Comments on: A slight retreat to sanity in California schools

By: judyrose

judyrose — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 04:23:55 +0000

Thanks, mamapajamas. It used to be that people got recognition for WHAT they did, not WHO they did.

By: mamapajamas

mamapajamas — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 01:49:23 +0000

Judyrose, good points. That was a part of what I was trying to say when I was talking about Liberace, but you said it better. The fact that Liberace was gay was obvious to anyone who saw him perform, but of no concern to anyone in the audience.

By: judyrose

judyrose — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 01:06:47 +0000

This may be an improvement over the original bill, but why mention the sexual orientation of historical figures at all? If they’ve achieved something noteworthy, it’s the achievement, and not the choice of sex partners, that should get them a few lines in the textbooks. Teachers have precious little time to impart the huge volume of information and sufficient training in basic skills that kids need for a bright future. If a student is especially interested in someone he or she learns about at school, there is always the library for additional reading. If the person’s homosexuality happens to be mentioned, okay. But why waste class time discussing it?

As someone who fixes up other people’s bad writing for a living, I am tuned in to the lack of adequate language skills among many young adults these days. With all the trendy agenda-driven stuff in the curriculum pushing aside what we used to consider the minimum core knowledge, it’s no wonder kids can’t write. Yet politicians in Sacramento just keep piling it on.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:20:21 +0000

You know what, I’mvisualizing what Arnold would have said in 2003 if he was the one informing Saddam he was getting an ultimatum…

By: mamapajamas

mamapajamas — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:55:34 +0000

I agree with you, Book. And there is an obvious case history to look at.

Liberace. The man was obviously gay, in fact a flaming fashion queen with his sequined tuxes and syrupy drawl. But he was also one of the most beloved performers in American history.

The fact that he was gay was visible to anyone who saw him perform, but it did not detract in the slightest from his brilliant talent. In fact, in the ’50s, his eccentricities were regarded as avant guarde and as an expected part of his show.

This is a case where a brilliant artist happened to be gay. The fact that he was gay was virtually irrelevant to his playing, but may have had everything to do with his being a household word as a brilliant performer (which is not the same as a brilliant artist, if you see the difference… a gifted pianist who has no sense of showmanship will probably languish in the wings). We’ve seen this same phenomenon in more recent years with Elton John. He and Liberace are/were two of a kind, brilliant musicians with a brilliant sense of showmanship :).

But if he had been a flashy dresser with NO musical talent, his being gay would not have been a good reason to set him aside as a “brilliant” anything.

So in the end, it all comes back to the music. “Gay” is a peripheral issue, and one that could confuse children who aren’t ready to accept the idea of heterosexuality, never mind other lifestyles.

It all reminds me of an episode of the Danny Thomas Show way back in the Stone Age when I was young. In the episode, the little son asks that dreaded question, “Daddy… where did I come from?”

The episode was a flashback story of the night the son was born, very cute with (now) cliche comedy. In the end, Danny says to his son, “So… does that answer your question?”

The son says, “No. My friend (so and so) came from Brooklyn. Where did I come from?”

And the stunned look on Danny’s face tells the whole story. Nine times out of ten, the questions children want answered are actually very simple and basic.