Palin Nailed it on Paul Revere: Listen to it here

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

From the goofy right wing website National Public Radio (NPR):

www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere

Historian interviewed on NPR confirms that Sarah Palin was correct. It's undeniable, there's no 'interpretation' necessary, it's just plain as day-- listen to the interview.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

BLOCK: So Paul Revere was ringing those bells? He was a silversmith, right?

Prof. ALLISON: Well, he was - he also was a bell ringer. That is, he rang the bells at Old North Church as a boy. But he, personally, is not getting off his horse and going to ring bells. He's telling other people - and this is their system before Facebook, before Twitter, before NPR - this was the way you get a message out, is by having people ring church bells, and everyone knows there is an emergency.

And by this time, of course, the various town committees of safety, militia knew what the signals were, so they knew something was afoot. So this is no longer a secret operation for the British.

Revere isn't trying to alert the British, but he is trying to warn them. And in April of 1775, no one was talking about independence. We're still part of the British Empire. We're trying to save it. So this is a warning to the British Empire what will happen if you provoke Americans.

BLOCK:Sarah Palin also was saying there that Paul Revere's message to the British in his warning was: You're not going to take American arms - you know, basically a Second Amendment argument, even though the Second Amendment didn't exist then.

Prof. ALLISON: Yeah. She was making a Second Amendment case. But in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists' arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there.

So, yeah, she is right in that. I mean, she may be pushing it too far to say this is a Second Amendment case. Of course, neither the Second Amendment nor the Constitution was in anyone's mind at the time. But the British objective was to get the arms that were stockpiled in Concord.

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She's not an historian. And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history.

To be clear here- Sarah Palin NEVER brought up the "Second Amendment" in the interview. This was the professor's way of explaining the case she was making in a context people could understand.

[Deleted]

I've known this since right after she said it, but there is nothing quite as fun as hearing NPR say it!!!! LOL!!! Man, the sound of NPR grates on my nerves for some reason... but this was fun to listen to. LOL!!
GO, SARAH!!!!

[ugonow]

“He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and, uh, making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”

Wanna bet I can pull up plenty of so called experts that say differently?

[ugonow]

I bet NPR does bug you,krickitt you usually say they are wrong...lol here is one from National Review Online-----www.nationalreview.com/corner/268933/what-sarah-palin-got-wrong-and-we-did-too-joel-j-miller

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Hilarious! Now NPR is wrong!

I thought this was hilarious because clearly they asked the question like a cocky lawyer in a court room-- you just know they did-- thinking that they knew the answer. They had to think this guy is a lib like us and he has to read from the script. You know that he turned the whole interview on its head, but it's NPR so they can't yell at him. They just keep pressing him in the NPR monotone until he finally says it-- yes. She got it right.

I said so in another inappropriately named thread that now clearly violates the CoC due to its completely FALSE subject line that people thinking YOU are the idiot is one of the hazards of being well-informed and well-read.

Just look at the reaction you get when you point out that we are actually in a cooling cycle that began in 1995. People look at you like you have three heads. You're right, they're wrong, you're the idiot. Just the way the world is.

[ugonow]

Hilarious! Now NPR is wrong!

LOL....as is NRO in your eyes.....

[Deleted]

Paul-- first post.. LEFT wing.. right?? no left.. LOL!!! Whatever.. I just hate it. Sounds like it is filtered through gauze or something. I prefer people like Levin and Savage screaming and yelling..
;D

[Deleted]

Well, the history guy on NPR sees it Sarah's way... that must have made them so mad!!!

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 9, 2011 9:43:12 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

From the National Review article linked in post #4:
Sarah Palin said that Paul Revere “warned the British that they weren’t gonna be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure, as he’s riding his horse through town, to send those warning shots and bells that we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free.”

As the author of a book about Revere’s life, when I heard this, I groaned. From Revere’s own account, it’s clear that he didn’t fire a shot, he didn’t ring a bell, and he didn’t intend to warn the British of anything (unless you count the townsfolk as British, which they technically were for a little while longer).

The unarmed Revere left Boston in total silence. He muffled the oars of his boat as men rowed him to Charlestown, and he rode in silence after leaving Charlestown by horseback. He was, after all, on a secret mission to alert John Hancock and Samuel Adams in Lexington that they were in danger.

