It is important, as individuals, we recognize that biases and prejudices are a normal facet of being human. Through thousands of years, our tendency to catagorize and stereotype like things has helped us to find beneficial opportunities and avoid danger or trouble. It has helped us to survive.
Carried to the extreme, this natural tendency to categorize and stereotype becomes destructive. It allows us to justify slavery, segregation, wars, riots, marginalization of various groups of people, and violence against individual people belonging to the group of "them."
There's a fine line between bias and prejudism. There's a fine line between prejudism and bigotry. And there's a fine line between bigotry and a racism/homophobia.
As individuals, no matter how open-minded we may believe we are, we need to be truthful with ourselves and accept that we all carry our biases and prejudices inside us. Once we accept that, then we have to recognize when our prejudices are coloring our thinking and what we are saying.
At this point one might be thinking, "This guy is full of it." Let's take a simple example to illustrate what I have just stated.
An avid gardener takes a road trip every weekend looking for plants to add to his garden. Since he knows the habitat where the plants normally grow, he knows what he is looking for. As he winds down back country roads, he passes many side roads. Some he takes, some he passes up. Initially, how he makes these decisions is purely random. A road is a road to him and all are equal. He exhibits no bias.
After a couple of weekends of searching for plants and finding some really cool ones, on his next trip he starts consciously making a decision of which roads to turn on and which ones to pass up. Specifically, he has learned from his past trips that winding roads, roads with cool sounding names like Snake Creek Road and roads that slope slightly downward through a forest of thick trees hold the most promise to finding really unique plants. If the road holds all three qualities, he knows he will almost definitely find something really cool. As he drives through the country, he specifically looks for these roads. He is now showing his bias by ignoring roads that don't have at least one of the three characteristics he's looking for. When he tells his gardening friends, "If you want to find really cool plants, you might have better luck finding them if you go down winding roads or roads with cool names or roads that slope downward into a forest," he is expressing his bias.
His bias moves towards prejudism when he exclusively searches for the roads with at least one of those characteristics and almost always turns down any other road. When he tells his gardening friends, "If you want to find really cool plants, you're best bet is to find roads that are winding or have really cool names or slope downward into a forest. If you find a road with all three characteristics, you'll surely find the plants you want," he is expressing his prejudism. The switch is subtle, but now he promotes roads having at least one of the three characteristics to the exclusion of any other road and even implies that any other road just isn't good enough.
His prejudism moves towards bigotry when he turns down a road that doesn't have any of those characteristics despite being told that the road might have what he is looking for. When he tells his friends, "Oh no. That road isn't a winding road, has a plain name, and doesn't slope downward into a forest so the plant I want can't be down there," he is expressing his bigotry.
His bigotry moves towards racism/homophobia when he seeks out roads with all three characteristics, settles on roads with at least two of the characteristics, begrudgingly accepts roads with one characteristic without holding high hopes for it, and refuses to go down any other road. When he tells friends, "If the road is winding, has a cool name, and slopes downwards through a forest, those are the best roads to find cool plants. A road with two of those characteristics ain't bad, and if it only has one, you'll most likely be wasting your time. Forget about going down any other road. You'll only find trash plants on them," he is expressing his racism/homophobia.
Notice how there is a kernel of truth to his assumptions about the roads where he thinks he will most likely find some cool plants. Winding roads are usually less travelled because they take longer to get through than straight roads. A lot of times, the cool sounding names imply something about the characteristic of the road. Snake Creek Road, for example, might have been named after the winding creek the road parallels. Cool plants can be found along creeks. Roads sloping down through a forest implies two things: first, the area might not be developed and the downward slopes implies a possible creek, stream, or fertile valley where cool plants love to grow.
Notice, though, that as he moves from bias to racism/homophobia, he moves away from the assumptions above, and begins judging good roads from bad roads based on those assumptions and the assumptions, themselves, move from assumptions to facts.
If one were to point out to him that he can't judge the likilihood of finding cool plants based on the appearance of the first couple of hundred yards of the road because any or all of those characteristics can change a mile or two down the road, his response would be a good clue as to how much faith you should put in his advice.
If he responds, "True, but there's only so many hours of daylight and you want to increase your chances of finding cool plants, try to pick the roads with any of those characteristics," you can probably believe him because he appears to have used reason and logic to come to his conclusion.
