NationStates Jolt Archive

Wrongly citing a school policy on sex education, a California school illegally censored a sixth grader’s classroom presentation about Harvey Milk earlier this month. According to a demand letter sent by the American Civil Liberties Union to the Ramona Unified School District today, the school violated Natalie Jones’s free speech rights when it refused to allow her to give the presentation in class. Instead, the school improperly required classmates to get parental permission to see the presentation during a lunch recess.

This is beyond ridiculous.

School curbs girl's report on gay rights activist Milk (http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/21/1n21ramona00477-ramona-girl-blocked-giving-talk-ha/?northcounty&zIndex=103050)

The American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego is threatening to sue Ramona school officials after they told a sixth-grader she couldn't present a report on slain gay rights advocate Harvey Milk to fellow students unless their parents signed permission slips.

District officials told Natalie Jones and her parents that a report on Milk fell under the school board's life and sex education policy, which requires parental consent before any instruction on the topics of reproduction and human sexuality.

David Blair-Loy, the ACLU's legal director, said in a letter to district officials yesterday that they violated Natalie's free speech rights.

Natalie, 12, is a student at Mount Woodson Elementary School and did the report last month as part of an independent research project class at the school. Students in the class are required to do PowerPoint projects on a subject of their choosing.

Natalie picked Milk, who became one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States when he was elected in 1977 to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. After serving 11 months, Milk was assassinated in a City Hall shooting in November 1978 by Dan White, who had resigned as a supervisor but wanted his job back. White also killed San Francisco Mayor George Moscone in the rampage.

The slain supervisor's life was the subject last year of the Academy Award-winning film “Milk,” starring Sean Penn.

The day before Natalie was to present the report in April, she was told by Principal Theresa Grace that she would not be allowed to show her project in class the way other students had done.

Blair-Loy, in his letter to the school district, said the girl was told the subject was “sensitive.” School officials later told the girl's mother, Bonnie Jones, that the presentation only could be shown to students whose parents had signed a permission slip in advance.

Superintendent Robert Graeff and Grace cited the board policy dealing with sex-education matters. The policy states that parents will be notified in writing about any teaching on the subjects of sex or “family life, human sexuality, AIDS or sexually transmitted diseases.”

Graeff did not return several messages yesterday seeking comment on the ACLU's letter.

The school rescheduled Natalie's presentation for May 8, at a lunch recess, Blair-Loy wrote. In the meantime, school officials sent home a letter to all parents in the class that included the permission slip.

The letter to parents described how Milk had championed minority rights, founded the gay rights parade and pushed for a gay rights act. The letter said parental permission was requested “in order to respect the rights of all our students and their parents.”

Natalie gave the presentation to about half the class, Blair-Loy said. The ACLU wants the district to apologize to Natalie, send letters “reflecting such apology” to parents who received the school district permission request, let Natalie give the presentation to the whole class and clarify that the board policy applies only to course content for sex-education instruction. The group also wants the district to say situations like this won't happen again.

“We think the school district singled out and discriminated against Natalie's speech because of its content,” Blair-Loy said. “This is not sex education. This is a presentation about Harvey Milk, a historical figure who happened to be gay.”

Bonnie Jones said she was upset and did not understand the district's objection.

“If you look at her presentation, I don't see anything that is wrong with it,” Jones said.

Additional information:


ACLU website on this situation (http://www.aclusandiego.org/news_item.php?article_id=000812)

Natalie Jones’s presentation on Harvey Milk (pdf) (http://www.aclusandiego.org/article_downloads/000812/Jones%20Harvey%20Milk%20presentation.pdf)

The school’s letter to parents (pdf) (http://www.aclusandiego.org/article_downloads/000812/RUSD%20ltr%20to%20parents%2004%2028%2009.pdf)

ACLU Demand Letter to Romona School District (pdf) (http://www.aclusandiego.org/article_downloads/000812/2009%2005%2020%20Ramona%20USD%20Letter.pdf)

I thought Califonia was gay-freindly.

if the paper was academically written it should not be blocked.

This is beyond ridiculous.

I dunno...

lets see how far we can stretch the report to make it seem like it did fall under the school board's life and sex education policy, which requires parental consent before any instruction on the topics of reproduction and human sexuality...

hmm... stretched it three times the original... and no such luck...

hmm... stretched it a mile and I can see where Milk's fight for Homosexual rights can be kinda viewed as a topic of human sexuality... that is ridiculous when you actually read the pdf...

