"Ever since the Boy Scouts first taught me how to care for our flag over 40 years ago, it has always held a special place in my heart."
Blecch! I got a call to do a radio show on the flag issue just now, and I had to say I haven't been paying any attention to that nonsense. I notice it and just think ugh, they're doing that again.
UPDATE: Okay, that's over. Thanks to whoever came close to voting the wrong way but managed to keep their wits about them. I was looking the other way, waiting for it to end. Oh, at one point -- a couple points -- I put on C-Span2 and caught some bits of speeches. Everyone was just talking about how some brave man served in the military, either trying to make it seem as though caring about veterans demanded a yes vote or laboriously pointing out how you could care about veterans and still not want to amend the Constitution. What an embarrassment! Shameful.
UPDATE: Okay, that's over. Thanks to whoever came close to voting the wrong way but managed to keep their wits about them. I was looking the other way, waiting for it to end. Oh, at one point -- a couple points -- I put on C-Span2 and caught some bits of speeches. Everyone was just talking about how some brave man served in the military, either trying to make it seem as though caring about veterans demanded a yes vote or laboriously pointing out how you could care about veterans and still not want to amend the Constitution. What an embarrassment! Shameful.
posted by Ann Althouse at 9:52 AM
188 Comments:
Sneer if you will, but none-the-less, it's one vote from passing the Senate, in which case it's hard to imagine it failing ratification:
"The Senate is one vote away from passing a constitutional amendment that would ban desecration of the U.S. flag, the closest that amendment supporters have been to passage. The American Legion, which supports the amendment, and the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes it, both say there are 66 votes to pass it. Whether advocates can find the 67th vote to send the flag amendment to the states for ratification remains unclear. A Senate vote is set for the week of June 26."
It may pass, but then the states have to ratify it. Election year posturing! Blech is right.
And think of all the anti-American flammable flagmakers this will put out of business--the worldwide economic impact is staggering.
Pat - as I observed in concluding the certain doom of another constitutional amendment, "rejection by any thirteen [states] will suffice to stymie an amendment." Which thirteen do you say will reject it?
"To date, 49 state legislatures have passed resolutions supporting congressional efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow laws protecting the flag. Vermont remains the lone holdout."
Hey uh, Simon, can we expect you to be a blogwh*re from now on?
Since you have your own blog, why do you hang around here? Why not go there and try attracting your own audience for a change instead of leeching off the divine Ms. A?
Cool. I hope the amendment passes. It would be awesome to start cluttering our constitution with nonsense.
Have people actually read the text of this amendment and wondered what would happen if morons ran Congress and started to define "desecration" on their own terms?
When a flag is old, the proper way to dispose of it is by burning it. Suppose a future Congress passes a law that says "burning a flag" equals descecration. No matter what the context.
And they can say the penalty for doing this is death.
Hey - with this amendment, that will be perfectly constitutional. Then what?
People should be careful what they wish for.
While we're at it - why don't we just repeal the first amendment altogether.
Sigh. I remember when Republicans used to be in FAVOR of freedom.
DTL-
It says "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." It does not require that said power be exercised, although one has to suspect that it will be. But the lack of an imperative means that, if you oppose flag burning laws, you're more than welcome to elect enough members of Congress who agree with you.
Quxxo - this is entirely besides the point, but if I have to respond to that...
Even the most cursorary survey of the way I comment here will show that I tend to refer (and link) back to what I've previously written, whether that is in comments here, comments on other blogs, or posts on other blogs I write for. The reason for that is twofold: first, because I see little point in re-arguing what has already been argued when I could just as easily link back to it. And second, because I believe that consistency of reasoning is extremely important; it matters to me that there is a consistency in what I have said vs. what I say now. Our hostess put this exceedingly compellingly in her electoral college article: "Legal minds tend to respond to a statement of clear and compelling principle . . . [and] [u]pon identifying a principle, they crave consistency. To stop and think who will win and who will lose is to sacrifice legitimacy."
-burn a cross, burn the flag. I don't like either activity but then the Southern boys are going to want equal protection for the stars and bars and the hide and horn flag of the United Meat Eaters will need protection....where do you draw the line?
I am against the amendment, but lest we think all the idiocy is on one side, note that Durbin credits the First Amendment to Thomas Jefferson.
Although 49 states have passed resolutions in favor of the amendment, many of those were passed long ago. I would be surprised if states like Massachusetts and California passed the amendnment today. Whether there would be thirteen such states, I can't say.
James Kabala
Let's pass amendments for the following:
1) Ban blasphemy
2) Ban the teaching of evolution.
3) Ban articles in newspapers that are critical of the Federal Government.