If he responds, "True, but a lot of times you'll come up empty-handed whereas if you stayed on the road you were on, a couple of miles down might have been the better road to choose," you can still probably believe him because he is still using reason and logic. Notice, however, the subtle switch in his judgment. I biased person will agree with you about judging the road prematurely, but just wants to increaase his odds, the prejudiced person slips in the nuance that roads that hold none of the three characteristics are a waste of time. It's subtle, but it's there.
If he responds, "True, but most of the times those other roads will get you nothing so why waste your time?", you probably should start questioning his judgment. Unlike the prejudiced person, the bigot is now making a firm, negative judgment on roads that don't possess certain characteristics.
If he responds, "True. I know a road that didn't appear to have any of those characteristics and it turned out that a few miles down, I found a perfect spot with a lot of cool plants. Most roads, though, if they don't have all three characteristics, or at least two of them, are roads that the state may as well as build malls on because you ain't going to find any decent plants on them," you probably already know who you are dealing with and will ignore anything he has to say. He's made it clear there are good roads and bad roads all based on three characteristics.
No matter what topic one is talking about, the critical thinker will pick up on the clues to help him determine just how much faith he should put into what one is saying. And, being honest with ourselves and accepting that we, too, hold the same biases and prejudices as anyone else, we can carefully choose our words and organize our thoughts so as not to be incorrectly judged as a bigot or racist/homophobic.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Repeat Play of 2004?
Flashback, election year 2004: stalemate in Iraq with hundreds upon hundreds of American deaths, no measurable success in the War on Terror, thousands upon thousands of jobs outsourced to India and other developing countries, social security being held together with duct tape, and an overall gloomy outlook by the average American.
Despite the real problems facing the nation, Massachusetts stood on the verge of legalizing same sex marriage. The republicans, seizing the opportunity to divert attention from their failures, mobilized the far right and fundamentalist. Election year 2004 will go down in history as the gay bashing year. The only real problem facing America in 2004 was the homosexuals wanted to marry. The public gay bashing blamed homosexuals for everything from destroying the American family to soiling the great institution of marriage to unraveling the very fabric that holds our Great Nation together.
The fear that allowing homosexuals to marry would mean Mom, baseball, and apple pie would be replaced with two mommies, gay pride parades, and lattes topped with whipped cream and a cherry on top mobilized the far right. The world was fine, but the homosexuals were coming! Sixteen states adopted anti-gay marriage amendments to their constitutions. Republicans playing on the homosexual fear retained majority control. President Bush may have even been helped at the polls by the gay bashing frenzy.
Fast forward to election year 2006 and beyond: stalemate in Iraq with thousands upon thousands of American deaths, no measurable success in the War on Terror, America becomes the largest exporter of jobs, social security is held together with band aids since duct tape is too expensive, energy prices soar higher than a bald eagle can fly, and the average American’s outlook has sunk from gloomy to pessimistic doom.
The average American wants change. Here’s what he’ll get: heavy hitting gay bashing.
The stage is already set. Fundamentalists in Massachusetts have scrapped the referendum that would have nullified same sex marriage - but granted civil unions to homosexuals - in favor of a referendum that would ban any legislation that potentially treated same sex couples as a married couple. That means no marriage, no civil unions, and no domestic partnership benefits. Six other states will decide whether or not to add a ban on same sex marriage to their constitutions and sixteen states will decide if same sex couples should be allowed to act as foster parents or adopt children. And next month, the Senate is expected to vote, again, on adding an amendment to the Constitution banning same sex marriage.
As election time nears - and beyond - expect the gay bashing to take center stage in a repeat play of election year 2004.
Republican candidates will take a firm stand on the side of the traditional family. They’ll kow-tow their way around the issues of civil unions, foster parents, and adoptions by same sex couples without ever giving a firm stand for or against. Only in states overwhelmingly homophobic will they dare to openly join the gay bashers, like Georgia. Voters in Georgia overwhelmingly passed a ban on same sex marriage by a margin of 76%, but a lower court ruled the proposed amendment unconstitutional on technical grounds. The State Supreme Court has put a rush on hearing the case to clear the way for a new referendum. With such overwhelming support for a ban, you can bet Republican candidates from that state will have no problem jumping on the gay bashing bandwagon.