*Snap*

sorry... report was stretched too far. EMTs are standing by for anyone injured when the report snapped... :(

Conclusion? beyond ridiculous... by about... 8 miles... :D

Well this has to win some kind of award for stupidity...

I thought Califonia was gay-freindly.

It is but you find religious cons everywhere.

I thought Califonia was gay-freindly.

California is a large state.

Ok I understand they were trying to ban it to save the children. I read the report and I am wondering if I caught gay cooties!

I thought Califonia was gay-freindly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008))

where have you been ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

where have you been ?

btw... when is the Calif Supreme Court supposed to rule on Prop 8?

btw... when is the Calif Supreme Court supposed to rule on Prop 8?

No later then the 3rd of June I think. Unless they do 90 business days.

I'm really getting worried that the amount of stupid in this country is getting close to critical mass.

That project was written by a 6th grader? Clearly she got help from her parents and should be expelled for cheating!

I'm really getting worried that the amount of stupid in this country is getting close to critical mass.

Its not so bad a teacher and a Principal over reacted. A letter of apology to the girl and a display of the Essay in a prominent location on campus should suffice.

Damned liberals, trying to hide the beauty of man-love from our kids.

Its not so bad a teacher and a Principal over reacted. A letter of apology to the girl and a display of the Essay in a prominent location on campus should suffice.
It's just another drop in the giant stupid ocean.

It's just another drop in the giant stupid ocean.

Stupidity can not be stopped only corrected.

Stupidity can not be stopped only corrected.
I am losing any faith that it can be corrected, either. *listens to Michael Steele's latest speech again*

*listens to Michael Steele's latest speech again*

Admit it. You're a masochist.

I'm really getting worried that the amount of stupid in this country is getting close to critical mass.

:D

Time for a Mencken quote:

No one in this world, so far as I know...has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.

How about Douglas Adams.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.

I wonder,would they have reacted the same way if Natalie had done a report on Leonardo da Vinci?

I am losing any faith that it can be corrected, either. *listens to Michael Steele's latest speech again*

Soon Muravyets. Soon you will be like your grandfather. *Steeples fingers*

Wrong on so many levels.

Did her teacher not know what her independent research project was and what the likely response of administration would be? Or did he or she run to the admin to cover his or her ass?

And really -- what the hell could a sixth grader's biographical report POSSIBLY say that fell under human sexuality? Did she include slides showing how manlove is accomplished?

Ridiculous.

*sigh* Once again, the conservative, bigotry heavy legislation pays off for the freedom-hating anti-gay theocrats.

I am losing any faith that it can be corrected, either. *listens to Michael Steele's latest speech again*

The problem with Steele is the republicans view him as the token black guy. Which is why the rest of the party took his side in his dispute with Limbaugh.
I think he is forcing being more conservative than conservative in a attempt to get the party to actually listen to him.

I thought Califonia was gay-freindly.

Did you miss the whole Prop8 debacle where a majority of Californians voted against gay marriage?

Ohio is more gay friendly then Cali.

That project was written by a 6th grader?

How bad can it really be if done by a 12 year old?

Did you miss the whole Prop8 debacle where a majority of Californians voted against gay marriage?

Ohio is more gay friendly then Cali.

Califorina is so convservative it makes Texas look like Ohio.

How bad can it really be if done by a 12 year old?

There's also no works cited/bibliography. I'd fail that 6th grader!

There's also no works cited/bibliography. I'd fail that 6th grader!
I wouldn't. What I would do is hand it back to her without grading it and say that it needed a works cited page.

That project was written by a 6th grader? Clearly she got help from her parents and should be expelled for cheating!
...

Funny, that's about what I would expect a 6th grader to do. Especially if it had been through previous drafts with the teacher.

Ohio is more gay friendly then Cali.

...no.

California has domestic partnerships with substantially equivalent legal rights. Ohio has a constitutional amendment banning not only marriage outright but any legal construct resembling it.

Hell, California's legislature has voted repeatedly to legalize same-sex marriage. Not a chance would that happen in Ohio.

I wouldn't. What I would do is hand it back to her without grading it and say that it needed a works cited page. IF a works cited page was required on the slide show. it might've been only required on what was turned in.

