Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This time the dumbass quote is actually an attempt to quote someone else. In her book Going Rogue, Sarah Palin begins the third chapter with the following epigram:
Our land is everything to us... I will tell you one of the things we remember on our land. We remember our grandfathers paid for it--with their lives.
She attributes that quote to legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden.
Now, Palin no doubt used it because it seems to refer to some bland and generic support of American soldiers. That's pretty standard rhetoric, right? But as you probably know by now, that quote is not from John Wooden, it's from John Wooden Legs, a Native American. And it's about the battles between Indians and those American troops. Here's the full quote without the ellipses:
Our land is everything to us. It is the only place in the world where Cheyennes talk the Cheyenne language to each other. It is the only place where Cheyennes remember the same things together. I will tell you one of the things we remember on our land. We remember our grandfathers paid for it--with their life. My people and the Sioux defeated General Custer at the Little Big Horn.
Why does Sarah Palin hate our military men?
Politics
Comments
Another case of Palin Stupid(tm). A truly remarkable woman who just doesn't know that her time on the stage is over.
Posted by: MikeMa | December 2, 2009 9:48 AM
Ha, ha! Even when she tries to sound coherent by "borrowing" a nice turn-of-phrase from someone else, she blows it and ends up sounding foolish and incompetent.
It's like Shakespeare always said, "Shut the hell up, Palin."
Oh, wait ... that was threetorches. Just now. Dare I say it, John Wooden Legs would probably agree.
Posted by: threetorches | December 2, 2009 9:49 AM
Some should tell Glenn Beck that it was Obama who used the abridged quote. I'd love to see what he and his chalkboard would do with that gem. I'm sure by the end he'd have revealed Obama’s secret plan to return Missouri to the Native Americans and the rest of the Louisiana Purchase to the French.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 2, 2009 9:55 AM
In Mr Wooden Legs place I'd feel proud of Little Big Horn too but I am curious. Do the Cheyenne actually have land they successfuly defended in battle or was the land their grandfathers died for taken anyway and some other place of the US Govts convenience given as a reservation?
Posted by: Matty | December 2, 2009 9:55 AM
AIEEE! The Stupid, It Burns!
I read that and I thought, your land? YOUR land? I bet the Inuit have some alternative opinions.
Posted by: Elf Sternberg | December 2, 2009 9:57 AM
"We remember our grandfathers paid for it--with their life."
What John Wooden Legs' Grandfathers (and his contemporaries) had only one life to share between them? Was that before or after they were evicted from their hole in the ground? [curse of the piss poor editor and/or translator strikes again, i suspect] - DJ
----------------
Yes, yes, yes. I know that Sarah Palin's shameful quote-mining is the real issue, it's just that it jumped out at me.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 2, 2009 10:00 AM
Why in the world would John Wooden have said that? Even somehow twisting the sentiment of it to be supportive of our military, it doesn't make sense that the quote could have been Wooden's anyway. Or was he also some Chuck Norris type "activist" when he wasn't coaching basketball?
Posted by: Odie | December 2, 2009 10:01 AM
Fought for? The US bought Alaska from the Russians.
Posted by: alaskaforsale@alaskaforsale.com | December 2, 2009 10:09 AM
1) Sarah Palin obviously was not thinking about how a Native American might respond to a white person's boasting about our grandfathers, defending our land.
2) Sarah Palin stole a quote from a Native American about their sacrifices, without attributing it to them, and applied it to white people.
So in two distinct ways, with only one quote, she has dissed Native Americans. Neat trick.
And, of course,
3) Why the hell would John Wooden, the greatest basketball coach ever, to be sure, be a good source for a quote about our glorious ancestors?
Posted by: James Hanley | December 2, 2009 10:13 AM
Matty,
The latter, although I believe that in the Cheyenne's case, their reservations (there are several) are within the range of their historic territory.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 2, 2009 10:15 AM
alaskaforsale@alaskaforsale.com "Fought for? The US bought Alaska from the Russians."
Yes, but instead of dead presidents the US paid for it in dead grandfathers. Obviously.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 2, 2009 10:18 AM
For those curious, this boo boo comes via HuffPo.
Posted by: Kris | December 2, 2009 10:31 AM
The Palinista's will react by noting how trivial such a mistake is, avoiding an important and defining conclusion we can draw from not merely this event, but several similar events, about Ms. Palin's demonstrated lack of integrity.