Democrats, feeling the sting from the 2004 election, will be more discreet in handling the same sex issues. In more liberal states, like Vermont, which already has civil unions, they’ll most likely agree to civil unions, but stand firm against marriage. In more conservative states, they’ll quietly cheer the gay bashing bandwagon. In Georgia, for example, the Republican governor, Sonny Perdue, quickly announced he would have a new, more constitutionally sound referendum to ban same sex marriage before the voters in November. His two Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox rushed to support the Governor’s move.
Don’t be swayed by the gay bashing sideshow. It’s a ploy to distract the average voter from the real failures of our incumbents and the real problems facing our country. Tune out the candidates on the homophobic bandwagon and the candidates cheering the bandwagon on. Perk your ears up to the candidates who distance themselves from the sideshow by downplaying the significance of same sex issues and, instead, try to address the genuine problems the average American faces. Really perk your ears up to the candidate who dares to jump in front of the bandwagon and declare the rhetoric for what it is: an attempt to enshrine bigotry in our laws, state constitutions, and US Constitution. That candidate may be the closest thing to an honest politician we could ask for.
On the other hand, we could let the rhetoric blind us and have a repeat of 2004 in November 2006 and 2008. The losers, of course, will be homosexuals who will once again be relegated to the margins of our society and denied basic rights most everyone else takes for granted. The real losers, however, will be the average American who will be stuck with homophobic conservatives and wishy-washy liberals who are keen on public opinion, but empty on solutions to the real issues.
If you're gay in America, it'll be a rough two and a half years ahead.
Despite the real problems facing the nation, Massachusetts stood on the verge of legalizing same sex marriage. The republicans, seizing the opportunity to divert attention from their failures, mobilized the far right and fundamentalist. Election year 2004 will go down in history as the gay bashing year. The only real problem facing America in 2004 was the homosexuals wanted to marry. The public gay bashing blamed homosexuals for everything from destroying the American family to soiling the great institution of marriage to unraveling the very fabric that holds our Great Nation together.
The fear that allowing homosexuals to marry would mean Mom, baseball, and apple pie would be replaced with two mommies, gay pride parades, and lattes topped with whipped cream and a cherry on top mobilized the far right. The world was fine, but the homosexuals were coming! Sixteen states adopted anti-gay marriage amendments to their constitutions. Republicans playing on the homosexual fear retained majority control. President Bush may have even been helped at the polls by the gay bashing frenzy.
Fast forward to election year 2006 and beyond: stalemate in Iraq with thousands upon thousands of American deaths, no measurable success in the War on Terror, America becomes the largest exporter of jobs, social security is held together with band aids since duct tape is too expensive, energy prices soar higher than a bald eagle can fly, and the average American’s outlook has sunk from gloomy to pessimistic doom.
The average American wants change. Here’s what he’ll get: heavy hitting gay bashing.
The stage is already set. Fundamentalists in Massachusetts have scrapped the referendum that would have nullified same sex marriage - but granted civil unions to homosexuals - in favor of a referendum that would ban any legislation that potentially treated same sex couples as a married couple. That means no marriage, no civil unions, and no domestic partnership benefits. Six other states will decide whether or not to add a ban on same sex marriage to their constitutions and sixteen states will decide if same sex couples should be allowed to act as foster parents or adopt children. And next month, the Senate is expected to vote, again, on adding an amendment to the Constitution banning same sex marriage.
As election time nears - and beyond - expect the gay bashing to take center stage in a repeat play of election year 2004.
Republican candidates will take a firm stand on the side of the traditional family. They’ll kow-tow their way around the issues of civil unions, foster parents, and adoptions by same sex couples without ever giving a firm stand for or against. Only in states overwhelmingly homophobic will they dare to openly join the gay bashers, like Georgia. Voters in Georgia overwhelmingly passed a ban on same sex marriage by a margin of 76%, but a lower court ruled the proposed amendment unconstitutional on technical grounds. The State Supreme Court has put a rush on hearing the case to clear the way for a new referendum. With such overwhelming support for a ban, you can bet Republican candidates from that state will have no problem jumping on the gay bashing bandwagon.
Democrats, feeling the sting from the 2004 election, will be more discreet in handling the same sex issues. In more liberal states, like Vermont, which already has civil unions, they’ll most likely agree to civil unions, but stand firm against marriage. In more conservative states, they’ll quietly cheer the gay bashing bandwagon. In Georgia, for example, the Republican governor, Sonny Perdue, quickly announced he would have a new, more constitutionally sound referendum to ban same sex marriage before the voters in November. His two Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox rushed to support the Governor’s move.