Funny, that's about what I would expect a 6th grader to do. Especially if it had been through previous drafts with the teacher. actually... it was very well done for a 6th grader (with some assistance from the parents/teacher.) I wouldn't mind listening to her presentation which may either mirror or enhance the slideshow.

...

actually, had I known about it... I would've paid someone to tape her presentation...

Oh, shit. I have a picture of Harvey Milk on a wall in my classroom, next to pictures of other civil rights activists. I wonder how many of my students have caught the gay already?

Why didn't I think of the children??

Why didn't I think of the children??

careful.... think about the children too much can land you in even worse trouble... :eek:

Oh, shit. I have a picture of Harvey Milk on a wall in my classroom, next to pictures of other civil rights activists. I wonder how many of my students have caught the gay already?

Why didn't I think of the children??

didnt you get a pink slip ??
maybe now you know why ?

Did you miss the whole Prop8 debacle where a majority of Californians voted against gay marriage?

Ohio is more gay friendly then Cali.

For now yes. Unfortunatly, many people were stupid and bought into the morman backed lies of forced education of kindergarden through 3 grade. I remember the radio spot myself. The mother was telling her friend about how her first grader came home tellinger her how two men can get married and asked if hey could have children, etc. etc. It ended with "He's only seven!"

Some of the parents at my kids school even talked about voting for because they thought it was in appropriate for the school to be teaching about homosexuality. I looked at one of them and said "your kid is in kindergarden; they don't even talk about marriage!"

This will get overturned. It may take a bit expscially if the damn mormans send more money.....

Wrong on so many levels.

Did her teacher not know what her independent research project was and what the likely response of administration would be? Or did he or she run to the admin to cover his or her ass?

And really -- what the hell could a sixth grader's biographical report POSSIBLY say that fell under human sexuality? Did she include slides showing how manlove is accomplished?

Ridiculous.

Don't you know that any mention of the words gay, homosexual or Harvey Milk will activate liberal subliminal programming which will make our children have homosexual thoughts!

Why didn't I think of the children??

Clearly it's cause your a Godless Gay-Converting Commie-Liberal. *nod*

Maybe it's because of the horribly pixellated picture on the last page...it burnses the eyes.

Good to see you posting again TCT!

TCT: Making NSG slightly less stupid, one well researched and thoroughly sourced post at a time.

Also, Ramona blows. East San Diego county should just merge with San Bernadino county and the sheriffs could harass pot collectives to their hearts content. Seriously, the county sheriffs of SB and SD county COMPLAINED to the CA Sec of State about having to actually obey California law.

Oh, shit. I have a picture of Harvey Milk on a wall in my classroom, next to pictures of other civil rights activists. I wonder how many of my students have caught the gay already?

Why didn't I think of the children??
Surely in the Yay Area they are less uptight than in San Diego?

Surely in the Yay Area they are less uptight than in San Diego?

Depends on what part of San Diego. A good heuristic to use in California is by mean temperature. The hotter the weather, the more gay-haters there are. E.g. San Fran < LA < San Fernando Valley < Bakersfield

Clearly it's cause your a Godless Gay-Converting Commie-Liberal. *nod*

Yes. But I don't advocate communism or the overthrow of the government to my students, because they're six, so I'm not breaking the contract I had to sign saying I... wouldn't do that.

Surely in the Yay Area they are less uptight than in San Diego?

San Diego has some radical parts. But yeah, they mostly are, although I have been taken aback this year by how fiercely Christian many of my students are. They're pretty much all either Christian or Hindu (and one Sikh girl), and the Christians get into arguments about God, like, weekly, while all the Hindu kids are like... yeah, can we learn about subtraction now?

Depends on what part of San Diego. A good heuristic to use in California is by mean temperature. The hotter the weather, the more gay-haters there are. E.g. San Fran < LA < San Fernando Valley < Bakersfield

That's an excellent tool of measurement, at least until you get up to higher counties closer to Oregon... the deer are really conservative in those parts.

Depends on what part of San Diego. A good heuristic to use in California is by mean temperature. The hotter the weather, the more gay-haters there are. E.g. San Fran < LA < San Fernando Valley < Bakersfield

I think a more accurate measure would be how extreme the weather is. Very hot or very cold extremes - more gay-haters.

