[raxxorraxor]

Yes, but there are huge qualitative difference and they are important. Even among historians there is mission creep to adapt the past to fit a certain perspective. Of course the Zeitgeist is an influence, but to say that deliberate re-interprations are just like any other reassesment is a lie.

[watwut]

But a lot of that is actually good thing. The past stories were also told to fit a certain perspective. People were intentionally left out, acts of other people were intentionally left out, all that to conform to past ideologies.

There is a reason history ignored certain people, minorities or genders. And adding their point of view is a good thing.

[raxxorraxor]

Yes, but that was not bias. That was done deliberately and falsified history. It comparable to attempts to adapt history for the sensibilities of today.

[watwut]

Except that what you call "adapt history for the sensibilities of today" is in 95% of cases "actually telling something negative about celebrated past historical figure". It is "not pretending that the rape described here in euphemisms was something different then just rape".

The whole divisive concepts bruhaha is all about returning to the way past was mythologized and made sound better then it actually was.