Only after scaring up two redcoats on horseback and turning away to Medford did he begin waking the countryside. He first woke the militia captain in Medford and then rode to Lexington raising the alarm — by shouting, mind you, not shooting or ringing bells.

In short, Palin basically got the whole story wrong. So people piled on to imply that she was ignorant, dumb, daffy, whatever. Most quotes of her comments even featured the uh’s and um’s which, for simple courtesy’s sake, are usually removed from transcribed comments. Everyone looks dimwitted on the page when umm-ing unevenly through a statement.

But that, of course, wasn’t the end. Palin doggedly insisted that she was right, that she knew her history better than her detractors.

That’s when the counterattack was launched, and so we must return to Revere’s famous ride.

Revere made it to Lexington and then later set off for Concord, stirring up the countryside, but was captured about halfway there. While in British custody, Revere warned his captors about mobilizing militias.

Not much to work with, really, but this is politics. Palin’s defenders jumped in to say, See! She was right all along. Never mind that he only warned the redcoats because he was captured; it had nothing to do with his original mission. Never mind that his warning did not come while riding through town and was attended by neither gunfire nor the peal of bells.

A gun was heard as Revere and his captors came back toward Lexington — fired by the Minute Men massing in the town. The redcoats, spooked, took off and left Revere to find his way back on foot.

It was a harrowing night for Revere. Meanwhile, our episode is thoroughly absurd. Palin got the story wrong. Big deal. It’s not worth mocking her and saying she’s a dummy.

I think she is guilty of being unclear and inarticulate. She was not wrong.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

BTW- where can I get your book? Go 'head. Plug it. You can do that- you're a mod. Nothing will happen to you. At least PM it.

[Deleted]

Jun 10, 2011 9:46:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 9, 2011 9:43:12 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I think she is guilty of being unclear and inarticulate. She was not wrong.

Bingo

[Angel!]

Maybe I read it differently than others, but it seems to me the NPR person isn't exactly saying palin is right. I mean she said he wasn't ringing bells, nothing about him firing shots was mentioned, & she said it wasn't really about the second amendment (the british taking away our arms).

It seems palin got the overall story correct - revere warned people the british were coming, but had pretty much every detail wrong - the bells, the shots, protecting our arms.

[Angel!]

Jun 10, 2011 9:46:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

BTW- where can I get your book? Go 'head. Plug it. You can do that- you're a mod. Nothing will happen to you. At least PM it.

Read a little more carefully. Dem was merely quoting from what was linked in post 4. Dem didn't write a book.

[fairlycrazy23]

I think the big disagreement was on her saying that Revere warned the British; That was what she was being ridiculed for, but she was basically correct.

[ugonow]

After he was caught.-------"Experts Dispute Sarah Palin's Midnight Ride Account, Agree Paul Revere Did Not Warn the British

June 6, 2011
Sarah Palin said that Paul Revere warned the British during his midnight ride in 1775. Historians beg to differ.

"He didn't warn the British," said James Giblin, author of "The Many Rides of Paul Revere." "That's her most obvious blooper."

During her "One Nation Tour" last week, the former Alaska governor uttered a now-infamous recounting of the Revolutionary War hero's midnight ride, telling reporters that Revere "warned, uh, the ... the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells." She defended her explanation on "Fox News Sunday," saying "Part of his ride was to warn the British that we're already there -- that, 'Hey, you're not going to succeed. '"

Experts agree that warning the British -- Revere was an American patriot, remember, he was against the folks across the pond -- was not crucial to the midnight ride.

"Revere's assignment that night was to go to Lexington to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were moving in that direction from Boston," explained Kristin Peszka, director of interpretation and visitor's services at the Paul Revere House, which Palin visited Thursday. (Peszka noted that Palin offered her convoluted account before touring the historic site.)

"People did ring bells that night," she added. "It was a common way of alerting people to come out. But Revere was not the person ringing the bells."

Peszka offered her own halting take on Palin's explanation.

"I think she's … being accused of being caught in an error and she's trying to correct herself," she said. "I think the story of the midnight ride is one that's confusing to lots of people."

Indeed, since Revere-gate (or would it be Revere-gait?) started at the end of last week, many questions have been raised about what actually happened during the midnight ride.

"It was an extremely complicated situation which she sort of regurgitated in a garbled way," Boston University's Brendan McConville said. "It has been, as an American history professor, disconcerting to realize that no one seems to know what happened in this iconic event."

