What do you think?
Rate this book
Intellectuals and Race
Thomas Sowell's incisive critique of the intellectuals' destructive role in shaping ideas about race in AmericaIntellectuals and Race is a radical book in the original sense of one that goes to the root of the problem. The role of intellectuals in racial strife is explored in an international context that puts the American experience in a wholly new light. The views of individual intellectuals have spanned the spectrum, but the views of intellectuals as a whole have tended to cluster. Indeed, these views have clustered at one end of the spectrum in the early twentieth century and then clustered at the opposite end of the spectrum in the late twentieth century. Moreover, these radically different views of race in these two eras were held by intellectuals whose views on other issues were very similar in both eras.Intellectuals and Race is not, however, a book about history, even though it has much historical evidence, as well as demographic, geographic, economic and statistical evidence -- all of it directed toward testing the underlying assumptions about race that have prevailed at times among intellectuals in general, and especially intellectuals at the highest levels. Nor is this simply a theoretical exercise. The impact of intellectuals' ideas and crusades on the larger society, both past and present, is the ultimate concern. These ideas and crusades have ranged widely from racial theories of intelligence to eugenics to "social justice" and multiculturalism. In addition to in-depth examinations of these and other issues, Intellectuals and Race explores the incentives, the visions and the rationales that drive intellectuals at the highest levels to conclusions that have often turned out to be counterproductive and even disastrous, not only for particular racial or ethnic groups, but for societies as a whole.
194 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 12, 2013
212 people are currently reading
4063 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Sowell
88 books5,552 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 215 reviews
November 17, 2014
Remarkable! Thomas Sowell is our day's Booker T. Washington, and his books are essential to understanding race relations and economics in America. Sowell's books on economics and race are quickly filling our shelves, as he is by far the most coherent, data-driven (over 30 pages of footnotes in this book alone!) and realistic voice for why there are disparities among races in America. This book challenges the empty narrative and false dichotomy presented by progressives that disparities are due to either genetic determinism (early 20th century idea) or discrimination (rhetoric of today). I highly recommend Intellectuals & Race, as Sowell particularly address the "intelligentsia" and their ideas, often presented and promoted without tangible evidence. His version is in step with history, economics, social and biological truths that every American ought to consider as he forms his ideas about race.
August 26, 2020
Intellectuals and Race is a refreshingly honest, but rare, discussion of race and the history of intellectuals and race in the western world. Sowell is a real thinker who has no use for the politically correct pabulum our culture is drenched in today. Sadly, far too many of our black youths who idolize athletes and entertainers, many of them being convicted felons, likely have no idea who Thomas Sowell is. Sowell’s is the kind of intellectually stimulating thought that should be taught in our schools.
August 8, 2015
I used to count Sowell among those with whom we (the vast majority of scholars working in the fields he critiques in this book) had to engage as he has in the past raised serious and important questions about the assumptions of scholarship around race, etc.
This book fails, miserably, to meet that standard- as I gather much of his more recent work does. His audience is clearly not those whose objective is to think seriously about issues of race/racial justice/racial inequality, but rather those who are searching for a non-white writer to give voice to their deepest resentments and private intuitions about racial difference. The underlying assumptions here, though, are not terribly distant from the kind of tired "cultural pathology" tropes that have been in currency for the last 40 years- some of which he at least refers to directly.
I'l identify just a few criticisms, though there are nearly too many to name, but such a seriously regarded scholar deserves some specific criticisms.
For a book whose subject is race, there is a terribly imprecise treatment of the construct, and he often conflates, confuses or otherwise misrepresents the differences between race, ethnicity, and culture. These differences are important in general, but especially important to the kind of culturalist argument he is advancing.
His effort to suggest (with a few carefully placed caveats) that eugenics and biological racism - both of which still have some purchase in the far corners of the paleoconservative movements today- are essentially a phenomenon of the progressive Left is hugely irresponsible and dishonest. It's absolutely true that many progressive-era thinkers bought into and propagated pseudo-scientific racism, but the suggestion that it is necessarily the product of "social engineering," or that these ideas were somehow a product of progressive ideology or politics, or that they were not FAR MORE constitutive of the conservative movements of the day is terrible dishonest. This whole line of argument, irresponsible and ahistorical as it is, has been propagated by Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" among many other paces- with reminders that "The Klan were Democrats," etc. Of course this is, like what Sowell has done here, an intentional conflation of party with ideology, etc. Conservative movements have always been characterized by an affinity for- or at least acceptance of "natural hierarchies" and scientific/naturalistic racism is one species of this perspective. Note that unlike Sowell, I am NOT implying the conservatism leads to eugenics, not in the least.
