.
June 6th, 2011
11:53 PM ET
Raw Politics: Historian sets record straight for Palin
Editor's note: Presidential historian Doug Brinkley says Sarah Palin's statements about Paul Revere are "convoluted" history.
Related: Palin doubles down on history flap
|
|
Filed under: 360° Radar • 360º Follow • Raw Politics • Sarah Palin |
About this Show:
Anderson Cooper goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from many points of view, so you can make up your own mind about the news. Tune in weeknights at 8 and 10 ET on CNN.
Questions or comments? Send an email
Want to know more? Go behind the scenes with AC361°
Subscribe to the podcast
Subscribe to the AC360 podcast on iTunes!
On Twitter
Search the AC360 blog
I'd have more respect for Sarah if she would just say that she misstated this. I mean, she saw a lot that day and it sounds like she kind of mish mashed her stories together. Okay, big deal, but then say that instead of saying that it was a "gotcha" media question. Really, asking what you're going to take away from the day is a gotcha moment? If that's the case it doesn't say much for her mental capacity. Sometimes you are wrong princess, just like the rest of us so buck up and live with it.
Brinkley got the date wrong: The ride was April 18th, not April 8 1775.
I beleive no one would care what Sarah Palin had to say if her she was not physically attractive.
nice try brinkley but paul revere's ride was april 18th, not april 8th.
Unfair were the historian's comments on Palin since, according to the information the historian provided, she was indeed correct about the two principle points she insisted upon: that Revere warned both the Americans and the British. Whether Revere warned with bells and gunshots, on horses or in jails, are details which only historians or serious students of history pretend to know. Hence, this historian's bashing of Palin for "convoluted" details is clearly either symptomatic of his political agenda or a nit-picky teaching style that should make us all glad we're not his students. Moreover, since historical accounts are notoriously unreliable, politically biased, and the subject of continual debate and revision, his cutting down of someone who does not measure up to his own "objective" account of events far removed attests more to his own lack of epistemological humility than Palin's. I'd like to see Socrates ask this historian a few questions concerning his certitude about history.
As a historian, I am glad someone set this record straight. However, I wonder whether Sarah Palin has the intelligence to recognize the fact. What is it about these wackaloons that ignore facts. History is not just an interpretation. It is a factual construction of facts. Facts are that annoying thing one cannot ignore.
Actually Paul Revere never got to do the midnight run and yell "The British are Coming" in other history books that was an inaccurate thing to say any way back then lol
In light of Sarah Palin & the love America tour Sham. She did bring light to timely issues.
Why don't we require anyone wants to run for political office to pass the citizenship test first. Definitely goes to qualifications. And 2 lelt those illegal immigrants who can pass the test and means to employment jump to the top of the list.
Seems to me 2 big problems could have solutions to significantly reduce the number of unqualified & insincere. It puts the focus on our ignorant politicians & unmotivated immigrants!
Hi Anderson,
Normaly I wouldn't stick up for Sarah Palin but.
I was watching "America the story of us" a mini series on the history channel and one episode was about Paul Revere. They said the story of Paul Revere saying "the British are coming" was not right. They said he was telling the British that the Americans were ready and waiting to defeat them. I never heard that before and thought how strange. Yet its the history channel and they are telling the story of America. Maybe thats where Sarah Palin got that version.
ps I'm voting for President Obama to be reelected.