I doubt you'll find one conservative blogger that would be opposed to any of these. Heck - we can even appeal to the left. Let's ban racist remarks too. I mean if we're going to repeal the First Amendment, why stop with the flag?
Yawn.
As an Eagle Scout, I understand the feeling that the flag has some special meaning. Of course, that is because it represents a set of ideals, a common heritage, freedom, both people and markets.
Why am I even paying attention. I remember debating this my freshman year in college in 1988.
Of course, the flag represents our ideals, one of which is...still cannot believe I'm typing this...free speech.
So burn the flag. It only gets you some publicity and shows that it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion with you. Kind of convenient-let's us know your're irrelevant.
Again, yawn. Freedom of speech trumpts.
As much as it bothers me to see someone disrespect the flag by burning it this is a waste of time.
John said it best - So burn the flag. It only gets you some publicity and shows that it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion with you. Kind of convenient-let's us know your're irrelevant.
I would remove the almost in front of impossible but thats just me.
There are already many interpreted exceptions to the first amendment:
Commercial speech is not fully protected.
Fighting words.
Libel.
Campaign spending.
And "hate" speech.
Personally, I think many of those judicially-created exceptions should be tossed in the trash.
On the other hand, I have no problem with amending the constitution to create a specific textual protection for our national symbol.
Protecting the flag will not suddenly invalidate the First Amendment. In fact, it will have much less an impact than all the exceptions I already noted. (Exceptions that are paradoxically loved by the Left - the self-appointed guardians of "free" speech.)
Let's pass amendments for the following:
1) Ban blasphemy
2) Ban the teaching of evolution.
3) Ban articles in newspapers that are critical of the Federal Government.
I doubt you'll find one conservative blogger that would be opposed to any of these.
On the contrary, I'd be surprised if you could find any well-known conservative bloggers (most of whom have libertarian leanings) who would support any of the above.
DTL:
"Let's pass amendments for the following: Ban blasphemy . . . Ban the teaching of evolution . . . Ban articles in newspapers that are critical of the Federal Government."
But as you well know - "Hav[ing] ... actually read the text of this amendment" and all - this amendment does not ban anything. Also, Elliot made an intriguing point, that "[p]rotecting the flag will not suddenly invalidate the First Amendment . . . [and] it will have much less an impact than all the exceptions [presently read into it]". I would suggest that, if anything, this amendment would potentially strengthen the first amendment; if you have an amendmend that exists for the sole purpose of creating an exception to the first amendment, does that not make it harder to justify the creation of judicially-managed exceptions to the first amendment?
What a bloody waste of time this all is.
Flag burning - however repugnant - is political speech. Think about it for cryin' out loud.
First - as long as the idiots who are determined to alienate the vast majority of the American people with their juvenile concept of "speech" have purchased said flag - it's their flippin' property. They can do with it as they will.
Second - I was a Boy Scout too - the only proper way to dispose of a flag that is too worn to display is to... wait for it... burn it. What’s left after you sort through the idiocy and the ashes is political speech.
Pat, you nail it. The all-American answer is to let the market handle the problem. Fire-resistant flags stake a claim both for abstract principle and for concrete capital.
Funny - I can't find one conservative blog out there that does NOT want the New York Times charged with treason for publishing an article about the SWIFT network.
Nevermind that the Wall Street Journal published an article on the exact same day. It's only "treason" if your editorial page is liberal.
Conservatives LOVE censorship. That's why Bush's FCC helped push Howard Stern off the air. It's why they've censored PBS shows that have dared to (gasp) show a real-life lesbian couple baking cookies. It's why they give million dollar fines for Janet Jackson showing a flesh.
The political correctness exists on the right nowadays. But the conservatives are too blind and stupid to even realize it.
Forget burning. What is the definition of "desecration." Kid Rock wears stars and strips pants, is that desecration? What if it's Pat Boone instead? Is it desecration to spit on the flag?
What about dropping the flag on the ground? Walking on it? Wiping your feet on it?
What about refusing to stand during the pledge? Is disrespect descration? How would you judge artwork?
This doesn't just open a can, it is an entire vat of worms. And, it is unnecessary. When was the last time the American flag was burned on American soil?
I simply don't see this as a significant issue that will have any major societal benefit; political posturing pure and simple. Full disclosure: I never was a boy scout, so maybe I missed something in my background.
Is Jasper John's "Flag" a desecration?
If so - what do we do about it? Do we burn this artwork? Or is that the equivalent burning the flag?
Man - this can get confusing . . .
The Amendment is not necessary. All that is needed is a law by Congress that explicitly recognizes that purposefully using the flag in a disrepectful manner is equivilent to using fighting words.
