There are those that espouse the mistaken belief that history is immutable. That memory is absolute. They use this fallacy as the hammer with which to strike down any and all attempts of those who try to leave their previous mistakes behind in favor of rising to a new future, one where those weighed down by past mistakes can reinvent themselves for the sake of their future.
But, as I've been subtly suggesting, the argument is based upon a faulty premise. The past is far from immutable. Indeed, history is subjective, a thing open to interpretation, revision, and negation from the all-important now. All that is required to overcome one's past is the will to act as necessary, and the drive and imagination to see it changed to one's own liking.
Some people think of this as double-think, that is incorrect. Double-think is the subjective interpretation of "now", rather than alteration of the past. Doublethink is a personal hypocrisy, whereas changing the past is simply "progress", as it were.
I would like to see someone take this theory, and put it into practice. It's definitely fascinated me for some time.