As the philosopher George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” It’s true that we humans easily forget the past, and we seem to repeat our mistakes—think of large and small conflicts around the globe. Yet now the Trump administration is moving that process forward with a brand-new spin.
In response to President Trump’s executive order Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum issued an order to counter what he calls a revisionist movement that “seeks to undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light.”
Now, to comply with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s plan to eliminate any “negative” depictions of U.S. history, the Interior Department has asked national parks and other public land agencies to remove, cover or replace all non-complying signs.
This could take some doing, as rewriting the past to remove conflict requires not just artfulness, but ignoring important people and their actions.
There’s also the issue of the very purpose of national parks and monuments. Parks and other public lands are the commons that belong to all Americans, and the Park Service is charged with preserving these places and their backgrounds for the public. That means including the stories that might reveal bigotry and cruelty.
Think of the national places dedicated to the dark history of slavery and the struggle for civil rights, the migrant farm workers movement, the coal miners’ labor movement, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, Japanese internment camps, and sites of massacres of Tribal members.
How can park rangers tell a happy story about eastern Colorado’s Amache National Historic Site, where thousands of Japanese Americans were incarcerated during World War II— never charged with any crime but treated as suspicious solely because of their Japanese roots. They were deprived of their homes and businesses and sent to live in primitive barracks across America. That shameful story is the truth.
At the nearby Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site in southeast Colorado, about 270 Cheyene and Arapaho people— mostly women and children–—were slaughtered by a well-armed white militia in 1864. According to Congress’ Joint Committee on the Conduct of War, the attack was a “foul and dastardly massacre . . a cowardly act.” These blunt words present a problem for the rewriters of history. Is there a way for the Interior Department’s new historians to make a slaughter sound positive?
Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, established in 2016, was conceived by a coalition of five Tribes to protect their cultural and sacred landscape and to establish a new model for Tribal co-stewardship with federal agencies. In part, this was a long overdue recognition that all western public lands once belonged to Indigenous tribes. President Trump, who shrunk the monument by 85 percent before it was restored by President Biden, is proposing to again alter the monument’s size. How do you tell a positive story without mentioning the long struggle of tribal people to become involved in managing the land that once was theirs?
The administration’s executive order could be interpreted as a hostile act against Americans who share some ugly history in our past. It also blocks Americans, young and old, who are eager to learn about this country’s history—no matter how many revelations there are of pain and cruelty.
Erasing the past from parks and monuments violates the law and generations of regulations and public tradition, and it also insults the people who suffered from that history. The freedom to learn our history—all of our history—is an important part of being a citizen of this country.
Here’s a suggestion: If you visit a national monument or park this summer and encounter sanitized history being communicated, take issue with it. You can tell the Interior Department that you expected a truthful account, not something that reads like propaganda. And if there’s no sign or interpretation conveyed at all, you might ask why it has been banished.
The past might not be pretty, but what occurred is called history, and it’s important that we learn what we hope never to repeat.
Ernie Atencio is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring conversation about the West. He lives in New Mexico and is a former national park ranger and former Southwest Regional Director for National Parks Conservation Association.
Please note that the 8th paragraph was changed to reflect that the Sand Creek Massacre happened in 1864, not 1874.
I certainly agree that removing negative history from our national parks and monuments is not a good idea. However it is important to note that other similar deeds have been taken in recent years by what might be considered “left leaning” or even radically progressive cities, states, and/or federal departments. Examples: removal of the bust of Thomas Jefferson from the city hall facility in NYC, removal of the wonderful statue of Theodore Roosevelt from in front of the NYC Museum of Natural History, removal of the statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson from display in Charlottesville, VA, removal of at least five statues of civil war figures from Richmond, VA, the renaming of military bases that were named many decades ago after confederate soldier individuals, the threat to remove or cover up the fabulous Victor Arnautoff “Life of Washington” frescos from a high school building in San Francisco (I think that, fortunately, these murals have been spared by more rational policy makers). Then there are the radicals on the street that have attempted to remove history, such as the rioters who tried to tear down the Andrew Jackson statue in Lafayette Square in Washington, DC a few years ago. Fortunately, these guys were thwarted by law enforcement. So there is plenty of revisionist insanity to go around, which probably should be presented in a fair and balanced report.
Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder. That’s why his statue was removed in New York City. Statues of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and other Confederate figures were removed because they were also slaveowners and they fought against the U.S. in the Civil War. Had they won, slavery would still be legal. Hard to imagine a worse human evil than slavery. As for the military bases, we have far more deserving people we could name our bases after. I agree that the mural in San Francisco should stay. And that we should discuss before we destroy. But one statue in Washington, D.C. (still standing) pales beside what what happened to our nation’s capital on Jan. 6 and the blame for that riot is squarely on the right. Let’s not erase that.
Thanks for using the facts. Carry on.
Thank you.
the SC massacre would never have happened if the indian men had not started the Colorado war. the indian men started the Colorado war, as a war of ethnic cleansing and genocide to drive the whites from Colorado after the us army had departed to fight the civil war. Gov Evans tried for a peace treaty but was rebuffed. the indian men put their women and children in a village under a white flag while the men massacred white families. the village did included warriors who were fighting. the Colorado war was stupid and never could have succeeded. So, its the indian men who are to blame for the horrible massacre. that’s what happens in war. at the end of teh war casualties were about equal. lets tell the whole story
This is a great article in the 6/19/25 issue of the Rapid City Journal. Carry on.