Dense. Thorough. Balanced. Eye-opening. Magnificent.

This is the type of book where making a public review (or even acknowledgement that I read it) puts me on a few eggshells. I have more than a few liberal friends, and I definitely wouldn't fit a "conservative" label, and I picture responses like "You READ this?! You gave this 4 stars!" and for reasons that this author addresses. Each political branch has their narratives and some of them are unshakeable. When it comes to what constitutes rightful attitudes regarding racism, there is "the right side of history" and "you must be a racist"...or so it seems. If you happen to be in that camp, I want to make a few points.

(1) The author is a doctoral-level educated black professor. You might not agree with his opinion, but he is MORE than qualified to give it.

(2) I think it's healthy to explore various points of view on a topic from qualified authors. You can learn points of view and just maybe be persuaded that something on one side is a missing piece of the puzzle on another side.

(3) This is persuasive and very well-worth considering. This author in no way minimizes the horrors of slavery, but he criticizes the narratives that have (1) made the American story somehow worst than the millenia of slavery that have existed in every corner of the world and in some cases still exist, (2) holds onto the dogma without analyzing the causation.

I won't enumerate all the points that would contradict established narratives, but the main point is that what we would call urban black ghetto culture is deeply rooted in the characteristics of the white southern redneck, who in turn was affected by where he first resided - the borderlands particularly in the north of the British Isles. The point-by-point characteristics are strong, even down to the language and vocabulary. He also presents a compelling case that a great many mistakes primarily from liberal policy since 1865 and especially in the 1950s and 60s gave the illusion of progress while actually harming the very things that likely would have made things better.

I'm not saying I'm fully converted to his thoughts, but I was very fascinated by them and will continue to think about them. In a way it's depressing because, IF he is correct on what would help and what is harmful, then this problem is irreversibly screwed because what passes as acceptable and unacceptable opinions on this topic is as ironclad as any religion. For better or worse, there's a direction we're headed, and this is nothing more than a thoughtful "what if".

Sowell was like a skilled chef, everything cooked to perfection, seasoned beautifully, and something for every palette. If you can't enjoy it, it's because you choose to hate great food, and you probably prefer Kale chips to potato chips, and would somehow enjoy eating bread made from sawdust. There is a multitude of fascinating takeaways, and Sowell takes us back through history to show that "black culture" is really Scottish clan culture. He makes a compelling defense of why America isn't an inherently racist country, and explains why the Founders weren't perpetuating racism by not ending slavery at our founding. Contrary to the statue smashers over in Portland, the Founders laid the groundwork for ending slavery.

Perhaps the most poignant point which Sowell makes is that while every ethnicity has at one time been enslaved, and in turn enslaved others, it was only in the West that this temptation to enslave our fellow man was overcome. It was the cause of liberty which ensured the eventual end of slavery not only in the West but (almost) throughout the whole world. Ironically, it is in places where Western values are not predominant that slavery still exists (I would assert it would be more accurate to say Christian ethics). However, current narratives regarding race/slavery would have us believe that America's founders simply perpetuated/entrenched slavery, rather than planting the seeds of liberty which would grow the fruit of abolition of the institution of slavery. This book is a potent antidote to the woke-sorcery which has beguiled our universities, press, and culture.

WOW! This book was a complete eye-opener and changed how I viewed the history of slavery and blacks in America. As a white person, I'm shocked, appalled and relieved at the same time.

What my intuition told me was wrong about massive social programs was vocalized and backed up by facts for me with this book. A lot of what I thought about slavery and oppression was turned on its head. I was appalled that I was never taught ANY of this in school, and I have extensive college education. What I realized, was that in order to find out the facts, you must not rely on what you are spoon-fed by formal educators. You must go out and research and think critically.

This book made me realize how much I still have to learn and when I read books like that, I'm inspired. This is a book that should be in college classrooms and it is one that will stay in my library and in my head. It will be a book I come back to for reference.

