Racism and diversity - two hot topics in today's world. Not long ago, my country had a big demonstration as a result of the death of George Floyd, as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. Racism is still a problem in our society, even here in the Netherlands.

So when I started this book, I was surprised by the fact that Thomas Sowell does have to offer some critical points here. The book is structured in different essays, each dealing with a different topic.

The first essay, deals with the origins of the "ghetto" African-American culture to the culture of Scotch-Irish Americans in the Antebellum South. The second essay, "Are Jews Generic?", discusses middleman minorities. The third essay, "The Real History of Slavery," discusses the timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom. The last three essays discuss the history of Germany, African-American education, and a criticism of multiculturalism.

I wasn't sure what these essays had to do with eachother, especially the German history. For me the main essays were the origins of the "ghetto" African-American culture and the African-American education. Sowell points out that most of the growth in income and education for African-Americans actually took place before the civil rights movement and that this hasn't been so high since then.

His main thesis: the development of the ghetto culture—a culture cheered on toward self-destruction by white liberals who consider themselves “friends” of blacks—which is today wrongly seen as a unique black identity, is actually blocking the African-Americans in their development. African-Americans should stop blaming everything on slavery but instead take matters into their own hands and start to develop themselves.

Easy said, but perhaps not always done. I can imagine in today's world, where racism could still impair African-Americans in their development, it is not always easy to work forward and upwards. But at least you should try, and not be afraid to be blamed for "acting white".

I am not living in the USA. Therefore, I may not have the knowledge to make a fair judgement here. However, I do see a trend in the Netherlands for minorities to revert back to 'it is the white man's fault' culture - which I hope can be avoided.

2,5 stars

I watched the Thomas Sowell documentary on Prime a week or two ago, so I figured it was about time I read a book by the man. So. Good. It was a great tie-in with a couple of my favorites from the year — Albion's Seed and The Book That Made Your World. Sowell sent me scurrying to the dictionary a couple of times, which is always a way to get on my good side. There was one place where he said, "What word comes to mind when you think of this?" and he offers a list of possibilities. I laughed, as there are probably three people on the planet whose first response would have been some of those words.

So...vocabulary: check. And reasoning: check. He's so good at "Look, people, these are the facts, so perhaps we maybe oughta base our thinking and decision-making on them" arguments. Of course there's also a sense that he's too realistic (jaded?) to believe that anybody will, but he patiently, relentlessly, logically keeps it up. Of course the flip side of that is that he doesn't grasp the Biggest Fact. He throws around words like sin and morals, but I get no sense that he knows the standard by which such things are measured. He makes biblical allusions, so he is apparently familiar with the text, but I get no sense that he knows the author. Of course I'm grateful for the common grace so richly evident in his work, but I wish there were saving grace evident in his soul.

One section dealt a lot with Paul Laurence Dunbar High School in D.C. There's a Dunbar H.S. in Baltimore, too (or at least there was back in my day). And it made me realize I've never read any Dunbar, so I dug up a couple that maybe I'll get around to sometime.

The narrator was very good. And his name was Hugh Mann, which tickled me. I wonder if it's legal or pseudonymous.

Although this book is an interesting read, it's hard for me to support Sowell's ideology. Issues of race and culture are never as black and white as he espouses. Above all, his views are based on a conservative ideology that seems a bit self-loathing. Everything Anglo-Saxon is not superior.

A lesson in sociology in challenging popular stereotypes which can have detrimental results. Trouble is that politics use race, religion and nationalism to form popular narratives for short term gains which can only be challenged by intellectuals. But unfortunately, popularity is widespread and the only way possible to challenge these narratives is propaganda campaigns, which can only be effective when run by governments; who by definition are run by politicians.......

It’s not often that a reader opens a work of non-fiction and the words written on the first page has such an impact that it smacks the reader so hard the reader has to rub his/her cheek to soothe the blow.

This is the impact I felt with Black Rednecks and White Liberals. The first page drew me in and made it a challenge not to call work and say I wouldn’t be in because I didn’t want to put the book down.

What I liked about Black Rednecks and White Liberals is that it reinforced what I already knew and set me straight on things I thought I knew. For those who are not bogged down in denial or racism, they will have to accept the information, digest, it, adopt it and bring themselves out of ignorance.

The words written therein quash the stereotype. Readers will learn where his/her prejudices and bias originated. The author backs up his research by listing credible references. The material contained therein is invaluable.

Black Rednecks and White Liberals should be required reading at the high school level then again at the college level.

If you read non-fiction to learn, then you will not want to pass up reading Black Rednecks and White Liberals.

Individuals who see the glass half-empty, or who sees the world through rose-tinted lens might want to pass up Black Rednecks and White Liberals because they will, most likely miss the point the author conveyed.