I am reminded of the actions of Rick Monday in Dodger Stadium. He rescued a flag one day that two idiots were planning on burning. What most people forget is that Lasorda was right behind him. I shudder to think of what Tommy would have done to those two idiots if they had succeded.
If you burn or disrespect the flag in front of me, I will consider that fighting words, and I'll go to a jury with that defense any day.
Just to clarify...
When a flag is retired it the stripes and blue field are cut apart before it is burned. It is, therefore, no longer a flag.
Burning a flag to desicrate it as "political speech" is not the same. It is a provocative act only. If you burn a flag alone in the woods, does anyone smell it burn? No...so morons trying to make a point "perform" their flag burnings in the public square.
Yeah..it's freedom of speech, I guess. It's still just the obnoxious acting out of people in need of attention.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This is so stupid it makes your hair hurt. it also reminds us that Democrats pandering to the Kos Kidz are really pikers when it comes to tossing idiotic sops to their base. Arlen Specter, someone I generally agree with and admire, should be ashamed of himself.
I am respectful of the traditions and symbols of the United States. I have always been grateful and proud to live under our government. But as a Christian of the Catholic persuasion, I am mindful of the dangers of idolatry. Investing such loyalty and faith in a mere secular symbol strikes me, at the very least, as odd. While I am always willing to render unto Caeser, the potential of criminal sanctions for the modern equivalent of spitting on a statue of the Emperor makes me shudder.
I have no problem with an amendment to allow congress to pass a law making it illegal to burn the flag. I am not worried about the first amendment implications. If you don't like the policy of the US then write a blog or give a speach. Then others will write their views and the public will be engaged in free exchange of ideas. Burning the flag if front a vet who lost his arm in battle is akin to yelling the n-word at a group of African Americans. There is no exchange of ideas and there is no debate. The latter is not protected and I can imagine why the former should be.
Chief Justice Rehnquist got it right when he explained that burning the flag is "the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others." Texas v. Johnson
Wrong lawdog, the "latter" you refer to is entirely protected.
Nazis are allowed to march through Jewish towns. And anti-gay bigots are allowed to shout out homophobic remarks at a gay pride rally.
But it sounds like you favor an amendment to ban those things too.
I think it's pretty easy. Just have an amendment that bans "offensive" speech. Hey - it's only fair. You seem to favor amendments that ban speech that YOU find offensive. So it's only fair for me to ban YOUR speech that I find offensive.
I think the amendment is a waste of time, not least because burning a flag says more about the burner than about his purported message. But why is burning a flag constitutionally protected, while burning a cross, koran or star of David is hate speech?
lawdog,
Burning the flag if front a vet who lost his arm in battle is akin to yelling the n-word at a group of African Americans.
Pretty much, yeah. That would by why the left thinks it's so cool.
But it's still unreasonable and destructive to criminalize either one.
downtownlad,
I gather you were all in favor of publishing the Mohammed cartoons, right? It's funny, but I remember quite a lot of people on the left insisting a few months ago that we should ban all offensive speech. Coincidentally, they're the same bootlickers who want to throw people in prison for mishandling the Koran.
Theo Boehm,
I don't see how burning the flag is equivalent to spitting on a statue of a ruler. The flag is a symobl of the nation. A person, even a very powerful one, is a person rather than an abstraction. I still wouldn't ban either one.
Joe,
You're mistaken that "hate speech" as you call it is banned.
It's not.
Hate "crimes" are illegal. But there has to be, you know, violence involved for an actual prosecution to take place.
It's perfectly legal to burn a cross as long as it is not used to intimidate.
I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that burning a flag at an anti-war rally is going to "intimidate" anyone . . .
I would suggest that, if anything, this amendment would potentially strengthen the first amendment; if you have an amendmend that exists for the sole purpose of creating an exception to the first amendment, does that not make it harder to justify the creation of judicially-managed exceptions to the first amendment?
Good point, the other potential benefit is that once it passes, it doesn’t get trotted out every couple of years for a vote.
Pity though, if they wanted to amend the constitution in a useful way, they’d pass term limits for Congress, give the President a line-item veto (as most governors have), and a balanced budget amendment requiring a super-majority to raise taxes.
1) Ban blasphemy
2) Ban the teaching of evolution.
3) Ban articles in newspapers that are critical of the Federal Government.
I doubt you'll find one conservative blogger that would be opposed to any of these.
That absurd. I'm a conservative blogger, and I'm opposed to all of them. I'm also opposed to banning flag burning.
I think you knew that your assertion was false. Why did you make it?
From the article:
The Citizens Flag Alliance, a group pushing for the Senate this week to pass a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution, just reported an alarming, 33 percent increase in the number of flag-desecration incidents this year. The number has increased to four, from three.