His effort to make his culturalist argument about race more robust by referring to majority/minority relations in other societies is irresponsible as well because universalizing a cultural argument undermines the cultural context. Ethnic Han Chinese in Malaysia are not the same as WASPs in the US for a whole variety of reasons, for example.
The sloppiest rhetorical move in the book was to suggest that somehow "The American Dilemma" was a watershed moment for nearly all progressives that caused a wholesale migration from eugenicism to the modern racial liberalism that Sowell so decries. Not only does he not explain a mechanism by which this process might have happened, but provides no evidence of individuals or organizations that made this transition. This is the fingerprint of a fundamentally unserious writer- to find a narrative device (for which there is no evidence) that ties up the whole "progressives are responsible for all racism" deceit in an ugly bow.
There is, however, considerable evidence in the academic literature that those who once made eugenicist/biological arguments for racial inequality now make the kinds of culturalist arguments that Sowell is advancing. (See Larry Bobo's recent work, for example). Because it is no longer considered polite, for example, to suggest that people of color are more likely to be poor because of their inferior brains, THE SAME people today are much more likely to couch their resentment and dismissal in reflections on "Black Culture."
While Sowell half-heartedly concedes that structural factors maybe be the cause of and/or intertwined with cultural practices of, for example "Southern African Americans," he seems to gloss over the fact that changing structural relationships might be possible or desirable. This is a rather significant error.
Perhaps the most shocking claim in the entire book, carefully couched in condemnation of the institution of slavery, was his subtle suggestion that those descended from slaves in the US were lucky for such an advantage relative to the current peoples of West Africa. This is a long and well-worn suggestion that has great currency in the Neo-Confederate and White Supremacist communities today, but is frankly well beneath the kind of discourse that Sowell suggests he is promoting.
There is some recent work as well about the experiences with discrimination of recent African Immigrants that also undercuts the culturalist explanation- it turns out that being perceived as "Black" regardless of your own culture and values (and other opportunity structures" can limit one's life chances in ways that matter. (See Quincy Stewart's work on this)
Unlike the caricature of the sentimentalist guilt-ridden disconnected radicals determined to be "on the side of the Angels," most folks who take this work seriously- that is understanding racial inequality- hold themselves and their work to a much, much higher standard than the quality of this book. There is, even within the academy from which Sowell is so estranged, a shift toward understanding culture better as it relates to racial inequality. There's a serious effort to really understand the complexity of the yawning gaps of racial inequality in our country. Problems that, in many ways, are getting worse and not better.
But that was never the point of this book. This is a polemic designed not only to grant absolution to those who have supported and do support systems, policies and practices that create and exacerbate racial inequality, but it's also a dressed-up smear job directed at those who oppose them. This is a book written for resentful white people designed to provide a fancy justification for opposition to racial justice.
Sowell is clearly a gifted intellectual whose influence is especially significant in certain quarters of our society. But this particular effort represents a new low in pandering and dishonesty. Those of you who love this intellectual so much should demand more of him. And he of himself.
This book fails, miserably, to meet that standard- as I gather much of his more recent work does. His audience is clearly not those whose objective is to think seriously about issues of race/racial justice/racial inequality, but rather those who are searching for a non-white writer to give voice to their deepest resentments and private intuitions about racial difference. The underlying assumptions here, though, are not terribly distant from the kind of tired "cultural pathology" tropes that have been in currency for the last 40 years- some of which he at least refers to directly.
I'l identify just a few criticisms, though there are nearly too many to name, but such a seriously regarded scholar deserves some specific criticisms.
For a book whose subject is race, there is a terribly imprecise treatment of the construct, and he often conflates, confuses or otherwise misrepresents the differences between race, ethnicity, and culture. These differences are important in general, but especially important to the kind of culturalist argument he is advancing.
His effort to suggest (with a few carefully placed caveats) that eugenics and biological racism - both of which still have some purchase in the far corners of the paleoconservative movements today- are essentially a phenomenon of the progressive Left is hugely irresponsible and dishonest. It's absolutely true that many progressive-era thinkers bought into and propagated pseudo-scientific racism, but the suggestion that it is necessarily the product of "social engineering," or that these ideas were somehow a product of progressive ideology or politics, or that they were not FAR MORE constitutive of the conservative movements of the day is terrible dishonest. This whole line of argument, irresponsible and ahistorical as it is, has been propagated by Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" among many other paces- with reminders that "The Klan were Democrats," etc. Of course this is, like what Sowell has done here, an intentional conflation of party with ideology, etc. Conservative movements have always been characterized by an affinity for- or at least acceptance of "natural hierarchies" and scientific/naturalistic racism is one species of this perspective. Note that unlike Sowell, I am NOT implying the conservatism leads to eugenics, not in the least.