I found the book entertaining and in some parts enlightening (like with Thomas Jefferson, someone who was very morally binary in my head suddenly now falls onto a spectrum of morality). Overall I really enjoy this style of writing, I find it very engaging and I retain a lot of information from this format. But due to my lack of depth in this field, I can't speak on the soundness of the history relayed. Some of the conclusions he draws are obvious to me, and shouldn't be controversial (everyone has been enslaved, to varying degrees, with various levels of severity etc) and some things I feel certain I will have to do far more research before I can come to my own conclusions on (that black culture is Scottish Highlander culture, something that has never crossed my mind in my life). In some areas, especially in regards to Czech and eastern European history, he appears to be overstepping his own knowledge bastion into something he should speak lighter about -but beyond appearances, I again lack the depth of knowledge needed to know if he is on the right path or not. Overall, vastly less controversial than people make him out to be. Most of the stuff here will see like "ah, I should have known that" or if you're smarter than me, you already knew it. And rest of it should inspire any reader to keep on reading elsewhere to confirm or deny the theories laid out.

Thomas Sowell + any bipartisan bullcrap not rooted in facts:

n  n

I have known Thomas Sowell as an excellent economist. But I have been more skeptical of his sociological analysis, since I've mostly pre-rejected (to coin a phrase, "prejected") his viewpoint as antagonistic to my cherished views on socially progressive politics (especially towards race). Nonetheless, I was wrong. He is not only a good economist, but a good sociologist and historian. In digging through history's complexities, he unearths facts and figures that can be deemed uncomfortable, even unwelcome; but in so doing, he improves the quality of the conversation.

This is essentially a collection of essays, loosely centered around the topic of race relations, especially the history of differential achievement, discrimination and the importance of cultural traits to both of these dimensions. The analysis ranges between sociology, history and economics - fractured through a polemical lens. The book's best essays, in my opinion, are the following:

1) The titillatingly politically incorrect title essay, namely on "black rednecks" and their cultural heritage. It explores the fascinating cultural influence of white Southerners on freed black slaves, and the influence that this has had on subsequent generations of black achievement (and underachievement). The literal, strong version of the thesis is probably too strong, i.e. that the current-day "gangsta" culture of urban blacks is allegedly derivative of equally "gangsta" low-class English and Scottish culture of centuries past, via the mediation of the Southern slave-owning states. But a weaker version of the thesis is mostly accurate, and illuminating. It sheds light on the failure of contemporary scholarship to take account of the persistent and ironic forces of history that shape cultures, create differentiation, and produce lasting problems for generations of today.

2) The intriguingly wide-reaching article on "economic middle-men" - i.e. peddlers, bankers, merchants, international traders - who have always and everywhere been resented for their "cosmopolitan" values, their hard work and achievement, and their seeming isolation from the rest of the society. The ethnic composition of such groups - be it ethnic Lebanese, Arabs, Chinese or, of course, Jewish - has often been monolithic, and their cultural values strangely foreign, "laissez-faire", isolationist and self-centered. This has caused friction with local populations and ethnic majorities. Occasionally, these have led to pogroms, expulsions, or legal restrictions. And even in peaceful times, the attitude towards them has been resentful. Even if most of these accusations have been advanced from a misunderstanding of the forces of economics, more justifiably they have been accused of occasional collusion with oppressive leaders, which can hardly be excused by the fact that this has often been the only way to get trade deals and business arrangements done. At any rate, this essay exemplifies Sowell's wide reading of history, and his shrewd understanding of economic forces that shape history, create wealth and generate disparities that breed resentment.

The other essays deal, e.g., with the complicated history of the black emancipation in the United States; the ubiquity of slavery as a human institution; and the problems of state-led "social justice" as an alleged panacea for the problems of today's blacks. Overall, the book is a wonderful collection of essays, viewpoints and polemics. It offers sharp critiques of some of the naive views of the left.

