Good for the most part. Destroys multiculturalism. Unfortunately, very economic view of history. Judges success based on intellectual and economic achievement. I think he conflates redneck culture with Southern culture. Slaves would have been affected more by lowland educated Southerners, not Frontier hillbillies. Also seems to use abolitionist sources like Olmsted to judge the South. Contradicts himself when says black inner city issues are a result of an inherited redneck culture and then later blames the issue on the welfare state. It can’t be both. Exposes educational deficiencies and the assumptions which lead to them in black community. Loved his statement that black history is really just the history of what whites have done to blacks. Cautiously recommend.

Thomas Sowell is a savage. Destroys so many myths in our modern understanding of history and politics. Definitely want to read more of his work

Unrated because I let it languish on my currently reading shelf so long that it became an embarrassment.

I found it interesting, but I wasn't wholly convinced by Sowell's arguments; I feel like it's a good complement to other books on the topic, though, and the first part was worth the read.

This book is a collection of a few long essays from Sowell, an economist of some fame, and of special value to conservatives because he is an African-American conservative intellectual. I’ll be discussing only the first, titular, essay in this book, because it’s the one I was most interested in. I think it’s fair to judge a book on its most advertised section, don’t you? Sowell’s thesis here is that nearly all of serious problems facing black Americans today come from a culture they shared during slavery with white Southerners which those white people cast aside and those black people spread these last decades, and from the condescension of white liberals (by which he means programs such as welfare in its various forms and affirmative action). He claims that this culture, a violent “cracker” culture of machismo from England’s borderlands in pre-colonial times that was transplanted by a few immigrants to the American South, is the explainer of current economic disadvantage much more so than racism or prejudice, and that black people will have to voluntarily discard it and not receive welfare in order to prosper.

However much this theory sounds like the academic equivalent of blaming rap music and sagging pants for inner-city violence, such easy mockery doesn’t actually disprove his claims. There is either significant evidence against or no real evidence for the two parts of his argument, though: there is no reason to suggest that this “cracker” culture spread from Renaissance-era Britain to modern black people, and there is evidence that such a culture isn’t the explainer of modern racial economic inequality. To support his theory that ruffians from England’s hinterlands are the primary cultural influences on modern black people, he cites a book called Cracker Culture published in the 1980s by a fringe scholar named Grady McWhiney. This book was not widely accepted, to say the least, not least because of the problems with its theory: Celtic immigrants of the type he talks about were influential in both the North and the South instead of just the latter, and genteel Englishmen were certainly not unrepresented in the Southern culture. And none of this explanation of antebellum North/South differences, if true, can serve to replace an actual cultural history of black people in America from the 1800s to today with the convenient explanation Sowell needs for his thesis.

As to the second part of Sowell’s argument, that for black people in America to prosper they must receive no government help, forsake their violent culture, and copy the successful white people around them, it doesn’t hold up. Certainly violence in black communities is a problem and unwanted, but the arrow of cause and effect doesn’t match Sowell’s model: violence doesn’t create and perpetuate poverty, but poverty can create and perpetuate violence. Some simple points: the antebellum South was very prosperous despite having one of the most insanely violent systems on the planet in place (it was slavery, not “cracker culture”), whereas the correlation between long-poor populations and high rates of violence is omnipresent in the world. Populations don’t start off rich, begin tolerating violence and so become poor. Furthermore, cutting off black children from food stamps, housing assistance and public schools would in absolutely no way produce a new generation more likely to succeed because they were “hungrier”; you’d see a lot more homeless children of billionaires if this were a logic designed for use on anyone other than poor minorities. And emulation of whites is not a surefire way to the top either; the quality Sowell would most like to see is a strong work ethic, and many studies that research this exact phenomenon show that if anything, black people work harder than white people. Still not sweeping economic justice. Sowell’s arguments have many holes like these, based on insufficient evidence or wishful thinking, or even counter-factual claims about reality. Sowell is correct when he states that race is not a cause of this inequality; race is not, in fact, a determiner of skill, motivation, etc. But he is wrong to suggest that racism isn’t. There is a wealth of evidence that points at the great importance of racism in the history of America, and none that points away. Read this book only with these grains of salt in mind.