Ms. Palin is willfully ignorant of our history. I say willful because she continuously uses historical examples where it's clear she is not cognizant of the historical event she uses as analogy or reference. She actually creates examples she herself has not researched.
Ms. Palin is pathologically dishonest. She willfully, unsolicited with ample time to first research, promotes a false history in hopes people will believe her defective positions are consistent with the lessons from history.
Ms. Palin is divisive. She often tries not only to project her character and her positions to leaders of the past, including not just our founders, but also Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. She often attempts to do so in order to supposedly reveal her fealty to history's lessons and her enemies' rejection of those lessons. Often (usually?), actual history teaches how Ms. Palin's positions are on the opposing side. Of course on this matter Ms. Palin doesn't distinguish herself from other social conservatives, revisionist propaganda is a defining bug of the movement; however she does distinguish herself from other leaders within the movement by creating her own revisionist history that is even more absurd than the claims from Christianist propagandists like David Barton and Newt Gingrich, e.g., her tying the founderst to the Pledge and 'under God', possibly the example Ed presents here*.
Take for example Ms. Palin's anti-elitist argument. Ms. Palin attempts to at least infer that elitists don't possess common sense, i.e., implying there is supposedly a strong negative correlation. In her book she allies herself with 'unpopular common sense' and uses the U.S.A.'s purchase of Alaska as an example of how her brand of 'common sense' trumps the elitists. She claims it was not popular with the newspapers of the day. The facts of course, as usual and as expected, are quite the opposite.
The purchase was not controversial, the owner of the one newspaper which distinguished itself opposing the purchase had a personal vendetta with a primary advocate of the purchase, and the U.S. Senate approved of the purchase 37 - 2, "with no significant expressions of opposition during the floor debate". And, "most educated Alaskans are aware of all this, at least in its broad outline. It’s taught in the schools, and the few textbooks that have been written about Alaskan history all incorporate Wright’s findings into their treatment of the Alaskan purchase."
Her claim the founding fathers recited the Pledge with "under God" in it, her claim Ed lists here, this claim, and her misrepresentation of President Reagan's policies and approachto governance, along with many other examples do provide a very clear pattern that Ms. Palin is in no way qualified to lead any Americans who have their's and their country's best interests as a primary priority.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 2, 2009 10:35 AM
Michael Heath, FYI your link is taking me to a site with web design tutorials and nothing about Alaska.
Posted by: Matty | December 2, 2009 10:52 AM
Michael Heath—It's kinda funny, really. Or at least, I really need to stay grounded in my sense of humor about this stuff.
Also, in the fourth paragraph with "...e.g., her tying the founders to the Pledge and 'under God', possibly the example Ed presents here*," did you intend to leave a footnote?
Posted by: Kris | December 2, 2009 10:53 AM
Matty—I'm guessing Michael intended to quote Andrew Sullivan, via a Google search of his quoted text.
Posted by: Kris | December 2, 2009 10:57 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | December 2, 2009 11:03 AM
I'm not saying this because I'm in support of Sarah Palin, but rather to point out that it isn't just her that has a willful lack of historical knowledge as well as a horrible penchant for quote-mining (which may be acceptable among those who use "unpopular common sense", but reeks to high heaven to people who actually have to make a living based on the veracity of their statements: didn't she have help in writing this book from a ghost writer? If that's the case, then this is an example of two heads failing to recognize these factual errors, two heads choosing to quote-mine, two heads choosing to make it the book that it is. (True, there is likely an editor or two to blame, too.)
... however, Sarah hasn't (at least to what I've heard) actually addressed the substance or reasons behind all the factual errors, so we won't know if she's going to own up to them or throw someone under a bus, ignore them completely, or some combination of the three (or even some heretofore unexpected maverick move).
Posted by: Umlud | December 2, 2009 11:03 AM
Does anyone know whether Ms. Palin's false reading of history is on the John Wooden Legs quote-mine is a Christian Nation meme or did she just screw this up herself? Ditto on the Pledge, 'under God', and the founding fathers?
I'm assuming even David Barton isn't this idiotic or duplicitous since it would be so easily exposed. But then again, my surprise regarding wing nuts is always how stupid and absurd they are, not how disingenuous they've become.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 2, 2009 11:08 AM
Umlud,
From what I've read, Palin was interviewed by the ghost writer and did very little actual writing. Palin probably imposed a fairly tight schedule to get the thing done timely so that she could more effectively flog her base for
moneysupport. This would leave little time for fact checking and in her case, very little incentive to do so. She cares not a whit for the truth and her base, not much more.Posted by: MikeMa | December 2, 2009 11:14 AM
Proposed: This obvious error and others of hers are purposely included as easter eggs to the progressosphere (bloggers, HuffPo, Daily Show, Maher, etc) to give them something to play as a distraction from the real issues?