His effort to make his culturalist argument about race more robust by referring to majority/minority relations in other societies is irresponsible as well because universalizing a cultural argument undermines the cultural context. Ethnic Han Chinese in Malaysia are not the same as WASPs in the US for a whole variety of reasons, for example.
The sloppiest rhetorical move in the book was to suggest that somehow "The American Dilemma" was a watershed moment for nearly all progressives that caused a wholesale migration from eugenicism to the modern racial liberalism that Sowell so decries. Not only does he not explain a mechanism by which this process might have happened, but provides no evidence of individuals or organizations that made this transition. This is the fingerprint of a fundamentally unserious writer- to find a narrative device (for which there is no evidence) that ties up the whole "progressives are responsible for all racism" deceit in an ugly bow.
There is, however, considerable evidence in the academic literature that those who once made eugenicist/biological arguments for racial inequality now make the kinds of culturalist arguments that Sowell is advancing. (See Larry Bobo's recent work, for example). Because it is no longer considered polite, for example, to suggest that people of color are more likely to be poor because of their inferior brains, THE SAME people today are much more likely to couch their resentment and dismissal in reflections on "Black Culture."
While Sowell half-heartedly concedes that structural factors maybe be the cause of and/or intertwined with cultural practices of, for example "Southern African Americans," he seems to gloss over the fact that changing structural relationships might be possible or desirable. This is a rather significant error.
Perhaps the most shocking claim in the entire book, carefully couched in condemnation of the institution of slavery, was his subtle suggestion that those descended from slaves in the US were lucky for such an advantage relative to the current peoples of West Africa. This is a long and well-worn suggestion that has great currency in the Neo-Confederate and White Supremacist communities today, but is frankly well beneath the kind of discourse that Sowell suggests he is promoting.
There is some recent work as well about the experiences with discrimination of recent African Immigrants that also undercuts the culturalist explanation- it turns out that being perceived as "Black" regardless of your own culture and values (and other opportunity structures" can limit one's life chances in ways that matter. (See Quincy Stewart's work on this)
Unlike the caricature of the sentimentalist guilt-ridden disconnected radicals determined to be "on the side of the Angels," most folks who take this work seriously- that is understanding racial inequality- hold themselves and their work to a much, much higher standard than the quality of this book. There is, even within the academy from which Sowell is so estranged, a shift toward understanding culture better as it relates to racial inequality. There's a serious effort to really understand the complexity of the yawning gaps of racial inequality in our country. Problems that, in many ways, are getting worse and not better.
But that was never the point of this book. This is a polemic designed not only to grant absolution to those who have supported and do support systems, policies and practices that create and exacerbate racial inequality, but it's also a dressed-up smear job directed at those who oppose them. This is a book written for resentful white people designed to provide a fancy justification for opposition to racial justice.
Sowell is clearly a gifted intellectual whose influence is especially significant in certain quarters of our society. But this particular effort represents a new low in pandering and dishonesty. Those of you who love this intellectual so much should demand more of him. And he of himself.
August 16, 2021
Thomas Sowell is one of the brightest minds around today. His books on the topics of economics, "intellectual elites," and race make for fascinating and informative reading. Intellectuals and Race is another of his thoroughly researched and well-written books that gets right to the core of the many issues that he then develops and discusses. These include racial theories of intelligence, Eugenics, social justice, and multiculturalism. He also explores the incentives, visions, and rationales that the intellectual elites rely on to reach conclusions that often turn out to be wrong and even harmful to some of the racial or ethnic groups they claim to be championing. The author also explains how the "business" of race developed by professional outrage masters and where the money comes from, some as donations but also treats and intimidation of large corporations, and where it goes, much into the pockets of the captains of the race and grievence industry. His books are so logical that they are difficult to refute with actual facts. If you have not read any of the books by Thomas Sowell in your life, treat yourself, feed your mind, and get started.
September 19, 2020
It’s impossible to overstate how thought-provoking ‘Intellectuals and Race’ is, especially juxtaposed to the ‘1619 Project’ and ‘critical race theory’. Many of us are reading points and counterpoints regarding their validity. I have serious concerns with Dr. Sowell’s powerful indictment of what he calls the ‘Race Industry.’ Notwithstanding his denunciation of these community activists, Dr. Sowell is a wellspring of knowledge on race, global slavery, immigration, et cetera. On intellectual grounds, the book is solid, I couldn’t put it down.