Two stars for being interestingly written even if I disagree with nearly every word on some pages.

I better understand why Candace Owens mentioned Thomas Sowell as someone she thinks highly of and has learned from. Sowell not only obviously holds a huge prejudice against southern white people, but he also attempts to speak too confidently about a black culture he doesn't truly represent.

Black Rednecks and White Liberals is a collection of essays by economist and social theorist, Thomas Sowell.

The entire book studies rhetorics of race, challenging conventional wisdom by exposing the various ways that history has been cherry-picked to benefit present-day political and social agendas, influence public policy, and hinder progress in social issues.

Before reading this book, I was told that I should "be prepared to be challenged." And boy, was I challenged. Sowell's book is nothing short of unconventional and controversial.

It's hard to fully review this book without going into complete detail about each essay (roughly 20-50 pages each and heavily detailed and cited). I would have to briefly summarize each essay before getting into what I agreed with or disagreed with.

There's no doubt in my mind that Sowell is wildly intelligent and his work should be read and maybe even celebrated. However, while there were certainly some ideas that I agreed with, there are a few others that still need convincing.

Great book if you really want to challenge yourself and read something that'll get you thinking.


------
If you're interested, I'll briefly explain different ideas that Sowell put forth that I found interesting, controversial, or want to explore more.

1. In the first essay, Sowell argues that "ghetto" black-American culture originates from the antebellum South and is the result of white "cracker" redneck culture, which was brought by the Scottish, Brits, and Irish. However, white liberals continue to push black redneck culture onto black Americans under the guise of "accepting their heritage" when in reality, it hinders social progress for black Americans.

> Quote: "White liberals have aided and abetted the perpetuation of a counterproductive and self-destructive lifestyle among black rednecks."
> Quote: "Rooting black identity in a counterproductive culture not only reduced incentives to move beyond that culture, it cut off those within that culture from other blacks who had advanced beyond it, who might otherwise have been sources of examples, knowledge, and experience that could have been useful to those less fortunate."

2. Also in his first essay, Sowell argues that white liberals frequently view black Americans as victims, which only further perpetuates black redneck culture that seeks to limit black progress, which benefits white liberals.

> Quote: "By cheering on counterproductive attitudes, making excuses for self-defeating behavior, and promoting the belief that 'racism' accounts for most of blacks' problems, white intellectuals serve their own psychic, ideological, and political interests. They are the kinds of friends who can do more harm than enemies."
> Quote: "By projecting a vision of a world in which the problems of blacks are consequences of the actions of whites, either immediately or in times past, white liberals have provided a blanket excuse for shortcomings and even crimes by blacks." (the way I gasped reading that...I still don't even know what to say)

3. Minorities are more successful when they don't fully integrate into the environment or culture around them but instead, stick to their own cultural beliefs, attitudes, and ideologies. Sowell refers to these groups as "middlemen minorities." They don't assimilate into new environments or cultures but it's okay because their differences then help create economic prosperity and stability. These minority groups are not hated because of their race/religion/background but because they create economic opportunities in places where they are not the majority. A great example of "middlemen minorities" are the Lebanese in West Africa, Jews in America, South Koreans in black neighborhoods, and the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. They also tend to have a better work ethic than the majority, which is why they prosper wherever they go.

> Quote: "Middlemen minorities do not happen to be different. That differentness is central to their success and it carries over into other fields when they branch out into industry, commerce, and the professions."
> Quote: "Even when middlemen have lived in the slums, their children have worked harder and succeeded more often in the same schools where other children were failing"
> Quote: "Whatever the reasons for such widespread hostility to middleman minorities, it cannot be race, culture, religion, or nationality, since middleman minorities have differed from one another in all these respects. What they have had in common is performing a much misunderstood and much resented economic role."

4. Slavery is not solely based on race or racism. Racism was the result, not the cause of slavery. The West (America and the UK) were the first to spearhead the abolition of slavery. In the East and the rest of Europe, slavery was a norm that most people didn't want to give up. Slaves were used all over the world and were of all races, meaning it was not exclusive to Africans or Americans.

