LGBT history taught in school...

Former Member

Read and discuss.

Should lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender history be a part of the syllabus in schools?

Former Member

Why? Is it different to straight history?

Former Member

-[MoonRat]- wrote:

Read and discuss.

BNP bollocks.

Next question.

Former Member

I don't think it should be forced upon pupils as vital education, however I think the subject should simply be touched upon to make children aware that it does happen and that maybe, just maybe there's little wrong with it at all.

Former Member

Its on the BNP site so can safely be dismissed as shite.

Former Member

It shouldn't be excluded, nor should it be a curriculum area in its own right - that said, I did think it was kinda cool that schools marked LGBT history month in Feb by studying LGBT history specifically, but I see that as a means to an integrated end.

Former Member

No problem it being a part everyday history, loads of famous historical people were gay or lesbian (i think transexuals are pretty recent ) but a month of focused history into it seems over the top, especially with the demanding syllabusses set by the education authority now.

Former Member

As blagsta says, it's on the BNP site. That says it all, really.

Former Member

Oi!

I said it first :mad:

Former Member

They shouldn't teach any "history".

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

Its on the BNP site so can safely be dismissed as shite.

Never asked whether you thought the article was valid or not...

Do you think it should be a part of the syllabus in schools?

If so why?

If not, why?

Former Member

klintock wrote:

They shouldn't teach any "history".

Why not?

Former Member

Because -

1) It's usually bollocks. Specifically, bollocks that runs toward where we are now as though the current state of affairs is inevitable. Looking back even on your own life history it's obvious that "history" "events" are as much a product of chance as of design. If your Mum hadn't met your Dad at that exact moment yadda yadda.

2) All words are lies. You do not mean the same thing as I do when you use words. I say "rock" and am thinking of Ayers rock in Australia. What are the odds that you are thinking the same thing? Fuck all - that's what. Now extend this over centuries. Did Gibbon mean the same thing by "Roman" as you do? Or table? No. Did he fuck. So stop pretending you can learn anything useful from him.

3) History traps the present. In 1966 the "english" football team beat "the german" football team to win the "world cup". Do that team have any connection to the current football team? Don't be daft of course not. They share the same name and that's about it. It's false continuity and traps the present in a myth from the past.

4) Most kids can't pass the fucking exams. Why waste time teaching "history" to someone who can't add or subtract? Get them doing something useful for themsleves instead.

5) And specifially to this thread. No one is "gay" or "straight" or whatever. Defining your whole life by something you do every so often seems to be a waste of that life to me and a pointless limitation on it. Meh. Whatever.


.

Former Member

if words dont mean a thng then we can never understand you klintock, so go away

Former Member

klintock wrote:

Because -

1) It's usually bollocks. Specifically, bollocks that runs toward where we are now as though the current state of affairs is inevitable. Looking back even on your own life history it's obvious that "history" "events" are as much a product of chance as of design. If your Mum hadn't met your Dad at that exact moment yadda yadda.[/b]

So it's not important to look back at our mistakes and learn from them?

2) All words are lies. You do not mean the same thing as I do when you use words. I say "rock" and am thinking of Ayers rock in Australia. What are the odds that you are thinking the same thing? Fuck all - that's what. Now extend this over centuries. Did Gibbon mean the same thing by "Roman" as you do? Or table? No. Did he fuck. So stop pretending you can learn anything useful from him.

Words are a method of communication... By denying words we are degrading ourselves back to grunting cavemen aren't we? The term 'Roman' refers to a civilisation that existed in a certain place at a certain time. if you don't believe in say... Written word then what about archaological eveidence?

3) History traps the present. In 1966 the "english" football team beat "the german" football team to win the "world cup". Do that team have any connection to the current football team? Don't be daft of course not. They share the same name and that's about it. It's false continuity and traps the present in a myth from the past.

Explain... And why is this a negative thing?

4) Most kids can't pass the fucking exams. Why waste time teaching "history" to someone who can't add or subtract? Get them doing something useful for themsleves instead.

Reading encourages literacy, for starters...

5) And specifially to this thread. No one is "gay" or "straight" or whatever. Defining your whole life by something you do every so often seems to be a waste of that life to me and a pointless limitation on it. Meh. Whatever.

So you don't believe people live gay lifestyles?

Former Member

-[MoonRat]- wrote:

Never asked whether you thought the article was valid or not...

Do you think it should be a part of the syllabus in schools?

If so why?

If not, why?

Find a story about it not on the BNP site and I might discuss it.

Former Member

klintock wrote:

Because -

1) It's usually bollocks. Specifically, bollocks that runs toward where we are now as though the current state of affairs is inevitable. Looking back even on your own life history it's obvious that "history" "events" are as much a product of chance as of design. If your Mum hadn't met your Dad at that exact moment yadda yadda.

2) All words are lies. You do not mean the same thing as I do when you use words. I say "rock" and am thinking of Ayers rock in Australia. What are the odds that you are thinking the same thing? Fuck all - that's what. Now extend this over centuries. Did Gibbon mean the same thing by "Roman" as you do? Or table? No. Did he fuck. So stop pretending you can learn anything useful from him.

3) History traps the present. In 1966 the "english" football team beat "the german" football team to win the "world cup". Do that team have any connection to the current football team? Don't be daft of course not. They share the same name and that's about it. It's false continuity and traps the present in a myth from the past.

4) Most kids can't pass the fucking exams. Why waste time teaching "history" to someone who can't add or subtract? Get them doing something useful for themsleves instead.