I don't consider his analysis sufficient, since he always seems to argue for one side of the equation - i.e. the side of Western civilization, the side of whites, the side of anti-social justice. His books are dire need of a leftist balancing act. He should be seen, and read, cautiously, as a sort of Paul Krugman of the conservatives: someone who occasionally steers dangerously close to a one-sided view of history. If one ONLY were to imbibe the message of a Sowell, or of a Krugman, or of anyone with strong convictions, one would have heard only one half of the (full) story. For example, his criticism of the use of the extermination of the Indians as an example to be taught to children in American schools as somehow "a failure of education" because it fails to take into account that wars, conquests and exterminations were commonplace during the centuries past, is itself an outrageously one-sided attempt at "rectifying the rectifiers" of history. And even if Sowell decries the "social justice" agenda of self-flagellating Western scholars, his own agenda is equally strident, and singularly targeted against a particular strand of scholarship, towards which he points his powerful, massive guns. (You know what they say about blacks guns...)

But, as much as one should not rely on Sowell alone, and as much as his perspective is in need of a leftist corrective, the same goes, with double the force, for the other side, the side of the Western anti-imperialists, anti-slavery, social justice warriors. The bookstores and academia are full of self-hating Westerners and whites who will use every opportunity to excuse black rapists as victims of slavery, unproductive loafers as victims of capitalist oppression, and obnoxious teenagers as victims of circumstance. These people need some good slapping around. And this Dr. Sowell provides. It is for his powerfully slanted perspective, and NOT for his objectivity, that we need him.

During this time when race issues are prominently in the news I wanted to go beyond the low hanging fruit of privilege, supremacy, and "anti racism" to get a more historically rooted assessment of how we got to where we are today.

I liked how this book was eye opening in terms of making a strong case that issues in "ghetto" black culture aren't racial, but cultural. That an inherited culture that came from a Southern white culture, and prior to that from a rural British isles culture, will explain the problems commonly associated with these areas. Only by truly understanding the root causes can we come to a realization of how to combat them.

The Black redneck portion is only perhaps the first quarter of the book and there are small details I may disagree in part to. Such as the link that an honor system leading to a culture where a "diss" can result in a duel or death is hundreds of years old. The slight, yet significant, cultural variance being current instances where challenging someone to a fight and awaiting acceptance (a duel of sorts) is now often done away with, and results in street ambushes. But I also realize I'm generalizing to some extent.

The explanation of how liberal soft bigotry of low expectations hurts blacks, defense of small business owners (middle men), and the chapter on slavery were nicely written and cover world history, which is often overlooked in narrowly focused American centered works on slavery. Great work.

It's beyond my ability to relate to the review readers the hefty substance of this book.

The research and the source material alone are treasures, but the encapsulation of these subject (chapter headings) all combined and with threads in the dozens that entwine each other! Beyond my ability to sufficiently describe. How different cultures have formed over centuries and movements and have keep their original cultures in stronger flavors than the original populations that stayed "put". That alone was some of the most intriguing proofs of empirical data I've read in twenty years.

It's just exceptional in the fact data alone- but the mix of cause and effect and his observations of results long term- not only the most clear intelligence but the least bias of direction in these fields of multi-cultural mix effects and progressions. Quite beyond the prediction, into the data of "after".

But as fabulous as this book was in the clear "eyes" and historical context of the fact/data history and the interpreted to "causes" history- the last chapter was the one that I consider priceless. Especially within the time frame in which it was written. Because he's a true prophet.

"History Versus Visions" is the best prose length I've ever read upon history and the recording of the past itself. And how when we revise it and "take sides" it is no longer history. Not because of objectivity but primarily for the faults of omission. And the implications of fault, blame or honest differences- his explanations are correct, masterful. Please read this chapter if nothing else.

How could he have had a thick enough skin to have written all of these studies and conclusions when he did? What a intellect. My summation of about 1/2 of the conclusions he has defined here! Not an explanation, but just my reaction of awe. Honesty coupled with immense strength, courage and a logic of analysis that is genius perfection.