January 20, 2020
I sometimes forget how much I enjoy reading Thomas Sowell. He approaches his topics academically and professionally but isn't afraid to take on the perspective of the day. And he does so in a manner that, whether you end up agreeing with him or not, makes you truly think.
I think Intellectuals and Race should be required reading for law students. (And possibly other students too but I can only speak as a law student.) It provides a perspective we don't get but it is one that shouldn't be ignored because it pertains so much to what we hear everyday in the classroom. It is as much a reminder to stay humble as it is to examine closely held beliefs and mantras.
This is not a very long read but it is a profound one and well-worth chewing over. In fact, it is exactly the launching point I was looking for as a beginning to my criminal procedure class (really more of a criminal justice reform class.)
I think Intellectuals and Race should be required reading for law students. (And possibly other students too but I can only speak as a law student.) It provides a perspective we don't get but it is one that shouldn't be ignored because it pertains so much to what we hear everyday in the classroom. It is as much a reminder to stay humble as it is to examine closely held beliefs and mantras.
This is not a very long read but it is a profound one and well-worth chewing over. In fact, it is exactly the launching point I was looking for as a beginning to my criminal procedure class (really more of a criminal justice reform class.)
September 17, 2020
October 2014 I did not find this well written, but very interesting. His thesis is that intellectuals in the 1900s blamed race differences simply on genetics (social Darwinism) and that modern intellectuals blame race differences simply on the racism of society. Neither of these are correct. This book is strongly anti-multiculturalism. I certainly buy Sowell more thanthe textbook on Multiculturalism by James Banks.
I just read this again. This is much better written than White Fragility or How to be an Anti-Racist. And I would recommend it as an antidote. I do feel that the end is weak. But it is a portion of a larger book I believe.
I just read this again. This is much better written than White Fragility or How to be an Anti-Racist. And I would recommend it as an antidote. I do feel that the end is weak. But it is a portion of a larger book I believe.
December 18, 2014
Extremely provocative - the "intelligentsia," which Sowell does not really define, will probably fly into a rage at this book. While some of examples could be backed up with better data - which Sowell cites as a prime criterion for testing the validity of intellectual-liberal social engineering - but his ideas are sound. In most cases he makes logical, if not emotionally satisfying, appeals to draw clearer lines between social problems that go beyond blaming majority / well-off populations.
Read
August 28, 2013Thomas Sowell never disappoints.
December 24, 2020
Mind blowing.
July 21, 2021
"There is no subject that is more in need of dispassionate analysis, careful factual research and a fearless and honest discussion than is race. Ideally, we might look to intellectuals for such things. But it is also true that the mental skills and verbal dexterity of intellectuals can be used to evade evidence and promote whatever beliefs or agendas are in vogue among their peers. The intelligentsia in the media can decide what to emphasize, what to downplay and what to ignore entirely when it comes to race..."
Intellectuals and Race was another powerhouse of a book from Thomas Sowell. He drops the above quote in the book's intro, setting the pace for the writing to follow.
Author Thomas Sowell is an American economist, social theorist, and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell University and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked at think tanks such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he served as the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy. Sowell writes from a libertarian–conservative perspective. Sowell has written more than thirty books, and his work has been widely anthologized. He is a National Humanities Medal recipient for innovative scholarship which incorporated history, economics and political science.
Thomas Sowell:
Intellectuals and Race is my 4th book from Sowell. Sowell's writing here was exceptional, as usual. His analysis is super-nuanced and insightful, in line with other titles of his that I've read.
As its title implies, the writing here fields some of the most hotly debated and controversial topics there are. Never one to shy away from controversy, Sowell tackles these topics head-on. Accordingly, this book is sure to garner many polarizing reactions. A cursory glance at the other reviews here confirms this. Ironically enough, many of the people here posting those negative reviews are exhibiting the same groupthink and ideological possession that he speaks to in this book. The irony is (of course) always lost on them...
Sowell wastes no time with small talk, and jumps right in; dropping this quote early on, that speaks to the current orthodoxy surrounding issues of race within the intelligentsia:
He lays out a central theme for the book here. If data and empiricism are not being considered in these discussions, then the matter has descended into the realm of religious dogma. He writes:
As is par for the course for the writing in Sowell's books, he cautions the reader against simplistic black-and-white interpretations of incredibly complex topics. He writes of group-level differences here:
And talks about the fallacy in seeking "equality" across various domains between all groups, noting that:
So what is the takeaway? Well, it's complicated. To get to the bottom of these complex and contentious issues, ideology and ego stakes need to be left at the door, empirical evidence needs to take the front seat, and a nuanced approach needs to be considered. Sadly, none of the aforementioned is being implemented in these discussions. Quite the opposite, actually.
