What do you think?
Rate this book
Cultures #3
Conquests and Cultures: An International History
In Conquests and Cultures, nationally bestselling author Thomas Sowell helps explain the role of cultural evolution and warfare in shaping the destinies of the world's civilizations.
Listen to Conquests and Cultures, narrated by Robertson Dean, on your smartphone, notebook or desktop computer.
Listen to Conquests and Cultures, narrated by Robertson Dean, on your smartphone, notebook or desktop computer.
Audiobook
First published January 1, 1998
About the author
Thomas Sowell
103 books5,715 followersThomas Sowell is an American economist, social philosopher, and political commentator. He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. With widely published commentary and books—and as a guest on TV and radio—he became a well-known voice in the American conservative movement as a prominent black conservative. He was a recipient of the National Humanities Medal from President George W. Bush in 2002.
Sowell was born in Gastonia, North Carolina and grew up in Harlem, New York City. Due to poverty and difficulties at home, he dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and worked various odd jobs, eventually serving in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. Afterward, he took night classes at Howard University and then attended Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958. He earned a master's degree in economics from Columbia University the next year and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968. In his academic career, he held professorships at Cornell University, Brandeis University, and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked at think tanks including the Urban Institute. Since 1977, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy.
Sowell was an important figure to the conservative movement during the Reagan era, influencing fellow economist Walter E. Williams and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He was offered a position as Federal Trade Commissioner in the Ford administration, and was considered for posts including U.S. Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration, but declined both times.
Sowell is the author of more than 45 books (including revised and new editions) on a variety of subjects including politics, economics, education and race, and he has been a syndicated columnist in more than 150 newspapers. His views are described as conservative, especially on social issues; libertarian, especially on economics; or libertarian-conservative. He has said he may be best labeled as a libertarian, though he disagrees with the "libertarian movement" on some issues, such as national defense.
Sowell was born in Gastonia, North Carolina and grew up in Harlem, New York City. Due to poverty and difficulties at home, he dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and worked various odd jobs, eventually serving in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. Afterward, he took night classes at Howard University and then attended Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958. He earned a master's degree in economics from Columbia University the next year and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968. In his academic career, he held professorships at Cornell University, Brandeis University, and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked at think tanks including the Urban Institute. Since 1977, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy.
Sowell was an important figure to the conservative movement during the Reagan era, influencing fellow economist Walter E. Williams and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He was offered a position as Federal Trade Commissioner in the Ford administration, and was considered for posts including U.S. Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration, but declined both times.
Sowell is the author of more than 45 books (including revised and new editions) on a variety of subjects including politics, economics, education and race, and he has been a syndicated columnist in more than 150 newspapers. His views are described as conservative, especially on social issues; libertarian, especially on economics; or libertarian-conservative. He has said he may be best labeled as a libertarian, though he disagrees with the "libertarian movement" on some issues, such as national defense.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 109 reviews
October 26, 2014
WOW ! Ok, stop whatever you are doing, grab this book and read the chapter on the Aztecs. My good God. Enough said. This is one of the few history books (possibly the only one) that I will revisit numerous times because of its copious amount of info and absolute clarity. Sowell is a true scholar who has woven an unbiased tapestry of human acculturation via conquest. There is so, so much in this book, although I wish he would have also thrown some light on ancient human civilizations in general and China in particular. Still, this book is well worth your time. Bravo!
January 31, 2017
Last month, in December 2016, maybe as a Christmas gift to himself, Thomas Sowell announced that he was retiring. Technically, he announced that he was retiring from writing a syndicated column, but at age 86, it seems likely that he does not intend to write any new books, either. This is unfortunate, but his work is done. There can be little doubt that Sowell’s many works, taken together, by themselves would be adequate to educate someone raised by wolves on everything a person needs to know about economics, political economy, and much of history.
“Conquests And Cultures,” first published nearly twenty years ago, is the third in Thomas Sowell’s trilogy on the role of culture in world history (the others being “Race and Culture” and “Migrations and Cultures”). I have not read the other two; according to Sowell; they were originally one book which grew beyond its original scope and had to be split. Sowell here focuses on conquests, usually by force, as conquest has affected world cultures. In the earlier books, he focused not on force but on the effects of race and migration, although Sowell notes, of course, that history doesn’t divide neatly into each bucket, so lines have to be drawn to guide analysis and discussion.
I was somewhat frustrated by this book. It’s extremely well written, as one would expect from a Sowell work, it’s interesting, and it conveys unbiased information in organized service of coherent themes. On the other hand, it covers such extensive ground through time and space that it feels sometimes like it’s constituted of strung together bits of brief history about different areas of the world. Moreover, if you read enough of Sowell’s culture/history books, many of the same themes tend to crop up as in other of his works, and that’s true of this book. Frankly, most of the key elements of this book are contained in Sowell’s 2015 book, “Wealth, Poverty, and Politics: An International Perspective,” but with more pithiness and power in that book. I think, of Sowell’s culture/history books (as opposed to ones relating to economics or to the analysis of political theory and practice), “Wealth, Poverty, and Politics” is best—it is the pinnacle of his work, a synthesis of everything. (The first edition, from 2015, is better than the second edition, from 2016.) The casual reader is probably best off just reading that book. That’s not to say this book is bad—it’s not. But of Sowell’s culture/history books, it added the least to my store of knowledge, given what I had already read.
Sowell begins by laying out his framework. Really, he set himself a daunting task, because he basically proposes to provide both a history of the world in these three books, and a set of general explanations for why things are the way they are. That’s easy for a Marxist, or anybody else whose ideology offers easy answers to all ultimate questions. But Sowell is the very opposite—throughout his career he has hewed to the “constrained vision,” in which reality is what matters, perfection is impossible, and all choices involved tradeoffs. It’s simple enough, at least for Sowell, with his command of the material, to defend his key explanation, that culture matters because it’s the major determinant of human capital—that is, of behaviors of individuals and societies that create value, which behaviors collectively therefore largely determine the success of a society. But there are so many threads to culture and to human capital that, as I say, the task is daunting.
Nonetheless, Sowell manages it admirably. As he weaves his analysis and explanation throughout time and space, one theme is that he opposes both biological determinism and the idea that all people are the same in all ways that matter, such that what happens to them is due to external forces. “It is not racial or ethnic distinctions, as such, which have proven to be momentous but cultural distinctions, whether associated with race, with geographical origins, or with other factors. . . . The tendency to explain intergroup differences in a given society by the way that particular society treats those groups ignores the fact that differences between groups themselves have been the rule, not the exception, in countries around the world and down through history.” A second theme is that cultures necessarily change over time, due to diffusion, from conquest or otherwise—celebrating an idealized culture for itself is silly, since it is not the same culture as it was, and you are probably celebrating an imaginary thing, usually in service of some retrograde political or ideological ambition. A third theme is that, unlike migration, which tends to transfer those aspects of culture that adapt and work best, conquest can be either a net benefit or a net harm to the conquered (and always has some negative impact, basically by definition), by means of increasing or decreasing the human capital of the conquered. And throughout the book is the thread that while culture matters to a society’s success, other things matter too, especially environmental factors (disease, geography, etc.)—but that none of those are deterministic either.
“Conquests and Cultures” examines four different cultures, elements of each of which experienced various forms of conquest (and conquered others): the British; the Africans; the Slavs; and Western Hemisphere Indians. The usual modern narrative of conquest mentions the first only in the context of Rome; doesn’t mention the third except rarely and in specialist circles; and focuses on Africans and Indians, with a simplistic narrative of heroic, virtuous, happy, peaceful indigenous people brutally subjugated and exploited by the West. Sowell instead shows how conquest affected each culture, and elements within each culture, and offers a much more nuanced picture—including ascribing failed modern day cultures generally not to their earlier conquest, but to their own cultural failings. (In some ways this analysis is like Francis Fukuyama’s later analysis, which suggests that the post-colonial path of countries depends largely on their pre-colonial structures, not on their colonial experience.)
As to the British, Sowell covers successive conquests—the Romans, various Germanic tribes, the Normans. He covers the Great Divergence—how Britain raced ahead of the world, without ascribing it to any one cause. But he notes that it’s indisputable that by the 19th Century, Britain had developed enormous human capital, much of it derived from successfully integrating, after each conquest, elements of the conquering culture, without excessive destruction of the pre-existing society. England also integrated, through absorption, the best elements of immigrant cultures, and benefited from England’s geographic position and features, such a water transport, a frequent Sowell theme. Most of this focuses on England proper, though—not Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, to which he then turns.
As to Wales, Sowell uses it to introduce another theme in the book—the differential impact of conquest depending on the degree and areas of control by the conquerors. “Where the conqueror has been more organizationally or technologically advanced, those portions of the conquered country which were subjugated earliest and most thoroughly have tended to become—and remain—the most advanced regions, even in countries which later regained their independence.” To this day, much of Wales remains backward, and the more removed from English domination, the more backward. Sowell attributes this to Welsh culture, which lacks human capital, in that it is not entrepreneurial, but rather has created an educated class that “has a vested interest in promoting intergroup resentment and strife, using the symbols of identity and of historic oppression to gain current political ends, even at the expense of creating a climate unfavorable to either indigenous or foreign entrepreneurship.” Throughout the book, Sowell adduces many places around the world, generally with a history of colonialism, that have this same crippling defect.
Sowell contrasts Wales with Scotland—also partially conquered, and also very backwards in its unconquered areas, but which instead developed an open, entrepreneurial, can-do culture, at its peak in the Scottish Enlightenment, where a tiny, unpopulous country provided a startling number of advances and key thinkers in the building of the modern world.
Finally, Sowell flips the focus from conquests of Britain to Britain’s conquests of others. While he does not sugarcoat the evils of British imperialism, he clearly believes (as any sensible person does) that while Britain did not benefit economically overall from imperialism (sorry, Karl!), the beneficial impact in the long term on Britain’s colonies themselves was immense. For example, new technology brought by Britain immensely benefited food production everywhere the British ruled—and, just as importantly, the peace brought allowed the colonized peoples to grow food “in fertile but militarily indefensible areas where it would have been foolhardy to plant before. . . . More generally, confidence that an investment of labor and resources could claim its reward—whether at harvest time or when dividends were issued years later—has been crucial to the economic efforts which create national prosperity. . . . The security and stability provided by British colonial governments also made possible large-scale immigrations of foreign peoples . . . .”