So what were the four incidents of flag desecration? According the Citizens Flag Alliance’s website:
June 23, 2006> Brooklyn, NY: Hooligans set American flags on fire in the front yards of seven homes on a patriotic stretch of Brooklyn, including that of a family who tragically lost their firefighter son on September 11. Vandals struck at around 4:00 a.m., setting Old Glory on fire in front of homes in Marine Park. “I’m hoping it’s just kids doing this. Regardless, they should be prosecuted,” one victim said. New York Post
June 2, 2006 West Haven, CT: What should have been a peaceful stroll along the shorefront bike path turned into an ugly scene late Wednesday as an allegedly drunken man desecrated the U.S. flag, hurled a racial slur at a witness and then chugged a beer in front of police, authorities said Thursday. Marissa Yaremich, Register Staff - West Haven, CT
May 30, 2006 Mineville, NY
Vandals crept in sometime Sunday night or early Monday morning, removed the American flag from the flagpole at the Mineville Post 5802 VFW and burned it.
May 13, 2006 Raymond, NH - Ten flags hanging at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4479 and American Legion Post 90 building on Main Street were vandalized. “At first I thought the American flag was at half-staff, but when I got closer I could see every flag is sliced into ribbons,” a witness said. The Raymond Police Chief said the flags were slashed at the bottom edges about a foot and a half deep. The American flag was hanging upside down. The police have not made any arrests; there is a reward for tips that lead to the vandals’ arrest.
It seems to me that at least three of the cases could already be prosecuted under existing laws against vandalism, arson, trespass, and the like. Seems to me that the solution would be to prosecute the offenders under the existing law and beef up the penalties for any future offenders.
I meant to say hate crime, not hate speech. I suggest you burn a cross downtown and see if you escape being arrested for a hate crime, whether or not you intend to intimidate anyone.
I'm talking about the mainstream "conservative" blogs.
Polipundit. Malkin. Powerline.
They pretty much think that anyone who dares to disagree with them is committing "treason".
I think you knew that your assertion was false. Why did you make it?
Because he lacks the intellectual heft to make a substantive argument. Ignore him as you would Jacques Cuze/Quxxo.
Doesn't anyone opposed to flag burining have the guts to say this:
I hate and detest the cowardly people who would burn the US flag. But even so, this is a stupid and pathetic waste of time. We have more important work to do than babysitting adolescents who want to thumb their nose at us. Instead of an amendment, I advise those like me who hate such offenders to take them behind a convenient building and gently persuade them to stop.
I'd much rahter watch Rick Monday, who stopped a flag burning during a baseball game in Los Angeles, than see some cop run after the teenage dopes with lighters. Let a thousand fists bloom.
If the ACLU wanted to burn a cross to make a free speech point, I'm certain that they could burn it downtown - legally.
And burning a Koran - of course that's legal. Same with the Bible.
Re: "They pretty much think that anyone who dares to disagree with them is committing "treason". "
Hogwash.
Oh really Pogo? Have you ready Michelle Malkin's blog recently?
She's pretty much clamoring to have the editor of the New York Times taken out and shot. Just do a search for "treason" on her site. About 15 instances show up on the first page alone.
Thousands of conservative blogs are mimicking this line of attack.
It's a complete disrespect for the first amendment. These same bloggers freaked out over Janet Jackson and then made sure that CBS was fined and that Howard Stern was kicked off the air. These same conservative bloggers clamored for PBS to censor a show that showed lesbians. These same conservative bloggers clamored for a show to be taken off the air, because it showed a minister with a gay son. These same conservative bloggers are arguing for gay-straight alliances to be banned from high-schools.
It's censorship pure and simple. Just like the flag burning amendment.
Small amendments for small minded people.
And of course let's not forget the movement in Alabama (still underway) to ban books from the library that mention gay people in a positive light.
And the backer of that law is subsequently invited to the White House.
First we censor flags. Then we censor fags. That's the Republican agenda for you.
Downtownlad
- why is my example of yelling the n-word at a group of African Americans "my speech"? What makes you think that I would do that? Because I am not opposed to the flag amendment that means I must go around yelling obsenities at people? I was simply looking for an example to make a rhetorical point. That kind of personalization of the debate is completely counterproductive. Shall we have a personal argument now and defame each other's character?
Now if one were going to yell the n-word a group of African Americans will you not be charged with disorderly conduct or a similar ordanice or statue? I have handled such cases and the free speech defense does not work.
Lawdog,
Wasn't implying that you would make such a statement. Sorry if it came off that way.
But it is free speech. In Philadelphia, some guy went to a gay event and used a megaphone to yell anti-gay taunts at the crowd.
The conservative blogosphere rallied to this guy as a "hero" by the way . . .
