Her statement was unclear - but those familiar with the history knew exactly what she meant. Those unfamiliar, and with an agenda - ridiculed her.
They were wrong.
And actually - you are wrong as well. Although the grammer - as you have produced it - is weak/terrible - why don’t you point out which parts are “a lot wrong with what she said” -
He -
warned the British
Who were coming to take arms
He was riding a horse from town to town
Bells were ringing
As far as “shots were fired - there are a few possible interpretations -
1. Shots certainly were fired and 2.) she was referring to “the shot heard round the world”
Why don’t you point out - EXACTLY what is wrong with the statement? How many books on the topic have you read?
Note that - in the article above - the History Profs align with her - even with this grammar.
Do you know why the Brits were headed out there? Because her statements indicate - she knew exactly why.
The sentence is gibberish.
That’s what’s wrong with it.
Basically, what you’re saying is something like “well, we can really rip apart what Palin says, tear it down to words or very short phrases, add some more words, leave a couple words out, and come up with a historically accurate sentence. That’s what Palin meant to say, and what she meant to say was historically accurate.”
You didn’t question this account of what she said, so let’s just assume it’s ok.
“warned the British that they weren’t going to 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 going to be secure and we were going to be free.”
1) “Revere warned ... by ringing those bells.” 2)
“to send those warning shots” 3) And the fact that we’re looking at this gibberish sentence so closely just to figure out what it is that she’s trying to say. Not to determine whether what she’s saying is true or not, just to figure out what she’s trying to say. The criticism here isn’t “Palin doesn’t know her history”, the criticism is “Palin makes no sense”.
You actually can strengthen up your own argument by mentioning that some scholars do believe that warning shots were fired.
I’m not arguing this is a big deal, and I didn’t really read the stories about what Palin intially said, I started paying attention to the “critics are wrong” stories. It may very well be that the critics were attacking the wrong aspects of the sentence, perhaps by making a story out of it in the first place.
I guess “Palin says something that makes no sense” is not a news story, but “Palin gets Paul Revere facts wrong” is a story?
It’s just something you don’t really want to be talking about any more.
Victory! Read all about how we made a historically accurate sentence out of Palin’s gibberish. You kinda have to repeat the gibberish over and over every time you want to point out how each nugget of factishness is related in some way to something that did happen. That’s not necessarily a good thing for Palin.
The essence of the problem with Sarah Palin’s statement is that it sounded exactly like what someone might say after going on a tourist’s tour of the area and hearing a LOT of information all in one short venture.
Out of everything that she has done and said during her trip, and all of the footage that has no-doubt been gathered, THIS is what people are focusing on. That tells you exactly what the intention is.
I can get over her atrocious explanation of whatever history she was trying to get across. The facts were there, they were just garbled. Ask anyone else in the country to recount everything they heard during a tourist’s visit to a historical site and it will sound just the same.
I’m over it.