And it wasn’t just food: “Freedom, wherever it exists in the world today, owes much to developments in Britain.” That is, in essence, the rule of law was given to British colonies, which are largely successful today to the extent they absorbed British culture, and thereby increased their human capital. Not to mention it was Britain, and Britain alone, that abolished slavery in much of the world, imposing its will wherever its rule held sway, another action that dramatically increased the ability of colonized cultures to increase their human capital. Implicit in this analysis, though, is that the pre-existing cultures were inferior to British culture, and improved by colonialism. That’s hard to dispute, or to dispute other than by shrieking “racist colonialist imperialist pig!”, but equally hard for people today, raised on a thin gruel of bogus “multiculturalism” and belief in the inherent virtue of primitive cultures, to accept. Not that Sowell cares; as always, he’s just looking for the truth, as it can be objectively demonstrated to all listeners.
Sowell next turns to Africa, or more precisely sub-Saharan Africa (he ignores the Maghreb, which seems to me to be a mistake, given that it would provide a counterpoint to Roman Britain). Here Sowell puts great emphasis on geography as a barrier to the growth of human capital (in contrast to Britain). Large areas of desert; few deep-water ports; terrain features; and most of all rivers generally unsuited for commercial use resulted in fragmented societies with little human capital, which meant an inability to resist both “territorial conquests and massive enslavement.” (Of course, most of the enslavement was either of Africans by each other, or of Africans selling each other to Westerners, more to Muslims than Europeans, though many millions to both.) Conquests, both internally, by Westerners, and by Arabs, brought benefits as well as horrors. Sowell focuses on differential human capital within Nigeria, brought about largely by differential impacts of British colonialism, in which different local cultures either were directly affected or not, and either took advantage of what the British had to offer or did not. But when the British left, despite civil war and corruption, Nigeria managed to hold on to much of the good things the British offered, thereby increasing the net human capital of the country. Sowell then evaluates Tanzania, Ghana and the Ivory Coast through a similar lens.
Next, discussing the Slavs, Sowell further expands his analysis of human capital to note that using cultural transfers from Western Europe, the Slavs were able to advance their cultures far from their primitive beginnings—but always remained behind the rest of Europe in their human capital, as shown by their relative economic backwardness. Sowell evaluates the various cultures among the Slavs, their characteristics and their reactions to conquest (and their conquests of others). And Sowell finishes with the American Indians, in North and South America, similarly evaluating a variety of very different cultures within that broad grouping.
Sowell ends by summarizing not only this book, but his entire trilogy. He discusses “Differences In Wealth Production,” ascribing them, unsurprisingly, primarily to the human capital of each society. He notes that the reason that Western Europe recovered so rapidly after World War Two was not the Marshall Plan, though it helped accelerate the rebuilding, but that the human capital of those societies was extremely high and not destroyed. He trashes the theory that exploitation of colonized society by imperialist powers is the cause of the rampant failure among those post-colonial states, noting “if ‘exploitation’ theories were as widely applicable as supposed, then the dissolution of empires should lead to rising standards of living among the formerly conquered and presumably exploited peoples. Yet history repeatedly shows the opposite happening.” Similarly, when the Roman Imperium left Europe, societies decayed as the human capital left along with the Empire. “Once again, the mundane reality is that productivity creates wealth, so that trade with and investment in more productive countries is a far more important source of wealth than ‘exploitation’ of the Third World.”
Sowell also discusses “negative human capital”—that sometimes, or often (e.g., in Wales) the elites decide to use resentment for political advancement, which necessarily retards a society’s development and enhancement of human capital, since rather than focusing on what needs to be done and improved, the society tends to turn inward, reliving past alleged glories and focusing on supposed ways others have kept them down (or not so supposed, in some cases, but in any event the past is not something that can be changed). Similarly, when a rising society diverts the education of its elite by creating “soft-subject intellectuals,” such as lawyers, poets or devotees of Marxist theory, rather than experts in subjects such as medicine or engineering necessary to build cultural capital, bad things happen—especially, for example as in Malaysia, when a minority (the Chinese there) study hard topics and advance, while the majority indigenous people wallow in self-pity and identity studies.
Sowell concludes by sharply criticizing most current use of racism as an explanation for cultural differences, and in particular criticizing the deliberate failure to adequately define what racism is, and even worse, re-defining it in an incoherent and ahistorical way as to claim that racism is based on supposed power relationships. “That this new and self-serving escape hatch remained largely unchallenged has been one index of the level of moral intimidation surrounding racial issues. . . . In the ordinary sense of the word, minorities of all colors have shown themselves capable of as vicious racism as anybody, whether in or out of power.” “’Racism’ as a blanket explanation of intergroup differences is not simply an over-rated explanation. It is itself a positive hindrance to a focus on the acquisition of human capital or cultural capital needed to rise economically and socially.” Sadly, such a message of personal and collective responsibility is even less popular today than when this book was written.
Sowell’s book is timeless; nothing in it is any less true or relevant than twenty years ago. In fact, Sowell’s book shows the folly of today’s American (and European) immigration policy, that admits large numbers of immigrants, without requiring them to submit to our culture and without inquiring whether their culture is inferior and should be, or elements of it should be, actively discouraged. The wave of migrants into European countries today is a type of conquest of Europe, and as Sowell shows, such conquests can easily make the conquered permanently worse off (as with the American Indians). Sometimes the result of conquest is just a destruction of human capital, notably when a superior culture is conquered and then dominated by invaders. Of course, here it’s only a conquest of those countries that have invited and accepted them (as opposed to brave countries like Hungary that have wisely stood up against the invading tide). The likely result unless Europe as a whole finds the will to resist will be a destruction of human capital on a massive scale, and a resultant fall in the quality of life of those societies. But, as Sowell shows, that won’t be the first time such a thing has happened, although it'll be the first time it's happened on such a scale by a culture choosing suicide, rather than being conquered. Reading his book, however, should focus the attention of the open-minded on the need to evaluate the human capital of each culture, and not to assume that all cultures are of equal value, whether evaluating history, or the present day.
“Conquests And Cultures,” first published nearly twenty years ago, is the third in Thomas Sowell’s trilogy on the role of culture in world history (the others being “Race and Culture” and “Migrations and Cultures”). I have not read the other two; according to Sowell; they were originally one book which grew beyond its original scope and had to be split. Sowell here focuses on conquests, usually by force, as conquest has affected world cultures. In the earlier books, he focused not on force but on the effects of race and migration, although Sowell notes, of course, that history doesn’t divide neatly into each bucket, so lines have to be drawn to guide analysis and discussion.
I was somewhat frustrated by this book. It’s extremely well written, as one would expect from a Sowell work, it’s interesting, and it conveys unbiased information in organized service of coherent themes. On the other hand, it covers such extensive ground through time and space that it feels sometimes like it’s constituted of strung together bits of brief history about different areas of the world. Moreover, if you read enough of Sowell’s culture/history books, many of the same themes tend to crop up as in other of his works, and that’s true of this book. Frankly, most of the key elements of this book are contained in Sowell’s 2015 book, “Wealth, Poverty, and Politics: An International Perspective,” but with more pithiness and power in that book. I think, of Sowell’s culture/history books (as opposed to ones relating to economics or to the analysis of political theory and practice), “Wealth, Poverty, and Politics” is best—it is the pinnacle of his work, a synthesis of everything. (The first edition, from 2015, is better than the second edition, from 2016.) The casual reader is probably best off just reading that book. That’s not to say this book is bad—it’s not. But of Sowell’s culture/history books, it added the least to my store of knowledge, given what I had already read.
Sowell begins by laying out his framework. Really, he set himself a daunting task, because he basically proposes to provide both a history of the world in these three books, and a set of general explanations for why things are the way they are. That’s easy for a Marxist, or anybody else whose ideology offers easy answers to all ultimate questions. But Sowell is the very opposite—throughout his career he has hewed to the “constrained vision,” in which reality is what matters, perfection is impossible, and all choices involved tradeoffs. It’s simple enough, at least for Sowell, with his command of the material, to defend his key explanation, that culture matters because it’s the major determinant of human capital—that is, of behaviors of individuals and societies that create value, which behaviors collectively therefore largely determine the success of a society. But there are so many threads to culture and to human capital that, as I say, the task is daunting.
Nonetheless, Sowell manages it admirably. As he weaves his analysis and explanation throughout time and space, one theme is that he opposes both biological determinism and the idea that all people are the same in all ways that matter, such that what happens to them is due to external forces. “It is not racial or ethnic distinctions, as such, which have proven to be momentous but cultural distinctions, whether associated with race, with geographical origins, or with other factors. . . . The tendency to explain intergroup differences in a given society by the way that particular society treats those groups ignores the fact that differences between groups themselves have been the rule, not the exception, in countries around the world and down through history.” A second theme is that cultures necessarily change over time, due to diffusion, from conquest or otherwise—celebrating an idealized culture for itself is silly, since it is not the same culture as it was, and you are probably celebrating an imaginary thing, usually in service of some retrograde political or ideological ambition. A third theme is that, unlike migration, which tends to transfer those aspects of culture that adapt and work best, conquest can be either a net benefit or a net harm to the conquered (and always has some negative impact, basically by definition), by means of increasing or decreasing the human capital of the conquered. And throughout the book is the thread that while culture matters to a society’s success, other things matter too, especially environmental factors (disease, geography, etc.)—but that none of those are deterministic either.
“Conquests and Cultures” examines four different cultures, elements of each of which experienced various forms of conquest (and conquered others): the British; the Africans; the Slavs; and Western Hemisphere Indians. The usual modern narrative of conquest mentions the first only in the context of Rome; doesn’t mention the third except rarely and in specialist circles; and focuses on Africans and Indians, with a simplistic narrative of heroic, virtuous, happy, peaceful indigenous people brutally subjugated and exploited by the West. Sowell instead shows how conquest affected each culture, and elements within each culture, and offers a much more nuanced picture—including ascribing failed modern day cultures generally not to their earlier conquest, but to their own cultural failings. (In some ways this analysis is like Francis Fukuyama’s later analysis, which suggests that the post-colonial path of countries depends largely on their pre-colonial structures, not on their colonial experience.)