The courts (and rightly so) said his first amendment rights were violated when he was arrested. I can't see how the "n" word being shouted is any different. Heck - the "n" word is used in almost every rap song on the radio.
My main point is the following:
Nobody is standing up for free speech these days.
The right wants to censor speech that is offensive to them, i.e. flag burning, gay people on TV, pornography, etc.
The left wants to censor speech that is offensive to them, i.e. racism, sexism, etc.
Very few people and organizations believe in freech speech. I believe in it wholeheartedly. Most people are hypocrites. They say they favor it, but they don't.
"The left wants to censor speech that is offensive to them, i.e. racism, sexism, etc."
...Campaign finance...
Nobody is standing up for free speech these days.
The right wants to censor speech that is offensive to them, i.e. flag burning, gay people on TV, pornography, etc.
The left wants to censor speech that is offensive to them, i.e. racism, sexism, etc.
It's easy to write that when you define the right and left as those who fit into your thesis and exclude those who don't.
And of course let's not forget the movement in Alabama (still underway) to ban books from the library that mention gay people in a positive light.
Just for the record, how do you feel about the legislation in California that mandates that school textbooks portray gay people in a positive light?
The flag mendment is censorship,trivial, and boring, and I opppose it.
Except for the NYTimes article, censorship just isn't the right word to describe those other actions. Malkin et al weren't invoking the state to do anything. They used public pressure to get those things done. That's how it's supposed to work when you disagree. Your agenda lost.
What the NYTimes did by printing the method by which we were tracking terrorsits I view as flat out treason. I hope they are prosecuted. There is nothing wrong with state censorship of war secrets. Even the NYTimes itself argued for precisely this program in their own editorial pages in the months following 9/11. Now they are on the other side, so let's treat them as such formally.
Gahrie - That's not what the legislation says. It says that if there are gay people in history, then textbooks should not hide that fact.
So the real question is, do I think that textbooks should continue to censor the fact that many famous people in history were gay, or do I think that textbooks should teach the truth and mention the fact that these people were gay in order to add context to their character, well of course I favor the latter.
I'm against censorship. Why are we censoring the fact that gay people exist?
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., 1919
Nor would it protect a man creating an open fire, of any material, without a permit. No amendment to the constitution is needed. What is needed is the senators finding something better to do with their time... like putting out their own fires... or taking naps.
Pogo - So the New York Time should be prosecuted? But not the Wall Street Journal of course. Cause you like them.
Never mind that they printed the EXACT SAME THING.
Um yeah - makes total sense.
Freeman Hunt,
Care to name me one famous conservative blogger that blogged AGAINST the Alabama gay book burning law.
Name me one that's arguing against the flag amendment. I'm sure they exist, but I can't find them. I have noticed that a lot of them are SILENT on this issue. Well there silence might very well end up with us having the second stupid amendment in a row. You do remember the 27th amendment, don't you?
Re: do I think that textbooks should continue to censor the fact that many famous people in history were gay, or do I think that textbooks should teach the truth...
If thier sexual life has no bearing on the historical events being sudied, why write baout it, except to make DTL feel better?
Why discuss sex in history and "social studies" in those younger than 13 anyway, except to meet demands by The Love That Doesn't Shut up Ever?
Re: But not the Wall Street Journal of course. Cause you like them.
Wrong. Prosecute them all (LATimes included).
The law said the books should have age-sensitive targets, so it would be geared towards high-schoolers.
Pogo - You for one need such an education. You probably couldn't name 10 famous people in history that are gay.
There are hundreds of them. Such as Alexander the Great, Socrates, Da Vinci, Herman Melville, John Keynes, Ralph Waldo Emmerson, Michaelangelo, etc. Why can't that be taught?
Unlike you, I don't think it has "no bearing" that Melville was gay. In fact, that fact will allow students to understand his writing more clearly. See here for an example:
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/melville.htm
Why you want to censor this knowledge is beyond me . . .
DTL--Why is it important that one be able to name x amount of "famous people in history" who are homosexual? With the possible exception of artists whose homosexuality may have influenced their work, knowing the John Maynard Keynes was homosexual adds no further understanding to his views of fiscal policy. It is simply an irrelevant datum of information.
Can I ask how one defines the American flag? I'm serious - is there a clear definition of the shade of red, white and blue that should be used? The number of stripes, in which order? The number of stars? The alignment?
I understand that the amendment only gives Congress the right (but not the obligation) to pass anti-desecration laws, but if Congress did pass such a law, how would it be implemented? Wouldn't they have to define what the flag should look like? What if I burn something with a lesser number of stripes of a different shade of red?
I am seriously asking these questions. How would a law like this be constructed?
Thanks,
Girish
It's important, because gay teens deserve positive role models in their lives.
