Palin flunks US history, fans attempt a rewrite

[Alyeska]

Time.com

The basic story is this. Palin is on her cross country tour to totally not run for President. As is common, a question about American history was asked in an attempt to quiz (humiliate) a politician. Palin flubs the question. Like any good politician she doesn't back down and keeps rambling hoping to score a point.

Where things get interesting is that her fans are now getting on Wikipedia and attempting to edit her version of events into history. What The Fuck.

This weekend, Tuned In Jr., who is studying Boston and the American Revolution in school, mentioned that he was getting a "locked" error message while trying to load a Wikipedia page on Paul Revere. I know! As a father and a journalist, I should know better than to let my son use Wikipedia as a primary source.

Fortunately, the news cycle intervened to give us a perfect object lesson, by providing a possible reason Revere's page may have been in limbo: over the weekend, there was a war between Wikipedia editors and supporters of Sarah Palin who were trying to "fix" the entry to make it conform with Palin's flubbed description of Revere's ride.

Click here for rest of story

[chitoryu12]

At least they're showing proper political etiquette: if the history doesn't fit your position, change history!

[Phil Skayhan]

OK, I'll bite.

Letter from Paul Revere to Jeremy Belknap, circa 1798
I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that.
When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,
and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared
to have the command, examined me, where I came from,
& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he as-
ked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if
I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He
demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and
aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River,
and that There would be five hundred Americans there
in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.

This could certainly be taken at warning the British as to what faced them if they proceeded.

As to the guns and bells:

Paul Revere's ride by David Hackett Fischer
While the Tewksbury rider was galloping north, Paul Revere himself was on the road, travelling northeast from Charlestown to Medford. As we have seen, he had not planned to go that way, but once in the village of Medford, he went quickly about the task of awakening the community with remarkable economy of effort. He rode directly to the house of Captain Isaac Hall, commander of Medford's minutemen, who instantly triggered the town's alarm system. A townsman remembered that 'repeated gunshots, the beating of drums and the ringing of bells filled the air.'

....

Along the North Shore of Massachusetts, church bells began to toll and the heavy beat of drums could be heard for many miles in the night air.

[Dominus Atheos]

Getting stopped by british soldiers who knew who he was and what he was doing doesn't count as "warning the british". Also, the british weren't trying to take away everyones guns, they only tried to disband armed militias. Furthermore, Paul Revere never rang any bells or even carried a gun, let alone "sent warning shots". All he did was stop at the houses of the militia captains and wake them.

[Phil Skayhan]

Getting stopped by british soldiers who knew who he was and what he was doing doesn't count as "warning the british".

...and that There would be five hundred Americans there
in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up

How is that not warning the british?

Also, the british weren't trying to take away everyones guns, they only tried to disband armed militias.

History Channel
In the spring of 1775, General Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, received instructions from Great Britain to seize all stores of weapons and gunpowder accessible to the American insurgents. On April 18, he ordered British troops to march against Concord and Lexington.

Furthermore, Paul Revere never rang any bells or even carried a gun, let alone "sent warning shots". All he did was stop at the houses of the militia captains and wake them.

Correct, and then the militia from the towns rang the bells and the fired the shots. While it is clear she did not speak clearly on this, I don't think she meant that it was Revere who was shooting a weapon at bells to ring them as he galloped through town (although it would have made him quite the badass). But because she was not clear on this point, Aleyska is right in saying she flubbed the question.

But to use this as an example of her being ignorant of history? I wouldn't want to hang my hat on this one.

[Alyeska]

How is that not warning the british?

Palin might be technically correct, but not for the reasons she gave. Palin explained that the reason for Paul's ride was to warn the British. This is not the case. Paul only "warned" the British after having been taken into temporary custody by them. This is not the same thing.

[Phil Skayhan]

He warned the – the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and ah, 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.

Do you have a link to where she states the purpose of Revere's ride was to warn the British?

EDIT: Let's see how that transcript reads with a little punctuation added by me (it can be interpreted either way from the way she haltingly answers:

He warned the – the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms. By ringing those bells and ah, 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.

[Dominus Atheos]

Getting stopped by british soldiers who knew who he was and what he was doing doesn't count as "warning the british".

...and that There would be five hundred Americans there
in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up

How is that not warning the british?

Being captured and then confirming what 5 soldiers already knew doesn't count as warning the british! Also, there is no way Palin had read that letter before she said what she said.

Also, the british weren't trying to take away everyones guns, they only tried to disband armed militias.

History Channel
In the spring of 1775, General Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, received instructions from Great Britain to seize all stores of weapons and gunpowder accessible to the American insurgents. On April 18, he ordered British troops to march against Concord and Lexington.

Yes, "stores" accessible to "American insergents". No one wanted to take away all guns in the Colonies, just the stockpiles that the rebels were using. Most peoples arms would have been left alone.

He warned the – the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms.

This is completely incorrect. Even if he did "warn the british", he didn't warn them that they weren't going to be seizing our arms. That didn't come up anywhere in the letter.