As to the British, Sowell covers successive conquests—the Romans, various Germanic tribes, the Normans. He covers the Great Divergence—how Britain raced ahead of the world, without ascribing it to any one cause. But he notes that it’s indisputable that by the 19th Century, Britain had developed enormous human capital, much of it derived from successfully integrating, after each conquest, elements of the conquering culture, without excessive destruction of the pre-existing society. England also integrated, through absorption, the best elements of immigrant cultures, and benefited from England’s geographic position and features, such a water transport, a frequent Sowell theme. Most of this focuses on England proper, though—not Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, to which he then turns.
As to Wales, Sowell uses it to introduce another theme in the book—the differential impact of conquest depending on the degree and areas of control by the conquerors. “Where the conqueror has been more organizationally or technologically advanced, those portions of the conquered country which were subjugated earliest and most thoroughly have tended to become—and remain—the most advanced regions, even in countries which later regained their independence.” To this day, much of Wales remains backward, and the more removed from English domination, the more backward. Sowell attributes this to Welsh culture, which lacks human capital, in that it is not entrepreneurial, but rather has created an educated class that “has a vested interest in promoting intergroup resentment and strife, using the symbols of identity and of historic oppression to gain current political ends, even at the expense of creating a climate unfavorable to either indigenous or foreign entrepreneurship.” Throughout the book, Sowell adduces many places around the world, generally with a history of colonialism, that have this same crippling defect.
Sowell contrasts Wales with Scotland—also partially conquered, and also very backwards in its unconquered areas, but which instead developed an open, entrepreneurial, can-do culture, at its peak in the Scottish Enlightenment, where a tiny, unpopulous country provided a startling number of advances and key thinkers in the building of the modern world.
Finally, Sowell flips the focus from conquests of Britain to Britain’s conquests of others. While he does not sugarcoat the evils of British imperialism, he clearly believes (as any sensible person does) that while Britain did not benefit economically overall from imperialism (sorry, Karl!), the beneficial impact in the long term on Britain’s colonies themselves was immense. For example, new technology brought by Britain immensely benefited food production everywhere the British ruled—and, just as importantly, the peace brought allowed the colonized peoples to grow food “in fertile but militarily indefensible areas where it would have been foolhardy to plant before. . . . More generally, confidence that an investment of labor and resources could claim its reward—whether at harvest time or when dividends were issued years later—has been crucial to the economic efforts which create national prosperity. . . . The security and stability provided by British colonial governments also made possible large-scale immigrations of foreign peoples . . . .”
And it wasn’t just food: “Freedom, wherever it exists in the world today, owes much to developments in Britain.” That is, in essence, the rule of law was given to British colonies, which are largely successful today to the extent they absorbed British culture, and thereby increased their human capital. Not to mention it was Britain, and Britain alone, that abolished slavery in much of the world, imposing its will wherever its rule held sway, another action that dramatically increased the ability of colonized cultures to increase their human capital. Implicit in this analysis, though, is that the pre-existing cultures were inferior to British culture, and improved by colonialism. That’s hard to dispute, or to dispute other than by shrieking “racist colonialist imperialist pig!”, but equally hard for people today, raised on a thin gruel of bogus “multiculturalism” and belief in the inherent virtue of primitive cultures, to accept. Not that Sowell cares; as always, he’s just looking for the truth, as it can be objectively demonstrated to all listeners.
Sowell next turns to Africa, or more precisely sub-Saharan Africa (he ignores the Maghreb, which seems to me to be a mistake, given that it would provide a counterpoint to Roman Britain). Here Sowell puts great emphasis on geography as a barrier to the growth of human capital (in contrast to Britain). Large areas of desert; few deep-water ports; terrain features; and most of all rivers generally unsuited for commercial use resulted in fragmented societies with little human capital, which meant an inability to resist both “territorial conquests and massive enslavement.” (Of course, most of the enslavement was either of Africans by each other, or of Africans selling each other to Westerners, more to Muslims than Europeans, though many millions to both.) Conquests, both internally, by Westerners, and by Arabs, brought benefits as well as horrors. Sowell focuses on differential human capital within Nigeria, brought about largely by differential impacts of British colonialism, in which different local cultures either were directly affected or not, and either took advantage of what the British had to offer or did not. But when the British left, despite civil war and corruption, Nigeria managed to hold on to much of the good things the British offered, thereby increasing the net human capital of the country. Sowell then evaluates Tanzania, Ghana and the Ivory Coast through a similar lens.
Next, discussing the Slavs, Sowell further expands his analysis of human capital to note that using cultural transfers from Western Europe, the Slavs were able to advance their cultures far from their primitive beginnings—but always remained behind the rest of Europe in their human capital, as shown by their relative economic backwardness. Sowell evaluates the various cultures among the Slavs, their characteristics and their reactions to conquest (and their conquests of others). And Sowell finishes with the American Indians, in North and South America, similarly evaluating a variety of very different cultures within that broad grouping.
Sowell ends by summarizing not only this book, but his entire trilogy. He discusses “Differences In Wealth Production,” ascribing them, unsurprisingly, primarily to the human capital of each society. He notes that the reason that Western Europe recovered so rapidly after World War Two was not the Marshall Plan, though it helped accelerate the rebuilding, but that the human capital of those societies was extremely high and not destroyed. He trashes the theory that exploitation of colonized society by imperialist powers is the cause of the rampant failure among those post-colonial states, noting “if ‘exploitation’ theories were as widely applicable as supposed, then the dissolution of empires should lead to rising standards of living among the formerly conquered and presumably exploited peoples. Yet history repeatedly shows the opposite happening.” Similarly, when the Roman Imperium left Europe, societies decayed as the human capital left along with the Empire. “Once again, the mundane reality is that productivity creates wealth, so that trade with and investment in more productive countries is a far more important source of wealth than ‘exploitation’ of the Third World.”
Sowell also discusses “negative human capital”—that sometimes, or often (e.g., in Wales) the elites decide to use resentment for political advancement, which necessarily retards a society’s development and enhancement of human capital, since rather than focusing on what needs to be done and improved, the society tends to turn inward, reliving past alleged glories and focusing on supposed ways others have kept them down (or not so supposed, in some cases, but in any event the past is not something that can be changed). Similarly, when a rising society diverts the education of its elite by creating “soft-subject intellectuals,” such as lawyers, poets or devotees of Marxist theory, rather than experts in subjects such as medicine or engineering necessary to build cultural capital, bad things happen—especially, for example as in Malaysia, when a minority (the Chinese there) study hard topics and advance, while the majority indigenous people wallow in self-pity and identity studies.
Sowell concludes by sharply criticizing most current use of racism as an explanation for cultural differences, and in particular criticizing the deliberate failure to adequately define what racism is, and even worse, re-defining it in an incoherent and ahistorical way as to claim that racism is based on supposed power relationships. “That this new and self-serving escape hatch remained largely unchallenged has been one index of the level of moral intimidation surrounding racial issues. . . . In the ordinary sense of the word, minorities of all colors have shown themselves capable of as vicious racism as anybody, whether in or out of power.” “’Racism’ as a blanket explanation of intergroup differences is not simply an over-rated explanation. It is itself a positive hindrance to a focus on the acquisition of human capital or cultural capital needed to rise economically and socially.” Sadly, such a message of personal and collective responsibility is even less popular today than when this book was written.
Sowell’s book is timeless; nothing in it is any less true or relevant than twenty years ago. In fact, Sowell’s book shows the folly of today’s American (and European) immigration policy, that admits large numbers of immigrants, without requiring them to submit to our culture and without inquiring whether their culture is inferior and should be, or elements of it should be, actively discouraged. The wave of migrants into European countries today is a type of conquest of Europe, and as Sowell shows, such conquests can easily make the conquered permanently worse off (as with the American Indians). Sometimes the result of conquest is just a destruction of human capital, notably when a superior culture is conquered and then dominated by invaders. Of course, here it’s only a conquest of those countries that have invited and accepted them (as opposed to brave countries like Hungary that have wisely stood up against the invading tide). The likely result unless Europe as a whole finds the will to resist will be a destruction of human capital on a massive scale, and a resultant fall in the quality of life of those societies. But, as Sowell shows, that won’t be the first time such a thing has happened, although it'll be the first time it's happened on such a scale by a culture choosing suicide, rather than being conquered. Reading his book, however, should focus the attention of the open-minded on the need to evaluate the human capital of each culture, and not to assume that all cultures are of equal value, whether evaluating history, or the present day.
August 24, 2014
I finished this book a couple weeks ago. I'll have more to say about it in the future. A must-read for all victims of the American Teachers Union.
Read
July 19, 2020I had come across Thomas Sowell on youtube a few years ago when I was in college. I have watched all his interviews and I recommend the same to you. The playlist is linked above. Meanwhile, let us try to ponder about these questions:
These are complex questions arising out of centuries of experiences throughout the globe. A unified answer to such a problem is as difficult to decipher as the theory of everything (supposed to resolve the inconsistencies between theory of relativity & quantum mechanics). There have been attempts in the past, and hypotheses are pushed to this day, explaining how the human society is the way it is.
Eugenics was based on one such theory that explained all features of the human populations as genetically inherited. That died a well-deserved death after the defeat of Nazi Germany. More recently, "oppression" (or "privilege", depending on your vantage point) has been believed to be the cause behind the fortunes and misfortunes of the various races that co-exist in America and the whole wide world. This effectively externalizes the control that people have on their lives making them puppets of someone else. Also there are various ways in which this goes against biological facts by assuming human beings as a blank slate.
Thomas Sowell - in the series of three books, of which this one is the last - puts up a veritable theory of "culture": according to which the natural and social environments shape up the behaviors of people and ultimately cause the vast inequalities in all the metrics among all the different groupings. Using the cases of various races as migrants, refugees, invaders and colonized; the books explain his thesis in a logical and unemotional fashion. One feature that stands out is that instead of focusing on the cruel and atrocious outcomes of the events, Sowell elaborates on the process and offers an 'economic' perspective.
I read these three books this year and it has been a thoroughly informative journey through centuries, across continents and among diverse peoples. It clearly shows that several decades of painstaking research has gone into this work. I admire the author and commend his great feat.
Why does wealth vary between humans?
What exactly makes a human being more prosperous than another?
More generally speaking...
How does a group of humans- race or nation- outperform the rest?
These are complex questions arising out of centuries of experiences throughout the globe. A unified answer to such a problem is as difficult to decipher as the theory of everything (supposed to resolve the inconsistencies between theory of relativity & quantum mechanics). There have been attempts in the past, and hypotheses are pushed to this day, explaining how the human society is the way it is.