> Quote: " Slavery was not based on race, much less on theories about race. Only relatively late in history did enslavement across racial lines occur on such a scale as to promote an ideology of racism that outlasted the institution of slavery itself."
> Quote: "In short, what was so patently wrong about slavery - in the eyes of Western civilization - was almost incomprehensible to many non-Westerners."
> Quote: " Even at the peak of the Atlantic slave trade, Africans retained more slaves for themselves than they sent to the Western Hemisphere."
> North Africans enslaved Europeans (pg.95). "Africans did not treat Europeans any better than Europeans treated Africans."
> Note: Sowell excusing slavery in America or trying to belittle it. There's no denying that slavery was harsh and cruel, especially in the antebellum South. However, the entire trade of slavery is often reduced to just Africans being sold to work in harsh conditions when in reality, the trade was much more vast and complex.

5. Black students often did better in segregated schools than in schools where they were integrated. Sufficient research shows that segregation in schools for all races may be more beneficial than integration. A great example of the downfall of integration is the Dunbar Public School.

> Quote: "Perhaps the most widespread and most consequential of these myths, promulgated by the Supreme Court of the US, is that racially separate schools cannot achieve quality education."
> Quote: "Not only have segregated schools not proven to be inferior in many cases, but even ethnic groups who sat side-by-side in the same schools have also had as large IQ differences as those between blacks and whites attending segregated schools in the Jim Crow South."

6. When looking at history, we need to avoid taking sides and instead, focus on discovering the truth
> Quote: "One of the consequences of looking at the study of history as an occasion for taking sides, rather than seeing the truth, is that this taking sides has often led to a twisting of events to produce the desired condemnation of the other side."
> Quote: "Another consequence of the taking-sides perspective is that many then see strong group solidarity as a pre-req for the victory of the side they have chosen."

“Black Rednecks and White Liberals” is a title that might make it seem like this book is less broad and consequential than it really is. As it doesn’t just address the differences, origins and consequences of different cultures within the USA. Thomas Sowell exposes these aspects in many cultures, separated by both time and space, and exposes the patterns that emerge. The one that receives the most attention being the common aspects that all successful ethnic groups possess.

Sowell also dispels multiple harmful ideas, all of which either are or were extremely popular. Like:
That there is a causal relationship between race, economic status, self-worth and academic
achievement. When, where such a relationship can actually be found, is between culture and
academic achievement.

That pointing out that ethnic groups harm themselves, via certain aspects of their culture, is victim blaming. When the simple truth is that you are born into a culture. It is an accident of fate, not a choice.

In his efforts to dismiss these ideas, Sowel kept coming back to the same theme. And, what I think is the most important idea in this book:

That when trying to discover truths about the world around us, rationality can only go so far. You have to test your speculations about reality, to see if they actually fit in.
An example of this is the constant lack of empiricism in so many of the attempts to create prosperity for black folks. Which are mostly rooted in ideologies that are thought of as having truths about the world, when those “truths” were never put on trial against the world. And when Thomas Sowell does that they fall to the ground.

When trying to help others, if we rely only on the speculations of our ideologies, who are we really sure to help?
Ourselves is the answer. We might end up with an inflated view of our altruism, and other positive characteristics of our own. Disconnected from the real world, we become heroes. And the more people share in our ideology, the more will see us as heroes.
This births a toxic cycle where we not only benefit from our ideology, but we also benefit from sharing that ideology. And in the end, the people we were supposed to help, suffer the real consequences of our hypotheses, like guinea pigs.

Unfortunately, I was left feeling that this book was incomplete. The author spent all of it showing how not only our current solutions don’t work but also how we are looking at the wrong problems. All of our energy is being wasted.
And after he pointed out the real problems, I was left with the expectation that he would also give the readers useful solutions, but he didn't. But at least now we have the framework from which we can work out real, evidence based, solutions.

Like many of Sowell's other books, this one discusses so many issues that we are in desperate need to put on the table again and discuss. Slavery and its being not limited to blacks in the United States, that the oppression of the Jews and Chinese did not ruin them even though it constricted and restricted them, that the ghetto language of many Blacks in the United States actually originated in England and was the common lingo of the Rednecks in the South of the United States, and this, and so much more.