[SpaceMarine93]

Isn't it obvious? The fans had become so absolutely certain of Palin's opinions as the truth that they could not possibly think that she is not infallible in what she says, to the point they are willing to change history just to fit her statements.. This isn't a political movement, its a religion! Its idol worship or prophet worshipping! What the heck had happened to America?!

[Phil Skayhan]

Getting stopped by british soldiers who knew who he was and what he was doing doesn't count as "warning the british".

...and that There would be five hundred Americans there
in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up

How is that not warning the british?

Being captured and then confirming what 5 soldiers already knew doesn't count as warning the british!

Evidence the soldiers already knew 500 Americans would be there in a short time?

Also, there is no way Palin had read that letter before she said what she said.

Why? Because you don't want to examine that possibility?

Also, the british weren't trying to take away everyones guns, they only tried to disband armed militias.

History Channel
In the spring of 1775, General Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, received instructions from Great Britain to seize all stores of weapons and gunpowder accessible to the American insurgents. On April 18, he ordered British troops to march against Concord and Lexington.

Yes, "stores" accessible to "American insurgents". No one wanted to take away all guns in the Colonies, just the stockpiles that the rebels were using. Most peoples arms would have been left alone.

But of course, I forget, all munitions the rebels used were clearly marked as such.

He warned the – the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms.

This is completely incorrect. Even if he did "warn the british", he didn't warn them that they weren't going to be seizing our arms. That didn't come up anywhere in the letter.

But it came from the governor of Massachusetts via the British Government as quoted above from the History Channel. Here's a further quote which directly follows from the same source since you missed that link:

The Boston Patriots had been preparing for such a British military action for some time, and, upon learning of the British plan, Revere and Dawes set off across the Massachusetts countryside.

So the British troops marching that night knew their orders and the citizens knew of it as well.

[Dominus Atheos]

How is that not warning the british?

Being captured and then confirming what 5 soldiers already knew doesn't count as warning the british!

Evidence the soldiers already knew 500 Americans would be there in a short time?

They knew his name and knew that he was an express courier out of Boston. They obviously knew what message he had to be carrying. Also, evidence that there actually were 500 troops marching there? There were a few hundred in Lexington and Concord, but they were defending those towns, not marching anywhere. Bluffing also doesn't count as "warning".

Also, the british weren't trying to take away everyones guns, they only tried to disband armed militias.

History Channel
In the spring of 1775, General Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, received instructions from Great Britain to seize all stores of weapons and gunpowder accessible to the American insurgents. On April 18, he ordered British troops to march against Concord and Lexington.

Yes, "stores" accessible to "American insurgents". No one wanted to take away all guns in the Colonies, just the stockpiles that the rebels were using. Most peoples arms would have been left alone.

But of course, I forget, all munitions the rebels used were clearly marked as such.

Pretty much, yeah. The rebels had designated places they stored their weapons, which the british knew about and that's what they were coming to seize. At no point was there ever an indication that they planned to go house to house and seize every gun in Massachusetts.

He warned the – the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms.

This is completely incorrect. Even if he did "warn the british", he didn't warn them that they weren't going to be seizing our arms. That didn't come up anywhere in the letter.

But it came from the governor of Massachusetts via the British Government as quoted above from the History Channel. Here's a further quote which directly follows from the same source since you missed that link:

The Boston Patriots had been preparing for such a British military action for some time, and, upon learning of the British plan, Revere and Dawes set off across the Massachusetts countryside.

So the British troops marching that night knew their orders and the citizens knew of it as well.

All he did was get captured and spill his guts while trying to bluff his way out. He had no way of knowing what their orders were, only that they were marching towards Lexington where two of the founding fathers were hiding.

[Phil Skayhan]

They knew his name and knew that he was an express courier out of Boston. They obviously knew what message he had to be carrying. Also, evidence that there actually were 500 troops marching there? There were a few hundred in Lexington and Concord, but they were defending those towns, not marching anywhere. Bluffing also doesn't count as "warning".

Alright, let's try to clear this up. What would have constituted a warning?

But of course, I forget, all munitions the rebels used were clearly marked as such.

Pretty much, yeah. The rebels had designated places they stored their weapons, which the british knew about and that's what they were coming to seize. At no point was there ever an indication that they planned to go house to house and seize every gun in Massachusetts.

Quotes? Evidence?

But it came from the British Government via the governor of Massachusetts as quoted above from the History Channel. Here's a further quote which directly follows from the same source since you missed that link:

The Boston Patriots had been preparing for such a British military action for some time, and, upon learning of the British plan, Revere and Dawes set off across the Massachusetts countryside.

So the British troops marching that night knew their orders and the citizens knew of it as well.

All he did was get captured and spill his guts while trying to bluff his way out. He had no way of knowing what their orders were, only that they were marching towards Lexington where two of the founding fathers were hiding.

In the spring of 1775, General Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, received instructions from Great Britain to seize all stores of weapons and gunpowder accessible to the American insurgents. On April 18, he ordered British troops to march against Concord and Lexington.

The Boston Patriots had been preparing for such a British military action for some time, and, upon learning of the British plan, Revere and Dawes set off across the Massachusetts countryside.

How do you read that and not surmise that the colonials knew the British plan to send troops into Concord and Lexington to seize weapons? What do you think the Colonists believed the British plan to be?