Unfortunately, people have an inborn tendency to sort the world into black and white categorizations; preferring simplistic, cohesive narratives over a more detailed and thorough analysis that often does not conform to these rigid categorizations.
**********************
I enjoyed Intellectuals and Race. Thomas Sowell is one of (if not the) most formidable contrarian thinkers of our modern age, IMHO, and I always enjoy hearing him lay out a thesis, and bring his reasoning to bear on controversial topics like the ones presented here.
This was an excellent short book, although there was a fair bit of overlap with his book Discrimination and Disparities.
I would definitely recommend this one.
5 stars.
Intellectuals and Race was another powerhouse of a book from Thomas Sowell. He drops the above quote in the book's intro, setting the pace for the writing to follow.
Author Thomas Sowell is an American economist, social theorist, and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell University and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked at think tanks such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he served as the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy. Sowell writes from a libertarian–conservative perspective. Sowell has written more than thirty books, and his work has been widely anthologized. He is a National Humanities Medal recipient for innovative scholarship which incorporated history, economics and political science.
Thomas Sowell:
Intellectuals and Race is my 4th book from Sowell. Sowell's writing here was exceptional, as usual. His analysis is super-nuanced and insightful, in line with other titles of his that I've read.
As its title implies, the writing here fields some of the most hotly debated and controversial topics there are. Never one to shy away from controversy, Sowell tackles these topics head-on. Accordingly, this book is sure to garner many polarizing reactions. A cursory glance at the other reviews here confirms this. Ironically enough, many of the people here posting those negative reviews are exhibiting the same groupthink and ideological possession that he speaks to in this book. The irony is (of course) always lost on them...
Sowell wastes no time with small talk, and jumps right in; dropping this quote early on, that speaks to the current orthodoxy surrounding issues of race within the intelligentsia:
"Because intellectuals’ assumptions about these disparities are so deeply ingrained, so widely disseminated, and have such powerful ramifications on so many issues, it is worth taking a closer and longer look at the facts of the real world, now and in the past."
He lays out a central theme for the book here. If data and empiricism are not being considered in these discussions, then the matter has descended into the realm of religious dogma. He writes:
"The question arises again whether we are going to accept statistical data as evidence of racial discrimination when it fits the preconceptions of the intelligentsia and reject it when it goes counter to those preconceptions."
As is par for the course for the writing in Sowell's books, he cautions the reader against simplistic black-and-white interpretations of incredibly complex topics. He writes of group-level differences here:
"How could people living in the Himalayas develop the seafaring skills of people living in ports around the Mediterranean? How could the Bedouins of the Sahara know as much about fishing as the Polynesians of the Pacific— or the Polynesians know as much about camels as the Bedouins? How could Eskimos be as proficient at growing tropical crops as the people of Hawaii or the Caribbean?
Such considerations are far more crucial for practical knowledge than for academic knowledge. Ph.D.s in mathematics can have the same knowledge in Delhi as in Paris. However, in the world of mundane but consequential knowledge, how could an industrial revolution have originated in places which lack the key natural resources— iron ore and coal— and are too geographically inaccessible for those resources to be transported to them without prohibitive costs? The industrial revolution could hardly have begun in the Balkans or Hawaii, regardless of what people were living there— and neither could the people in those places have developed the same industrial skills, habits and ways of life at the same time as people in other places where the industrial revolution did in fact begin.
There is no need to replace genetic determinism with geographic determinism. While there are other factors which operate against the presumed equality of developed capabilities among people with equal potential, the point here is that geography alone is enough to prevent equality of developed capabilities, even if all races have identical potentialities and there is no discrimination. Nor is it necessary to determine the relative weights of geographic, demographic, cultural and other factors, when the more fundamental point is that each of these factors makes equal outcomes among races, classes or other subdivisions of the human species progressively less likely..."
"...These are among the many reasons why societies, races and civilizations are extremely unlikely to have identical achievements, even in the complete absence of genetic deficiencies or social injustices.
What does all this boil down to?
1. Grossly uneven distributions of racial, ethnic and other groups in numerous fields of endeavor have been common in countries around the world and for centuries of recorded history.
2. The even, proportional or statistically random distribution of these groups, which has been taken as a norm, deviations from which have been regarded as evidence of either genetic differences in ability (in the early 20th century) or as evidence of maltreatment by others (in the late 20th century) has seldom, if ever, been demonstrated empirically, or even been asked to be demonstrated."