The chapters upon the "Real History of Slavery", "Are Jews Generic", and "Germans and History" were, for my reading them, entire books within themselves. And they took that long to read too.

With that second, I have always noted the reactions to "middle men" (bankers, tax collectors, shop keepers, merchants) in present day cultures, myself. Because most, if not all, of my ancestors were "middle men" and also in great numbers migrant over generations by the fact.

Lastly, when I read some of these reviews for this book now after I have read it? Amazing that any reader could begin to assume that Thomas Sowell has reached conclusions before assembling the factors towards it. All of his thought processes are exactly the opposite.

So many common day Western world "assumptions" upon culture and society "help" are absolutely just that, assumptions. Growth in educational aptitudes and innovative completions, better living conditions over generations of health/art/literature/longevity and much else that results in "better" needs to be very much reevaluated in this century, IMHO, in that criteria light.

Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals is a multifaceted exploration of historical and social phenomena, seamlessly interweaving various essays that shed light on critical issues ranging from Black-on-Black violence to the real history of slavery. The book is a testament to Sowell's intellectual prowess, offering readers a profound and enlightening journey through the intricacies of race, culture, and history.

If you read any of these, at least read the first one with the same title as the book. It provides a plausible explanation for why Black-on-Black violence is so high. Sowell offers a compelling argument challenging conventional wisdom and providing a nuanced perspective on the historical roots of certain social phenomena. In fact, that issue is how I learned this book existed, a citation from Barry Latzer's 2019 article, "The Need to Discuss Black-on-Black Crime," in The National Review.

He makes a convincing case that the Southern Blacks (90% of Blacks) modeled their behavior on the White inhabitants who had immigrated to the region. They were the dregs of highland Scottish ["The highlanders lagged far behind the lowlanders in education and economic progress, as well as in the speaking of the English language], Irish, and British society.

"What the rednecks or crackers brought with them across the ocean was a whole constellation of attitudes, values, and behavior patterns that might have made sense in the world in which they had lived for centuries, but which would prove to be counterproductive in the world to which they were going—and counterproductive to the blacks who would live in their midst for centuries before emerging into freedom and migrating to the great urban centers of the United States, taking with them similar values.
The cultural values and social patterns prevalent among Southern whites included [See Grady McWhiney's Cracker Culture, 1988] an aversion to work, proneness to violence, neglect of education, sexual promiscuity, improvidence, drunkenness, lack of entrepreneurship, reckless searches for excitement, lively music and dance, and a style of religious oratory marked by strident rhetoric, unbridled emotions, and flamboyant imagery. This oratorical style carried over into the political oratory of the region in both the Jim Crow era and the civil rights era, and has continued on into our own times among black politicians, preachers, and activists. Touchy pride, vanity, and boastful self-dramatization were also part of this redneck culture among people from regions of Britain where the civilization was the least developed. They boast and lack self-restraint, Olmsted said, after observing their descendants in the American antebellum South."

Sowell's emphasis on the social approval of violence within this cultural framework is a key insight that resonates throughout the essay.

The exploration of violence is not an isolated analysis but part of a broader examination of cultural patterns and historical connections. Sowell draws on various scholarly studies, including David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed, to illustrate the pervasive and close similarities between white Southerners and certain groups in Britain. This comparative approach enriches the narrative, demonstrating the enduring nature of cultural traits.

Moving beyond the Southern context, Sowell's exploration of middleman minorities provides a global perspective. By examining the experiences of Jews, Gujaratis, Chettiars, Armenians, and Koreans, he discusses "middlemen minorities." Middlemen minorities frequently launch new businesses and contribute economically to communities, countries, and states, but social prejudices by other groups against enterprises and moneylending, coupled with their economic prowess, prosperity, and clannishness, can lead to hostility among a nation's native population. These minorities often fall prey to racialized policies, terrorist attacks, bullying, genocide, and other types of repression. They are frequently accused by other ethnic groups of taking money from the indigenous people or of hatching plots against their country. This essay challenges stereotypes and broadens the understanding of the economic functions of such groups, emphasizing their historical contributions.