Eugenics was based on one such theory that explained all features of the human populations as genetically inherited. That died a well-deserved death after the defeat of Nazi Germany. More recently, "oppression" (or "privilege", depending on your vantage point) has been believed to be the cause behind the fortunes and misfortunes of the various races that co-exist in America and the whole wide world. This effectively externalizes the control that people have on their lives making them puppets of someone else. Also there are various ways in which this goes against biological facts by assuming human beings as a blank slate.
Thomas Sowell - in the series of three books, of which this one is the last - puts up a veritable theory of "culture": according to which the natural and social environments shape up the behaviors of people and ultimately cause the vast inequalities in all the metrics among all the different groupings. Using the cases of various races as migrants, refugees, invaders and colonized; the books explain his thesis in a logical and unemotional fashion. One feature that stands out is that instead of focusing on the cruel and atrocious outcomes of the events, Sowell elaborates on the process and offers an 'economic' perspective.
I read these three books this year and it has been a thoroughly informative journey through centuries, across continents and among diverse peoples. It clearly shows that several decades of painstaking research has gone into this work. I admire the author and commend his great feat.
November 13, 2014
I listened to this audiobook a few years ago while riding up to Washington DC, it would definitely be worth listening to again. The primary thing I still remember is how Sowell didn't only write about the bad and the ugly, but also about good consequences of Empires. He says we should not do a "Cost/benefit analysis" and claim England for example was justified in her Empire building, because the goods that ultimately resulted in the nations conquered (the rule of law, stability, greater productivity, civilization, etc...) out weighed the terrible negatives. No matter how many good things result in the long run from England conquering much of the world, doesn't mean they had a moral right to do so, or even if one claimed they did, they they did everything right. But yeah, in a Liberal climate, it is political incorrect to even acknowledge that many places England conquered are now better off. Scotland for example was completely illiterate waring tribes, relentlessly butchering each other, a Scottish life at the time was "poor, nasty, brutish, and short". But once Scotland was conquered, it wasn't long until Scotland had some of the most prestigious universities in the world and was producing the greatest intellectuals. If it was not for the evil England expanding itself, there wouldn't have been an Adam Smith or a David Hume. But yeah, it was interesting.
September 20, 2019
Great history, well-researched and informative. I was surprised to learn that Sowell is no conservative, advocating for some sort of "universal culture" as a remedy for backwardness, where a true conservative would advocate cultural preservation of some sort.
November 24, 2023
A great ending to Sowell's trilogy; Conquests and Cultures reinforced Sowell's ideas firmly that it is the cultural factors, or "human capital" that determines the rise and falls of nations, and people. In earlier volumes, Sowell strived to show that there's enduring pattern within groups of people, and this is demonstrated through various litmus test of expansion and reversion. This shows few things; that racial differences are cultural rather than biological, it was the cultural differences that reinforces biological differences if any, and cultural factors are heavily reinforced down the generation through mechanism of positive feedback.
Only these few important points can demonstrate the successes of previously backward peoples, such as the Scots and the Japanese, and also in the same vein, explaining the continuously mediocre performances of certain people, as history are not stingy to list.
But of course the question would be where these groups of people acquired the set of cultural practices? The answer, as Sowell rightly points, belong in history. And this is related to one of his more important dictum, that while race is a biological fiction, it is a social reality. No one in this era believed in such monolithic idea of race as it was in past few decades due to increasingly cultural diffusion and globalization, but the core idea remains that is a group of people at any level of bracketing has been exposed to same set of challenges, practices across points of history, they would develop the same set of resilience and culture. It is through this mechanism we found such stark similarity between the industriousness of the Germans and the Japanese, half a world away.
Thus, it is no longer a befuddling question on how conquest and migration sparked the golden age of a nation, and incites a stasis to another. Simplistic idea of exploitation does not hold in many cases of conquests and migration, as transfer of wealth from the poor to the riches rarely occurs. African countries persists in poverty after the exit of foreigners by their own power, despite the remaining power plants and technology left behind. England developed rule of law under the invasion of the Normans, the beginning of smooth machinery of law that promotes business and transactions to fuel the insular nation to the largest empire the world has ever known.
Only these few important points can demonstrate the successes of previously backward peoples, such as the Scots and the Japanese, and also in the same vein, explaining the continuously mediocre performances of certain people, as history are not stingy to list.
But of course the question would be where these groups of people acquired the set of cultural practices? The answer, as Sowell rightly points, belong in history. And this is related to one of his more important dictum, that while race is a biological fiction, it is a social reality. No one in this era believed in such monolithic idea of race as it was in past few decades due to increasingly cultural diffusion and globalization, but the core idea remains that is a group of people at any level of bracketing has been exposed to same set of challenges, practices across points of history, they would develop the same set of resilience and culture. It is through this mechanism we found such stark similarity between the industriousness of the Germans and the Japanese, half a world away.
Thus, it is no longer a befuddling question on how conquest and migration sparked the golden age of a nation, and incites a stasis to another. Simplistic idea of exploitation does not hold in many cases of conquests and migration, as transfer of wealth from the poor to the riches rarely occurs. African countries persists in poverty after the exit of foreigners by their own power, despite the remaining power plants and technology left behind. England developed rule of law under the invasion of the Normans, the beginning of smooth machinery of law that promotes business and transactions to fuel the insular nation to the largest empire the world has ever known.
July 22, 2008
If you want to reexamine some of your assumptions about civilizations and cultures replacing one another (if you think about such things at all), this is a good book for you.
Sowell, as he is so very able to do, explicates the factors that suit particular cultures for survival at particular times, especially as they come into contact with other cultures. He calls the cumulative mass of those factors "cultural capital", a good definition and one that avoids any hint of a society's intrinsic worth.
Kent Lundgren
Sowell, as he is so very able to do, explicates the factors that suit particular cultures for survival at particular times, especially as they come into contact with other cultures. He calls the cumulative mass of those factors "cultural capital", a good definition and one that avoids any hint of a society's intrinsic worth.
Kent Lundgren
February 23, 2023
Thomas Sowell is the best antidote I've found for the various harmful and erroneous views espoused by the radical left. And the antidote, in this case, is not the equally stupid views espoused by the radical right, but rather historical facts, examples, evidence, and statistics.
This book, the last in his Cultures Trilogy, like all his other books, is both extremely illuminating and well written. And by well written, I mean it is actually understandable for the layperson, unlike a lot of the shit that's put out there by left-wing academicians, which appear to be willfully designed to obfuscate, not educate.
This book, the last in his Cultures Trilogy, like all his other books, is both extremely illuminating and well written. And by well written, I mean it is actually understandable for the layperson, unlike a lot of the shit that's put out there by left-wing academicians, which appear to be willfully designed to obfuscate, not educate.
November 25, 2012
This is the history book I have been looking for all my life. It provides studies of important cultures throughout history and interpretations with supporting rationale. It provides a conceptual framework to help me understand where humanity has come from with supporting details for the conclusions made. Thanks, Mr. Sowell, for your enormous effort to bring the facts together in an understandable way.
July 15, 2016
This is how history should be taught in schools.
Forget the nationalistic zeal, the provincialism, the acenstor worship, the boring bullshit or being anal about dates that is part and parcel of virtually every education system in the world when it comes to history. When Thomas Sowell teaches history he does it in an interesting way, demands and supports his pages with evidence, but most importantly, shows you what it means to be human.
Forget the nationalistic zeal, the provincialism, the acenstor worship, the boring bullshit or being anal about dates that is part and parcel of virtually every education system in the world when it comes to history. When Thomas Sowell teaches history he does it in an interesting way, demands and supports his pages with evidence, but most importantly, shows you what it means to be human.
May 23, 2020
Mind-blowingly good. Sowell walks the reader through the histories of every inhabited continent and points about patterns common to both and contrasts their differences. He also traces causal events and influences in a very clear manner. It was fascinating and I already want to read it again!
May 27, 2025
I want to believe that if Thomas Sowell had written my history textbook that I would have been a better student. But perhaps it is just better that I have picked him up in my thirties instead of in my teens.
I gave a five-star review because this is something that I would recommend to pretty much anyone, but particularly someone in 21st century America hoping to understand and provide some (evidence based) context and some backstory to the current story playing in Washington DC and in the media. However, as a Christian, I am indebted to Tom Holland (not a Christian) and his book Dominion, which I read first. I appreciate the treatment Dr Holland gives in attributing uniquely Christian ideals to Christianity. I'm not sure I share Dr Sowell's (apparent) conclusions (n.b., I'm injecting some of my own interpretation of his writing here), particularly involving the "singular civilization" that all the educated of the world are supposedly increasingly sharing, but I think some of that is ideology and some is current events after publication of this book.
All the same, it's a great read! Accessible for someone who never went past high school history; broad in scope, but sufficiently detailed in each chapter to feel "built-out" and not simplistically shallow.
I gave a five-star review because this is something that I would recommend to pretty much anyone, but particularly someone in 21st century America hoping to understand and provide some (evidence based) context and some backstory to the current story playing in Washington DC and in the media. However, as a Christian, I am indebted to Tom Holland (not a Christian) and his book Dominion, which I read first. I appreciate the treatment Dr Holland gives in attributing uniquely Christian ideals to Christianity. I'm not sure I share Dr Sowell's (apparent) conclusions (n.b., I'm injecting some of my own interpretation of his writing here), particularly involving the "singular civilization" that all the educated of the world are supposedly increasingly sharing, but I think some of that is ideology and some is current events after publication of this book.
All the same, it's a great read! Accessible for someone who never went past high school history; broad in scope, but sufficiently detailed in each chapter to feel "built-out" and not simplistically shallow.
October 25, 2022
To say that Thomas Sowell is brilliant is an understatement. Mr. Sowell's works are required reading for anyone interested in gaining insights they won't get from the sound-bite obsessed media. This book is not an easy read. Reading this book is work because the counterintuitive conclusions are substantiated by facts and data. Mr. Sowell dismantles superficially easy, commonly accepted themes that have been fed to an electorate that eagerly forms opinions without the inconvenience of thinking. He provides the reader with an objective analysis of the many factors that determine culture and balances each of those factors in the same way they affect how civilizations evolve and change - with complexity. An outstanding book.
