They have rewritten history books to fit their ideology, which does not reflect reality.

Ideologically pure losers write nothing.

is glorified as the man who saw us through 9/11.

I totally disagree with your comment. What matters is what you do to win and what you do once you won.

But, enough accurate, easily accessible info out there makes it harder for a history book author to lie.

And, we have to acknowledge, as did the ancients, that history books are not written by those without bias. To get at the truth--if you really want it, and I don't think many really do---you probably have to look at writings by authors with different biases.

It's incredibly egotistical.

To know true history one must dig into dusty, musty primary sources. Even then the interpretation of them will be slanted by your own bias. My father was a historian as well as a psychologist and an intelligence analyst. He would read everything he could find on current events that he was interested in. Then his great brain would crunch the info and out would come an analysis that was almost always right on the money.

He passed some of that ability on to me. However the sources available are basically carbon copies of each other. Here I speaking of print and electronic media. He and I would read 2 or 3 newspapers and 3 or more news weeklies to get a truer picture. It doesn't matter if you read and view 2 dozen of these "sources" because when you boil them down all that is left is dross.

Before Citizen's United destroyed fair election funding the news people lost their way as being a public service. They are all suffering from a form of liver disease that gives all their broadcasts, print and internet offerings a decided yellow cast.

history books. I taught in inner city schools i.e. predominantly African American students, believe me history books suck.

Speak of the Irish I just received some cycling socks

On the sole it says, "But kiss me anyway."
I usually say I have Irish in me because I drank Old Paddy and Murphy's stout.

in 1893. She came over to the US with my Great-Aunt Katie around 1911. My Grandfather (mom's dad) was born in Poland. So my parents are truly 1st generation Americans, I'm second.

To my understanding the first time the term "race" was used it was by the British toward the Irish. The Irish were lesser "race" than they.

I would live in west County Cork, near Clonakilty in a lovingly restored country cottage complete with real stone walls around the fields. I cycled around Clonakilty and Galley Head. Some of the happiest days of my life.

My wife maternal grandparents were from Warsaw and her Dad's side was mostly Irish. So you are of a similar mix. I bet you are as hard headed as she is- Oh wait, strong minded.

I don't have a way to post pictures and no scanner to boot, but we have a picture of my beloved sitting on a gigantic anchor. The idea was that she will not be moved from Ireland. Here's a pic from the internet of the anchor:

I have pleasant memories of my day there. I visited Ireland with my uncle (dad's younger brother) his step-daughter, her then boyfriend, now husband, and her cousin and his girlfriend.

My uncle and I were the only ones of Irish ancestry on this trip. My step cousin is Chinese & Polish, her cousin and his girlfriend both Polish and her now husband, a mix of a lot of European ancestors, maybe a little Irish in there.

We all split up that day in Kinsale. I remember seeing an Irish funeral, the casket being carried on the shoulders of 6 young men and taken into the church. And just a lot of beauty.

I remember finding my uncle in Kennedy's Pub, sitting in a chair reading the paper, and drinking a coffee (he was a recovering alcoholic). He was just like my dad a voracious reader.

It was just a great day.

Both real and constructed.

It also depends on what your definition of accuracy is. Is accuracy just about the facts, or is accuracy about a particular view of the facts?

Humans are odd. We're the only form of life that we know of that cares about what happened 100 years ago. We're the only form of life that invented something called a year to begin with.

microfilms at the library and read it as it happened.
Those cover history into the 1800s, depending on the state and whether it was settled then.

It's almost impossible to ensure accuracy - accuracy according to whom? As Dan Brown's quote says, the winners record history and their view is vastly different than that of the losers, or those who were on the sidelines living their lives and didn't have a voice at all.

We have to take recorded history for what it is - an imperfect account of significant events that shape societies.

But what of interpretation of those videos? Sometimes it's not cut and dried.

The "losers" will write their histories too. Future generations will have to try to deal with what really happened and trying to figure out which historians were objective. They'll have a lot more source material the farther in the future they are. Now there are videos and photos and written and electronic evidence that can be analyzed. No digging to find artifacts or old records that could be wrong or misplaced or of uncertain origin.