We live in a time when racism has made a huge resurgence throughout the United States. After the decline of the Jim Crow era we've seen racism slowly die and become practically non-existent throughout the 80's, 90's and early 200s's except for among a few small groups of both black and white people.
Unfortunately, racism has once again exploded; however, this time it is being promulgated by the political left, the self-appointed "defenders" of minorities who are seemingly purposefully fomenting racial hatred and division by propagating false notions of victim-hood and racial disparities. Thomas Sowell debunks many of the lies and misconceptions regarding racism and slavery being spread throughout modern society and poisoning western education.

This book is rich in history and provides insight into the world's racial and ethnic minorities, their migrations and subjugation and insight into U.S. history and how it compares on a global and historical scale.

A few noteworthy quotes made by the author.

"What blacks can do for themselves has not only been of lesser interest, much of what blacks, in fact, have already done for themselves has been overshadowed by liberal attempts to get them special dispensations. Whether affirmative action, reparations for slavery, or other race-based benefits, even when the net effect of these dispensations has been much less than the effects of black's own self advancement."

"Clearly, the ability to score ideological points against American society or western civilization or to induce guilt and thereby extract benefits from the white population today, are greatly enhanced by making enslavement appear to be a peculiarly "American" or a peculiarly "white" crime."

"Conquest, like slavery, existed on every inhabited continent and involved all the races of mankind as both conquerors and subjugated peoples."

"When facts about racial or ethnic groups that are both known and relevant are deliberately suppressed because they would undermine a particular vision, doctrine, or agenda, then history is prostituted and cannot serve as a check against visions, because facts have been subordinated to visions."

Flipping through the Metro section of a newspaper I was always intrigued to see the editorials. Was it going to be a local one on some boring half-wit politician? A George Will peon to some obscure baseball player or screed against FDR? A moderate liberal like Walter Williams or Eugene Robinson? An incendiary liberal such as Molly Ivins? Perhaps a xenophobic rant from Michelle Malkin or Anne Coulter? Oftentimes, it was an economic lesson from Thomas Sowell. Admittedly, I was not a huge fan of his in my youth and this book has not changed my mind. This book is heavily researched and full of interesting tidbits but also incurs straw man and biased information. There is also a buttload of repetition that felt unnecessary.

The opening chapters provided the most compelling and interesting views. His idea that the culture in the South exemplified by the Scotch-Irish immigrants that populated this region contributed not only to the white inhabitants but the slaves and later on freeman is fascinating. Whereas the North, especially the Northeast valued education and a strong work ethic, the South favored a culture on self-reliance and machismo. This machismo was personified in the act of dueling. This "culture of honor" trickled down even into the economic sphere where a bad season could cripple even a strong plantation. Even after the Civil War, this style of governance pervaded as the future (even the next growing season) was often ignored for immediate gratification. Sowell argues that Blacks in the South were inculcated to this culture and thus were prone to exhibit all of its limitations economically and socially. He states that as opposed to Blacks in the North who took their social cues from their region those in the South were at a distinct disadvantage. Of course being held in bondage and all of the ills that it afforded played a huge road. He often compares the idleness of the South with the industriousness of the North. One interesting tidbit is that according to IQ scores taken during World War I, Blacks in the North scored just as well if not slightly better than whites in the South.

The biggest issue for most political books is the obvious one; before even writing the first page they have a confirmation bias. As someone who was a mouthpiece of conservative institutions and foundations, Sowell seems indebted to a certain thinking. Whether his inane critique of slavery or his steadfast support of Greco-Roman thought, Sowell can come across as not very independent. To his credit, Sowell is very didactic in his approach. He has a style that is easy to follow and seems sensible on the surface but I feel if you dug further you could refute a number of his arguments. As it was an audiobook, I must plead an ignorance in some cases. He tries to draw a line from the counterculture revolution and the Civil Rights Movement to the erosion of the Black family and higher rates of single parent homes but he neglects to show how white families also changed. He tries to take on public schools by cherry picking schools in urban areas that have bucked more modern teaching styles in favor of a more "old-school" approach. It feels like someone else could find anecdotal evidence to prove the opposite point.

Thomas Sowell, was a very respected columnist who despite my frequent disagreements I appreciate more and more. Even at the age of 91, I am confident he is more lucid and intelligent than most of the dreck on cable news. This book was full of observations, some more profound than others. I enjoyed the opening chapters but as the book progressed it felt like it lost steam. Ultimately, I do not know if would recommend this book but I certainly wouldn't disavow it either.

Wow.

There's not much more that I can say about this book other than 'woah'.

