"Reactionary" is an interesting word.  Generally, it's defined as a person or view opposing political or social change.  That's no doubt true, but I wonder whether it's clear from that definition that a reactionary is a person or view the essence of which responds to a particular event (i.e. "reacts" to or is a "reaction").  He or she (or whatever), or it, is provoked by something.

The "cartoon" shown above, by the remarkable Gillray, an English political artist of the Revolutionary/Napoleonic era, is an example of a drawing which may be called reactionary.  It's called The Apotheosis of Hoche, and is a reaction to the excesses of the French Revolution.  Hoche was a successful general of Revolutionary France and is shown ascending into heaven bearing a guillotine instead of a harp.

A reactionary person or view is one that is prompted by a particular action, one that is contrary to the status quo in some sense and is so striking that a response is induced.  The response is typically prompt and striking as well, and in many cases thoughtless.  It is, or at least often is, a "knee-jerk" reaction.  Who or what is provoked may not react in circumstances where there is no provocation. 

"Knee-jerk" reactions are common in these sad times and very much in the news.  The nature of the reactions are worthy of study, but so are the events which provoke them.

Most recently, they seem to have been provoked by such things as a (purported) documentary regarding Cleopatra, a kind of fantasy in which the English Queen Charlotte is portrayed as black, a beer commercial which features a transgender person, a beer commercial which is critical of other beer commercials because of the manner in which they portray women, some Disney animated feature in which a Character is gay, and it would seem anything which features characters or subjects which are not status quo and is seemingly intended to promote their acceptance.  

As I've noted before in this blog, I'm not inclined to be provoked in any way by any fantasy or fiction featuring characters played by actors of various races.  I think it's silly to be concerned by such things.  However, I confess it I find it annoying where history is tampered with or the laws of physics are waived, unless it's clear that the portrayal of characters isn't meant to have any relation to reality (e.g., superhero movies).  I also object to depictions of history, purported to be factual, which in fact distort or misstate history.

I don't share the fixation it appears many of my fellow citizens of our Glorious Union have on the subject of sex.  So, I wouldn't refuse to, or be inclined to, consume beer or anything else because someone different from me sexually or by gender has been used in its advertising.  I've resigned myself to the fact that there are people who aren't just like me, and think others should do so as well.

But as I've also noted in this blog, I object to what I've described as the "missionary Media," those creators of advertising, movies, television, etc., who take it upon themselves to preach; who go out of their way to show us what they think is good and tell us what they think we all should find acceptable.  Note that language--"who go out of their way."  Media manipulates by its nature, but there are some who deliberately seek to manipulate others.  I prefer not to be manipulated, and suspect others prefer not to be as well.  

I don't know how a gay character came to be portrayed in a Disney animated feature, but am reasonably certain it wasn't essential to the plot that we learn that some character is gay.  I think it most likely that someone felt that it would be good for us, the viewers, if someone gay was made part of the story, simply because he or she was gay.  Someone felt that it would be a kind of learning experience for the viewers.  

I must admit that it would be my preference that sexual or romantic relationships of any kind be left for the most part undescribed in media, particularly that directed at children.  I find more than cursory portrayals of those relationships uninteresting in entertainments.  That may make me incapable of fairly judging media devoted to them, as I wish that they would just disappear.  Disney certainly has made more than its share of animated films devoted to heterosexual relationships.  Perhaps it was manipulating us by doing so.

To come to the point I wish to make:  When the missionary media takes it upon itself to preach to us in mass advertising or entertainments, particularly on issues involving race or sex here in our Great Republic, I think it should be expected that there will be reactions, and those reactions will be rejection of what is being preached.  There may be no good reason for the rejections.  They will, nonetheless, be absolute and angry rejections.  In other words, I think that the reactions many deplore, and that are knee-jerk reactions, result from provocation of a kind.  Such reactions will be stronger and more strident the more the preaching takes place.  

It strikes me that the more people are pushed to become what they don't want to become believe what they don't want to believe through mass media, whether that pushing is well-intentioned or otherwise, the more vigorously and unreasonably they'll react.  For example, they might ban certain works from schools, or prohibit certain speech in schools.  This will be taken advantage of by devoted proponents of the political and social status quo.  Those who seek to enlighten us socially, culturally and politically (which in itself has an appearance of arrogance and self-righteousness)  should understand that when they seek to do so they provide fodder for those who benefit from believing or asserting that "social engineering" is involved and that there is a conspiracy among certain elites to program people who disagree, and especially their children.

Suspicion is not an unnatural response to those who are missionaries.