Losing history by design

History does not change but our relationship to it does. Even though it shapes the present, preserving the past unquestioned and unaltered -- or, more accurately, preserving how our predecessors viewed the past -- is not an obligation of the present. It is an unreasonable standard to judge historical figures by our moral values, and to denounce as villains anyone from previous times who would not have fit within acceptable behaviors of 2015.

History is best understood when we identify the world views of those who lived before us to understand their actions and how what they did shaped who we are. It is a pointless exercise, however much it might seem righteous, to search history for crimes to denounce, demanding penance from those who have long since gone to their reward, or from their current heirs, however we construe that inheritance.

During the Soviet Union's reign of incompetence and terror, the Communist Party erected many monuments to Josef Stalin, for whom the term "cult of personality" was invented.

Responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, Stalin demanded unparalleled reverence for himself. Under Nikita Khrushchev (1953-1964), Stalin's successor, most of the cities, streets, schools and other sites named for Stalin were renamed, as the brutal tyrant's crimes were revealed. Iraqis experienced a similar trajectory after the U.S. overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003, with crowds rushing into the streets to smash the murals, statues, and billboards hailing the unconquerable Saddam. In 2007, Spain's socialists passed the "Law of Historical Memory," which removed street names, statues and monuments dedicated to the former dictator, Francisco Franco. The central government imposed a prohibition on retaining on public infrastructure anything named for the Franco Regime, even in Franco's northwest Galician hometown of El Ferrol.

While these are extreme examples, they represent of the changes to public memory that occur in the normal course of events.

Time matters; no one still insists that the statue of King George III on horseback, which graced Manhattan before revolutionaries destroyed it on July 9, 1776, would be an appropriate symbol to stand in our largest city. On the other hand, imagine the possibilities for education and tourism that this figure, which stood not far from today's iconic Charging Bull statue, would present for today's New York.

Indeed, it is in being mindful of history that we should hesitate before destroying representations of the sentiments of previous eras. Most recently, some communities and universities have taken down -- in some cases, demolishing -- statues of slave owners, Confederate leaders, and others espousing ideas that are today unacceptable. Many small Southern and even Midwestern towns are starting to grapple with the question of what to do with Confederate war memorials.

The examples of Russia, Iraq and Spain are illustrative. While we might shed no tears to see the literal fall of Josef Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Francisco Franco, their nations have been remarkably unsuccessful in understanding their own history.

Indeed, in the rush to erase these three men from their respective pasts, each nation has seen a backlash from those forced to reject leaders for whom they felt some vestigial loyalty. Indeed, the persecution of those with fond memories of "the good old days" has, if anything, delayed a full and honest national dialogue in each nation. In recent days, one Russian town erected a new statue of Stalin as if to make the point even clearer. "The socialists must know Franco did a lot of good things," one Spaniard told me recently, "or they wouldn't be so insistent that no one speaks his name." Sunni resentments of Shia-led Baghdad played a large role in paving the way for ISIS.

While each community should be left to decide the ultimate disposition of their public spaces, one possible approach could be to "retain but explain." In other words, the statues of Robert E. Lee and anonymous Confederate soldiers should not be smashed. Instead, civic leaders, historical societies, professional historians, and other stakeholders should ensure that information about these statues, murals and named sites of significance are curated and presented objectively. Keep Confederate memorials, for example, and do recognize the sacrifices made by rebel soldiers, but do not maintain this as the entire story.

In some cases, statues, monuments and flags belong more appropriately in museums or other educational places, better to explore complexities and contested meanings. In others, perhaps a statue of Solomon Northup, Frederick Douglass, or an African-American Civil War veteran could enrich the scene. Schoolchildren should not merely hear the voice of Jefferson Davis, in his fiery denunciations of the North, but they should also not be ignorant of him.

Rather than tear down monuments, historic sites or other physical legacies of our collective past, we should preserve them to understand history.

The embrace of historical ignorance by many Russians, Iraqis and Spaniards should serve as a warning to those who would view history merely as a place to find heroes or villains to validate their current perspectives.

Wayne Bowen, a U.S. Army veteran, received his Ph.D. in history from Northwestern University. He resides in Cape Girardeau.