Keeping it "historically accurate"

Keeping it "historically accurate"

Is HISTORY or HERITAGE more important? Both words conjure up a feeling of the past but in truth they are very different. History is based on the concern with events in the past. Heritage is our personal legacy, given to us by those who walked the same path we tread before us. 
Should we erase our heritage in favor of history? Should we restore items to historically accurate when ever possible? Who decides what historically accurate is before we can restore it?
At lot of time when we restore a building to historically accurate, what we are really doing is erasing the heritage given us. Those before us usually had reason for the changes made and those should be honored. In the 1950's, the previous owners of my house removed and upstairs bedroom and put in a kitchen. It still has the original red, curved counter top they put in. Should that be ripped out in the name of historical accuracy and turned back in to a bedroom so it will look the same as the other houses built 140+ years ago? If that is the case, I hope less places will be restored to historically accurate and more will be mindful of the heritage as well.

I believe "historically accurate" is an ugly idea.  It does a great disservice to these wonderful old places. For Cole Watch Tower to be put back to it's original condition, THE TOWER WOULD HAVE TO GO. That's right,  the tower is not historically accurate for a 1870's Italianate-style home. Historically, early settlers made do and prospered with what they could make work already on hand.  Bailing wire and bubble gum.  Yea, I would say we are historically accurate here and we will honor our heritage along the way.