Sowell then delves into the real history of slavery and presents a counter-narrative to prevailing beliefs. He dismantles misconceptions and challenges readers to reconsider widely accepted notions about slavery. This essay serves as a testament to Sowell's commitment to historical accuracy and his ability to confront uncomfortable truths.

The subsequent essays on Germans and history, Black education, and the clash between history and visions further showcase Sowell's intellectual breadth. Each essay contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics that have shaped societies throughout history. Sowell's keen analytical skills and rigorous research are evident in every chapter.

In conclusion, Black Rednecks and White Liberals is an essential text that should be part of any university curriculum, First Year Experience, and home library. It takes readers on a stimulating journey through history, culture, and societal dynamics. Thomas Sowell's meticulous scholarship and nuanced perspectives challenge conventional wisdom and encourages readers to critically engage with complex issues. This book is a testament to Sowell's intellectual legacy and his unwavering commitment to unraveling the layers of historical and social phenomena.

Trash.
I respect that Prof. Sowell is trying to make a complicated point for a general audience, but so much of the language in this book, language that comes from Prof. Sowell and NOT from his sources, seem better placed in a high-school English essay than in a book. I made it through about 10 pages before I stopped, mostly because I couldn't trust what I was reading - how much of it was "fact", as Prof. Sowell seems all to glad to highlight at every chance he gets, and how much was the author's own subjective understanding coming out through his own analysis, unsupported?

Here are some choice passages that made me question what I was reading, and ultimately put the book down.

"In earlier centuries, Scotland was a poor and backward country, like Wales and Ireland..." p.5. The use of "backward" here has strong implications. Prof. Sowell contends that people from the American south emigrated from these regions, so by association, if these regions were "backward", then people from the American south would be "backward." That term conveys a very particular view of southern Americans, beyond the citations that are provided.

"In this world of impotent laws, daily dangers, and lives that could be snuffed out at any moment, the snatching at whatever fleeting pleasures presented themselves was at least understandable." p.5. Understandable by who? Understandable by Prof. Sowell? Quite the claim, with lots of assumptions. Again, this is not cited, and stands on its own as a pretentious and patronizing characterization of life that is somehow not as good as the more "forward", maybe, parts of the British isles.

Same paragraph:
"Books, businesses, technology, and science were not the kinds of things likely to be promoted or admired in the world of rednecks and crackers." My god, what? This is not supported by any evidence - Prof. Sowell makes what might to him be an obvious connection between "backwardsness" and liking to read, but that's only on his own personal analysis, not based on anything he seems to take from other writings. Could you provide a citation that says "Because people threw chamber pots out of their windows instead of having running water, then they obviously don't like books?"

The whole thesis of this book seems to be that these somehow-undesirable people from Scotland came to the American south, then passed on their somehow-undesirable culture to African-Americans, and that this culture is now embodied in urban poor areas... so this quote seems to imply that, in the long run, the reader should see how (obviously) African Americans don't like books (because of course black people don't like to read, am I right, guys?) I just can't with these assumptions.

Racism? I can't tell, and that makes me very wary.

Trash trash trash. Maybe if this had been written more objectively, or if Prof. Sowell had been able to hold back his own biased analysis of his "facts", then this book would be readable. It seems like there could be some interested observations in here - I would be interested in learning about demographic shifts, and cultural attitudes that come with cultural shifts during immigration - but I am not interested in biased writing that can crawl like a worm into my own analysis without my knowing it. No thank you, Professor.

A few years after reading "A conflict of Visions" by Sowell a friend of mine (who is African-American) recommended this book to me. We had been debating our individual impressions of racial relationships between black and white friends. I had made the comment that there were "archetypal motiffs" common to persons on both sides of the color line.

Although my friend agreed with me "...on average," he suggested that I read this book as it would give me a new perspective of a black intellectual's opinions on the entire subject of race relations.

I did.

It did.