And talks about the fallacy in seeking "equality" across various domains between all groups, noting that:
"Among the ideas about race currently in vogue among the intelligentsia are some with enormous potential for needless personal and social tragedies. The apparently benign concept of “equality,” with its numerous and even mutually contradictory meanings, is a fertile source of dangers to individuals, races and whole societies. Equality of treatment by the law, for example, is very different from equality of economic outcomes, and equality of potentialities is very different from equality of developed capabilities. The ease with which many among the intelligentsia turn inequalities of results into “inequities” or “discrimination” might suggest that equality is so automatic that its absence is what needs to be explained— and corrected— despite the gross inequalities in achievements and prosperity that have been common in countries around the world and for centuries of recorded history, even in circumstances in which those more fortunate have had no power to discriminate against those who were less fortunate..."
So what is the takeaway? Well, it's complicated. To get to the bottom of these complex and contentious issues, ideology and ego stakes need to be left at the door, empirical evidence needs to take the front seat, and a nuanced approach needs to be considered. Sadly, none of the aforementioned is being implemented in these discussions. Quite the opposite, actually.
Unfortunately, people have an inborn tendency to sort the world into black and white categorizations; preferring simplistic, cohesive narratives over a more detailed and thorough analysis that often does not conform to these rigid categorizations.
**********************
I enjoyed Intellectuals and Race. Thomas Sowell is one of (if not the) most formidable contrarian thinkers of our modern age, IMHO, and I always enjoy hearing him lay out a thesis, and bring his reasoning to bear on controversial topics like the ones presented here.
This was an excellent short book, although there was a fair bit of overlap with his book Discrimination and Disparities.
I would definitely recommend this one.
5 stars.
November 25, 2022
This is stellar work. Sowell argues that disparities in outcome are not evidence of racism or injustice. He further argues that there are geographical and demographic factors that work internally to produce disparities—an often ignored fact by the intellectual elites who like to look at everything externally. For example, sub-Saharan Africans, as Sowell observes, are among the most insulated people in the world and also have internal disparities due to multiple languages. I can attest to this as one raised in Ghana, where there are about 50 indigenous languages! (I can only speak one of them!). The reality is that even within ethnic groups, you will find class distinctions. This is true among the blacks in Chicago and the Italians in Harlem. The fact is that no ethnic group is a monolith.
Sowell has brilliantly fleshed out a lot of my own thinking on this issue. He has armed me with arguments and data against those who claim to be fighting on the side of the angels in the race issue but are hurting minorities by failing to acknowledge internal factors that these groups must overcome. Sowell is not saying that external factors don’t count. He’s saying that we cannot ignore the internal realities working against the ethnic minorities we claim to be helping. The result, as he argues, is that members of more fortunate groups are left with a choice between arrogance and guilt, whereas members of the lagging groups are forced to see themselves as inherently and perpetually inferior.
Sowell has brilliantly fleshed out a lot of my own thinking on this issue. He has armed me with arguments and data against those who claim to be fighting on the side of the angels in the race issue but are hurting minorities by failing to acknowledge internal factors that these groups must overcome. Sowell is not saying that external factors don’t count. He’s saying that we cannot ignore the internal realities working against the ethnic minorities we claim to be helping. The result, as he argues, is that members of more fortunate groups are left with a choice between arrogance and guilt, whereas members of the lagging groups are forced to see themselves as inherently and perpetually inferior.
July 16, 2018
Super interesting. Sowell argues that academia's ideas about race created the social unrest that led to the first world wars and are doing the same thing now. Church and state must always be separated. But people don't realize that academia is now a church. It used to be priests that made the king legitimate. Now academia serves that same function for the state.
Sowell uses many interesting examples to show that poverty culture of a specific racial group combined with victim ideology exists in different places all over the world, not just the US. Legalized discrimination to help one group that is too low or hurt one group that is too high has been enacted in various places and times on every continent throughout history. (And it never works out well.)
Sowell believes the solution lies in culture. He shows example after example of different impoverished racial groups rising by copying what the more successful cultures around them are doing, which in the modern day has always been education. Education is the golden ticket out of poverty.
And that is a far more interesting idea than Sowell realizes. If academia is the new church, it has a stranglehold on the world. You cannot rise unless you join. Whatever culture you are a part of, it better kowtow to academia, or it will be kept down. Doesn't matter if what academia is preaching is rational or not, they are the current super powerful, super scary priests of the modern day. Government has sanctioned their church. You cannot work in virtually any well-paying field without their seal of approval.