This was my first time through this book and I listened to it. The reader was great. Good on you Blackstone Audio for producing such a gem. On the other hand...I'm probably going to go buy this book, possibly in hard cover...it was that good and that intense. Just listening through it once was akin to dipping my toe into the ocean. There is a whole lot of information that I still can't wrap my mind around. I quoted half of this book as I was reading it and it still wasn't enough for me to understand it all.

One of the major things that I was struck with while reading this book was how often scholars and intellectuals do not read outside their own area of expertise. I'm a linguist, I have an MA in linguistics and we had several class discussions on AAVE (African American Vernacular English) aka Ebonics, and in not one of those classes was I introduced to the concept that many of the linguistic features of Ebonics were extant in 18th century England. That's kind of important. It does not surprise me that this isn't well known in the linguistic community: one, few read outside of their own specialty anymore and two, there are plenty of places where linguists fear to trod because of political repercussions and grant denials. On the other hand...as a linguist, I am still skeptical of Sowell's clear assertions, especially because a cursory search on Google scholar didn't really give me anything to back him up. On the other hand, a historian would have way more street cred with digging up first hand documentation of these phenomena than a run-of-the-mill linguist like me, so, to clarify this in my own mind I need to buy the physical copy of this book, check the notes, and then read his sources to find out for myself. I will actually probably do this, because I'm curious and linguistic puzzles are fun.

I also thought it was interesting because a lot of the ideas that I encountered in this book I have encountered recently in other non-fiction books that I read. It was interesting to see parallels between this book and Murray's 'Coming Apart'. Even though the authors were approaching different problems they came to similar conclusions based on the empirical evidence, and that was interesting. There were parallels between this book and the 'Sports Gene' book that I read before it (Why on earth would there be?!?! A book about genetics and sports written by a sports reporter shouldn't have parallels to a book about history written by an economist!). There were even parallels between Sowell's discussion of intelligence and Jordan Peterson's discussion of it.

Probably the greatest lesson I walked away with from this book was the nuance of history. The whole last chapter was about how we must not judge history or historical figures by the moral viewpoints or the cultural expectations of the modern age. As obvious of a truth as this is, it's still quite profound and very difficult to practice. I had never thought about the question: "How would you have felt if you were an Arawak who had their land taken away?" as a terrible question. I had always though, well, it's good for us to think by putting ourselves in other people's shoes. I still think that is the case, but Sowell made me view that question from another angle. How I as a millennial woman from a Western background view having my land taken from me is as far removed from how an Arawak would have felt as an alien imagining how I feel about riding a horse. My cultural history, values, experiences, concept of right and wrong, expectations of the universe, etc. are all different making it very difficult to even have a concept of how such a person would have felt. And that was his point, not that such a question is not valuable, but that it is not history. The place for such a question is after you have done the research to find out all of those things about that Arawak, then you can answer that question, anything else is rank speculation. What he said after that really smacked me upside the head, he said how can we imagine the impact of Columbus on an Arawak? There are no Arawaks left and they didn't leave any written records of what they thought or felt.

That really struck me. Not least because it's true!!! How bloody arrogant of us all, when we answer questions like 'How do you think they would have felt?' Really, what makes us think that we have the right to answer that?! I can't even put into words what I feel half of the time, feeling like I have the right to explain someone else's just seems like rank arrogance to me now. The other thing that really struck me is how sad that is. How sad that we will never know what the Arawaks thought and felt. It made me fear the future. So much of our knowledge and experience as humans is being written in cloud formats now, we have no way of knowing how enduring that will be. In the past humans wrote down what was important to them in the most age-defying and long lasting material they could find, literally carving it into stone and here we are entrusting it all to the most ephemeral of things: essentially electrical signals. It made my mind explode.

Anyway, read this book, learn about why the Marines have 'From the shores of Tripoli' in their song, about the success of certain schools in contrast to other schools, about pedagogies that work and those that don't, and about the dangers of letting ideologies dictate history instead of history being examined for its own value. It's a great book.

This is an eye opening book. Thomas Sowell covers the history of slavery and racism in America. Contrary to current popular beliefs, slavery in the US was not originally based on race. Racism was the result of slavery as slave holders fought against a tide of abolitionism founded on the American principle that "all men were created equal." When slave holders tried to embrace that principle, the only way they could logically keep their slaves is to argue that slaves were not human and thus not equal. Many of those who were brought to the US as slaves, were captured and enslaved, not by white Europeans but by other African tribes. Once in the US, freed slaves, or run away slaves, often times became slave holders themselves. Some former slaves willingly fought in the American Civil War, on the side of the confederacy. Sowell reveals that racism was the consequence of slavery, not the driving motivation.

