Bridgerton: An unpopular opinion

I wanted to like Bridgerton.  I liked every other Shonda Rhimes show I'd seen.  It had everything I should like:  a Regency era setting, pretty costumes, the marriage market, nobility, gossip and scandal.

I am glad that Bridgerton exists as a show.  I am happy to see more diversity in casting, and I will always support women writers and show runners duking it out among the hordes of men in entertainment.

Unfortunately, I cannot enjoy Bridgerton.  I cannot watch Bridgerton without thinking of how British colonialism destroyed millions of lives in that period of time.  To portray white aristocrats as merely amiable fellow countrymen to people of color is far too forgiving of the truth of British (and white) history.

By contrast, I loved Hamilton (of course I did), because they fully and very intentionally inverted the racial balance, and even though they were silent on many unpleasant truths (Hercules Mulligan was not so much the spy but the owner of the slave spy who delivered messages to General Washington), they did not pretend that racism did not exist. Likewise, the fantasy world of Schitt's Creek that is entirely devoid of homophobia, I can enjoy as refreshing escapism because it acknowledges itself (if not explicitly) as fantasy.  

If Bridgerton were cast with all people of color, or if it were set in a less historically-specific time and place, I might be able to enjoy it without the sense that the injustices had been forgotten or erased. I am sure they were not forgotten by the show runners, but as viewers, particularly descendants of plantation owners, it is desirable to forget where we come from.

I know it's Shonda Rhimes.  I know it's her motif, and I love her for it.  But, to that point, the show is not made for me.  It was made for people who want to see what it could have been like if we lived in a kinder world.  I can see the appeal, but I think we have a hard enough time owning our collective sins already without period pieces indulging our sensibilities.

---