March 28, 2026
Interesting fact I learned: sweet potatoes were unknown to Europe until Columbus discovered the New World. They eventually worked their way to China via the Spanish. The Chinese found that they grew exceptionally well there, and soon, China led the world in sweet potato production. This probably saved millions of lives because China had been experiencing severe cycles of famine in that period of history.
April 7, 2018
Once again, I have to say, Thomas Sowell may be the greatest black man in American history.
June 16, 2024
THE FINAL VOLUME OF THE “WORLD VIEW” TRILOGY
Thomas Sowell (born 1930) is an economist, columnist, and author who has long been associated with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1998 book, “This book completes a trilogy that began with ‘Race and Culture’ in 1994 and continued with ‘Migrations and Cultures’ in 1996. All three were initially parts of a single huge manuscript that I began writing in 1982… The underlying theme of all these books has been that racial, ethnic, and national groups have their own respective cultures, without which their economic and social histories cannot be understood… On a broad international canvas, the role of culture reaches beyond particular racial and ethnic groups to encompass the differing economic and social fates of nations and civilizations… the present volume… deals with the cultural consequences of conquests. Like migrations, conquests have changed the cultural landscape of the world… The negative aspects of conquest, ranging from routine oppressions to wanton slaughters and atrocities, are of course not to be overlooked…” (Pg. ix-x)
He notes, “Why Britain became the first industrial nation and retained its preeminence for a century is one of the great questions of history… one to which no definitive answer has been found. However, Britain had some unique combinations of influences. What the British had earlier than many other peoples was a framework of law and government that facilitated economic transactions. The arbitrariness of despotic government gave wain in Britain to a de facto separation of powers… the evolution of the rule of law in the British Isles not only helped promote the internal economic development of Britain itself, it helped attract to Britain… much of the commerce of Europe.” (Pg. 32)
He asserts, “Within Ulster, the Catholic population has tended to be poorer than the Protestant, and less represented in higher-level occupations, as well as more represented in public housing projects. All this points toward differences in human capital, such as have marked the Irish, compared to the Scots or the English, in other countries around the world. The preferred explanation among the Irish in Ulster, however, has been discrimination, even though the evidence for such discrimination consists largely of statistical disparities, rather than actual individual examples.” (Pg. 67)
He argues, “Vigilante movements were another facet of [Southern backcountry] pattern, and the name ‘lynch law’ has been traced to … William Lynch, whose followers often flogged and sometimes killed their victims. These patterns continued long after Lynch’s death in 1820, with most victims being white until the Reconstruction era in the South after the Civil War, when blacks became the main targets. The fighting clans of Scotland have been claimed as models for the Ku Klux Klan and ‘the fiery cross of old Scotland’s hills’ as the origin of the KKK’s practice of burning crosses to intimidate blacks in the United States. In short, the pattern of ruthless violence directed by Southern whites against blacks originated long before there were any racial differences involved …” (Pg. 77)
He states, “Phrases such as ‘I be’ and ‘you be’ … were common in both Virginia and in those parts of … England from which Virginians had emigrated… The era of mass education and the standardization of the English language left such expressions as the marks of uneducated people in the American South and---by the late twentieth century---a pattern now christened ‘black English.’” (Pg. 81)
He says, “As with the British, the Slavs, and others, the influence of geography in Africa has not been simply in its effects primarily on THINGS---natural resources or economic prosperity, for example---but on PEOPLE… the effect of geography in making cultural interactions more difficult has been particularly striking as between the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and the outside world, as well as among themselves.” (Pg. 99)
He observes, “One group of Europeans whose intentions and goals were more sweeping than those of the colonial officials were the Christian missionaries… Missionaries were seeking not only religious conversions in Africa but also radical changes in the African way of life---not only the abolition of slavery but also changed sexual mores, literacy, cleanliness, and numerous other features of Western civilization.” (Pg. 123)
He comments, “For generations to come, all across the country, north and south, the elite of the American Negro community tended to be lighter in complexion than the masses---and to be very self-conscious, and sometimes snobbish, about that fact. They, as well as whites, often attributed their success to Caucasian genes, rather than to historical circumstances and cultural opportunities. Underlying these social phenomena was an economically very consequential transfer of valuable human capital, varying according to prior social and biological relationships with the white population, from which this human capital came.” (Pg. 165) He adds, “Very real behavioral differences, as well as snobbery and vanity, underlay a tendency of the more fortunate and lighter-skinned segment of the African-ancestry population to separate itself from the black masses.” (Pg. 166)
He summarizes, “Much of the painful history of the first quarter century of African independence was a history of African leaders, without the practical knowledge or experience of either Africa or the West, attempting sweeping social experiments on their own people, based on the untested theories of Western intellectuals.” (Pg. 173)
In chapter on Native Americans, he says, “The cultural confrontation in the Western Hemisphere was, in effect, a one-sided struggle between cultures acquired from vast regions of the earth against cultures from much more narrowly circumscribed regions of the New World. Never have the advantages of a wider cultural universe been more dramatically or more devastatingly demonstrated than in the conquests that followed.” (Pg. 255)
He acknowledges “the biological, social, and cultural havoc” wreaked on Native Americans by the coming of Europeans. “All this is wholly different from saying that the present-day descendants of these indigenous peoples are worse off than if the Europeans had never come. Most of these descendants would not even exist without those invasions and conquests, for they are the descendants of the Europeans as well as descendants of the Indians, pure-blooded descendants being the exception, rather than the rule, in both North and South America. Nor can the benefits they receive from the advances of modern medicine and technology be taken for granted, for those benefits are still largely lacking over broad areas of the world, outside of the cultural orbit of Western civilization. Nowhere have the Indians shared as fully in these benefits as the general population of the Americas.” (Pg. 324)
He argues, “the widespread assumption that promoting national or group pride and identity are essential foundations for advancement is open to very serious question on the basis of historical facts. When such pride and identity reach the point of promoting cultural isolation, they may be forms of negative human capital.” (Pg. 341) Later, he adds, “peoples with very different achievement levels in many fields may nevertheless have very similar inborn potential, but … the fruition of these potentials may require vast amounts of other human capital, which is far from equally distributed around the world or within a given society. Therefore much native ability that might otherwise have been spread among a number of fields, if a lagging group had the complementary prerequisites for its development in those fields, may instead be concentrated in a relatively few fields, in which such groups do not merely hold their own but excel, sometimes spectacularly.” (Pg. 362)
He contends, “Recognition of these differences in capabilities and orientations is often called ‘racism,’ as is that somehow invalidated the observations about group differences in behavior or performance, or turned it into a mere subjective perception. But to insist that such group differences be ignored, either in causal explanations or in policy formulations, is as dogmatic as the insistence that genetics must be the reason for such differences.” (Pg. 363) He continues, “One of the reasons for not dismissing as racism every conclusion concerning the role of genes in the development of human intelligence is that such a dismissal too often becomes a substitute for a careful critique of what has been said.” (Pg. 367) He adds, “What is clear is that factors causing differences between races are not necessarily racial or genetic factors, particularly when there are so many social and cultural differences also involved. Nevertheless, they cannot be automatically dismissed as ‘perceptions’ or assumed to be the fault of ‘society.’” (Pg. 370)
This book will be of great interest to those who enjoy Sowell’s other books.
Thomas Sowell (born 1930) is an economist, columnist, and author who has long been associated with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1998 book, “This book completes a trilogy that began with ‘Race and Culture’ in 1994 and continued with ‘Migrations and Cultures’ in 1996. All three were initially parts of a single huge manuscript that I began writing in 1982… The underlying theme of all these books has been that racial, ethnic, and national groups have their own respective cultures, without which their economic and social histories cannot be understood… On a broad international canvas, the role of culture reaches beyond particular racial and ethnic groups to encompass the differing economic and social fates of nations and civilizations… the present volume… deals with the cultural consequences of conquests. Like migrations, conquests have changed the cultural landscape of the world… The negative aspects of conquest, ranging from routine oppressions to wanton slaughters and atrocities, are of course not to be overlooked…” (Pg. ix-x)
He notes, “Why Britain became the first industrial nation and retained its preeminence for a century is one of the great questions of history… one to which no definitive answer has been found. However, Britain had some unique combinations of influences. What the British had earlier than many other peoples was a framework of law and government that facilitated economic transactions. The arbitrariness of despotic government gave wain in Britain to a de facto separation of powers… the evolution of the rule of law in the British Isles not only helped promote the internal economic development of Britain itself, it helped attract to Britain… much of the commerce of Europe.” (Pg. 32)
He asserts, “Within Ulster, the Catholic population has tended to be poorer than the Protestant, and less represented in higher-level occupations, as well as more represented in public housing projects. All this points toward differences in human capital, such as have marked the Irish, compared to the Scots or the English, in other countries around the world. The preferred explanation among the Irish in Ulster, however, has been discrimination, even though the evidence for such discrimination consists largely of statistical disparities, rather than actual individual examples.” (Pg. 67)
He argues, “Vigilante movements were another facet of [Southern backcountry] pattern, and the name ‘lynch law’ has been traced to … William Lynch, whose followers often flogged and sometimes killed their victims. These patterns continued long after Lynch’s death in 1820, with most victims being white until the Reconstruction era in the South after the Civil War, when blacks became the main targets. The fighting clans of Scotland have been claimed as models for the Ku Klux Klan and ‘the fiery cross of old Scotland’s hills’ as the origin of the KKK’s practice of burning crosses to intimidate blacks in the United States. In short, the pattern of ruthless violence directed by Southern whites against blacks originated long before there were any racial differences involved …” (Pg. 77)
He states, “Phrases such as ‘I be’ and ‘you be’ … were common in both Virginia and in those parts of … England from which Virginians had emigrated… The era of mass education and the standardization of the English language left such expressions as the marks of uneducated people in the American South and---by the late twentieth century---a pattern now christened ‘black English.’” (Pg. 81)
He says, “As with the British, the Slavs, and others, the influence of geography in Africa has not been simply in its effects primarily on THINGS---natural resources or economic prosperity, for example---but on PEOPLE… the effect of geography in making cultural interactions more difficult has been particularly striking as between the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and the outside world, as well as among themselves.” (Pg. 99)
He observes, “One group of Europeans whose intentions and goals were more sweeping than those of the colonial officials were the Christian missionaries… Missionaries were seeking not only religious conversions in Africa but also radical changes in the African way of life---not only the abolition of slavery but also changed sexual mores, literacy, cleanliness, and numerous other features of Western civilization.” (Pg. 123)
