Sarah Palin talks about Paul Revere’s ride

[Ex1lepr0]

Aaaaaand, now experts are saying her account was historically accurate.

Well, just because a group of morons say something is true doesn't mean it is.

[Unassumption]

if she was not attractive

I've still not got what men see in her saggy old ass =S

One thing's for sure - she isn't an expert and while we should go with the guys who have been bothered to read and are able to access materials we can't as long as they give us sources, she didn't know more than the public image even if it is true and made a gaffe based on what she knew. I doubt the experts really agree with her; there's some people who claim qualifications in biology and deny evolution and more still who are miscast as being experts opposing it, this may well be what's going on here.

[triplemultiplex]

It is very human for us to customize our memory to fit into a narrative we've established for ourselves. That includes our personal experiences and our recall of historical events that are taught to us. Knowing that, it should be no surprise that a person with Palin's views would gloss over the facts of something like Paul Revere's ride and emphasize the "They cummin' fer yer gunz" aspect of the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

The Brits were on their way to Concord to provide a security presence in a region of hostile activity and the guns thing was just one of the pacification measures they would probably have attempted. The militia in those towns had other ideas, of course, and that's the truly important fact that even the dumbest American should know: Paul Revere's ride preceded the very first battle of the American Revolution.

[NeuroHeart]

she didn't know more than the public image

She didn't even know THAT...

And what "experts" are agreeing with her, here? All I've heard was that there's an edit war on Wikipedia because her rabid supporters want her to be right. Wikipedia editors hardly count as "experts."

[Zazaban]

Aaaaaand, now experts are saying her account was historically accurate.

Well, just because a group of morons say something is true doesn't mean it is.

It's a common move in politics now sadly – when you're proven wrong, don't admit it, claim you're right: hopefully, it'll confuse the buggers.

[angeldeb82]

I've got an update in the "Bullseye" section of Entertainment Weekly magazine (#1159, June 17, 2011):

Sarah Palin doesn't know story of Paul Revere. "In my defense, I stopped caring about American history after I saw that filthy Edward Norton movie."

[Big-Will]

So, what did she get wrong, actually?

[cmbeattie]

all i'm saying is this- we should have known something was terribly wrong with this person when they said they could see russia from their backyard.

Not to defend her, but the "I can see Russia from my backyard" was not stated by her. That was Tina Fey. She did say they were neighbors of Alaska. Which, is about 2 1/2 miles away from a certain part. Just looked that up.

I am a Conservative, I don't support Palin especially for president. I don't usually defend her. The only other time I did was when she was getting blamed for the Tucson Shooting, when both parties use targets and crosshairs. Also, the guy was insane and had no rational political leanings.

[cmbeattie]

she didn't know more than the public image

She didn't even know THAT...

And what "experts" are agreeing with her, here? All I've heard was that there's an edit war on Wikipedia because her rabid supporters want her to be right. Wikipedia editors hardly count as "experts."

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_pol ... position=0

The experts weren't wikipedia. I am only a History minor. There are always different spins on history. Like the book "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. It tells a different story than what many are told in grade school. Most Americans are not concerned about history.
Brendan McConville is a professor of History at Boston University. (Considering it is in Boston and is a University, it is likely a very liberal institute). I don't know his leanings.

I majored in Political Science.

[zzyzx 1]

she didn't know more than the public image

She didn't even know THAT...

And what "experts" are agreeing with her, here? All I've heard was that there's an edit war on Wikipedia because her rabid supporters want her to be right. Wikipedia editors hardly count as "experts."

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_pol ... position=0

The experts weren't wikipedia. I am only a History minor. There are always different spins on history. Like the book "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. It tells a different story than what many are told in grade school. Most Americans are not concerned about history.
Brendan McConville is a professor of History at Boston University. (Considering it is in Boston and is a University, it is likely a very liberal institute). I don't know his leanings.

I majored in Political Science.

Congrats on your major

As to the article:

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”

What is this "Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British. . . .That's accurate."

No, it's not a quote from Revere, it's the professor, the "expert" as you say summarizing what Revere may have said by the professor's use of the word: "basically." How about exactly, professor, what is the exact quote of Revere? Or did you (professor) just put your own slant on it? I don't find this "basically" quote too trustworthy.

"He who warned uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

Where does it say Revere had the church bells to ring? It does say "by ringing those bells." She's not too clear on what she's saying or what she's trying to say; maybe she knows Reiska.

[cmbeattie]

"He who warned uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

Where does it say Revere had the church bells to ring? It does say "by ringing those bells." She's not too clear on what she's saying or what she's trying to say; maybe she knows Reiska.[/quote]

While in college. I have experienced a lot of professors who spin things. I had a history professor that said in 1957 Prescott Bush (Bush's Grandfather) voted against the Civil Rights Act, yet after researching it I found out she was wrong on that. He voted the same way as JFK. She also falsely claimed that Al Gore Sr. lost re-election for supporting Civil Rights and he never supported any.

Anyway, yeah it is possible this expert was spinning it, but I was only responding to whether experts have stated this. Liberals and conservatives lie about history.

[Unassumption]

"the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. "
If that bit is accurate her quote may have some truth to it -weather he's the one who rang the bells or not.
I'd like to know the sources for the professor's claims though, anything he says is only as good as his sources no intrinsic authority of expertise just a wealth of sources you can toss out there.
I'm sure Palin didn't know what she was saying and was trying to remember something someone told her she didn't fully get and implies it was reveer himself who rang the bells which even this historian doesn't seem to accept. It's a non-issue she doesn't need to know random details of history to run the nation even if she's president. I'd like to see historians who are pushing the other perspective though sofar i've only seen democrat leaning reporters and people with a bias against Palin.

voted against the Civil Rights Act, yet after researching it I found out she was wrong on that.

That's not spinning that's outright lying of the sort that should get you fired. There's a big difference between changing the tone and focus, and saying a big fat fib.

[cynthia325]

It's a common move in politics now sadly – when you're proven wrong, don't admit it, claim you're right: hopefully, it'll confuse the buggers.

sadly this is true for normal people i encounter every day =(

[Ex1lepr0]

It's a common move in politics now sadly – when you're proven wrong, don't admit it, claim you're right: hopefully, it'll confuse the buggers.

sadly this is true for normal people i encounter every day =(

Hah! Very true Cynthia! It's just more pronounced with politicians and celebrities in general when they act stupid. But I have some shocking news! While indeed Paul Revere did not warn the British themselves, he did warn a sentry that the regulars were coming. If you don't believe me, click the link below.
http://www.paulreverehouse.org/ride/real.html

[triplemultiplex]

The bigger issue with this of course is not the historical accuracy of Palin's bumbling response to an innocuous question, but Sarah Palin pretending to be a victim of the "gotcha lame-stream media" yet again.

"What did you see today and what are you going to take away from the experience?"

Really? That's a "Gotcha" question? Fuck you, Mrs. Palin. Go back to your Faux News echo chamber where you belong. You've got a lot of money to make pretending to run for President.