What do you think?
Posted by: cm | December 2, 2009 11:38 AM
No amount of incrimination can match the self-incrimination this woman inflicts upon herself every time she makes a public statement. Keep talking, Sarah.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 2, 2009 11:46 AM
Before I even looked below the fold and found out who the quote was by, I was thinking 'paid for it with other people's lives, you mean'.
Vindicated!
Posted by: Pen | December 2, 2009 11:53 AM
Does anyone know whether Ms. Palin's false reading of history is on the John Wooden Legs quote-mine is a Christian Nation meme
Micheal Heath - read the HuffPo article linked to in #12. It's pretty likely that the quote was grabbed by Palin (or maybe Vincent) from a website called QuoteGarden. It make her out to be rather lazy, instead of some great philosopher like she apparently tries to imitate.
Posted by: Odie | December 2, 2009 12:16 PM
@Matty 4 & James Hanley 10
That depends on how long it takes for land to be called traditionally occupied. Prior to the 17th century the Cheyenne were predominately an agrarian culture in the Great Lakes region, with permanent villages and agriculture. However, as the Lakota migrated west during the 17th and 18th century they came in conflict. The Lakota prevailed and the Cheyenne got pushed further west and south. They intermingled with the plains tribes, abandon their agrarian ways and adopted a nomadic horse culture. In that incarnation the Cheyenne spread across the plains and it’s that culture most people associate with the Cheyenne.
Incidentally, the Lakota followed a similar pattern after them, which is how the Lakota and Cheyenne ended up as allies by the time Little Big Horn rolled around, after previously having been at war.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 2, 2009 12:22 PM
Why is everyone blaming poor Sarah for this mistake when it was obviously made by the author of the book. {/snark}
Posted by: Chilidog | December 2, 2009 12:24 PM
'Going rogue' is British slang for unprotected anal.
Posted by: CRM-114 | December 2, 2009 12:29 PM
"...She cares not a whit for the truth and her base, not much more.
Posted by: MikeMa | December 2, 2009 11:14 AM"
Y'know what image that put in my head--don't ask me for the connection, it isn't clear to me, either--?
Sarah Palin = Leona Helmsley with a .30-30.
Posted by: democommie | December 2, 2009 12:37 PM
Demo - your comment, combined with the comment above yours, put the image of Palin with a .30-30 in hand and an enormous strap-on ready for action!
See if you can clean that outta yer mind! [/sadist] - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 2, 2009 12:49 PM
This isn't as bad as I thought. This is from one of those quotes that they put below a chapter title like:
I doubt very much that Palin had anything to do with those quotes. I bet they weren't even in the manuscript that she handed in to the publisher.
Posted by: Tom | December 2, 2009 12:56 PM
Tom—you have a point, but of course I doubt that makes her any less culpable. They have the equivalent of postprints in areas other than science, don't they?
Posted by: Kris | December 2, 2009 1:02 PM
Abby Normal @25,
I purposely ignored that part of the history because it doesn't seem politically relevant today. Something about a mass genocide tends to cause all those various victimized tribes to have more unity in their contemporary historical sensibilities than their great great great granddaddies ever could have imagined, eh? But of course you're absolutely right on the facts. And then don't we need to talk about the fact that the Lakota moved west into the Cheyenne territory because they were getting pushed out by the Ojibwa, who were moving into Lakota territory because they were getting pushed out by the Iroquois? Which makes the Iroquois sound like the biggest baddest motherfuckers on the whole block. Or at least that's how I've heard it. But I ain't no historarian.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 2, 2009 1:03 PM
I doubt very much Palin fans will care. They know what she meant to say and that is all that really matters to them. Also, quote mining is perfectly acceptable in their world, just look at Faux News. Well, that's what the original speaker meant to say anyway.
Posted by: Owen | December 2, 2009 1:04 PM
Rom - Palin had executive control of the book, it was published under her name. Palin is where the buck stops (in all senses). - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 2, 2009 1:10 PM
When I read the quote, I thought "Hmm, this guy and his grandfathers must be Native Americans then". Then I read the rest. Turns out they were. It's no fun being right...
