The following was written as a response to some of Scott Adams’ comments near the end of his video: Episode 1771 Scott Adams: Let’s Talk About All The January 6 Propaganda Destroying The Country. I’m sure he has made these kinds of comments before, and there might be a better example of where he addresses the issue in more detail. I watch his videos frequently but not daily. I did at the beginning when he declared that Trump would win in 2016. His analysis of persuasion dynamics fascinated me. Now, I tune in when I’d like to hear his perspective on a current event that he’s covering. I’ve probably heard him make this point about history being fiction before, but his flippancy really irked me today. So I wrote the following essay and posted it as a comment on his video. Feel free to use the Contact page to send a link to a video of his that is more relevant to this particular issue.
The point of trying to understand original intent isn’t to discover what was going on “in the minds” of long-deceased historical figures but to establish the context that led to the results which were recorded as history. The long-established truism that “history is written by the victors” doesn’t mean that it’s ALL fiction. It just means that certain accounts may be bombastic, and often, very little survives of the accounts of the conquered. While I’ll admit that some historians are hacks, the better scholars are looking to establish a comprehensive view of the periods and activities they study.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are carefully worded documents. Substantial evidence suggests that they exist and are NOT fiction (sarc). However, by taking the context of then-current events into account, we may be able to understand something about the inspiration for the words that were penned. And yes, of course, this kind of analysis is “opinion” whether by learned, studied individuals or the average Joe-in-the-street. It is the obligation of the person doing the analysis to make a compelling case for their results. My personal belief is that most people, aware of at least some of the cultural, social, and language changes over the ensuing years, lean toward wanting to know about the context surrounding why certain words and phrases were penned the way they were in our historical documents. Most scholars and lay people are not trying to “read minds.” They’re trying to make a case. Sometimes even a legal case. (Political hacks and so-called journalists are a different story, not covered here.)
Some of us get annoyed at obvious deceptions like claiming that “well regulated” means something like “government oversight required” when the studied context clearly establishes the meaning as self-supplied, properly drilled, reasonably available, and independent of government control. Flippantly referring to this kind of analysis as “fiction” legitimately irritates people in your audience. Enshrined in our Constitution is your right to be irritating. Some would seek to end that right based on contemporary context. We’ll continue to listen to your episodes, not because we hang on your every word and agree with you 100% but because we appreciate the intelligence behind much of your analysis. I sure hope nobody in your audience agrees with you 100% of the time. From everything I’ve heard you say over the past several years, I think even you’d find that scary.
Your remarks disparaging the study of context through relating historical documents to other writings of the same era bristles some of us because the idea of taking 250-year-old words and placing them into only a modern context defeats the purpose of having historical documents in the first place. History, politics, and culture be damned. We might as well just be a corporation, keep our noses buried deep inside quarterly reports, and do whatever works right now so that the next quarter will look good. Sorry, not-so-sorry . . . not all of history is fiction or propaganda. Taking context into account and comparing multiple accounts of events is actually a primary antidote for avoiding being taken in by fictions and propaganda. Currently, instead of waiting for history to sort things out, many people are doing this in real-time. This is a significant, historic development. It is up to us, whether scholars or ordinary citizens, to discern, discriminate and decipher first, second, and even third-hand accounts along with raw data as best as possible so that we can maintain the continuity of our country and its cultural and social fabric. We have strengths. And we have weaknesses. Understanding both is necessary for improving all of our lives and carrying on together into the future. Making the context of everything based on only current political, economic, and cultural or social norms is a recipe for disaster and disintegration. And I know that’s not exactly what you said, but it is the tangential end point of dismissing history as “fiction” and deciding legal and political outcomes based on only current context.
If one accepts the idea that there is an American culture–warts and all–then studying and debating the foundations of that culture is imperative to the continuity of that culture and of the United States, period.
That’s my case against your case Scott. And yes, it’s my opinion. Isn’t it great that opinions can be endlessly vetted in public? We’ll see whose opinion fares better in the comments.