Gays don't learn about the positive aspect of gay lives from their families. All they learn are that gays have AIDS, that they are degenerate, evil, causing the destruction of society (oops - that's the President saying that).
And then straight people are so successful in making gay people feel like a pile of shit that they have suceeded beyond their wildest dreams. One out of every two males that attempts suicide are believed to be gay.
So why do I favor this law? To help the self-esteem of gay teens and drive down the suicide rate.
Maybe I should be asking you why you favor policies that will cause gay people to commit suicide?
"It says that if there are gay people in history, then textbooks should not hide that fact. So the real question is, do I think that textbooks should continue to censor the fact that many famous people in history were gay, or do I think that textbooks should teach the truth and mention the fact that these people were gay in order to add context to their character, well of course I favor the latter."
I guess it depends on whether it's actually a fact. So, for example, you'll sometimes see people claiming that Jefferson was autistic; there is absolutely no way to know one way or another, but suppose there was evidence no less compelling to suggest Jefferson was gay - should history record that? I would suggest it should not.
In fact, I have no idea what relevance you think someone's sexuality has to what their cause in history was. I have no idea if Joan of Arc was a lesbian, and I don't care. I don't see (a) how one would find out, or (b) what possible relevance that has to the acts for which she is historically noteworthy. We do not discuss that Alexander the Great was almost certainly as bent as a nine dollar bill, but then again, nor do we discuss the sex lives of Julius Cæsar, William Wallace, George Washington or Winston Churchill. Is it really important to waste an hour speculating about whether Alexander Hamilton was gay? Really? We care? Aren't there more interesting things about Alexander Hamilton to teach - and if there aren't, why are we teaching about him at all? The only scenario in which I can imagine it being relevant is when it directly bears on the noteworthiness of the person - if, for example, Henry VIII's third wife was in fact Jack Seymour - but how many figures in history are we interested in for the sex life who are also taught in public schools? I fail to see the relevance.
I haven't read this bill, so I'm uncomfortable speculating, but to force a discussion of the sexuality of historical figures when they happen to have been a homosexual - or even, one suspects, if they are merely suspected of it - seems bizarre and ridiculous. Indeed, the only rationale I can imagine for carving out this bizarre exception to prevalent practise is specifically to promote a particular impression of homosexuality through history. History is neither homosexual nor heterosexual; I defy you to find me a life of any import wherein that person's sexuality mattered. As I have pointed out before, I just don't think sexuality is nearly so relevant to most people's everyday lives as it is to a small subset of the population who seem to be absolutely obsessed with it.
Simon - I already pointed to an article that clearly explains how Melville's homosexuality is critical to understanding his work.
Michaelangelo was gay. This is not speculation. You think that has zero bearing on understanding his art?
Straight people CONSANTLY talk abou their spouses and children. They are FLAUNTING their heterosexuality. I'll stop discussing my sexuality once straight people stop discussing theirs.
"There are hundreds of them. Such as Alexander the Great, Socrates, Da Vinci, Herman Melville, John Keynes, Ralph Waldo Emmerson, Michaelangelo, etc. Why can't that be taught?
Do we also teach students about the sex lives of their (presumably heterosexual) contemporaries? No. Did their sexuality have anything to do with the purpose for which they are historically noteworthy? No. The question isn't "why can't that be taught", it is, why in the world WOULD it be taught? Why is it so important (which it isn't) that we learn about the sexuality of homosexuals in history, but entirely unimportant (which it is) that we learn about the sexuality of heterosexuals in history? You might have a point if history placed great emphasis on the sexuality of its heterosexual heroes, but it does not; sexuality is simply treated - as it properly ought to be - as a complete and total irrelevance. I don't know what Constable's favorite drink was, because it is irrelevant to that which is is noteworthy. I have no idea who Lincoln's tailor was, but I don't feel my education is incomplete. And if you asked me what Richard the Lionheart's inside seam was, I could no more answer that question than I could tell you what his sexuality was. I couldn't tell you, because strangely enough, the history books I read tend to be more interested in battles against Saladin than the genital compliment of his partners of choice.
And when we're taught that Christopher Columbus is Italian - why is that?
Should we pass a law that BANS us from learning about a person's heritage. So when children learn about George Washington Carver, let's ignore the fact that he was black.
Cool - can't wait to learn about the John F. Kennedy and not learn about his being Catholic - because - you know - religion is irrelevant.
You are so wrong Simon.
Heterosexuality is considered to be the norm. When you learn about people in history, the assumption is that they are all straight.
And then when you actually point out people who are gay in history - people like you push back and say it's all "speculation".
Why don't you do a little Googling first on these characters before calling it "speculation". Maybe you'd actually learn something.