He comments, “For generations to come, all across the country, north and south, the elite of the American Negro community tended to be lighter in complexion than the masses---and to be very self-conscious, and sometimes snobbish, about that fact. They, as well as whites, often attributed their success to Caucasian genes, rather than to historical circumstances and cultural opportunities. Underlying these social phenomena was an economically very consequential transfer of valuable human capital, varying according to prior social and biological relationships with the white population, from which this human capital came.” (Pg. 165) He adds, “Very real behavioral differences, as well as snobbery and vanity, underlay a tendency of the more fortunate and lighter-skinned segment of the African-ancestry population to separate itself from the black masses.” (Pg. 166)
He summarizes, “Much of the painful history of the first quarter century of African independence was a history of African leaders, without the practical knowledge or experience of either Africa or the West, attempting sweeping social experiments on their own people, based on the untested theories of Western intellectuals.” (Pg. 173)
In chapter on Native Americans, he says, “The cultural confrontation in the Western Hemisphere was, in effect, a one-sided struggle between cultures acquired from vast regions of the earth against cultures from much more narrowly circumscribed regions of the New World. Never have the advantages of a wider cultural universe been more dramatically or more devastatingly demonstrated than in the conquests that followed.” (Pg. 255)
He acknowledges “the biological, social, and cultural havoc” wreaked on Native Americans by the coming of Europeans. “All this is wholly different from saying that the present-day descendants of these indigenous peoples are worse off than if the Europeans had never come. Most of these descendants would not even exist without those invasions and conquests, for they are the descendants of the Europeans as well as descendants of the Indians, pure-blooded descendants being the exception, rather than the rule, in both North and South America. Nor can the benefits they receive from the advances of modern medicine and technology be taken for granted, for those benefits are still largely lacking over broad areas of the world, outside of the cultural orbit of Western civilization. Nowhere have the Indians shared as fully in these benefits as the general population of the Americas.” (Pg. 324)
He argues, “the widespread assumption that promoting national or group pride and identity are essential foundations for advancement is open to very serious question on the basis of historical facts. When such pride and identity reach the point of promoting cultural isolation, they may be forms of negative human capital.” (Pg. 341) Later, he adds, “peoples with very different achievement levels in many fields may nevertheless have very similar inborn potential, but … the fruition of these potentials may require vast amounts of other human capital, which is far from equally distributed around the world or within a given society. Therefore much native ability that might otherwise have been spread among a number of fields, if a lagging group had the complementary prerequisites for its development in those fields, may instead be concentrated in a relatively few fields, in which such groups do not merely hold their own but excel, sometimes spectacularly.” (Pg. 362)
He contends, “Recognition of these differences in capabilities and orientations is often called ‘racism,’ as is that somehow invalidated the observations about group differences in behavior or performance, or turned it into a mere subjective perception. But to insist that such group differences be ignored, either in causal explanations or in policy formulations, is as dogmatic as the insistence that genetics must be the reason for such differences.” (Pg. 363) He continues, “One of the reasons for not dismissing as racism every conclusion concerning the role of genes in the development of human intelligence is that such a dismissal too often becomes a substitute for a careful critique of what has been said.” (Pg. 367) He adds, “What is clear is that factors causing differences between races are not necessarily racial or genetic factors, particularly when there are so many social and cultural differences also involved. Nevertheless, they cannot be automatically dismissed as ‘perceptions’ or assumed to be the fault of ‘society.’” (Pg. 370)
This book will be of great interest to those who enjoy Sowell’s other books.
October 4, 2020
Sowell provides a sweeping international history of cultures and their interactions, resistance, and assimilation after conquests. Sowell provides a simple yet profound premise that culture is the underlying driver for a people's economic and social conditions. I thought the book was particularly helpful for providing a broader context for my own American culture, especially in light of its melting pot status. A few things really stuck out to me about the book. Writing these things out seem so basic, but they have important implications if true.
- All people are either conquerers or a conquered people. Many of those who are victims of other conquerers have perpetrated the same actions themselves. This is not a glorification of conquering but a recognition of its reality.
- Assimilation and adaptation to newer technologies plays a profound impact in economic prosperity. Tradition of prior success can be the very thing that prevents future success if conditions change.
- Geography, language, and openness to education are all major factors in economic prosperity.
- National pride has often been viewed as a positive thing, but it can blind a person to the benefits and contributions of other cultures and practices.
- Race is a biological concept but a social reality. Sowell argues that racism has been too widely used as a label and thus weakened the term.
The book provokes thought and helps put some pieces together in our own cultural puzzle. Recommended.
- All people are either conquerers or a conquered people. Many of those who are victims of other conquerers have perpetrated the same actions themselves. This is not a glorification of conquering but a recognition of its reality.
- Assimilation and adaptation to newer technologies plays a profound impact in economic prosperity. Tradition of prior success can be the very thing that prevents future success if conditions change.
- Geography, language, and openness to education are all major factors in economic prosperity.
- National pride has often been viewed as a positive thing, but it can blind a person to the benefits and contributions of other cultures and practices.
- Race is a biological concept but a social reality. Sowell argues that racism has been too widely used as a label and thus weakened the term.
The book provokes thought and helps put some pieces together in our own cultural puzzle. Recommended.
February 2, 2013
A somewhat interesting listen and a bit outside my typical comfort zone in terms of what I'd normally read, this book read a bit like a text book, full of facts, figures and census data. The book which is a third book in a 3 part series on culture (I had not read/listened to the previous two), takes a broad look at the impact that conquests across the globe have had on affecting and influencing culture. Four separate and long sections cover conquests involving Great Britian, Africa, the Slavs, and the American Indians (both in North America and South America). Of the four sections, I felt that the information within the British and American Indians chapters to be most entertaining. The Slav chapter was interesting at parts, but I found myself zoning out on parts where he made heavy use of census data.
The author obviously did a tremendous amount of research and is very well educated and spoken on this subject. History has never held a strong interest for me, but there were definitely parts of this book that had me riveted and I learned more than a fair share of interesting facts. I suspect for someone who is more strongly interested in History and this sort of writing, that this book would rate 4 or 5 stars easily.
The author obviously did a tremendous amount of research and is very well educated and spoken on this subject. History has never held a strong interest for me, but there were definitely parts of this book that had me riveted and I learned more than a fair share of interesting facts. I suspect for someone who is more strongly interested in History and this sort of writing, that this book would rate 4 or 5 stars easily.
October 26, 2020
Conquests and Cultures: An International History by Thomas Sowell presents the results of the author's 15 years of research along with extensive travel. Having already read several books by Dr. Sowell I was prepared for his usual pattern of an informative and entertaining read; and the byproduct is that I always learn things. He has a knack for digging up facts and presenting them in a way that makes you want to keep reading, even at 2 am when you have to get up early. In this work he looks at the cultural impact when one society or country conquers another. He has studied the effect on the conquered as well as the conquerors and how it changes depending upon which is the more advanced society. He looked at the evolution that happened and how it explains changes in the economies, societies, and their political development. On a subject this broad and complex the author narrows the scope of the project by looking at samples from four major cultural areas: the British; the Africans; the Slavs of Eastern Europe; and the indigenous societies of the Americas. When you pick up any book by Dr. Thomas Sowell you can count on having an educational adventure.
November 23, 2018
3.5 stars. Sowell remains an ever lucid and deliberate writer, but not particularly colorful with the pen. There aren’t the rhetorical solos or exploding sentences of a Christopher Hitchens. This book (the third in a triology of which I haven’t read the first two parts, mea culpa) functions as a 30,000 overview of world history, and how conquest influenced development is various corners of the globe (yes, I know a globe has no corners). I think his generalized argument that human capital (the skills and attitudes) various groups possessed in cultural conflicts played a significant role in how such “clashes” played out. But Sowell is also quick to acknowledge how factors like those explored in — for example Guns, Germs, and Steel — also influenced world history. The complexity as we zoom in at each locus could make a book like this seem trite, but I think it remains remarkably cogent still.
August 5, 2018
Should Be In Every Library
This book is lobster bisque for the brain. Sowell has a gift for conveying volumes of information in a condensed entertaining manner. I feel generally knowledgeable and have myriad directions to go for specific interests. (I think I'll investigate the Ottoman empire and the Byzantine next based on the peculiarities discussed within and my shame for knowing so little about civilizations which significantly shaped our world.
Great reference books. (I have four of his now.)
Thomas Sowell is a treasure.
This book is lobster bisque for the brain. Sowell has a gift for conveying volumes of information in a condensed entertaining manner. I feel generally knowledgeable and have myriad directions to go for specific interests. (I think I'll investigate the Ottoman empire and the Byzantine next based on the peculiarities discussed within and my shame for knowing so little about civilizations which significantly shaped our world.
Great reference books. (I have four of his now.)
Thomas Sowell is a treasure.
September 5, 2014
I have to give Sowell some credit. This dude does research like none other. I enjoyed this very interesting overview of some of the major cultural conquests of both sides of the world. Any true history buffs would enjoy this. It doesn't delve into minute details of each conquests, but you can definitely discover some new and intriguing subjects that you may want to look into further.
January 26, 2016
As a person who admires Thomas Sowell alot and agree with almost his stances I found it sad that it mainly focused on British history. Ofcourse I cannot expect Thomas Sowell to have a master in Turkic history but it is a quiet wish of me that he would one day start writing about the Ottoman empire and the relations of the different ethnic groups and cultures living in the empire.
September 26, 2015
A compilation of many of Sowell's work on the History of the rise and fall of different empires and how the subjugated people almost always survive and thrive on the newly given technology and experiences to destroy their own backwardness.
April 3, 2014
Interesting history lesson but incredibly dense.
February 25, 2023
The history of the world is best explained by the development and diffusion of human capital, and not genetics or exploitation (which are demonstrably lacking in evidence). In Sowell's third book in his culture trilogy (Race and Cultures being the first, and Migrations and Cultures being the second), Sowell ties all prior themes together with Conquests and Cultures. It is impossible to say whether many of these brutal conquests have been net good or net bad, as that is a judgment that can be looked upon quite differently by individuals then and individuals now. What is important, however, is that we learn from history, and history shows us that cultures are not museum pieces, but dynamically evolving entities who by accident can either prosper or falter at various points in time.