Did you miss the whole Prop8 debacle where a majority of Californians voted against gay marriage?

Ohio is more gay friendly then Cali.No: Ohio voted for a proposition banning anything "similar" to marriage. Its supreme court did not, however, interpret that vague phrasing in the most extreme possible manner, so we can say that Ohio is more gay friendly than Michigan.

The school was completely right. After all, the issue is "sensitive".

I mean, what would happen if we allowed education to include even the potential for controversial discourse?

Tell me. I mean it. What the soapy ass-crack fucking hell would happen if education could approach "sensitive" subject matter?

The school was completely right. After all, the issue is "sensitive".

I mean, what would happen if we allowed education to include even the potential for controversial discourse?

Tell me. I mean it. What the soapy ass-crack fucking hell would happen if education could approach "sensitive" subject matter?

Well, people might actually become "educated," and we can't have that.

Well, people might actually become "educated," and we can't have that.

We can educate without provoking thought, much like one can farm without turning up soil.

Its like hydroponics. We hang the children from frames and put a network of hoses up their asses, and they'll learn.

By God, they'll learn.

We can educate without provoking thought, much like one can farm without turning up soil.

Its like hydroponics. We hang the children from frames and put a network of hoses up their asses, and they'll learn.

By God, they'll learn.

Makes me think of that scene from Star Trek where all the little Vulcans are in their own little computerized classroom - learning.

Makes me think of that scene from Star Trek where all the little Vulcans are in their own little computerized classroom - learning.

What did you notice the Vulcans NOT doing?

Viewing programs about Sarduk, the gay Vulcan prelate who served as Federation Ambassador to the Betazeds and helped secure voting rights for self-aware farming equipment.

And why? He's gay. Its sensitive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008))

where have you been ?

At home, yourself?

At home, yourself?

out protesting things.

out protesting things.

Wish I had the motivation to.

Wish I had the motivation to.

the trick is to like setting stuff on fire.

I agree with...

...the ACLU on this one.

*waits while people compose themselves*

I think this child was treated unfairly and of her report was a presentation of a person's life then it's no more a topic of human sexuality than it would have been had the report been about Susan B. Anthony.

The school dropped the ball here. Bigtime.

So.... you need a permission slip before discussing anybody who is gay. That's gonna mess with History classes, isn't it?

so.... You need a permission slip before discussing anybody who is gay. That's gonna mess with history classes, isn't it?

Lol!:D

We can educate without provoking thought, much like one can farm without turning up soil.

Its like hydroponics. We hang the children from frames and put a network of hoses up their asses, and they'll learn.

By God, they'll learn.

I'd vote for it.

So.... you need a permission slip before discussing anybody who is gay. That's gonna mess with History classes, isn't it?

Didn't you hear? Too many people in history are gay, so they're dropping it from the curriculum.

I'd hate to be the girl required to give the presentation again. That seems like punishment.

So.... you need a permission slip before discussing anybody who is gay. That's gonna mess with History classes, isn't it?

If we're going to talk about World War One, then Kitchener is henceforth to be considered unmentionable.

Didn't you hear? Too many people in history are gay, so they're dropping it from the curriculum.

What about gay mathematicians?

For now yes. Unfortunatly, many people were stupid and bought into the morman backed lies of forced education of kindergarden through 3 grade. I remember the radio spot myself. The mother was telling her friend about how her first grader came home tellinger her how two men can get married and asked if hey could have children, etc. etc. It ended with "He's only seven!"

He was seven and didn't already have enough understanding about rudimentary biology to understand that human reproduction requires a man and a woman? That's sad.

So.... you need a permission slip before discussing anybody who is gay. That's gonna mess with History classes, isn't it?

Only of you are going to go on the theory that everyone who is still remembered and mentioned in history books is gay.

Of course why their sexuality needs to come up in the first place baffles me.

Only of you are going to go on the theory that everyone who is still remembered and mentioned in history books is gay.


No, not everyone, just anyone.

Of course why their sexuality needs to come up in the first place baffles me.

Don't ask, don't tell - now for history books!

I agree with...

...the ACLU on this one.

*waits while people compose themselves*


You should always be doing that, if you believe in civil rights. The ACLU is not some evil organization. They're defenders of civil rights, and they defend everyone's civil rights, whomever they may happen to be.

