What's Going On?

I posted on social media this morning regarding another delete session of information about a Black man, Jackie Robinson (Famous baseball player), whose military information was suddenly gone on a government website. 

Is nobody interested in why this is happening? I am. But I guess, it starts with trying to understand why folks on both sides of the "aisle" are seeking change when it comes to history. 

"Future" Dr. Jenny, and Art Therapist extraordinare will try to explain. Heck, I don't even play a doctor on TV or hold a PHD. However, I do have experience in researching and learning about humans and I possess the passion to understand. 

What is the difference between the liberal folks removing names and statues of racist historical figures and Republicans taking down actual historical facts and materials down because they say it is DEI? And what would be a good way to differentiate culture items like syrup bottles and dr guess books being cancelled and DEI being taken out of history books? Is there a difference between culture cancel and history cancel?

Okay...What is the Difference Between Intent and Impact?

Removing statues and renaming buildings (typically associated with progressive or liberal movements) is often aimed at rejecting the glorification of figures who promoted racism, oppression, or violence. The argument is that public monuments and honors are symbols of celebration, and society should not celebrate figures who harmed marginalized groups. However, this does not remove those figures from history; it changes how they are publicly commemorated.

Example: Taking down Confederate statues doesn’t erase the Civil War—it prevents the public reverence of Confederate leaders.

Removing DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) content from education (often associated with conservative or Republican-led efforts) is about limiting the teaching of systemic racism, LGBTQ+ history, and other marginalized experiences, often under the claim that it is "divisive" or "indoctrination." This can lead to an actual erasure or distortion of historical facts.

Example: Laws banning the teaching of slavery's systemic impact or removing books about civil rights figures reduce historical awareness.

Let's Talk About Cultural Cancellation vs. Historical Erasure

Cultural cancellation (like rebranding syrup bottles or discontinuing certain Dr. Seuss books) is more about corporate and social responsibility in marketing and media representation. It involves re-evaluating offensive or outdated portrayals but does not remove the historical existence of these items. You can still access old Dr. Seuss books in libraries, but the publisher may no longer sell them.

Intent: To reduce the spread of harmful stereotypes in mass culture.

Impact: More about evolving social values than erasing history.

Historical cancellation is the removal or distortion of factual history from educational or public records, which directly affects public knowledge and understanding. This is more dangerous because it manipulates collective memory, making it harder for future generations to learn from the past.

Intent: Often framed as protecting children from discomfort but results in historical whitewashing.

Impact: Loss of historical accuracy and reduced awareness of systemic injustice.

Okay, I See Your Point, But, What is the Key Difference: Accountability vs. Whitewashing?

The primary difference lies in the motivation and the consequences:

Accountability (removing statues, renaming, or updating cultural items): Aims to acknowledge harm and reduce the glorification of racism or outdated stereotypes while still preserving the history itself in museums, archives, or educational contexts.

Whitewashing (removing DEI and factual content): Seeks to diminish or obscure uncomfortable truths, preventing people from learning about marginalized histories and systemic issues.

So, How do I Differentiate?

When evaluating whether something is "cancel culture" or historical erasure, consider:

Is it about commemoration or education?

Changing who we celebrate (e.g., statues, mascots) is about values.

Changing what we teach (e.g., removing civil rights or LGBTQ+ history) distorts knowledge.

Is the content still accessible?

Dr. Seuss books still exist but may not be published.

If DEI content is removed from schools, future generations may lose access to it entirely.

Is it about corporate branding or public education?

Rebranding products is about marketing and representation.

Removing DEI from curricula alters collective historical literacy.

Here is the bottom line. The distinction between cultural cancellation and historical erasure is more than semantics—it shapes how we understand and engage with our collective past. While removing statues or rebranding outdated cultural icons reflects a shift in societal values and a push for accountability, erasing or distorting factual history limits our ability to learn from past injustices. One seeks to acknowledge and rectify harm, while the other risks repeating it by obscuring the truth.

As we navigate these debates, it’s important to ask: Are we removing something because it glorifies harm, or are we erasing it to avoid discomfort? The answer determines whether we are holding history accountable or whitewashing it altogether.

Call to Action

As you engage with these discussions, take time to research the intent and impact behind cultural and historical changes. 

Ask yourself:

Is this removal preventing the celebration of injustice or hiding uncomfortable truths?

Are marginalized voices being amplified or silenced?

Get involved by advocating for accurate historical education in schools, supporting diverse narratives in media, and having informed conversations about the difference between evolving culture and erasing history. By staying informed and engaged, we can ensure that our society values both accountability and truth.

With much love, peace, & kindness,

Jenny XOXO 🩷