Sarah Palin gives her account of Paul Revere's ride

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beau_Ouiville
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SamH said:
Just so I understand - even when she’s right she’s wrong?

Okaaayyyyyyyyyyy then.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the world of academia! Yes, that’s exactly how it works 😃 History is an interpretive field of study not an exact science. So it is totally legit to say she got the “facts” right, but the story wrong as long as you can defend your argument.

So there are really two issues:
  1. What she correct in her facts?
  2. What she correct in her interpretation?
Beyond that is the question of her motivation. What was she trying to do in answering the reporter’s question? Again, we have the facts of her response and the interpretation of her response.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?pictureid=9337&albumid=1367&dl=1307233281&thumb=1 Peace 🙂
 
bellasbane said:
Welcome to the world of academia! Yes, that’s exactly how it works 😃 History is an interpretive field of study not an exact science. So it is totally legit to say she got the “facts” right, but the story wrong as long as you can defend your argument.

So there are really two issues:
  1. What she correct in her facts?
  2. What she correct in her interpretation?
Beyond that is the question of her motivation. What was she trying to do in answering the reporter’s question? Again, we have the facts of her response and the interpretation of her response.

Peace 🙂
Click to expand...
She is a politician trying to address a political point of not taking the American people for granted. She isn’t a historian. None of the politicians, including our current president are historians. She was correct that Revere warned the British that Americans had been alerted… and she was correct that bells were run as part of the alert. That is what was jumped at as being inaccurate. Fact is, she was accurate in both instances. She didn’t go into detail, that is hardly ever done by a politician. I don’t think she is a historian on the matter, but she obvioiusly knew more than most of those who were quick to condemn what she said.
 
gilliam said:
She is a politician trying to address a political point of not taking the American people for granted. She isn’t a historian. None of the politicians, including our current president are historians. She was correct that Revere warned the British that Americans had been alerted… and she was correct that bells were run as part of the alert. That is what was jumped at as being inaccurate. Fact is, she was accurate in both instances. She didn’t go into detail, that is hardly ever done by a politician. I don’t think she is a historian on the matter, but she obvioiusly knew more than most of those who were quick to condemn what she said.
Click to expand...
👍
 
gamewell45 said:
Poor Sarah, she just has an awful time when it comes to History and geography.

Perhaps a touch-up course in those areas might help her when she faces the media (except Fox News which refuses to ask her and question that’s too difficult to answer) might make her life a little more easier should she decide to throw her hat into the ring and run for POTUS.
Click to expand...
A touch-up might be in order if she decides to campaign in all 57 states. But she’s probably already fairly popular with the Marine Corpse. 🙂
 
Ridgerunner said:
A touch-up might be in order if she decides to campaign in all 57 states. But she’s probably already fairly popular with the Marine Corpse. 🙂
Click to expand...
May she could defer her questions to someone with a higher pay grade.
 
gilliam said:
She is a politician trying to address a political point of not taking the American people for granted. She isn’t a historian. None of the politicians, including our current president are historians. She was correct that Revere warned the British that Americans had been alerted… and she was correct that bells were run as part of the alert. That is what was jumped at as being inaccurate. Fact is, she was accurate in both instances. She didn’t go into detail, that is hardly ever done by a politician. I don’t think she is a historian on the matter, but she obvioiusly knew more than most of those who were quick to condemn what she said.
Click to expand...
I agree she’s not a historian and shouldn’t be subjected to a peer review process. My post was simply to explain why historians act the way they do. How it is that you can get the facts right while at the same time get the story wrong.