Don’t be swayed by the gay bashing sideshow. It’s a ploy to distract the average voter from the real failures of our incumbents and the real problems facing our country. Tune out the candidates on the homophobic bandwagon and the candidates cheering the bandwagon on. Perk your ears up to the candidates who distance themselves from the sideshow by downplaying the significance of same sex issues and, instead, try to address the genuine problems the average American faces. Really perk your ears up to the candidate who dares to jump in front of the bandwagon and declare the rhetoric for what it is: an attempt to enshrine bigotry in our laws, state constitutions, and US Constitution. That candidate may be the closest thing to an honest politician we could ask for.
On the other hand, we could let the rhetoric blind us and have a repeat of 2004 in November 2006 and 2008. The losers, of course, will be homosexuals who will once again be relegated to the margins of our society and denied basic rights most everyone else takes for granted. The real losers, however, will be the average American who will be stuck with homophobic conservatives and wishy-washy liberals who are keen on public opinion, but empty on solutions to the real issues.
If you're gay in America, it'll be a rough two and a half years ahead.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Hypocrits Exposed
Wow! Two in one week. And this one's related to the last one! Sometimes, the far right just makes it too easy....
For those of you who may be new to this blog, I am referring to Mark Hyman, general manager of Sinclair Broadcasting, home station of Fox News. I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point.)
This time around, he decided to tackle a University's outcry over the librarian's desire to make the homophobic book, The Marketing of Evil, mandatory reading for all incoming freshman.
He certainly doesn't want California adding sexual orientation of historical figures to its textbooks, but has no qualms about stating the sexual orientation of newsmakers in his editorials if it casts them as raving lunatics - or at least unreasonable.
Mark Hyman wrote:
Faculty members at the Ohio State University at Mansfield voted 21-0 to condemn librarian Scott Savage. Professors threatened, attacked and called him names in emails. A pair of openly homosexual professors filed a sexual harassment complaint against Savage alleging fear and unease about being gay while Savage was still on campus. The school began an investigation.
Did Savage touch someone inappropriately? Did he use foul or degrading language? What was his unspeakable offense? Scott Savage submitted the titles of four books for possible inclusion in the school's freshmen reading list. That's it.
One book uncovered intellectual frauds such as Alfred Kinsey, an entomologist that is someone who studies insects who called himself a "sex researcher," and who used convicted sex felons and pedophiles in his studies.
After intense public pressure and a threatened lawsuit, the school dismissed the sexual harassment complaint. However, the problem still exists. A neo-fascist attitude exists among several of the faculty at OSU Mansfield. Tolerance and diversity are simply disingenuous slogans used by academics who are neither tolerant nor accept diverse ideas.
The question now is whether the school will sanction those professors who engaged in witch hunt tactics against Scott Savage.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
Two days ago, you objected to California including the sexual orientation of historical figures in its text books. Today, your editorial explicitly states the sexual orientation of two professors. I wonder what the difference is. Maybe the answer lay hidden in your editorial.
A devout Christian librarian wanted a book, The Marketing of Evil, to be required reading for all freshman. Note the key word required - not suggested. The book is the conservative Christian right’s homophobic explanation of the gay agenda, a make believe agenda.
The first clue of homophobia is its desire to rely on, and greatly exaggerate, rumors about Kinsey’s sex life and mental state. Gay hate groups such as Concerned Women of America and the American Family Association give it rave reviews. Kinsey is the archenemy of the far right because his research led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness.
The second clue is "World Net Daily" published the book. For the critical thinkers in your audience, "World Net Daily" is better known as "World Nut Daily". Enough said.
Now we have our answer why text books shouldn’t mention the sexual orientation of historical figures, but mentioning sexual orientation in editorials and the news is perfectly acceptable. If mentioning the sexual orientation casts homosexuals as raving lunatics, or in even the slightest negative light, tell everyone; otherwise, don’t mention it because everyone might start thinking homosexuals are normal.
That’s why the news will report stories about pedophiles and gay pedophiles as if there’s a difference. Critical thinkers in your audience don’t miss that one, either. I hope your reporters rely on more reputable sources for their stories than the crap…ooops… "questionable" sources you base your editorials on.
For those of you who may be new to this blog, I am referring to Mark Hyman, general manager of Sinclair Broadcasting, home station of Fox News. I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point.)
This time around, he decided to tackle a University's outcry over the librarian's desire to make the homophobic book, The Marketing of Evil, mandatory reading for all incoming freshman.