No, not everyone, just anyone.

Good point, anyone who was anyone in the past, was gay.

Don't ask, don't tell - now for history books!

So if we are talking about Napoleon's rise to power and the Napoleonic wars why would his sexuality need to come up at all?

If we are talking about Alexander the Great and what he did why would it need to come up at all?

Harvey Milk would be one of the few people from the past where the sexuality of someone would need to come up, and he is one of the few people we can positively say that yes he was gay.

Well she almost got out of doing her homework

Have there been any developments in this case?

Harvey Milk would be one of the few people from the past where the sexuality of someone would need to come up, and he is one of the few people we can positively say that yes he was gay.

Well if you were talking about Alan Turing and the invention of the computer it'd probably come up too - since it's why he died. Similarly, you would be unlikley to talk about Oscar Wilde without it coming up either.

The thing is, although sexuality is rarely important in history (except in cases where they were either imprisoned/prosecuted for it or campaigned around it), relationships between people are and some of these in history were homosexual in nature (even if the cultural understanding of sexuality back then was different). If you are going to be so phobic about homosexuality as to consider a presentation on Harvey Milk to be 'sexual content' then chances are you will have issues when said relationships come up in history.

Good point, anyone who was anyone in the past, was gay.



So if we are talking about Napoleon's rise to power and the Napoleonic wars why would his sexuality need to come up at all?

If we are talking about Alexander the Great and what he did why would it need to come up at all?

Harvey Milk would be one of the few people from the past where the sexuality of someone would need to come up, and he is one of the few people we can positively say that yes he was gay.

Meh! You sorta have a point, but when we are learning history what is as improtant as the the actual historical happenings, is what sort of a person he or she was. It is important to the history buff to get a feel for the human behind the history, sexuality along with a whole host of human concepts helps to flesh out what we know of the charetor of our historical figures.

That schools going to have trouble when the english class starts discussing the Ballad of Reading Gaol.

Meh! You sorta have a point, but when we are learning history what is as improtant as the the actual historical happenings, is what sort of a person he or she was. It is important to the history buff to get a feel for the human behind the history, sexuality along with a whole host of human concepts helps to flesh out what we know of the charetor of our historical figures.

that depends on the level of history.
Dissertations have been written on Alexander the great and the question of if he was gay. But that is PHD level.

I don't know how ready high school level(and lower) history would be for discussing sexuality outside of the civil rights movement.

that depends on the level of history.
Dissertations have been written on Alexander the great and the question of if he was gay. But that is PHD level.

I don't know how ready high school level(and lower) history would be for discussing sexuality outside of the civil rights movement.

Well I'm not talking about history as a lesson, more to do with the history buffs interest. It's really human nature, we all like to hear gossip, we all like to know what Jonny down the road got up to last Saturday night. Our historical figures are bound to come under some scutiny of their personal lives.

Well I'm not talking about history as a lesson, more to do with the history buffs interest. It's really human nature, we all like to hear gossip, we all like to know what Jonny down the road got up to last Saturday night. Our historical figures are bound to come under some scutiny of their personal lives.

That scrutiny is now more tied up on following celebrities, sadly.

That project was written by a 6th grader? Clearly she got help from her parents and should be expelled for cheating!

Then her parents relied too heavily on spell check: "Opinion Poles"?

We can educate without provoking thought, much like one can farm without turning up soil.

Its like hydroponics. We hang the children from frames and put a network of hoses up their asses, and they'll learn.

By God, they'll learn.

In the least gay way, I love you. Aw, hell. I love you in one or two gay ways, too.

Only of you are going to go on the theory that everyone who is still remembered and mentioned in history books is gay.

Of course why their sexuality needs to come up in the first place baffles me.

Tell me -- why do you know the name (if you do) Crispus Attucks?

Because he was black. Of Boston Massacre victims, his is the only name I was ever taught. Why did that matter? Many others died.

Tell me -- why do you know the name (if you do) Crispus Attucks?

Because he was black. Of Boston Massacre victims, his is the only name I was ever taught. Why did that matter? Many others died.

If by many you mean 5 people?

If by many you mean 5 people?

*sigh*

Five is many more than the ONE who's name we were required to know for some reason. Jeez, be a little more fractious, why don't'cha?

That scrutiny is now more tied up on following celebrities, sadly.

