I recently read an article on Slate reviewing a book that a) reclaimed historical figures as gay b) argued that instead of the "I'm the same as you let me marry" argument, gays people should be making the "I am different than you and proud of it. I refuse to accept the heteronormative paradigm of marriage" argument.
I would like to dissect both of these statements.
A. I think it is important to recognize the straight bias that has traditionally pervaded academia, and it is appropriate to re-examine evidence of people's sexual lives with an eye towards the possibility that they were gay. I also think the desire to reclaim famous figures as "our own" is common among all minority groups who have been badmouthed and want to feel pride in their identity. However, this desire should not triumph over truth. In the absence of explicit and reliable information, the most we can do is prove that there is a possibility certain people were gay, and prove people to acknowledge that possibility.
For example, people often claim that Abraham Lincoln was gay: He shared beds with men and wrote them tender letters. The problem is however, that such behavior was common among all men during his day, especially since people often couldn't afford one bed per person. It is possible that large swaths of American men were closeted gay men forced to take wives by heteronormative society, and that is the reason for those norms of sharing beds and using terms of endearment with men, whereas now larger swaths of American men are straight than in previous generations. That is possible. A more likely explination, however, is that while various economic and sociocultural factors not directly motivated by some homosexual conspiracy were behind the societal norms of bed-sharing and terms of endearment between members of the same sex, these norms provided cover for gay men who wished to masquerade as straight, and that many took advantage of their shared beds when no one was looking, and ascribed secret romantic meaning to terms of endearment considered non-romantic by the majority of society. It is possible that this was the case with President Lincoln as well, but there is no way to prove it.
A separate question is how important Abraham Lincoln's posible gayness is to general historical discourse. It is of course important to Lincoln biographers and to those with an interest either in historical gay figures or the way homosexuality has traditionally been treated in historiography, but does a debate about his sexuality belong in the highschool history class? I think another way of rephrasing this question is: How essential is someone's sexuality to their general identity? This question is inherently tied in to part B of the book - but it will have to be answered when I get back from the party.
Some links to leave you with before I go, one of which was courtesy of a dear friend:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/opinion/19cullins.html?_r=1&src=recg
"[D]oes a debate about his sexuality belong in the highschool history class?"
ReplyDeleteI feel like it doesn't. Not that it shouldn't be mentioned if it's demonstrably true - I mean, we mention his wife in the history class even if she was not a major part of his presidency - but debating details of anything that does not contribute relevantly to the historical narrative is really ascribing it too much time, I think (as would any other thing that falls under that category).
If there's enough evidence to raise it as a *serious* possibility (after considering the points you made above), then I think that possibility earns one line or so in the textbook/lesson plan. And if he had ever made some policy relating to homosexual people, sure, it's worth mentioning (if there's evidence, as above). But not beyond that, I think.