Skip to main content

LGBTQ history required for teaching in WA State?

 By Matthew Hayward

Every action, achievement, hardship, contribution, and atrocity in history holds value and contributes to our collective human experience. In our increasingly fragmented society, the emphasis on celebrating various groups based on race, gender, or sexual orientation has resulted in designated months or days for almost every demographic. While the intention may be to celebrate diversity and educate on historical narratives, this segmentation of history often breeds division rather than unity. Events like Black History Month, Women's History Month, and recent mandates to teach LGBTQ history in states like Washington have sparked discussions about the efficacy of such focused commemorations. Why do we segregate history based on individual characteristics instead of embracing the greatest minority—the individual's character and their contributions to human progress? Fragmenting society into finer categories weakens the fabric of our collective identity, making us vulnerable to manipulation by political and media forces that exploit these divisions for control. Shifting towards an individualistic perspective, where people are recognized for their actions and character regardless of group identity, could foster a more cohesive and harmonious society. This approach doesn't negate the importance of acknowledging diverse experiences and histories; rather, it encourages a broader perspective that appreciates individual contributions to our shared human narrative. The irony lies in the potential outcome: championing individualism might lead to a stronger, more united collective. By valuing each person's unique contributions independent of group labels, we can build a society less prone to division and manipulation. A society that prioritizes individual merit and character over group identity cultivates genuine unity and understanding. Embracing individualism doesn't erase diversity but integrates it into a unified narrative that celebrates the richness of human endeavor across all realms. This approach challenges existing norms, empowering individuals to be architects of their own destinies rather than mere representatives of groups. Through this lens, we honor diversity through unity, weaving a tapestry of history that reflects the myriad experiences and contributions of every individual.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

 By Matthew Hayward  9/19/2025  The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning.  This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement.  Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...