Exactly! Human nature.:D

*sigh*

Five is many more than the ONE who's name we were required to know for some reason. Jeez, be a little more fractious, why don't'cha?

I wouldn't use the term many for 5 people.
Then again I wouldn't use the term massacre for 6 deaths either.

Tell me -- why do you know the name (if you do) Crispus Attucks?

Because he was black. Of Boston Massacre victims, his is the only name I was ever taught. Why did that matter? Many others died.
This is an important point, I think.

Like it or not (and I sure don't), Western history is typically regarded as the stories of white heterosexual males. Women, non-whites, and homosexuals are all regarded as "other," and their stories are called Women's History, or Black History, etc etc etc. The fact that white male heterosexuality is considered the default means that anybody who is not a white heterosexual male will be discussed in terms of how they differ from the default.

This is not something we should ignore, because this "othering" is a reflection of the fact that our culture has worked this way for centuries. It's not just history that regards women and blacks and gays as others...their culture did, too. They WERE othered. They lived every day in a culture and a world that treated them as others. Their achievements and their accomplishments and their contributions to history must be viewed in this context.

Crispus Attucks was notable because he was seen as one of the first martyrs for the Revolution...despite the fact that he was *gasp* not-white. It was notable that a not-white person would be martyred for the cause, because not-white people are different from regular people!

Likewise, if a not-hetero person happens to do something noteworthy, the fact that they are not-hetero is often going to be quite relevant even if the act in question wasn't about sexuality itself.

Of course why their sexuality needs to come up in the first place baffles me.
It is especially obnoxious in cases where the people in question weren't gay. Alexander the Great wasn't gay or straight, he was a Macedonian warrior. Being a warrior from that part of the world at that time meant that you got into bed with guys, girls, kids and the more erotic farm animals.
Same thing with Shakespeare and his male lovers. Only they weren't Macedonians. It is ridiculous to apply modern categories to times which they don't apply, sort of like asking if Alexander the Great was a stock broker or not. Did he believe in Jesus? Was he upset by the cancellation of Firefly?

asking if Alexander the Great Was he upset by the cancellation of Firefly?

That was why he sought to take over the world to preserve firefly.

It is especially obnoxious in cases where the people in question weren't gay. Alexander the Great wasn't gay or straight, he was a Macedonian warrior. Being a warrior from that part of the world at that time meant that you got into bed with guys, girls, kids and the more erotic farm animals.
Same thing with Shakespeare and his male lovers. Only they weren't Macedonians. It is ridiculous to apply modern categories to times which they don't apply, sort of like asking if Alexander the Great was a stock broker or not. Did he believe in Jesus? Was he upset by the cancellation of Firefly?

... surly you mean EXOTIC... :D

... surly you mean EXOTIC... :D

You heard what he said.

Well she almost got out of doing her homework

The damn liberal ACLU thwarted her, however.

You heard what he said. man... that brings up a totally different image of Alexander The Great

"Hey Alex... why are you staring at that sheep?"
"I just loooove the way her hindquarters move... the sashaying... WHAT, just because it arouses me, doesn't mean I like that kinda thing!"

:D

Guess the whole 'creating an Empire' thing is just him working out some fustrations... :p

It is especially obnoxious in cases where the people in question weren't gay. Alexander the Great wasn't gay or straight, he was a Macedonian warrior. Being a warrior from that part of the world at that time meant that you got into bed with guys, girls, kids and the more erotic farm animals.
Not necessarily. He is known to have had a male lover to whom he was extremely devoted (drinking himself ill, ultimately to death, after his lover died) but not to have ever slept with any females. He ritually "married" the harem of the Persian king, for political purposes, but apparently never touched any of them. When badgered about who would inherit his kingdom, he said "The strongest". Eventually he did marry the lovely Roxanne, and it is possible he really loved her (she was of a minor nation, of no political importance) and may have slept with her: but we're not sure; Roxanne's claim that her son was Alexander's child was never taken seriously by anyone.

Alexander the Great wasn't gay or straight, he was a Macedonian warrior. Being a warrior from that part of the world at that time meant that you got into bed with guys, girls, kids and the more erotic farm animals.