Geography has long inhibited/aided cultural development. Natural harbors, smooth rivers that flow deeply inland, rainfall patterns, and ease of interaction with neighbors are all major contributors to societal development. Even basic aspects like continental orientation means it was much easier for agricultural and technological developments to spread East-West across Asia, Europe, and the Middle East than North-South from the Iroquois to the Aztecs. Despite Africa being a much larger continent than Europe, Africa's smooth coastline meant a dearth of natural harbors whereas Western Europe had those harbors in abundance, by pure luck. Eastern Europe's lack of rivers going deeply inland and rugged mountainous terrain prevented it from having lower transportation costs and increased cultural diffusion in Western Europe.
Beyond geography, cultural openness/resistance to change/adapt also causes great differences in outcomes over time. China initially led much of Asia, but its turn towards insularity made it fall behind Japan and Korea over time. The British Isles used to be the most backward part of all of Europe until conquerors brought in new skills, to which the English and Scottish were more open to change, and the Welsh and Irish were not. Europeans ditched their Roman numeral system in favor of "Arabic" numerals which came via invading Moors, but actually originated in India. Openness to change/adapt/borrow is just as decisive as the ability to develop new technological within.
Brutality is also demonstrated to be so widespread that almost no culture can claim to be "above it all". As horrific as the Atlantic slave trade was, not only were more Africans enslaved to go East instead, but more Africans than both of those combined were enslaved that never left the continent of Africa. Slavery was the norm of nearly every society in the world until the West took a moral position against it, but the West should not be given moral credit for simply having the technological advances to where they could afford to suddenly care about it. The Aztec civilization was incredibly brutal to its neighbors before the first Spaniard ever arrived. The natives of the North and South American continents not only lacked horses and oxen until the Spaniards brought them over; they did not even have the wheel. This is not because the natives were inferior in any way to the rest of the world, but more that they lacked the cultural diffusion through accidents of geography and interconnectedness with the rest of the world. The point here is not to justify or denigrate any individual people or society; the point is to say history is brutal and we shouldn't be seeking to elevate any culture as particularly noble.
In summary, Sowell points out a million different ways what is and what is not decisive in outcomes in world history. Read Conquests and Cultures for better perspective so that we too can borrow the best from other cultures, and discard negative capital that holds us back. Cultures are not meant to be museum pieces to never be disturbed; the most successful cultures are those that treasure and promote positive human capital while being open to learn from others.
Geography has long inhibited/aided cultural development. Natural harbors, smooth rivers that flow deeply inland, rainfall patterns, and ease of interaction with neighbors are all major contributors to societal development. Even basic aspects like continental orientation means it was much easier for agricultural and technological developments to spread East-West across Asia, Europe, and the Middle East than North-South from the Iroquois to the Aztecs. Despite Africa being a much larger continent than Europe, Africa's smooth coastline meant a dearth of natural harbors whereas Western Europe had those harbors in abundance, by pure luck. Eastern Europe's lack of rivers going deeply inland and rugged mountainous terrain prevented it from having lower transportation costs and increased cultural diffusion in Western Europe.
Beyond geography, cultural openness/resistance to change/adapt also causes great differences in outcomes over time. China initially led much of Asia, but its turn towards insularity made it fall behind Japan and Korea over time. The British Isles used to be the most backward part of all of Europe until conquerors brought in new skills, to which the English and Scottish were more open to change, and the Welsh and Irish were not. Europeans ditched their Roman numeral system in favor of "Arabic" numerals which came via invading Moors, but actually originated in India. Openness to change/adapt/borrow is just as decisive as the ability to develop new technological within.
Brutality is also demonstrated to be so widespread that almost no culture can claim to be "above it all". As horrific as the Atlantic slave trade was, not only were more Africans enslaved to go East instead, but more Africans than both of those combined were enslaved that never left the continent of Africa. Slavery was the norm of nearly every society in the world until the West took a moral position against it, but the West should not be given moral credit for simply having the technological advances to where they could afford to suddenly care about it. The Aztec civilization was incredibly brutal to its neighbors before the first Spaniard ever arrived. The natives of the North and South American continents not only lacked horses and oxen until the Spaniards brought them over; they did not even have the wheel. This is not because the natives were inferior in any way to the rest of the world, but more that they lacked the cultural diffusion through accidents of geography and interconnectedness with the rest of the world. The point here is not to justify or denigrate any individual people or society; the point is to say history is brutal and we shouldn't be seeking to elevate any culture as particularly noble.
In summary, Sowell points out a million different ways what is and what is not decisive in outcomes in world history. Read Conquests and Cultures for better perspective so that we too can borrow the best from other cultures, and discard negative capital that holds us back. Cultures are not meant to be museum pieces to never be disturbed; the most successful cultures are those that treasure and promote positive human capital while being open to learn from others.
June 5, 2019
Уникална книга. Със сигурност ще я прочета отново.
Това е третата историческа книга на Томъс Соуел концентрираща се върху културата на различните народи.
Но не е лека книга. Определено си изисква известна историческа подготовка, гледане на карта и гугълване на разни неща.
За какво общо взето се разказва в тази книга?
В глава 1 се говори общо за това как завладяването на едни хора от различни цивилизации се отразява на културата, обичаите и човешкият капитал както на завладяните така и на завладяващите хора.
А в 6та глава се обобщават тези неща.
В останалите 4 глави се говори за завладяването на:
- Британците - глава 2 - като се започне от завладяването на острова от Цезар до развитието на хората населяващи го до наши дни (може би най-интересната за мен част, защото успоредно гледах сериала на НВО Рим и като цяло дори не знаех, че Римската империя е завладяла острова). Говори се за това, че благодарение на редът наложен от Рим на острова се е създал кмимат, който до известна степен е направил Англия в последствие Просперираща страна която е. Трудно е да се обобщи в абзац тъй като самата глава е около 2 часа и определено ще я изслушам пак скоро.
- Африканците - глава 3 - Говори се за имперските завладявания на африканските територии и как това се е отразило на хората, културата и редът там. Тук Том разбива супер много митове, както за благородния савич (африканците хич не са били миролюбиви) както и за лошите завоеватели от Европа, които са правили както много лоши неща, така и в някои части са въвели ред, който води до просперитет на хората живеещи там - централизиран ред невиждан преди, който след изтеглянето на европейските завоеватели до голяма степен се разпада, което води то това хората живеещи в Африка след изтеглянето на лошите европейски завоеватели започват да живеят по-лошо отколкото по време на европейското импереалистично управление. Разбира се говори се за много много лоши неща, които са се случвали с хората там - за роби, за геноциди, абе като цяло не е пести всички лоши неща, които за съжаление човешката история пази. Но злините не са извършвани само от бели към черни, а от всички към всички. Самият факт, че първото нещо което освободените роби от Америка изпратени в новосъздадената африканска страна Либерия правят е да ПОРОБЯТ месните африканци. Хората може да сме много лоши, без значение от цвета на кожата ни.
- Славяните - глава 4 - тук за съжаление не следя много изкъсо книгата, което ще поправя следващото слушане. С две думи славяните са били оригиналните роби, преди африканците. Самата дума слейв (роб) идва от слав (славянин). Като цяло главата не ми беше особено интересна, но както казва Р. Файнман всичко е интересно, ако навлезнеш достатъчно надълбоко в него. Следващия път по е би главата ще ми е по-интересна.
- Индиянците от Америка - глава 5 - началото на главата беше супер интересна, където се говореше за маите и инките. Говори се защо те са били толкова по-изостанали в срявнение с Европейците - основно, защото са нямали хубави животни, като коне, и също, защото не са имали хубавата средиземноморска география.
Говори се и за завладяването на Америка и как това се е отразило И на Индиянците и на европейците.
Направи ми впечатление следния извод - цитирам по спомен "Самият факт, че мъдрите стари общества дори не са знаели, че половината свят съществува е накарал Европа да спре да гледа назад в миналото, като идеали и да започне да гледа напред."
Само можем да си представяме какво е било да живееш във времената когато Америка е била открита. Все едно днес да стъпим и да започваме да населваме Марс, само дето там да има хора. Откриването на Америка е като второто откриване на Англия. Нова земя, където може да се започне нова цивилизация.
Книги като тази са полезни, защото ти дават отъпкани пътеки по които човек да може да чете и възприеме хаосът на човешката история. Да види кое е важно и кое просто се е случило.
Беше много интересна книга.
Това е третата историческа книга на Томъс Соуел концентрираща се върху културата на различните народи.
Но не е лека книга. Определено си изисква известна историческа подготовка, гледане на карта и гугълване на разни неща.
За какво общо взето се разказва в тази книга?
В глава 1 се говори общо за това как завладяването на едни хора от различни цивилизации се отразява на културата, обичаите и човешкият капитал както на завладяните така и на завладяващите хора.
А в 6та глава се обобщават тези неща.
В останалите 4 глави се говори за завладяването на:
- Британците - глава 2 - като се започне от завладяването на острова от Цезар до развитието на хората населяващи го до наши дни (може би най-интересната за мен част, защото успоредно гледах сериала на НВО Рим и като цяло дори не знаех, че Римската империя е завладяла острова). Говори се за това, че благодарение на редът наложен от Рим на острова се е създал кмимат, който до известна степен е направил Англия в последствие Просперираща страна която е. Трудно е да се обобщи в абзац тъй като самата глава е около 2 часа и определено ще я изслушам пак скоро.
- Африканците - глава 3 - Говори се за имперските завладявания на африканските територии и как това се е отразило на хората, културата и редът там. Тук Том разбива супер много митове, както за благородния савич (африканците хич не са били миролюбиви) както и за лошите завоеватели от Европа, които са правили както много лоши неща, така и в някои части са въвели ред, който води до просперитет на хората живеещи там - централизиран ред невиждан преди, който след изтеглянето на европейските завоеватели до голяма степен се разпада, което води то това хората живеещи в Африка след изтеглянето на лошите европейски завоеватели започват да живеят по-лошо отколкото по време на европейското импереалистично управление. Разбира се говори се за много много лоши неща, които са се случвали с хората там - за роби, за геноциди, абе като цяло не е пести всички лоши неща, които за съжаление човешката история пази. Но злините не са извършвани само от бели към черни, а от всички към всички. Самият факт, че първото нещо което освободените роби от Америка изпратени в новосъздадената африканска страна Либерия правят е да ПОРОБЯТ месните африканци. Хората може да сме много лоши, без значение от цвета на кожата ни.