"Michaelangelo was gay. This is not speculation."
"Spectulation": " Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition." I'd be interested to know what conclusive evidence demonstrates this. But in any event:
"You think that has zero bearing on understanding his art?"
I absolutely do. I don't think what Kurt Cobain had for breakfast the day he wrote Smells Like Teen Spirit had any bearing on his "art", either.
Let's face it. The real fear on the right is that if people actually learn about all of the amazing people in history who are gay - then maybe people would end up being less antagonistic towards gay people in general.
That is their fear. And they will do anything to stop it.
It's censorship pure and simple. First the flag - then the other stuff.
I wrote something rather longish but it all boiled down to...
I agree with pogo.
"Heterosexuality is considered to be the norm. When you learn about people in history, the assumption is that they are all straight."
That's like saying that drinking a moderate quantity of alcohol is considered to be the norm, and thus, when you learn about the people in history, the assumption is that they all drank moderate quantities of alcohol. Do we really need to waste valuable air telling children this? I mean, to be sure, there are exceptions: if you had an exceptionally influential puritan who railed against the demon drink and turned out to be a drunkard and killed himself when it came out, then maybe his alcoholic habits might be relevant. Or if FDR was drunk off his ass when he gave that famous speech after Pearl Harbour, maybe that would be worth noting. But otherwise, history does not record these minor, unimportant details of historically notable figures' lives. There is no "default assumption" - there are numerous aspects of many figures from history about which I - and the vast majority of the population - HAVE no assumptions about. I am more interested in what they did that was of importance than the (usually) entirely trivial question of who they were cheating on their spouse with. Do you know the name of John Adams' mistress? Should you? Does it matter that he had a mistress? And if it doesn't, why would it be of any more relevance if he had a mister instead?
DTL--for the record, I am not in favor of any policy that increases the rate of suicide among any segment of the population--I gather from what you have written above that you feel that if I comment about my family that is flaunting my sexuality? I couldnt disagree more, but if that is what you believe, so be it. Do I infer correctly you are suggesting that my talking about my family somehow puts gay people down? That is indeed breathtaking.
downtownlad exhibits the deplorable tendency to view the world through a single filter. marx had the same problem. It causes an irreconcilable distortion, and isn't worth discussing.
"Let's face it. The real fear on the right is that if people actually learn about all of the amazing people in history who are gay - then maybe people would end up being less antagonistic towards gay people in general. That is their fear. And they will do anything to stop it."
Yes. That's absolutely it. *eyeroll*
I mean, are you serious? You really believe that? Geez. That is not my concern. My concern is doing yet more damage to the already ruinous high school history curriculum by filling it full of frothy nonsense and speculation worthy of the National Enquirer (and it will, for the most part, be both speculative and irrelevant, as we have seen).
I would rather kids graduate with a working knowledge of the difference between the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan than a working knowledge of who was doing what to whom in first century Greece - wouldn't you?
Michaelangelo wrote Sonnets to his male lovers. His newphew had the pronouns changed when they published the books, and it was changed back in 1893. Sorry - forgot to provide the link, but I just Googled it.
So yeah - I think that's pretty relevant to understanding his work.
It might be irrelevant if gay people were not so oppressed throughout history. But you'll be hard pressed to find a gay person who would say that their sexuality is irrelevant. Dealing with that struggle (both in socieyt as well as with yourself) surely has an impact on your work.
And we do hear about Presidential misstresses. Bill Clinton for example. Or JFK and Marilyn Monroe. Is that irrelevant?
And why does everyone learn about someone being gay when it's in a negative light, i.e. J. Edgar Hoover?
"DTL - Do I infer correctly you are suggesting that my talking about my family somehow puts gay people down? That is indeed breathtaking."
Perhaps the theory is like this: some would say that it's tactless to talk about alcohol around recovering alcoholics, so perhaps it's tactless to talk about marriage and children about people who can't marry and have children. I don't think it rises to "putting down", but there is, perhaps, an argument for an element of tact.
No Rogera. What I'm suggesting is that people are extremely condescending when they say that gay people should NEVER mention their sexuality.
Straight people mention their sexuality all the time. Every time they mention their spouse and kids. And no, I DON'T have a problem with that.
But try not mentioning your girlfriend, boyfriend, spouse, kids, etc. - and then think about what you're actually saying when you say that gay people should never mention their sexuality. It's the same thing. And it's an absurd request to ask of someone.
Re: Michaelangelo wrote Sonnets...
Really? who cares? Who cares that they might have been gay sonnets? Who reads Michaelangelo and thinks sonnets? No one. Ever.
I think downtownlad suffers from the fear that one's sexuality has no bearing whatsoever on art, math, science, or engineering, and so deprive him of the very thing he's geared his entire life around.