This book aims at showing us how we have gone astray with our identity politics, and that our grievance for people who were really oppressed is not allowing those dispossessed to prosper but to evermore decay. This is a call for reason, of the rationality of discourse, of really looking at the hard facts of the past instead of allowing our sentimentality to have the better of our waking moments. This book is a wake-up call.

I read this book as part of a deal with a friend. He accused me of not being well acquainted with the counterarguments to my views that we have a problem with systemic racism in this country. I told him I would read any book of his recommendation on the subject if he would do the same. In the end, I agreed to read this book, and he agreed to read Michelle Alexander’s New Jim Crow. After reading this book, the first essay is the one that speaks to the issue of whether systemic racism exists in the US today.

So, in a nutshell the first essay of Sowell’s book says:

1)tRednecks from N. England/Scotland settled the American south and brought their culture, including violence, ultra-sensitivity to perceived slights, laziness, and lax sexual mores (these characteristics are collectively referred to in the book as “redneck culture”).

2)tRedneck culture was adopted by black slaves in the antebellum south.

3)tOver time, southern whites largely abandoned redneck culture because the consequences of bad behavior associated with the culture motivated them to change.

4)tBlacks, on the other hand, exported redneck culture to cities throughout the country during the great migration, and have never been able to escape the culture because white liberals allow them to escape the consequences of their actions via the social safety net, etc. The result is modern day urban black ghettos.

5)tAlso, none of this is the result of slavery, as proven by the fact that some free blacks in the north were also descended from slaves in the Caribbean, yet never adopted redneck culture.

To say that the premise and conclusions drawn by Sowell here are problematic would be the ultimate understatement.

First, if (arguendo) an entire racial group adopted cultural practices of another group while enslaved by that other group, how can Sowell argue that slavery was not a cause of that adoption? Slaves were uprooted from their native land and forced under threat of violence and death to abandon their culture. Somehow, then, adopting a form of the culture of their new environment was not a result of slavery?

Second, Sowell’s conclusion is that many of the problems faced by modern day black communities are the result of cultural norms that have been passed down for generations, and not racist legacies of slavery. If any racism exists, Sowell argues, it is practiced by white liberals who keep black communities down by offering social services and support rather than allowing them to experience the natural consequences of their actions, which would spur them to improvement. Yet in all the pages devoted to supporting this hypothesis, Sowell never once mentions any systemic racism in our society after slavery.

Is his position that Jim Crow did not exist, or that it was not a racist system? What about mass incarceration of black people today? Leaving out any discussion of these and other parts of our history is a major omission. The result is an essay that is not the scholarly piece advertised, but a cheap underdeveloped opinion.

"Both sides lost, and they lost because they became sides, instead of remaining fellow countrymen with different cultures."

Long review because I am on Adderall today-

Two stars because some of the history in this book is interesting but his arguments are cherry picked and ignore the full context. He contradicts himself a lot.

He essentially claims generational poverty in the black community is not a result of slavery, but a result of the “redneck culture” passed on from white southerners during slavery. He says that this was something abandoned by the white southerners because they “saw the benefits” of changing their culture. In reality, his claim about “cultural failings” all tie back to a lack of education. He argues time and again that the people who became educated were able to better climb up the socioeconomic ladder.

He says that black people who were able to “abandon their culture” (by moving to areas with better educational opportunity) were able to succeed better than those who couldn’t. He does not acknowledge what took place after slavery (Jim Crow, Redlining) that prevented black Americans from achieving education and assimilation that did not hold back white southerners or the countless other groups he uses as examples, like European immigrants.

He even says that black people who were in areas that were more accepting of them were more likely to be able to achieve. The longer they had been integrated, the more they were able to achieve. Somehow he still blames culture and not discrimination/opportunity?

He claims that funding to schools does not matter, only how the schools are taught. He uses a few cherry picked examples of all-black schools from the early 20th century that succeeded despite low socioeconomic status among students. This is because at the time, the school was not funded according to zip code (which was poor), but by the state (equal funding to other schools). When they switched to zip code funding, the school went downhill. Not to mention that there are a plethora of empirical studies showing precisely that increased funding per student increases student achievement.

Probably some good arguments if you ignore Jim Crow, empirical evidence, and want some racist talking points.

Exellent argumentation and general tone. Typical Sowell, one of my favourite non-fiction authors.