5) And specifially to this thread. No one is "gay" or "straight" or whatever. Defining your whole life by something you do every so often seems to be a waste of that life to me and a pointless limitation on it. Meh. Whatever.


.

You really are an idiot.

Former Member

klintock wrote:

Because -

1) It's usually bollocks. Specifically, bollocks that runs toward where we are now as though the current state of affairs is inevitable. Looking back even on your own life history it's obvious that "history" "events" are as much a product of chance as of design. If your Mum hadn't met your Dad at that exact moment yadda yadda.

2) All words are lies. You do not mean the same thing as I do when you use words. I say "rock" and am thinking of Ayers rock in Australia. What are the odds that you are thinking the same thing? Fuck all - that's what. Now extend this over centuries. Did Gibbon mean the same thing by "Roman" as you do? Or table? No. Did he fuck. So stop pretending you can learn anything useful from him.

3) History traps the present. In 1966 the "english" football team beat "the german" football team to win the "world cup". Do that team have any connection to the current football team? Don't be daft of course not. They share the same name and that's about it. It's false continuity and traps the present in a myth from the past.

4) Most kids can't pass the fucking exams. Why waste time teaching "history" to someone who can't add or subtract? Get them doing something useful for themsleves instead.

5) And specifially to this thread. No one is "gay" or "straight" or whatever. Defining your whole life by something you do every so often seems to be a waste of that life to me and a pointless limitation on it. Meh. Whatever.


.

'Fraid I agree with blagsta. The above is utter bollocks, although as a historian I suppose I should own up to a wee bit of bias there...

The 'succession of chances' interpretation of history went out of the window two centuries ago; all words are not lies; I have no idea what you even mean by 'trapping the present;' history is a useful subject to teach kids because (if taught well, which sadly it usually isn't) it develops analytical skills and critical thinking. Can't be arsed to address point 5: we've been over all this within the last week.

Former Member

klintock wrote:

Because -

1) It's usually bollocks. Specifically, bollocks that runs toward where we are now as though the current state of affairs is inevitable. Looking back even on your own life history it's obvious that "history" "events" are as much a product of chance as of design. If your Mum hadn't met your Dad at that exact moment yadda yadda.

2) All words are lies. You do not mean the same thing as I do when you use words. I say "rock" and am thinking of Ayers rock in Australia. What are the odds that you are thinking the same thing? Fuck all - that's what. Now extend this over centuries. Did Gibbon mean the same thing by "Roman" as you do? Or table? No. Did he fuck. So stop pretending you can learn anything useful from him.

3) History traps the present. In 1966 the "english" football team beat "the german" football team to win the "world cup". Do that team have any connection to the current football team? Don't be daft of course not. They share the same name and that's about it. It's false continuity and traps the present in a myth from the past.

4) Most kids can't pass the fucking exams. Why waste time teaching "history" to someone who can't add or subtract? Get them doing something useful for themsleves instead.

5) And specifially to this thread. No one is "gay" or "straight" or whatever. Defining your whole life by something you do every so often seems to be a waste of that life to me and a pointless limitation on it. Meh. Whatever.


.

:no:

Former Member

Klintock; you really are very dull.


Anyway, onto the topic, I cant really see any reason to include it in History lessons as a specific topic, though attitudes to sexuality through the ages might be an interesting one.

Sexuality differences should however be included into the PSHE lessons.

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

Find a story about it not on the BNP site and I might discuss it.

Ah well, never mind. Maybe somebody who can write more than two sentences per post, or who can post something that's not irrelevent and insulting can answer then.:p

I'm all for having a lesson or two on it to show the kids that homosexuality is not a new phenomenom (look at practices in Sparta), not that it's incredibly important to kids to know the sexuality of the individual over the actions they performed. However, is black history any more important than LGBT history?

Former Member

black history any more important than LGBT history

No. Of course not. The huge problem with doing that kind of thing, no matter how well intentioned is that it promotes the difference it intends to destroy.

By teaching "gay" history as a seperate thing from "straight" history, you continue the idea that there is somehow still an important difference between people because of their "sexuality".

No doubt I have a post coming that says "there is a difference" but there really isn't if it wasn't made up in the first place.

Former Member

-[MoonRat]- wrote:

Ah well, never mind. Maybe somebody who can write more than two sentences per post, or who can post something that's not irrelevent and insulting can answer then.:p

Maybe you'd like to actually read some of my posts before slagging them off?

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

Maybe you'd like to actually read some of my posts before slagging them off?

Maybe you'd like to get to the point of the thread instead of slagging off the source? Reguardless of where it has come from, the question was asked in the first thread, but it's no loss if you don't wish to answer... Your descision.

Former Member

If you find a reputable source then its worth discussing. Otherwise its a waste of time discussing BNP propaganda. The source of info does have a bearing on its worth y'know.

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

If you find a reputable source then its worth discussing. Otherwise its a waste of time discussing BNP propaganda. The source of info does have a bearing on its worth y'know.

So you can't find any arguements in your own head about whether you think it should be taught in schools? No statistics you could pull out? No examples?

Former Member

As I already said

Blagsta wrote:

If you find a reputable source then its worth discussing. Otherwise its a waste of time discussing BNP propaganda. The source of info does have a bearing on its worth y'know.

Former Member

From completely the opposite side of the fence this .

Former Member

Think you can write something now you have a source to compare it with?

Former Member

I think it is probably a good idea to show that there have been prominent homosexuals throughout history, yes. Showing that homosexuality is normal and OK can only be a good thing IMO.

Former Member