Originally posted by chegitz guevara
When ALL history IS taught, then you can complain about special catagories of history. I would perfer an integrated history course for all students, but since that isn't happening, this is better than nothing.
When ALL history IS taught, then you can complain about special catagories of history. I would perfer an integrated history course for all students, but since that isn't happening, this is better than nothing.
However, what the heck is the reason why gayness or straightness should be mentioned when mentioning a historical figure? What difference does it make if Lincoln was gay or not? Regardless of where he enjoyed to put his penis, he still is the historical figure of immense significance that we know. Need we also mention his favourite ale, and his favourite colour, so that the community-of-people-who-prefer-purple is satisfied that such a man comes from their ranks?
To me, this "gay history" is as deeply stupid and communitarian as the gay olympics. I'd like the gyas to be treated as mainstream, ordinary people, who just happen to prefer the same sex, like some people just happen to prefer purple. Gayness should be no big ****ing deal.
By making things such as "gay history", their proponents contribute to make gayness into a big ****ing deal. If them guys want to derive so much identity from something as mundane as sexual orientation, they shouldn't be surprised that so many heteroes treat them as strangers, as freaks
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c76d4/c76d4c89c3fdf64b8d03a11101fa1172de301d2a" alt="thumbs-down"
Comment