Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
History: Not About What They Did, But Who
When your kids learn about George Washington at school, what facts might be of importance? It would be good to know that he was Commander of the Continental Army. That he was our first President. The fact that he was a slave owner would also be a pertinent piece of information. How much time would you want teachers to spend telling your children about George Washington’s sex life?
While you might expect stoic people like George and Martha to stick to the missionary position, we have determined that to spice things up George liked to . . .
No. I do not think someone’s sex life is relevant to their historical achievements. Well, the Governor of New Jersey disagrees with me and has signed into law mandatory LGBT (insert addition initials as needed) history to be taught in all public middle and high schools in the state.
School boards are trying to figure out how to accommodate this new requirement and a school board trustee in Hackensack, Frances Cogelja, commented in an email, “I find it repugnant that someone’s sexual preferences have anything to do with their contributions or achievements in society.” Her point was if something is historically significant then it should be taught regardless of the person’s sexuality and, if it is not historically significant then we shouldn’t waste time on it because of sexuality.
With the LGBTQ community representing the states largest bullying group, you can imagine the uproar this comment caused. NJ’s two senators, Menendez and Booker, came out against this school board trustee and others like the group Garden State Equality have called for resignation (makes you wonder why we still have local school boards rather than just one Federal overseer, but I digress).
Years ago people pushed for more Black History to be taught because some important African-Americans were left out of the old history books. But is that true today of the LGBT community? Education is one of the most left-leaning fields and I think it would be hard to claim that current history books are not gay enough.
So what will LGBTQ history classes be? There are three different categories I would expect to see:
1.) People who have made significant contributions to society and are already being taught about in schools today. Like my George Washington example above, they will continue to teach about what the person did, then add factual information about their sex live.
2.) People who did not do anything historically significant, but were gay. Each year thousands of Americans are elected to city and state government offices. Not a big deal. Now we will hear, “Yeah, but this guy is outwardly gay.” Still not a big deal. We are forced to pretend that someone doing something ordinary is extraordinary because of their sex life. Harvey Milk is “important”, why? Because of his desire for teenage boys? Because he ran cover for Jim Jones’ cult? No, because he was gay.
3.) The last category is the most disturbing. This is where historically significant individuals will magically become gay with little or no evidence. Speculation will be enough. James Buchanan was never married, so he is gay. There is no historical evidence to suggest he was gay, or straight for that matter, but . . . Considering his record as president, I doubt either gays or straights are going out of their way to claim him. Lincoln succeeded Buchanan as president and, although he had a wife, he was once so poor he had to share a bed with a male roommate. Does that mean he had sex with the guy? No, but people who are into that type of thing will indeed create their own fantasies and teach them to school kids.
In short, teaching history based on feelings over facts really is repugnant. I guess I should resign . . . except I don’t really do anything to resign from.
Published in General
No? I don’t know about his freestyle abilities, but it’s been well established that he was a dazzling dancer
Let’s just say the people singing his praises would be very surprised with Hamilton’s idea of how to organize and govern a nation.
He’s more of a rappin’ Hamilton. Rappin’ Hamilton is of course an oversimplification but he isn’t an inaccurate simplification from what I’ve heard about the man.
I can’t even read the post reasonably carefully because that photo is such an insult that it would take every ounce of self control for me to not rip it to shreds were I to see it in person.
Can you describe a citizen of the United Kingdom who moves from one British colony to another as an immigrant? When I moved from New York to Texas, I suppose I was literally immigrating, but I thought I was moving.
This may be true, but there is more to freedom than economic freedom and pursuit of economic freedom has either been an inch to the progressive mile or it naturally follows that other freedoms are sacrificed in its unadulterated pursuit.
Consider that giving gays full economic freedom in buying wedding cakes from anyone they want gets gays what they want and the cake bakers more money. If economic freedom is the most important, than why not force it?
I have had this argument with lots of people. I don’t think Hamilton was an immigrant. But then I don’t think people coming from Puerto Rico are immigrants. They have American passports. They are Americans. Isn’t it kinda offensive to say they are like people coming from Honduras? I know that Lin Manuel Miranda, whose play I love, love, love, sees himself as an immigrant, but I don’t think it’s technically an accurate description.
Also, there is a line in the play that gets great whoops every time it’s said apparently, as it has the three times I’ve seen the show.
Hamilton and the Marquis de Lafayette meet at Yorktown and say, “Immigrants. We get the job done.”
Well…. Argue about Hamilton if you’d like, but the French dude was definitely not an immigrant. That’s like saying American soldiers fighting in Europe during WWII were immigrants in Italy! It’s ridiculous.
The great thing about that show though?
It gets people Hamilton curious, and they learn some history. Also, it’s a love song to the United States. I don’t care that someone had to make George Washington black for progressives to see his greatness. They see his greatness. He is a hero in the play. Heck. Even Thomas Jefferson comes out wiley, smart, and interesting. People clap for him, TOO, when he first arrives for France in his flamboyant suit.
How wonderful.
Oh. And I think it’s extremely secondary to anything that matters, but I do think there is some credible analysis about James Buchanan having been gay. This is one reason why he was sympathetic to the South. The story goes that he may have been in love with a Southerner, William Rufus King. People who knew them in the 1800s called them “Miss Nancy” and “Aunt Fancy” for some odd reason.
Granted, some historians have made the case that Lincoln was gay because he shared a bed with men, a suuuuupppper common practice because there weren’t always enough beds in the 1800s, so one would have to decide if the evidence for James is persuasive.
Again, he’s like… the worst president in US History, but I think the LGBT community can make a reasonable claim to him if they want to stress his sexuality as the thing that mattered.
Without denying the need for religious freedom, I would assert that choosing whom to do business with is a key feature of economic freedom.
C’mon now. I have been assured by a nouveau riche millionaire that at some point you have enough money.