The most famous account comes from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem "Paul Revere's Ride." The problem: It's historically inaccurate (Revere never made it to Concord, Mass.). Retellings of the ride abound online, but this weekend, liberal bloggers suggested that Palin's supporters tried to revise Wikipedia's entry about Revere to line up with her description, and some of Palin's fans took to Twitter to circulate a website that mentions the bells she referenced.

To the source: In a 1798 letter, Revere wrote that after being captured by British officers during the midnight ride, he told them "there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up." Does that mean he warned the British? Not exactly.

"He wasn't really warning the British when he was a captive," said "Rides of Paul Revere" author Giblin. "He was just, in a way, boasting about the capabilities of Americans. 'You don't know what you're going to be up against,' etc. He was playing the patriot even there. He did maybe inflate the American strength, but that was to throw the British off guard. He was propagandizing, really."

"It was kind of an effort to intimidate them," said professor McConville. "It was meant to give Samuel Adams and John Hancock a chance to escape and avoid getting arrested."

So according to multiple accounts, it would be inaccurate to say that Revere warned the British and rang bells on his way to Lexington. Still, questions remain, like the logic circulated on Twitter -- by everyone from Palin advocates to Steve Martin (jokingly) -- that the "he was warning the British" explanation makes sense "because all the citizens WERE British. There was no America yet." What about that?

"Well that's sort of bogus to me," McConville said. "That's not how someone should read or discuss the situation."

Giblin offered a simpler answer. "Oh," he said, "that's just a fudge."

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

Hilarious! Now NPR is wrong!

NPR was the place that conducted the interview. Or were they wrong in airing it and should have just brought in a bunch of people who would attack Palin? Where's that "liberal bias" conservatives whine about?

because clearly they asked the question like a cocky lawyer in a court room-- you just know they did-- thinking that they knew the answer. They had to think this guy is a lib like us and he has to read from the script.

Note to self: invest in tin foil and Madame Cleo stocks.

but she was basically correct.

As the saying goes, "close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades."

I think she is guilty of being unclear and inarticulate

Inarticulate! that's about as rich as "weren't meant to be factual." So if someone asks Johnny "what's two plus two" and he answers "five," we can say he's correct, he just mis-articulated "Four."
This just again shows that many conservatives can't admit they or one of their fellows are wrong, and they'll say anything, even if it's more ridiculous. To them, "wrong" is a four letter word.

Agree Paul Revere Did Not Warn the British

Longfellow used him in a poem because it sounded good. The rest is un-history.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I think this is primarily what's wrong with this country right now.

Maybe I read it differently than others, but it seems to me the NPR person isn't exactly saying palin is right.

It could not be more clear:

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Inarticulate! that's about as rich as "weren't meant to be factual." So if someone asks Johnny "what's two plus two" and he answers "five," we can say he's correct, he just mis-articulated "Four."
This just again shows that many conservatives can't admit they or one of their fellows are wrong, and they'll say anything, even if it's more ridiculous. To them, "wrong" is a four letter word.

Actually, it's just the opposite. She was right. Liberals were wrong. Again. And they can't deal with it. As evidenced by you above, you completely blew past the facts, ignored the historian in the OP, and all the evidence and you assume that she said something akin to 2 + 2 = 5 when that's not what happened.

She didn't fire back like a contestant on a game show. Her answer wasn't rehearsed. She said it faster than she tought it out. But when she explained her answer later, the libs insisted that she was 'reaching' and that she was still wrong.

This history professor set the record straight. Her explanation made sense, and was accurate.

This issue is settled. Only you and a handful of liberals are still making noise about it, and you're still wrong. Palin is still right.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did.

[Angel!]

Jun 10, 2011 12:37:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did.

On the whole, she had it right - it was the details she had wrong, which was explained earlier in the interview.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 10, 2011 12:41:01 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jun 10, 2011 12:37:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

On the whole, she had it right - it was the details she had wrong, which was explained earlier in the interview.

Yes, but the far left frenzy wasn't slowed by this. Many are still insisting she is an "obvious moron" because Paul Revere didn't warn the British. On the whole- they're wrong.

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

Jun 10, 2011 12:37:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did.

definition of "on the whole": generally; considering everything.

idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+the+whole

On the whole, she had it right - it was the details she had wrong

Do you get what we're saying now?

you completely blew past the facts

LOL, you even quoted where the author said "on the whole" twice and said it in jest. "On the whole" =/= "whole" ; Grape Nuts =/= grapes + nuts

Sarah Palin NEVER brought up the "Second Amendment" in the interview.

