History has just as much right to be revised as does any other manifestation of memory. Memories don't exist, they are recreated every time you remember something. History doesn't exist either. The past exists (don't quibble about tenses, please), but history isn't the past, it's about the past. And what we say about the past changes, as it should. We have one slant one year, and another the next. The trick is for the revision to make things MORE accurate, not less. For example, it used to be history that early American settlers "made friends with" the Indians. Now, it's history that early Americans practically extinguished the Native Americans. Yes, it's revisionist. No, it's not a bad thing since it is actually closer to the past. Pretending that aborigibal folks didn't wear immodest (by contemporary European standards) dress nor bow down to their conquerors is not. So I'd vote for Keep The Mural And Teach Your Children Well.