Posted on 06/08/2011 11:39:46 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
THEY REALLY tried to get this Professor to say Sarah messed up....and she did NOT!
I don’t think he was lamenting the fact that Palin was giving a history on Revere.
“and this is their system before Facebook, before Twitter,
before NPR”
Prof. ALLISON: I wish it didn’t take Sarah Palin coming to town to bring us together.
He just had enought integrity to not shame himself on the radio. Doubt he feels the same in the company of his fellow faculty.
Well Prof, if the media actually loved it’s own country more than itself and stopped slamming America every 3 min, they could fill that time by reporting on FACTUAL matters of history to accompany it’s reporting where appropriate.
But the Ivory tower types will never admit where the problem really ‘lies.’
If the professor lived in Boston and knew history he just might have credibility on the issue. /s
“Prof. ALLISON: Yeah. She was making a Second Amendment case. “
especially with that United Nations plan recently in the News, to impose global gun control,
U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2731305/posts
and the fact that Palin is a lot smarter than some people think...
...I wish more people would actually look at what Palin actually said. i don’t think Sarah Palin was trying to do a “gotcha” on the Media about Paul Revere, as even i first thought.
she seems to be trying to use it, as a lesson about 2nd Amendment. look how many times she uses the word “arms”.
...her ENTIRE emphasis, was about the rebels being able to DEFEND their liberty from the British,
BECAUSE they had arms.
= = =
””Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that
‘hey, you’re not going to take American arms,
you are not going to beat our own well-armed persons
individual private militia that we have.’”
”He who warned the British that they
weren’t going to be taking away our arms
by ringing those bells and by making sure that 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
and we were going to be armed.”
Nothing more dangerous than something that elevates itself. It would seem that our governing bodies, local, state and federal have done just that. Gods they are. Used to be just Emperors. Now it’s any gov’t employee. Houston, we have a problem.
We have one now alright, but before long, we’ll have a solution too (I hope) and then it will not be us with the ‘problem’ ;)
False Gods have a habbit of falling throughout history.
If they have a problem with what the tour guide told her, they should take it up with the tour guide. Who thinks a tour guide is giving out incorrect information? Anyway, from what I’ve read from Paul Revere, she got the gist of it right.
I know what he is saying here but I wonder if the professor realizes the inherent contradiction within these statements? 'They're trying to save the British Empire - don't provoke Americans.' I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure a sense of separate identity was already deeply ingrained in a great many "Americans" by 1775. If it weren't how could the Revolution have ever gotten started much less won?
Servants of the people, they are supposed to be?
Servants don't vote their own pay raises.
Servants don't write their own rules.
Servants don't judge their own behavior.
Obama and Biden make more mistakes that anyone, but they jump on Palin.
I would bet Palin knows how many states there are.
And Palin wouldnt ask a wheelchair-bound person to stand up.
The MSM is not even pretending to be unbias anymore. And they wonder why nobody is reading newspapers or watching network news.
WTF? NOBODY was thinking of independence? In 1775? You have GOT to be kidding me. I am pretty well read and have read dozens of books on that era, and MANY people were discussing the issue, and it was weighing heavily on the minds of many of the founders.
I'll tell you what. If Sarah Palin had said THAT, people would be all over her.
But a liberal Boston historian says that that NOBODY was talking about independency in 1775, well, that is just dandy.
” great many Americans (British Colonial Citizens) “ is right....but questionable if even a majority at that time were ready to go to war. One look at the huge numbers who later fled to Canada and/or just stayed out of the war shows that. But it was the heavy handedness of the British that brought abought sufficient support for the revolution to happen and eventually succeed (perhaps 2/3 support). Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill, etc.
I don’t know if it was a majority, history books say only a third supported the Revolution, but it was enough to fight and win independence. The professor makes it sound like there wouldn’t have been much of a problem if the British just turned around when Paul Revere warned them off. That suggests that the passion for independence was ginned up in a couple of months after their attack on Lexington and Concord. The DoI itself states clearly that dissatisfaction had been expressed and building for years.
See post 18.
There were a whole string of acts which built over years that finally drove the colonies to revolt.
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 Forbid colonists from crossing the Appalachians.
The Currency Act, 1764
The Sugar Act, 1764
The Quartering Act, 1765
The Stamp Act, 1765 Precipitated the “Stamp Act Crisis” which fomented rebellion throughout the colonies
The Declaratory Act, 1766 The English Parliament repealed the Stamp Act, but couldn’t leave well enough alone, and adopted this statement of parliamentary supremacy over the British colonies.
The Townshend Act, 1767
The Tea Act, 1773
The Administration of Justice Act, 1774
The Boston Port Act, 1774
The Massachusetts Government Act, 1774
The Quebec Act, 1774
The Quartering Act, 1774
Wow! They were pouring it on with one regulation after another. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? I think many Colonists had long felt apart from Merry Olde England restrictive laws notwithstanding. The Last of the Mohicans was a reflection of that. The British needed the Colonists for their ends much more than the Colonists needed them for their sustenance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.