Actually, while there was less of the modern sense that a man sleeping with men "makes him gay", there was definitely a recognition that some people preferred men (or boys) and some women: for a particularly clear example of this, see Aristophanes's speech in Plato's Symposium, which is not quite Macedonian culture but still an ancient Greek text (and the claim you're making is generally made with respect to the broader ancient world.)

The truly fundamental difference here is (a) there was not a homophobic culture in which (biologically, predominantly) heterosexual men were afraid to indulge in homosexual activity, and (b) there was a social obligation to heterosexual marriage, and no sense, unlike in the modern West, that it was necessarily the primary repository of one's sexual and romantic desires. When social institutions are so arranged, the importance of sexual orientation to one's identity and social status is of a far lesser degree. But that is not the same thing as to say that it is meaningless to speak of such a category.

Same thing with Shakespeare and his male lovers.

On what grounds, exactly? You could perhaps defend your characterization of Alexander by noting the break between inclination and behavior, but Shakespeare is a different case both because his sonnets speak (or are alleged to speak) of romantic attraction and because Christianity had pathologized the behavior to the point that people who indulged in it actually did belong to a particular social group, one that, as today, generally only chose to undergo the substantial social risks of participation because of an abiding desire.

And it's hard to call a figure like James I (to choose a less ambiguous example from the same period) anything but gay.

there was a social obligation to heterosexual marriage, and no sense, unlike in the modern West, that it was necessarily the primary repository of one's sexual and romantic desires.


This is a very important point throughout history. The concept of a marriage for love, at least among the more powerful classes was so rare as to be almost unheard of. Therefore the fact of a figure being married and producing an heir from said marriage is not in any way a true indication of sexuality.

On the other hand, in some cases an individuals sexuality does have little bearing on their impact on history, though if you are studying a person in a biographical context it should certainly come up. In other cases however their sexuality and possible relationships does go some way to explaining events. I'd argue it would be remiss to talk about Edward II for example and the resulting civil war with Queen Isabella, without also talking about the influence of Pier Gaverston on the king, because it does significantly inform why a lot of the issues came about. In contrast, though there may be a not insignificant amount of evidence that James I or Richard I preferred men (or at least had male relationships), this doesn't necessarily add much to the study of their actions/the politics at the time.

What about gay mathematicians?
As long as their theories aren't gay its ok.
It is especially obnoxious in cases where the people in question weren't gay. Alexander the Great wasn't gay or straight, he was a Macedonian warrior. Being a warrior from that part of the world at that time meant that you got into bed with guys, girls, kids and the more erotic farm animals.
Same thing with Shakespeare and his male lovers. Only they weren't Macedonians. It is ridiculous to apply modern categories to times which they don't apply, sort of like asking if Alexander the Great was a stock broker or not. Did he believe in Jesus? Was he upset by the cancellation of Firefly?

I think Alexander the Great would have a lot to say about a black man becoming president.

I wouldn't use the term many for 5 people.
Then again I wouldn't use the term massacre for 6 deaths either.

*facepalm*

Way to completely and deliberately miss the point.

This is an important point, I think.

Like it or not (and I sure don't), Western history is typically regarded as the stories of white heterosexual males. Women, non-whites, and homosexuals are all regarded as "other," and their stories are called Women's History, or Black History, etc etc etc. The fact that white male heterosexuality is considered the default means that anybody who is not a white heterosexual male will be discussed in terms of how they differ from the default.

This is not something we should ignore, because this "othering" is a reflection of the fact that our culture has worked this way for centuries. It's not just history that regards women and blacks and gays as others...their culture did, too. They WERE othered. They lived every day in a culture and a world that treated them as others. Their achievements and their accomplishments and their contributions to history must be viewed in this context.

Crispus Attucks was notable because he was seen as one of the first martyrs for the Revolution...despite the fact that he was *gasp* not-white. It was notable that a not-white person would be martyred for the cause, because not-white people are different from regular people!

Likewise, if a not-hetero person happens to do something noteworthy, the fact that they are not-hetero is often going to be quite relevant even if the act in question wasn't about sexuality itself.

Exactly this.

*facepalm*

Way to completely and deliberately miss the point.



Exactly this.

*gasp* shock horror people are differant!

The thing is, yes these differances do not matter, but it is quite normal to talk about people and how they differ.

There is nowt wrong in describing somebody by how they differ. Gay Garry, Black Pete, White John, they are merely labels, there is no inherent problem in using them.