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 2, 2009 1:24 PM
Sorry about inadvertently linking to the wrong webpage for my citation about Ms. Palin lying about the Alaska purchase @ 13. Here it is: http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/palins-folly/
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 2, 2009 1:30 PM
Re: Dingo @34.
Are there any examples of Palin actually taking responsibility, instead of ducking it? I hadn't thought about that before, but you made me realize yet another reason why she is wholly unfit for executive office.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 2, 2009 1:46 PM
More importantly,
she can see Russia from her house!
Posted by: tallgirl | December 2, 2009 2:50 PM
From an Iroguois no doubt. ;-)
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 2, 2009 3:12 PM
James Hanley asks:
The example Ms. Palin primarily promotes is not aborting her youngest child, even after finding out it had Down's Syndrome. The second example she uses was guiding the daughter who was impregnated by Levi Johnston to not choose to abort.
This actually speaks to the type of identity politics Ms. Palin submerses herself in rather than, ick, talking about her actual work performance.
I italicized 'choose' because once again the press avoids asking the question left begging. When Barbara Walters interviewed Ms. Palin; Palin started bragging on how she guided her daughter to "choose" to not abort. The natural follow-up would have been, "Why do you use the word "choose" Ms. Palin; don't you advocate America criminalize abortion wherein your daughter would not have such a choice? Unless of course you think you have the resources to take her out of the country if she choose abortion?".
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 2, 2009 3:13 PM
That quote from Wooden Legs isn't the only one that's wrongly attributed. There are quotes from Plato and Aristotle in the first couple of chapters. Well, at least she says they are attributed to them in the book, but it turns out they are both fake.
Palin's ghost writer obviously couldn't be bothered to do more than trawl the internet for likely quotes she could stick in to make Palin look more erudite. I wonder how long it will be before Palin throws yet another colleague and collaborator under the bus for making her look bad. One of the comments about the book is that she rarely, if ever, accepts that she has made mistakes. Even the life lessons learned she talks about are lessons learned from the mistakes of other people in her life. She doesn't even do introspection well.
Posted by: tacitus | December 2, 2009 3:14 PM
Important examples, Michael, both of them being examples of taking responsibility for good decisions (at least good as her fanbase would define them), which of course takes little courage, moral fiber, or leadership.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 2, 2009 3:41 PM
Wait, so are you saying she's going to hire another ghostwriter to pen a book about how much her first ghostwriter sucked?
/brain explodes
Posted by: James Sweet | December 2, 2009 3:53 PM
With the irony that they are in fact decisions that she wishes to deny to American women.
Michael: You may or may not be aware, but, after Palin's speech at the Republican convention, there was one 'news' outlet that attempted to make that very point: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. You can see the segment, with correspondent Samantha Bee, here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-4-2008/bristol-palin-s-choice
Posted by: Kyorosuke | December 2, 2009 3:54 PM
James,
The Iroquois were the strongest nation in North America for about 100 years, late 17th early 18th century. Their involvement in the colonial wars, fighting alongside the British followed by their split over who to support during the American Revolution devastated the nations. For example Washington was called "village burner" in Mohawk because of his campaigns against the nation during the Revolution.
But the pressure on the Cheyenne didn't really work that way. It was more a matter of Europeans pushing the natives westward, then existing conflicts being exacerbated by European involvement, taking sides, etc. The Pawnee, for example, sided with the whites while the Lakota, Oglala, Hunkpapa, etc. (Sioux) and Cheyenne tried to negotiate, then tried to fight.
My first Master's thesis dealt with the demographics, economics, and politics of the Indian Removal era. ;o)
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 2, 2009 4:24 PM
Thanks, dogmeatib. I knew I didn't have all the details. But you did support my supposition that the Iroquois were the baddest mofos in town, at least until the guys with the guns and the poxy blankets showed up.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 2, 2009 4:32 PM
Geoffrey Dunn of the Huffington Post has dug up some deliciously ironic (and real) quotes from John Wooden:
Posted by: tacitus | December 2, 2009 4:50 PM
James Hanley @ 42:
They are important personally and I never meant to insinuate they weren't. However, my ire was in her not focusing on accomplishments that were/are work-related. Can you imagine a candidate for corporate VP using these examples in an interview if asked of examples where she took responsibility for a tough issue and then used these two very personal examples? No way would she be hired on that answer alone.
Yes examples like "I'm keeping my baby" (Madonna song) work for socially conservative voters focused on identity politics. But they also reveal Ms. Palin's total obliviousness regarding what executive and administrative competence even is given these are her stage props and stated examples when the topic of responsibility comes up, examples millions of other American women also make with no tooting of horns I might add.