Re: people are extremely condescending when they say that gay people should NEVER mention their sexuality
Me? I just want some gay people to shut up about it once in awhile. I. Don't. Want. To. Know.
I don't think what Kurt Cobain had for breakfast the day he wrote Smells Like Teen Spirit had any bearing on his "art", either.
That's an absurd analogy, beginning with the obvious error of comparing "being" to "having." It's silly to dismiss artists' relationships, or their social status, as influences on their art.
Simon - If we can spend weeks discussing Mary Cheney's sexuality, surely we can put in an extra two words about Herman Melville before reading an entire novel about him.
My education was not destroyed when I learned that Columbus was Italian.
Re: It's silly to dismiss artists' relationships, or their social status, as influences on their art.
It's even sillier to suggest that one cannot understand Michaelangelo's David without knowing he had the hots for the cabana boy.
We've hijacked this thread.
Time to start talking about flag burning again.
Anyone got a match?
"Michaelangelo wrote Sonnets to his male lovers. His newphew had the pronouns changed when they published the books, and it was changed back in 1893. So yeah - I think that's pretty relevant to understanding his work."
I don't see why, unless those sonnets specifically reference gender. Shakespeare's sonnets are continuously dedicated to both men and women, regardless of the gender of their original recipient. Are they in some way devalued or changed if we discover Shakespeare had a boyfriend? I rather doubt it.
I would think the strongest argument you'd have with Michaelangeo's sonnets is to demonstrate that love between two men can be as pure and beautiful as love between, to stick with the theme, Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway. That's a fair use, but I'm not sure it should be taught in a history class.
"It might be irrelevant if gay people were not so oppressed throughout history."
Not so oppressed, evidently, that you are unable to find many, many examples of them that you want to take valuable time out of class to discuss.
"But you'll be hard pressed to find a gay person who would say that their sexuality is irrelevant."
Certainly you are walking proof of the proposition that some people make it the center and focus of their life, something I continue to find really quite sad.
"And we do hear about Presidential misstresses. Bill Clinton for example. Or JFK and Marilyn Monroe. Is that irrelevant?"
I don't think we should be teaching about Kennedy's mistresses, no. It's irrelevant to that for which Kennedy is noteworthy. Now, Clinton is a different case, because you really can't talk about the impeachment without getting into the perjury, and you can't get into the perjury without reaching "that question".
"And why does everyone learn about someone being gay when it's in a negative light, i.e. J. Edgar Hoover?"
I don't think kids should be taught anything more about J. Edgar Hoover's sexuality than they should about Hamilton's or Jefferson's or Alexander the Great's. I suppose there's a colorable argument that his sexuality is important to understanding Hoover, but at the high school level, I don't think a deep understanding of Hoover's motivations are relevant. It is incidental; the only thing that is relevant is that for which he is historically noteworthy, which is that for whatever reasons, he blackmailed a generation of American leaders, and may well have been one of the most corrupt, evil men in the senior ranks of American politics for a long time.
I have to confess to being totally confused now. Time to drop out of this thread. If I gave any one offense, rest assured it wasnt intended.
Is it okay to burn a Rainbow Flag?
Was Michaelangelo a flag burner?
"I just want some gay people to shut up about it once in awhile. I. Don't. Want. To. Know."
Indeed. There's a law called "don't ask don't tell"; I have a similar policy: "won't ask, don't tell, don't care." ;)
I have no interest in people's sexuality; if someone is gay, great; if they're straight, great; I just don't care. It doesn't matter. What matters is "is this person an interesting and engaging person to be around", and people with monomania - particularly about issues I think are irrelevant - are rarely either of those things.
Of course you can burn a rainbow flag.
Simon - So you never ask people if they're dating anyone? You never ask about their spouse or kids? Interesting. Doesn't sound like you really care about other people's lives. For most people - their relationships are a pretty big deal.
That's ok though, as long as you're consistent.
Identifying gay heroes in textbooks is not going to do what you want it to do *anyway* DTL. It won't change the social situation of high school and the extreme pressure toward conformity involved in having several hundred hormonal teenagers confined together in a small place where they can feed on each other.
In that environment any bit of weakness, being fat, ugly, nerdish, not feminine enough, not masculine enough, if you don't fit in... and there is no escape. It's *school* and you've got to go.
Having a textbook include the sexuality of people in History isn't going to change that. Will and Grace has a better chance.
Perhaps Synova.
But 2 of the 7 gay men I went to high school with committed suicide before they were 30. This is not some abstract hypothetical for me.
The religious right wants to censor gay people out of existence.
They want to censor out criticism of this country by banning flag burning.
It's bothersome. The first amendment is being destroyed.