I'm rather unclear on why his comment is felt necessary though, since saying history should strive to be accurate is like saying science should strive to figure things out or clergy should seek to preach their faith. So essentially me say it's oxymoronic and him replying that we should strive for impartiality is sort of like my saying 'science doesn't know it all' and him saying 'that doesn't mean we should stop trying' or my saying 'no man can hope to know the mind of God' and him saying 'that doesn't mean we should all become atheists'. It just seems so out of place unless he assumed I was saying propaganda and distortion in history was fine which is why I queried and asked about the link, which happens to be a long rant by a centrist democrat about people flavoring kid's history books for political reasons. Mine is a cynical but true comment on history and on the NYT, which certainly knows about this and has chosen to highlight Texas when a lot of other states are doing the same thing under what I can only assume is the intentional equivalent of saying "The KKK is against gun control" an essentially transparent comment.