The title is one of the primary arguments of the book. Many of the elements of modern African-American culture, like the intentional neglect of proper English and grammar ("I be going", "We be runnin", etc), come from a group of white English men that were known in England as "crackers" and "rednecks." Sowell effectively argues that many of the ailments afflicting the African-American community today, which are commonly attributed to slavery, were actually far less problematic in the decades following the abolition of slavery; yet, became worse in the late 20th century. The afflictions are the result, not of racism or slavery, but of a destructive culture that was inherited from white English immigrants in the southern United States.

“Black Rednecks and White Liberals” is a collection of six long essays by Thomas Sowell, an economist and philosopher. Each essay is an examination of certain racial/ethnic groups as seen through the lens of economics.

To people who are not economists, this may sound like a dry, boring textbook. At least, this was my initial thought going into it, as I am not an economist and, to be honest, have always thought economics to be a dry, boring subject.

Surprisingly, Sowell had me engaged right away. His style of writing is far from dry. While professorial (He was a professor, having served on the faculties of Cornell, Brandeis, and UCLA), he writes with an enthusiasm that demonstrates his fascination for his subject matter. He loves economics, and it shows.

He also has a unique perspective, and one that I am ashamed to say that, going into it, I was afraid that I would find problematic.

Sowell is a conservative. (This is the part in the review when my liberal friends shout, “Egad!”)

I jest, of course, but I am familiar enough with some of Sowell’s reputation. He is a black conservative who is—-like other black conservatives Allen West and Candace Owens—-highly critical of governmental assistance for black people (such as affirmative action), as he believes that it has created a dependency that doesn’t actually help, and may actually hinder, the intellectual and emotional development of black people. While there may be some validity to this argument, I don’t necessarily agree with it totally.

That said, I went into “Black Rednecks and White Liberals” with as open a mind as I am capable. I honestly didn’t know what to expect.

To my delight, I actually enjoyed the book far more than I expected. I found Sowell’s essays to be enlightening and thought-provoking. They introduced me to concepts and ideas that I have never heard before.

For example, in the first essay, “Black Rednecks and White Liberals”, Sowell writes about how much of “bad” Southern black behavior (laziness, drunkenness, misogyny, violence) as well as mannerisms (saying “I be” instead of “I am”) that contributed to many negative stereotypes that are still around today actually comes from identical bad traits exhibited by specific white immigrants that settled in the South from an area west of England. These white immigrants—-often referred to as “crackers”, “rednecks”, or “poor white trash”—-literally rubbed off , behaviorally, on many of their black neighbors in antebellum and postbellum Southern states.

I found this fascinating. As I did the essay, “Are Jews Generic?”, in which Sowell writes about the historical mistreatment of “middleman minorities”, which are, historically, ethnic groups that often found success as bankers or merchants between the wealthy producers and the lower class consumer groups of another ethnic group, Jews perhaps being the most familiar within European countries. Being “middlemen”, these groups often felt the brunt of irrational anger and hatred during economic downturns and were often scapegoats.

Every essay in this collection intrigued, shocked, and enlightened me in some way. They challenged some of the liberal “truths” that I have held for a long time, and helped to reconsider some things that I have always considered sacrosanct. It reminded me of what the late Allan Bloom (another conservative philosopher) said about how having prejudices was a good thing, because when those prejudices are challenged or overturned, it is in that moment when true learning happens.

Sowell does make some great points and valid criticism of Liberal positions, but the mix of valid criticism, obvious strawman take-downs, and downright disconnected conclusions made this book a wash for me.

I found myself appreciating some of the nuance he brought to several topics in the book, but the summary portions of each section seemed to regularly come to conclusions that didn't seem to follow any of the premises he had made. Often times correlations were stated as if they were causations, which was disappointing given the range of detail he brought to the table. It was also quite obvious that he was not willing to see anything intersectionally. He often found an example or two of a scenario that didn't fit the mold and then threw out the remaining statistical evidence to the contrary, often without looking for other explanations.

The appeal for his writing is understandable. If one already agrees with his conclusions, this will feel like a deep-dive to prove the current Right-wing stances as valid. His facts are cherry-picked quite well and are convincing at face value. At the same time, he includes some nuance to his arguments not normally found in typical rhetoric that I genuinely appreciated. There are things that anyone polarized either to the Left or Right can at times both agree with and take issue with, but the conclusions are squarely on the Right. Based on the level of nuance he brings, it's often telling what he overlooks and excludes. Instead of broadening the conversations, it's just used to reinforce current tropes.

Each section was interesting and thought provoking right until he tried to make a square conclusion fit a round hole.

1. Point out that oversimplifying and using history as a tool for political power in the present misuses history.

2. Misuse oversimplified history as a tool for political power in the present.

3. Rinse.

4. Repeat.


WTR-577