By Todd Hayen, PhD, RP

Here’s a weasel tactic for you. The subtle rewriting of history in popular media, books, TV, and film to match a modern “woke” sensibility of “inclusion, equity, and diversity.” If you know past events do not match up to these current, modern sensibilities, then just change them to match and cross your fingers that the younger generations coming up will see history differently than it actually was—a history that matches your nefarious agenda. Later in the article, I will get into why this is a problem as if you don’t already know.

In a certain way, we have always done this. No one should get their history lessons from movies and fiction literature. But the reasons this was done in decades past were different than what we are seeing today. Arguably just as deceiving, an agenda of some sort was typically present, but again, the reasoning behind the historical manipulation of years past was a bit different. Some would argue with what I am saying here; they might say that the agenda is actually the same, and today, in modern times, they have just upped the ante since we have reached a point where they can feed the current masses just about anything, and they will swallow it. I would not argue with that reasoning, but I am not totally confident with the idea.

Anyway, I digress. What’s going on? There are so many examples that I will just stick with one or two to make my point. I will also focus more on a singular intention rather than go into detail about the many different intentions that could be present in any media presentation. The intention I will stick with here is the basic “woke” tenets of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Are we slowly being brainwashed to believe a history that matches our current noble and virtuous beliefs that human beings have always been treated as equals? And if so, why?

One thing the woke/cancel culture wants us to think is that any sort of exclusionary behavior never existed in our history—or it existed everywhere, and if so, it should be wiped out. Oddly enough, they present a hypercritical analysis of nearly everything that happened in the past and point out that nearly every person we have ever venerated or found to be “good” was a racist, a misogynist, and a bigot. Dr. Seuss, for example, is a bigot and a racist who targets Chinese people (for one) because he depicts them in a traditional, stereotypical way in some of his children’s books. What is odd about the consequence of this hyper-picky approach is that they wish to erase the offending presentation. Rather than point out, “At one time, we used to see this as appropriate, now we are above that and no longer tolerate it in modern presentations,” they wish to erase it as if it never existed. Not only are books banned or rewritten, but statues of oncevenerated heroes are now seen as disgusting people, torn down, erased, and cancelled.

Along with the destruction of the past, as it is cancelled or erased, we have a rewriting of the past. The rewrite’s intention is to create a past where no prejudice, racism, bigotry, or misogynism exists. It is purified using a new, clean narrative.

Here is an example. Look at the popular series The Bridgertons. Follows is a quote from an article written by Elinor Evans, found on BBC’s online newsmagazine, History Extra:

As seen in seasons one and two, the choices made by Bridgerton’s creators to include characters from diverse historical backgrounds offer audiences a chance to see and imagine what history might look like under different circumstances. “It draws on what we know to be historical reality but also asks the audience to think more carefully about their expectations of what a period drama should look like and what it might be like if history was slightly different.

Of course, they are sugarcoating this and not exposing the agenda, but they are also not hiding the fact it is more than just creative choices: “. . . [for audiences to] think more carefully about their expectations of what a period drama should look like . . .” Really? What kind of nonsense is that? A period drama is about a historical period. We don’t “make that up,” and who gives a hoot in hell what an “audience’s expectations” are—an audience doesn’t get to expect anything about history other than accuracy and authenticity—we don’t have the option to change it to our liking—at least we didn’t until now.

The last comment: “. . . and also what it might be like if history was slightly different.” Again, what is that supposed to mean? History isn’t different. History is history. It is set. Sure, you can play around with it and speculate regarding what may or may not have happened. That is fine if something is not documented (like a specific conversation). But you can’t change what we know factually about it. It is what it is, it was what it was.

So, you may say, “So what? What’s the big deal? It is just a fun show.”

Well, there is some truth to that statement if it wasn’t part of the agenda to eradicate diversity (yes, eradicate diversity), eradicate non-inclusion, and anything not politically correct in our history. That is the agenda, and that isn’t going to go well.

I’ll tell you why. For one thing, we should not be teaching our young generations that everyone in history was just hunky dory when it comes to people of color, women, and homosexuals. It might feel good to think that everyone just went along with peachy lives during these times, but ultimately, we are destroying the truth behind the struggles of these marginalized people and taking away from their incredible resilience, fortitude, and moral backbone to fight the adversities of their past and become the people they are today. To me, that fact makes this “rewriting of history” a travesty and unconscionable.

From another online source, Alot, with an article titled “20 Historical Accuracies and Inaccuracies in Bridgerton,” Bridgerton wanted to model a modern audience, but there really wasn’t any explanation for this racial diversity set in a time where many people of color wouldn’t have had the status their characters had in the show. The only blunt discussion of this mix was when Lady Danbury (Adjoa Andoh) said to Simon, “Look at our queen (depicted as black or interracial). Look at our king (King George III, who is indisputably white). Look at their marriage. Look at everything it is doing for us, allowing us to become. We were two separate societies, divided by color until a king fell in love with one of us. Love, Your Grace, conquers all.”

It never happened (not King George III marrying a woman who may have been interracial, which could be true, but that it did jack squat for the people of color living at the time—certainly not in the way depicted in the series.) And what good does it do to pretend it did, even in a fictional account of the period? Is it meant to conjure nostalgia for a “time that never was” but should have been? No, I believe, once again, its intention is to keep the actual history fuzzy enough so the audience believes it “might have been that way. Do we really know?” Actually, yes, we do know. But like everything else in our new Bizarro World, the reality is being reworked. The reason it is being reworked, in this particular case and others like it (there are many more examples), is to neutralize diverse cultures, to erase the work they have done to hold onto the truth of their heritage and become acceptable in light of their differences, not their “sameness.” This is a true respect for diversity. The point is to accept diverse people, not make them all the same. That’s too easy.

Todd Hayen is a registered psychotherapist practicing in Toronto. He holds a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. You can find Todd’s writings at ShrewViews.com