For more on the fascinating power that is academia, read this book review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Sowell uses many interesting examples to show that poverty culture of a specific racial group combined with victim ideology exists in different places all over the world, not just the US. Legalized discrimination to help one group that is too low or hurt one group that is too high has been enacted in various places and times on every continent throughout history. (And it never works out well.)
Sowell believes the solution lies in culture. He shows example after example of different impoverished racial groups rising by copying what the more successful cultures around them are doing, which in the modern day has always been education. Education is the golden ticket out of poverty.
And that is a far more interesting idea than Sowell realizes. If academia is the new church, it has a stranglehold on the world. You cannot rise unless you join. Whatever culture you are a part of, it better kowtow to academia, or it will be kept down. Doesn't matter if what academia is preaching is rational or not, they are the current super powerful, super scary priests of the modern day. Government has sanctioned their church. You cannot work in virtually any well-paying field without their seal of approval.
For more on the fascinating power that is academia, read this book review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
July 30, 2020
I picked this up, expecting to disagree with the author since he has been so widely been lauded by those I generally disagree with (admitting my bias here). But I felt it important to read some of his work for myself so I could evaluate the merits of his arguments. Had he been more balanced in his writing and conclusions, I might have been able to assent to some of his premises. Unfortunately, Sowell consistently demonstrates the same lazy stereotyping of liberals as he decries has been done to conservatives. Rather than suggesting a more nuanced approach to issues involving race in America, he proposes that conservative, dissenting voices have simply been silenced by the evil liberal intelligentsia. I believe that solutions to complicated social issues will require nuanced BOTH/AND solutions rather than simplistic EITHER/OR ones. Unfortunately, Sowell seems more interested in defending the conservative status quo than in advancing solutions.
July 25, 2020
Think for yourself.
June 9, 2022
How can anyone take seriously a book on "race" that at various times treats the following as "races:" African, Sub-Saharan African, Nigerian, Black West Indian, Black Muslim, and Black? This is absurd on its face and Sowell never acknowledges, let alone justifies it. These cannot, by definition, be different races, but they are for Sowell whenever they are a convenient way to slice data or proffer an anecdote.
That is just one of copious reasons I cannot recommend against this book strongly enough. This is a polemic, not a work of scholarship. It is full of errors, half-truths, and blatant deceptions.
At the very least, check the footnotes and citations if you read. Not when there's no citation at all for facts. Look up his sources when you think an important point is made.
I read this book expecting Sowell to challenge my views and preconceived notions. I'm well-read on these issues, but one has to expose your thoughts to the marketplace of ideas and new information or you simply stagnate in old pools.
I was disappointed and disgusted that someone of Sowell's capabilities produced such drek. These are concepts Sowell has been repeating over and over since the early 70s with only slight variation regardless of developments or data that contradict his theories. The book is also racist - and not just for the reasons you might think.
Sowell is extremely learned and intelligent and I won't deny he makes some points worth discussing. That makes it all the more disappointing and frustrating that he spends so much of the book on disingenuous, misleading attempts to placate what his target audiences want to hear.
It would take a book many times longer than Sowell's to document all his deceptions. I'll have to stick to a few examples.
1) Whether one agrees with Sowell's ideology or general conclusions, one should be at least troubled by a book on race that treats Irish, Chinese, Malaysian, European, Slav, Cuban, Lebanese, Muslim, Jew, Greek, Indian, Belgian, Sinaheles , Argentinian, Scottish highlander, Costa Rican, German, Mayan, African, and Black as different RACES to be contrasted and compared. No system of human classification would label ALL (or almost any) of these as separate "races" - whether it be modern social constructions, "scientific racism," taxonomic models, polygenism, subspecies, cladistics, clines, phenotypes, genotypes, etc.
Just as he did with African, Nigerian, Black, etc., Sowell treats - when it suits him - the following as different races: European, Italian, Briton, Scottish highlander, Scottish lowlander, Gaelic-speaking Scott, English-speaking Scott, and Caucasian. Again, he treats as races: Asian, Asian and Pacific Islander, Asian-American, Japanese, Chinese, Tamil, etc.
You cannot take what he says on the subject of race seriously - except as an example of how not to think on the subject. Or arguably racist thinking.
2) An author who talks about certain "races" like the Irish and Blacks as "given to excitement, violence and emotionalism" and being particularly easily manipulated by "flamboyant leaders" and "strident rhetoric" perhaps should not be considered an expert on race or racism. They are an example of racism.