- Славяните - глава 4 - тук за съжаление не следя много изкъсо книгата, което ще поправя следващото слушане. С две думи славяните са били оригиналните роби, преди африканците. Самата дума слейв (роб) идва от слав (славянин). Като цяло главата не ми беше особено интересна, но както казва Р. Файнман всичко е интересно, ако навлезнеш достатъчно надълбоко в него. Следващия път по е би главата ще ми е по-интересна.
- Индиянците от Америка - глава 5 - началото на главата беше супер интересна, където се говореше за маите и инките. Говори се защо те са били толкова по-изостанали в срявнение с Европейците - основно, защото са нямали хубави животни, като коне, и също, защото не са имали хубавата средиземноморска география.
Говори се и за завладяването на Америка и как това се е отразило И на Индиянците и на европейците.
Направи ми впечатление следния извод - цитирам по спомен "Самият факт, че мъдрите стари общества дори не са знаели, че половината свят съществува е накарал Европа да спре да гледа назад в миналото, като идеали и да започне да гледа напред."
Само можем да си представяме какво е било да живееш във времената когато Америка е била открита. Все едно днес да стъпим и да започваме да населваме Марс, само дето там да има хора. Откриването на Америка е като второто откриване на Англия. Нова земя, където може да се започне нова цивилизация.
Книги като тази са полезни, защото ти дават отъпкани пътеки по които човек да може да чете и възприеме хаосът на човешката история. Да види кое е важно и кое просто се е случило.
Беше много интересна книга.
August 18, 2018
A historic survey of four different, diverse, and large categories of people in the world with the main focus on how conquests changed the region. This is a history book of change, not determinism. If a particular people and their culture shows a certain trend, as Sowell takes great measure to show, that trend can reverse itself over time. Form being conquered to being the conquerors, from being technologically superior to playing technological catch up, from being illiterate to producing genius. Cultures are not deterministic of a peoples’ fate, but can change, sometimes that change comes from being conquered or conquering.
The categories under observation are the British, African, Slavic, and Western Hemisphere Indians. Each chapter focuses initially on geography of the people followed by a short generalization of what the people are mostly known for. Each group is then split based on occupying region, for the regional differences impacted how conquests impacted them. The further away a region is from the conquers center, the less impacted the region may be. Opportunities presented them to the conquered with the nobles changing their very language to engage politically with the conquerors while the masses tended to fall behind, creating resentment and class struggle.
Conquerors tended to lose a few or many initial battles, but over time their superiority claimed victory. The battles were often bloody and the conquerors do bring with them much pain, but the conquerors also bring with them technology and their culture. Other times, the conquerors recognize the cultural superiority of their conquered, and integrate the conquered culture. To make use of the regions conquered, the conquerors bring their technology along. Living standards often declined when conquerors leave, as becoming independent nations could not maintain the technology and did not have skill to replicate the technology. The conquerors political organization provided stability to many regions, but when the conquerors leave, the regions sometimes cannot maintain the policies which held together diverse groups of people.
Geography had a major factor to play in which regions created conquerors and the conquered. Transportation costs are largely determined by geography which determine what can be traded and how much trade there is. Trade means a dispersion of technology and ideas. Initially, regions next to large bodies of water could trade by ship, with water transport being less costly than moving goods via land. Not until railroads came about did land transport become cheap enough in many regions to make trade profitable. Transportation could make many natural resources cost prohibitive for extraction. But transportation is not the only reason for the difference between conquerors and conquered, other reasons include having pack animals, the skills necessary to utilize the geographic resources and having right incentives in place to allow the utilization. Many times, only with foreign help could the resources be utilized, as foreigners provided many valuable skills and services.
Sowell’s descriptions focus on the internal cultural situation of the peoples. This book has varied timelines, for many empires and peoples only once existed such as the in the Western Hemisphere Indians, while many African and Slavic nations are relatively new politically. Expressing the changes in language, politics, and technology, Sowell does not miss much of how life was impacted on the conquered or the conquerors. By articulating the impact of policies on people locally and generally creates many powerful historical timeless lessons.
The categories under observation are the British, African, Slavic, and Western Hemisphere Indians. Each chapter focuses initially on geography of the people followed by a short generalization of what the people are mostly known for. Each group is then split based on occupying region, for the regional differences impacted how conquests impacted them. The further away a region is from the conquers center, the less impacted the region may be. Opportunities presented them to the conquered with the nobles changing their very language to engage politically with the conquerors while the masses tended to fall behind, creating resentment and class struggle.
Conquerors tended to lose a few or many initial battles, but over time their superiority claimed victory. The battles were often bloody and the conquerors do bring with them much pain, but the conquerors also bring with them technology and their culture. Other times, the conquerors recognize the cultural superiority of their conquered, and integrate the conquered culture. To make use of the regions conquered, the conquerors bring their technology along. Living standards often declined when conquerors leave, as becoming independent nations could not maintain the technology and did not have skill to replicate the technology. The conquerors political organization provided stability to many regions, but when the conquerors leave, the regions sometimes cannot maintain the policies which held together diverse groups of people.
Geography had a major factor to play in which regions created conquerors and the conquered. Transportation costs are largely determined by geography which determine what can be traded and how much trade there is. Trade means a dispersion of technology and ideas. Initially, regions next to large bodies of water could trade by ship, with water transport being less costly than moving goods via land. Not until railroads came about did land transport become cheap enough in many regions to make trade profitable. Transportation could make many natural resources cost prohibitive for extraction. But transportation is not the only reason for the difference between conquerors and conquered, other reasons include having pack animals, the skills necessary to utilize the geographic resources and having right incentives in place to allow the utilization. Many times, only with foreign help could the resources be utilized, as foreigners provided many valuable skills and services.
Sowell’s descriptions focus on the internal cultural situation of the peoples. This book has varied timelines, for many empires and peoples only once existed such as the in the Western Hemisphere Indians, while many African and Slavic nations are relatively new politically. Expressing the changes in language, politics, and technology, Sowell does not miss much of how life was impacted on the conquered or the conquerors. By articulating the impact of policies on people locally and generally creates many powerful historical timeless lessons.
April 18, 2024
Incredible book. Thomas Sowell is a treasure. Whenever I see a quote by Thomas Sowell that I really like, it's always from this book, so I decided to read it. This is his 3rd book in a series on migrations and culture. I skipped those and went straight into this one. He has so many well evidenced and groundbreaking ideas in here. This is a very rich book. I keep skimming through it even though I've finished it.
His main thesis is that cultures are given too much deference. Cultures are just a human community's attempt to adept to an environment. They aren't sacred. And the different things a culture values or does not value have a huge impact on outcomes when people enter a globally competitive economy. He goes through thousands of years of history to show how different communities developed different strengths, which he refers to as cultural capital. He illustrates how cultural capital (or deficits) can persist even when a people move thousands of miles away and hundreds of years have passed.
He gave a fascinating analysis of the difference in outcomes of enslaved Africans in the US versus Brazil. He argues that blacks were more harshly oppressed in the US. Many have argued that slavery is the reason that black people today are not doing as well as they could be. But Sowell finds that the amount of oppression a people went through has little connection to later outcomes. What does have a large impact is that community's access to gaining high levels of cultural capital. Despite the incredible oppression that black people endured in the US, they had more exposure to high levels of skill and scholarly education than black communities anywhere else in the world. And this exposure best explains why black people in the US have the best outcomes of any black people in the world. Sowell concludes that cultural capital trumps discrimination on outcomes.
He did an interesting treatment on the Scottish. He catalogued how they went from one of the most backwards people in Europe, to the taking the Enlightenment to new heights. They excelled at engineering, philosophy, and writing. My family happens to be of Scottish heritage. And two of my uncles are engineers and I studied philosophy in college. He does similarly fascinating treatments on the English, Welsh, German, Polish, Russian, etc peoples.
I like the case he made that not all conquests reduce a peoples' level of civilization, sometimes it elevates it. He gave the example of the Roman conquest of England. The English were close to where the Native Americans were technologically when the Romans invaded. They were illiterate, lived in mud huts, etc. The Romans came and moved them ahead 1000 years. Suddenly they had stone buildings, glass, hot baths, writing, etc. The Romans were there for 400 years. And when they left, the English lost all of that. They went back to living in mud huts. The stone ruins that were left led to myths about giants that used to live in England, because that was the only way they could imagine anyone building with such materials.
Anyway, great book, I highly recommend. I look forward to reading many more Sowell books.
His main thesis is that cultures are given too much deference. Cultures are just a human community's attempt to adept to an environment. They aren't sacred. And the different things a culture values or does not value have a huge impact on outcomes when people enter a globally competitive economy. He goes through thousands of years of history to show how different communities developed different strengths, which he refers to as cultural capital. He illustrates how cultural capital (or deficits) can persist even when a people move thousands of miles away and hundreds of years have passed.
He gave a fascinating analysis of the difference in outcomes of enslaved Africans in the US versus Brazil. He argues that blacks were more harshly oppressed in the US. Many have argued that slavery is the reason that black people today are not doing as well as they could be. But Sowell finds that the amount of oppression a people went through has little connection to later outcomes. What does have a large impact is that community's access to gaining high levels of cultural capital. Despite the incredible oppression that black people endured in the US, they had more exposure to high levels of skill and scholarly education than black communities anywhere else in the world. And this exposure best explains why black people in the US have the best outcomes of any black people in the world. Sowell concludes that cultural capital trumps discrimination on outcomes.
He did an interesting treatment on the Scottish. He catalogued how they went from one of the most backwards people in Europe, to the taking the Enlightenment to new heights. They excelled at engineering, philosophy, and writing. My family happens to be of Scottish heritage. And two of my uncles are engineers and I studied philosophy in college. He does similarly fascinating treatments on the English, Welsh, German, Polish, Russian, etc peoples.
I like the case he made that not all conquests reduce a peoples' level of civilization, sometimes it elevates it. He gave the example of the Roman conquest of England. The English were close to where the Native Americans were technologically when the Romans invaded. They were illiterate, lived in mud huts, etc. The Romans came and moved them ahead 1000 years. Suddenly they had stone buildings, glass, hot baths, writing, etc. The Romans were there for 400 years. And when they left, the English lost all of that. They went back to living in mud huts. The stone ruins that were left led to myths about giants that used to live in England, because that was the only way they could imagine anyone building with such materials.
Anyway, great book, I highly recommend. I look forward to reading many more Sowell books.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 109 reviews