Actually, the best thing Sarah Palin did that nobody has yet acknowledged is to get everyone to read their history books! Even though she got it wrong, the whole point of her bus tour is about learning about history. IMO mission accomplished!
 
bellasbane said:
Actually, the best thing Sarah Palin did that nobody has yet acknowledged is to get everyone to read their history books! Even though she got it wrong, the whole point of her bus tour is about learning about history. IMO mission accomplished!
Click to expand...
👍

I am willing to bet that before this weekend, what most people remember of Revere is from Longfellow’s poem… with all of its inaccuracies.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
The actual “gotcha question” was rather benign:…
Click to expand...
It is what happened after that made it a gocha question. The press looks for that with Palin. As they do with everyone who doesn’t measure up in their eyes as “worthy.” We have seen it over and over and over again these last few years.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
" “And in a shout-out, gotcha type of question that was asked of me, I answered candidly. And I know my American history.”

The actual “gotcha question” was rather benign: “What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?”

washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sarah-palins-midnight-ride-twice-over/2011/06/06/AGIsoJKH_blog.html

Come on, Sarah. Just because you come up with an odd answer does not mean it was the fault of the question.
Click to expand...
I’m surprised you come back to this topic Beau. I guess if you lose on the answer you go after the question.
 
I do believe Paul Revere shouted “The British are coming!”

Remember; one if by land, two if by sea
 
bellasbane said:
Welcome to the world of academia! Yes, that’s exactly how it works 😃 History is an interpretive field of study not an exact science. So it is totally legit to say she got the “facts” right, but the story wrong as long as you can defend your argument.

So there are really two issues:
  1. What she correct in her facts?
  2. What she correct in her interpretation?
Beyond that is the question of her motivation. What was she trying to do in answering the reporter’s question? Again, we have the facts of her response and the interpretation of her response.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?pictureid=9337&albumid=1367&dl=1307233281&thumb=1 Peace 🙂
Click to expand...
So there are really two issues:
  1. What she correct in her facts?
  2. What she correct in her interpretation?
    From what I gather, in 50 of the 57 states, she was basically correct on both points, yes.
    As for the other 7, this would be something that only Democrats would really know the answers to.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
" “And in a shout-out, gotcha type of question that was asked of me, I answered candidly. And I know my American history.”

The actual “gotcha question” was rather benign: “What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?”

washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sarah-palins-midnight-ride-twice-over/2011/06/06/AGIsoJKH_blog.html

Come on, Sarah. Just because you come up with an odd answer does not mean it was the fault of the question.
Click to expand...
I agree. The question did not require her to give an impromptu discourse on Paul Revere - she could have answered that question any number of different ways that might not have ended up with the controversy we have now. Of course, controversy follows some people around and others like to create controversy when there doesn’t need to be.

Ishii
 
Darryl1958 said:
So there are really two issues:
  1. What she correct in her facts? Technically, not exactly. Revere didn’t set out to warn the British but did so after being captured, and didn’t ring any bells himself
  2. What she correct in her interpretation? Yes, basically.
    From what I gather, in 50 of the 57 states, she was basically correct on both points, yes.
    As for the other 7, this would be something that only Democrats would really know the answers to.
Click to expand...
 
ishii said:
I agree. The question did not require her to give an impromptu discourse on Paul Revere - she could have answered that question any number of different ways that might not have ended up with the controversy we have now. Of course, controversy follows some people around and others like to create controversy when there doesn’t need to be.

Ishii
Click to expand...
And she, of course, is under no obligation to answer questions the way the mainstream media wants her to to or give the usual safe nonresponsive response that most politicians have learned to give.
 
Gift_from_God said:
No, he warned the future Americans that the Brits were coming.
Click to expand...
Then he ran into the Brits, they put a gun to his chest and he warned them the Militia was coming.

All the while, when the townsfolk found out the Brits were coming they fired muskets and rang bells.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
Then he ran into the Brits, they put a gun to his chest and he warned them the Militia was coming.
Click to expand...
Even if that was true, that wasn’t part of his ride. I don’t think he would want to be detected by the people who would possibly kill him
 
Gift_from_God said:
Even if that was true, that wasn’t part of his ride. I don’t think he would want to be detected by the people who would possibly kill him
Click to expand...
Well, it was part of his ride. He rode, got caught, was released and rode on. Same trip. He claimed that his warning to the British caused them to retreat (at least that small party)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top