I'm still chaffed that in spite of numerous questions regarding her take on the role of the VP from the media, from the summer of '08 through right up to the election, she couldn't even get the constitutional duties of the VP straight. In spite of its relative brevity and being in the very document she would have been swearing to uphold if elected. This women is not in any way a serious person, I can see why 76% of American women find her unqualified given we still tend to categorize women professionals by their sex rather than better discriminatory measures we use for men, like character, demonstrated excellence, knowledge, and golf skills ;) .
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 2, 2009 5:01 PM
Michael,
Constitutional duties of the veep? Plural? Really, there's but one, and yet she couldn't even learn that whole one duty. ;)
Posted by: James Hanley | December 2, 2009 5:11 PM
James:
Well, I'm not much of a pedantic, but I was a smart aleck to my teachers so here goes Teach . . .
I assume this is your one duty, Article I, Sec. 3: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. (VP's vote in ties).
But here's my rationale´ for using the plural duties (in bold italics):
Heh, heh. That's an uneasy heh, heh. I learned the short term reward wasn't always worth the long-term affliction of grief.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 2, 2009 7:15 PM
DingoJack@29 - Damn you to hell. I have to scrub my brain. But don't tell Glen Beck, or Chuck Norris...or Ted Nugent (probably)...or half the tea-baggers...
They'd never survive the fapping!
Posted by: Badger3k | December 2, 2009 8:33 PM
In order to check the veracity of quotes you can always use the Google. But you have to believe in electricity first.
Posted by: Phil | December 2, 2009 8:45 PM
Michael Heath,
A+. And wouldn't that be an exciting moment in American politics!
Posted by: James Hanley | December 2, 2009 9:41 PM
Posted by: llewelly | December 2, 2009 9:50 PM
No expert here, but as I understand it, the Iroquois system of government, with the several nations acting together as one, was one of the inspirations the founding fathers drew on when they designed their own system of government as a union of several states.
Which, I suppose, means someone gets to blame the Iroquois for the Civil War.
Posted by: amphiox | December 2, 2009 10:19 PM
Just saw the ad for Going Rogue and a subscription to Newsmax on History Channel...$4.97? Wow, how is it possible this TOME could not be a bestseller? And I'm sure Sarah and whazername are so proud. Youbetcha! Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 2, 2009 10:49 PM
amphiox,
You are right, the Iroquois confederation had a meaningful influence on the founder's thinking. One interesting aspect of their system was their equivalent of the Supreme Court. All decisions made by the tribal councils had to be approved by that group based on the effect it would have "onto the seventh generation" - This group was made up exclusively of women.
Posted by: carver | December 2, 2009 11:19 PM
carver - Wow, consultative councils to deliberate on laws! Just lucky Europeans got to the Americas, 'cause they would had never thought of that for themselves, no never. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 2, 2009 11:52 PM
Since we've mostly derailed Ed's thread anyway....
Can some of you recommend good books on the native american history? It doesn't have to be a popular book, and I wouldn't mind reading a college level history book, or even research papers. =)
My mom has done some digging into our family tree and it turns out that my great-great grandmother was Lakota. I'd like to learn more about them, and the other tribes as well. I'm actually quite interested in the Southwest US tribes like the Apache (Dinae (sp?), Tohono O'odham, etc.) as well. feel free to email me: wylann at gmail.
Thanks
Posted by: FastLane | December 3, 2009 9:35 AM
Ohh that is so funny. Almost as funny as this!
The Tribune dug this up: Obama, in his memoir, Dreams of My Father, writes of a story in Life magazine that influenced him -- about a black man trying to bleach his skin white. No such article could be found in Life or Ebony.
Posted by: Mark Hohn | December 4, 2009 12:30 AM
Mr. Hohn—I agree; very funny, but not as funny as the above, about which I hope you appreciate the irony. Now, it might get closer to being a pot of gold if it could be shown that no such story was ever written, anywhere, and that he'd made it up out of whole cloth just to spin a yarn. If, on the other hand, his editor let down his hair and relaxed on this one, instead of upbraiding his fact-checker, then maybe we'd find that the proof was in the pudding. Or maybe, once upon a time, Mr. Obama incorrectly cited a story.
Well, if that doesn't throw him to the wolves, I don't know what does.
Posted by: Kris | December 4, 2009 12:57 AM