism in primary education in this country. We should be way ahead of that; teach kids that homosexuality is a significant social factor, a truth of the species, a possible spur to creativity and alternative thinking in individuals that can and does result in some very important advances in art/science/spirituality (and whatever-else-you-got)...then when they understand their hominidal tendencies teach human history. History is for human understanding of humans (which imqo you have to grow into, s'not a given just cause you're a fur-challenged primate that walks and talks), and not a precinct for righting wrongs and setting straight and manipulating memory and justifying an ignorance-biased future.
 |
| Dr Zinn: A People's History |