"Palin said, 'He who warned uh, the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms ...'"

www.politicususa.com/en/sarah-palin-paul-revere

Yeah, what does "takin' away our arms" have to do with the "Second Amendment"? Well you both shot yourselves in the foot with that one.

This history professor set the record straight.

I'd ask for some sort of corroboration, but why bother when something like "on the whole" trips you up?

Many are still insisting she is an "obvious moron" because Paul Revere didn't warn the British

If a Democrat makes a gaffe (and she made a gaffe AND was incorrect outside the gaffe), conservatives would assume that's what they meant. It'd be a lot easier if conservatives would keep a kettle by their computer so they don't have to go far to meet it in their frequent pot moments.

[Angel!]

Jun 10, 2011 13:25:59 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 10, 2011 12:41:01 GMT -5 Angel! said:

On the whole, she had it right - it was the details she had wrong, which was explained earlier in the interview.

Yes, but the far left frenzy wasn't slowed by this. Many are still insisting she is an "obvious moron" because Paul Revere didn't warn the British. On the whole- they're wrong.

The left is picking up on the fact that she has all the details wrong for a very famous story. We aren't wrong on that & it does make her look a little stupid - all politicians have gaffes, but most don't then proceed to discuss them further & insist they were correct.

[swamp]

Even if she had the details right, her recitation of the story was so mangled and inarticulate it made her sound like an idiot.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 10, 2011 14:21:50 GMT -5 swamp said:

Even if she had the details right, her recitation of the story was so mangled and inarticulate it made her sound like an idiot.

Perhaps. And there's no doubt that being able to articulate an answer, to describe your views, to communicate coherently-- is a qualification for President.

However, I don't think this one answer, or her earlier interview with the now unemployed Katie Couric define her entire ability to communicate.

She clarified her answer, and as it turns out- she was correct.

And Kitty-- I don't CARE what YOU are trying to say. This post is about the liberal attacks on Sarah Palin. How they were incorrect- how they got the facts wrong- how she was right- and how there's been no acknowledgment of that fact.

Now, I DO see what YOU are trying to say-- I see what Angel D is saying-- but that's not the question. The question is, do YOU see what I am saying? On the substance, Sarah Palin was correct.

We can argue style and the ability to string a sentence together, but as we know the current occupant of the White House is no stellar example of that...

[Angel!]

She clarified her answer, and as it turns out- she was correct.

I guess that depends on your definition of correct. I could start talking about how when we landed on D-day we were ringing bells, riding horse, & wavings huge flags to warn the germans that we going to let them take our arms. On the whole I might be right, but really I have every important detail of the story wrong. I don't call that correct.

Maybe you have a lower standard for someone being correct than I do. I'm an engineer so details are important to me, otherwise bridges tend to fall down a lot.

[cereb]

Bottom line is, Sarah Palin was completely correct, and it's all good because Obama screwed up a toast to the Queen of England. Makes perfect sense. ;D

[safeharbor37]

One has to remember that Paul Revere's ride occurred before there were 57 States. What is now part of the US consisted of British colonies. The fact is that it is not entirely clear what Revere's ride consisted of except that it was truncated [most of the story was put together long after the occurrence].
The point of this thread [as I read it] is that what would have a minor quickly forgotten incident for a liberal is distorted to impugn Ms. Palin's intelligence/education, simply because they are afraid of Ms. Palin's appeal.

Al Gore quotes: “Who are these people? (To a tour guide at Monticello after seeing busts of George Washington and Ben Franklin)” thinkexist.com/quotation/who-are-these-people-to-a-tour-guide-at/763442.html

[Angel!]

The point of this thread [as I read it] is that what would have a minor quickly forgotten incident for a liberal is distorted to impugn Ms. Palin's intelligence/education, simply because they are afraid of Ms. Palin's appeal.

I think it would have been a quickly forgotten incident had Palin not brought it up again & insist she was right. Other politicians get mocked for their gaffes, but we never saw Obama insist there really were 57 states or try to blame the media for trying to catch him off guard or trying to make him screw up.

There is nothing wrong with making a mistake, but I have no respect for someone that can't just admit they were wrong - instead they come up with convoluted excuses as to why they weren't wrong at all.