History is a narrative, and States all want to write a particular narrative to make the governance of their communities easier. It's always been an absurdity that the USA somehow decided that maintaining a bunch of tacky statues of traitorous assholes built a half century after they lost a war is somehow key to creating an American history; after all, we don't commemorate Tojo with a statue at Pearl Harbor.

But what is a narrative US governments can write now that everyone, across all the many demographics that make up our nation, will consent to? In the case of public monuments, I cannot imagine any subjects that could unite the US today or in the near future. Just yesterday, protesters tore down the bust of Ulysses S Grant in Golden Gate Park; statues of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt offend racial sensitivities; name a President from Washington to Trump, and someone will rage at their manifold evils.

You can argue that that's all for the best, as every leader of US government has a lot of blood on their hands. But I find that troubling: you can simultaneously recognize that people have a mixed legacy while also celebrating their accomplishments. And there's a fair bit of hypocrisy in the style of critique as well: many progressive heroes themselves have mixed legacies, but for some reason I doubt many of the statue-topplers today would applaud someone vandalizing statues of white supremacist Elizabeth Cady Stanton (though who knows; today's hero is tomorrow's unperson), to say nothing of other more polarizing cases like Angela Davis.

Perhaps relinquishing the use of history to build a sense of an American nation is the only way to go. But I guarantee that giving up our imagined community of "America" will be deadly to progressive goals and racial harmony.