He certainly doesn't want California adding sexual orientation of historical figures to its textbooks, but has no qualms about stating the sexual orientation of newsmakers in his editorials if it casts them as raving lunatics - or at least unreasonable.
Mark Hyman wrote:
Faculty members at the Ohio State University at Mansfield voted 21-0 to condemn librarian Scott Savage. Professors threatened, attacked and called him names in emails. A pair of openly homosexual professors filed a sexual harassment complaint against Savage alleging fear and unease about being gay while Savage was still on campus. The school began an investigation.
Did Savage touch someone inappropriately? Did he use foul or degrading language? What was his unspeakable offense? Scott Savage submitted the titles of four books for possible inclusion in the school's freshmen reading list. That's it.
One book uncovered intellectual frauds such as Alfred Kinsey, an entomologist that is someone who studies insects who called himself a "sex researcher," and who used convicted sex felons and pedophiles in his studies.
After intense public pressure and a threatened lawsuit, the school dismissed the sexual harassment complaint. However, the problem still exists. A neo-fascist attitude exists among several of the faculty at OSU Mansfield. Tolerance and diversity are simply disingenuous slogans used by academics who are neither tolerant nor accept diverse ideas.
The question now is whether the school will sanction those professors who engaged in witch hunt tactics against Scott Savage.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
Two days ago, you objected to California including the sexual orientation of historical figures in its text books. Today, your editorial explicitly states the sexual orientation of two professors. I wonder what the difference is. Maybe the answer lay hidden in your editorial.
A devout Christian librarian wanted a book, The Marketing of Evil, to be required reading for all freshman. Note the key word required - not suggested. The book is the conservative Christian right’s homophobic explanation of the gay agenda, a make believe agenda.
The first clue of homophobia is its desire to rely on, and greatly exaggerate, rumors about Kinsey’s sex life and mental state. Gay hate groups such as Concerned Women of America and the American Family Association give it rave reviews. Kinsey is the archenemy of the far right because his research led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness.
The second clue is "World Net Daily" published the book. For the critical thinkers in your audience, "World Net Daily" is better known as "World Nut Daily". Enough said.
Now we have our answer why text books shouldn’t mention the sexual orientation of historical figures, but mentioning sexual orientation in editorials and the news is perfectly acceptable. If mentioning the sexual orientation casts homosexuals as raving lunatics, or in even the slightest negative light, tell everyone; otherwise, don’t mention it because everyone might start thinking homosexuals are normal.
That’s why the news will report stories about pedophiles and gay pedophiles as if there’s a difference. Critical thinkers in your audience don’t miss that one, either. I hope your reporters rely on more reputable sources for their stories than the crap…ooops… "questionable" sources you base your editorials on.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
It's Not About Sex, Dummy
I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point)
Sometimes, he just makes it too easy. His recent Point: gripes about California proposing to include gays and lesbians in the school's history textbooks. Now, you didn't think I'd be silent on this one, did you?
By all means, click on the links above and let Mark Hyman, General Manager, know how you feel about his Point.
Mark Hyman wrote:
How many children did Alexander Graham Bell have? Was Eli Whitney married? Was Susan B. Anthony a homosexual?
The answers to these questions don't matter. Would Susan B. Anthony's contributions to the women's suffrage movement have been of any greater or lesser value if she were a homosexual? Of course not.
Yet, California state Senator Sheila Kuehl believes public school textbooks should identify sexual orientation when cataloging someone's accomplishments. Her bill, SB 1437, is intended to accomplish just that. Kuehl claims her bill will "ensure that social science curriculum includes the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peoples." Kuehl argues LGBT people merit special recognition in California school textbooks.
As the most populous state, changes in California textbooks will have a spill-over effect in other states, particularly smaller, rural states that do not have the buying clout to dictate how textbooks are to be written.
Kuehl's obsession with sex overshadows the important lessons of history. And it runs counter to the position held by some people practicing alternative lifestyles who argue their sexual orientation doesn't matter. However, it looks like it may in the California public school system.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
First, homosexuality is no more an "alternative lifestyle" than heterosexuality is a "mainstream lifestyle".
Now a history quiz:
1. What ethnic heritage was Eli Whitney?
2. Was Susan B. Anthony male or female?
3. What color was Albert Einstein?
You should pass easily. If you didn’t know the answers, history books show their pictures.
