History is generally understood to be a record of the past, but in reality, it is constantly being rewritten.
Whether due to changing social values, new discoveries or deliberate distortions, stories about history shape public understanding of the present - and influence the future.
But when facts are distorted to serve a particular agenda, the distinction between interpretation and manipulation blurs, raising the question: who decides what version of history is remembered?
Igor Djordjevic
The manipulation of history - sometimes intentional, other times not - according to York University Associate Professor Igor Djordjevic, misrepresents the past and may influence how people understand current events.
Djordjevic, who teaches at Glendon College and specializes in English Renaissance dramatic and non-dramatic literature, has spent years studying the connections between historical writing and cultural memory, and piecing together evidence that challenges conventional narratives.
Through his work, he has found that history is often reshaped to serve political or cultural agendas, which is seen when those in power simplify complex events or use historical figures to justify political positions.
Politicians today, he says, often revise history to fit their agendas - and those historical narratives also change during political crises. For example, in 1601, a play about the deposition of a king, possibly Shakespeare's Richard II, was staged on the eve of the Essex Rebellion, for reasons still debated today. During the investigation of the rebellion, inquisitors like the attorney general asked why a play about Richard II was performed at that specific time. Their questions, says Djordjevic, aimed to understand if the play inspired the rebellion, and to determine if the historical narrative was being used in a dangerous way in the present.
Djordjevic's work highlights these narrative shifts which, he says, often simplify complex issues into good-vs-evil struggles and impose a fallacious reading of the past as explanations of the present, while pretending to be sure predictors of the future. Recognizing these patterns helps us critically evaluate the current political discourse and its impact on international relations.
"I mentioned our politicians' simplistic flattening of history - reducing everything to a Hitlerian threat that can only be combatted by more war - as part of the problem, and that is pretty much echoed by the news media that then echoes those political stances unquestioningly," he says.
Similarly, today's entertainment media - movies, books, plays, etc. - shape public memory, sometimes accurately, mostly not; however, as in the past, they always prove more influential because telling stories has always been the most effective way of having people understand history, says Djordjevic.
"This is why I separate the concept of historical memory,' or the record of the past curated by historians and historiography more generally, from cultural memory,' which is the product of artistic or other adaptations of memory for entertainment or some other non-political purpose," he explains.
He cautions that understanding history requires media literacy, and audiences should seek first to understand the form, or genre of the thing they are consuming because it shapes the narrative, and then to understand whatever history in the narrative is being altered for entertainment or political purposes. News media, for instance, typically echoes political stances while entertainment media, such as movies, novels, plays and video games, can present narratives that impact cultural understandings.
"There are two problems at work here," Djordjevic says. "Understanding that a fictionalized narrative - a movie - is not the same as a documentary. A novel is not a history book.
"The other problem has to do with the audience's ability recognize the importance of asking the question those political inquisitors did in 1601 when they wondered if remembering a crisis from 1399 in 1601 was somehow seditious: why this story and why now?"
Djordjevic has authored several books exploring the relationships between English cultural memory and historical writing. Through detailed analysis of primary sources - ranging from personal letters and government documents to media reports and firsthand testimony - Djordjevic has uncovered new insights that reshape how we interpret the past.
His recently published third monograph, Remembering, Replaying and Rereading Henry VIII: The Courtier's Henry (Routledge, 2025) explores the memorial issues surrounding a famous performance of Shakespeare and Fletcher's Henry VIII at the Globe in 1628, a moment of political crisis that would in time result in civil war and regicide.
His previous works, Holinshed's Nation: Ideals, Memory, and Practical Policy in the Chronicles (Ashgate, 2010) and King John [Mis]remembered: the Dunmow Chronicle, the Lord Admiral's Men, and the Formation of Cultural Memory (Ashgate, 2015), explored the relationships between English cultural memory and historical writing in the early modern period.
The significance of this research extends beyond academia; understanding history in its full complexity helps inform contemporary discussions on relevant social or political issues.
As new research continues to emerge, says Djordjevic, it underscores the importance of questioning established narratives and embracing the evolving nature of historical understanding.
"Some kind of pastness' is always around us, and there is probably more history to be consumed for entertainment now than ever before," says Djordjevic. "The more anyone engages with historical narrative, the more they will be able to grasp that nuance of reshaping history.'"
This story was originally featured in YFile, York University's community newsletter.
