How bad is your googling habit and what does it mean?

google?
who uses google!?
wiki or yahoo for me.

Same applies to you, gramps.
Unless, that is, you are as old as human civilization.Keep in mind that not even historians can see the fuller sweep of history, we can only see parts in that which we specialize.

No, I can't.
My area of concentration is not modern american history. Hell, my focus isn't even american history. Try european history (post french revolution, though I'm just starting really). Perhaps about the time you grew up in. Even then, you need to be immersed in the culture and history of your time. I know I'm not in tune with my generation's pop culture. And as others have said, being closer does not equal being more accurate. First person accounts are valuable in history. But they are definitely biased. Since when was being biased considered being accurate? Those accounts also have the problem of not knowing everything that is going on.
But you were arguing that we young'uns can't see the fuller sweep of history as well as you old fogies. And the only way for you to know more about the fuller sweep of history than me is to be old as dirt, literally. And everywhere at once. Oh wait, you would have to be god himself.Tell me, why did Napolean's newphew, as emperor, designate himself as the third?
Was Jeremy Bentham a conservative?
Who was Rosa Luxemburg?
Why did Great Britain not experience revolution in 1848 as compared to Paris, Frankfurt, and practically everyother major western european city?
Was nationalism liberal? Can it be?And from what others have said about the Zoot Suit Riots, I highly doubt that that single event explains post-war pop fashion or social rebellion. Single events almost never explain a broad, general event. Case in point--was it Germany taking Alcase-Lorraine that triggered WWI? Was it the death of Archduke Ferdinand? What about the political style of Kaiser Wilhelm II? Another case--why is it that even though the UK said it would not go to war over Eastern Europe, it did precisely that in WWII? Afer all, it was Poland that was invaded, nevermind the disintegration of Czeckoslavia(sp?)?

Thank you for proving my case.

The internet really just allows personal biases to spread.For that matter, and information media.Without the internet, where would conservopedia exist?There is also a distinction between what happened in history and what caused events to happen. The facts are hardly ever in disupte--such as when the Civil War was, who faught it, where the battles took place, etc. The points of contention are what caused the war, whether a the loss of a battle undermined any side's effort (or strenghtened), etc.
This is where you are getting stuck. It is fact that there was a Zoot Suit Riot in 1942 in LA. But did it cause juvenile delinquency? Is it a starting point or culmination, or just somewhere in the progression? Is it utterly irrelevant? Or is there something important to be gleaned from it? What does it tell us about the specific society it occurred in? You are no closer to this side of history than anyone else, and perhaps further away from it than others.

lol. We lost Vietnam because of a riot in 1942? You're incredible.
Please tell me, did the punk movement of the 1970s contribute to our loss in Iraq?You've managed to string along a bunch of events. You haven't really explained a single thing--just made a bunch of assertions. History may not be as rigorous as science, but you still can't make assertions.

thank you for missing the point.You were 'there'. That does not mean you are unbiased (as admitted). It also highly doubtful you had access to all the information about what happened.Statements about why something happened in history require support. I can say "Bismark's belief in pink blackholes led him to try and unify Germany", but without any support for this, it has no validity. Even if a person alive in Germany (Berlin, even) when unification happened would have to support that statement with evidence.