Let’s make it harder:
1. Was George Washington a heterosexual?
2. How about Abe Lincoln?
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Maybe that was too easy for you too. History books tend to mention wives of historical figures even if the wife made no significant contribution to history other than marriage. You don’t think mentioning the wives is teaching our children about sex, do you?
Before awarding a passing grade, you must answer the bonus question. (No cheating off Google to look smart.)
1. Who was our only bachelor President?
If you had a good history class - something difficult to find in our public schools nowadays - you may have been taught all of our Presidents were married except one. What you most likely weren’t taught is he lived with his male "partner", a senator from Alabama, for sixteen years. You definitely weren’t taught that because of prejudices and hatred towards homosexuals in those times, we may never know if he were gay, despite strong evidence suggesting he was.
If our history books mentioned this president had a male partner of sixteen years, do you really think that’s teaching our children about sex?
Let’s face it. Refusing to mention anything about a gay historical figure’s partner is your way of ensuring that our children won’t think homosexuals are normal people who can grow up to be President.
Not much has changed in attitudes towards homosexuals since James Buchanan’s time.
Sometimes, he just makes it too easy. His recent Point: gripes about California proposing to include gays and lesbians in the school's history textbooks. Now, you didn't think I'd be silent on this one, did you?
By all means, click on the links above and let Mark Hyman, General Manager, know how you feel about his Point.
Mark Hyman wrote:
How many children did Alexander Graham Bell have? Was Eli Whitney married? Was Susan B. Anthony a homosexual?
The answers to these questions don't matter. Would Susan B. Anthony's contributions to the women's suffrage movement have been of any greater or lesser value if she were a homosexual? Of course not.
Yet, California state Senator Sheila Kuehl believes public school textbooks should identify sexual orientation when cataloging someone's accomplishments. Her bill, SB 1437, is intended to accomplish just that. Kuehl claims her bill will "ensure that social science curriculum includes the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peoples." Kuehl argues LGBT people merit special recognition in California school textbooks.
As the most populous state, changes in California textbooks will have a spill-over effect in other states, particularly smaller, rural states that do not have the buying clout to dictate how textbooks are to be written.
Kuehl's obsession with sex overshadows the important lessons of history. And it runs counter to the position held by some people practicing alternative lifestyles who argue their sexual orientation doesn't matter. However, it looks like it may in the California public school system.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
First, homosexuality is no more an "alternative lifestyle" than heterosexuality is a "mainstream lifestyle".
Now a history quiz:
1. What ethnic heritage was Eli Whitney?
2. Was Susan B. Anthony male or female?
3. What color was Albert Einstein?
You should pass easily. If you didn’t know the answers, history books show their pictures.
Let’s make it harder:
1. Was George Washington a heterosexual?
2. How about Abe Lincoln?
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Maybe that was too easy for you too. History books tend to mention wives of historical figures even if the wife made no significant contribution to history other than marriage. You don’t think mentioning the wives is teaching our children about sex, do you?
Before awarding a passing grade, you must answer the bonus question. (No cheating off Google to look smart.)
1. Who was our only bachelor President?
If you had a good history class - something difficult to find in our public schools nowadays - you may have been taught all of our Presidents were married except one. What you most likely weren’t taught is he lived with his male "partner", a senator from Alabama, for sixteen years. You definitely weren’t taught that because of prejudices and hatred towards homosexuals in those times, we may never know if he were gay, despite strong evidence suggesting he was.
If our history books mentioned this president had a male partner of sixteen years, do you really think that’s teaching our children about sex?
Let’s face it. Refusing to mention anything about a gay historical figure’s partner is your way of ensuring that our children won’t think homosexuals are normal people who can grow up to be President.
Not much has changed in attitudes towards homosexuals since James Buchanan’s time.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Major Change to This Blog
I've neglected this blog because, simply stated, I'm much too busy to post something fresh every day that is gay-related. I am busy writing about many other things. My world quite simply does not revolve around gay issues.
I've decided to expand the blog's scope. Starting today, any of my editorial writing may get posted here whether it is a gay-related topic or not. I'll probably even start talking heavily about native gardening. I've been meaning to write that book for some time now.
So please stay tuned for the coming changes...
I've decided to expand the blog's scope. Starting today, any of my editorial writing may get posted here whether it is a gay-related topic or not. I'll probably even start talking heavily about native gardening. I've been meaning to write that book for some time now.
So please stay tuned for the coming changes...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