3) Sowell firmly believes that races (using his flexible definitions) have "ingrained characteristics" and lack the same "genetic potential."
Italians are "frugal" and "scupulous[ly] honest in the repayment of debt." Irish-Americans are alcoholics compared to other ethnic Americans, as are Estonians compared to Uzbekis. Malaysians are lazy compared to Chinese.
Although "developed and passed down," Germans are now inherently the best at brewing beer and Jains at cutting diamonds. Jews are "simply the best" in the apparel industry and watch-making.
The infamous "No Irish Need Apply" barriers were justified to modify the Irish's "proclivity to disease, violence, and social pathology."
These are "inescapable facts" Sowell insists and not "stereotypes." He is so very wrong. These are stereotypes. NINA was ethnic discrimination.
3) Last, but far from least, Sowell lies.
I'll illustrate with a somewhat complicated and lengthy example of the chapter in which Sowell is arguing that there is no basis to conclude that slavery has left a legacy in the U.S. There are several layers to Sowell's deception.
A) Sowell begins by asserting "few facts in history" have been hidden as the history of slavery. He suggests intellectuals have led Americans to believe we invented slavery and we are thus unaware that history existed throughout history. Of course, that is absurd.
Although many appear to be fooled by Sowell's Jedi mind trick, a few seconds reflection would tell them the slavery in history has not been "hidden." Ever perused the Bible? It is chock full of slaves. Heard of Moses and the Israelites escaping slavery, aka Exodus? What about Joseph and the Coat of Many Colors (aka "Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat")? The Ten Commandments in Exodus: 20-2 begins: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”
Ever hear of the Roman Coliseum and Gladiators? Have you heard of Spartacus? Ben Hur? Mayan sacrifices of slaves?
Tales from Gilgamesh to 1001 Arabian Nights (Aladdin, Ali Baba) and many beyond are full of slaves. St. Patrick, St. Vincent de Paul, many other Christian saints, Pope Saint Clement I, a few other Popes, Diogenes, Aesop (who wrote the Fables), Alexandre Dumas, etc., were slaves.
If you have heard of any of these examples of slavery or slaves or any other myriad examples of historical slavery ubiquitous in our culture, you know Sowell is lying when he says intellectuals have peddled the notion the U.S. or the Atlantic Slave Trade invented slavery and hidden that history ever occurred elsewhere.
No doubt, Americans may be pretty ignorant about historical slavery around the world, but it would make sense for them to know more about U.S. slavery and they are pretty ignorant about that.
B) Sowell next "explains" that, prior to the 18th Century, no one thought slavery was wrong and, even then, that was "an idea peculiar to Western civilization." This is a wicked lie, even excluding slaves throughout history who have objected not just to their own bondage but to human bondage.
Examples of those speaking out that slavery was inherently wrong or seeking to abolish it prior to the 18th Century, outside Western Civilization, or both include:
*Greeks including some Stoics and Alcidamas (4th century BC);
*Some Romans including Stoics;
*Jewish Essenes (1st Cent. BC);
*Jewish Therapeutae (1st Cent, BC);
*China's Wang Mang (17 AD);
*St. Gregory of Nazinanzus (4th Cent.);
*St. Theodore Studites (9th Cent.);
*Korea's Choson dynasty (1392) (to a degree);
*Hongwu Emperor of the Ming Dynasty (14th Cent);
*Bartolome de Albornoz of Mexico (1573);
*Japan's Chancellor Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1590); and
*Quakers, such as in the U.S. in 1688.
This non-exhaustive list (pulled from sources Sowell himself cites) proves the lie.
It's a silly lie. But Sowell wishes to paint a picture in which the West - and the U.S. - are unique heroes in the history of slavery.
C) According to Sowell, Western Civilization was unique and first in banning slavery and acted altruistically in spending:
"more than a century destroying slavery, not only within Western civilization itself, but also in other countries around the world, over the often bitter and sometimes armed resistance of people in other societies. Only the overwhelming military power of Western nations during the age of imperialism made this possible."
Lot of lies there - I'm going to skip rebutting them all. We'll see a bit of detail on this, but I will note:
(i) Sowell equates Western imperialist colonization of Africa and elsewhere with the noble cause of ending slavery.
(ii) Nothing about these assertions in any way supports Sowell's conclusion that we cannot say slavery practiced in the U.S. has had any lasting effects.
(iii) Sowell is describing "the West's" ending of its own practice of slavery, the Atlantic Slave Trade in which it was a driving force, slavery in its colonies, and pressure on a few additional countries - in addition to the colonization of Africa.
Some European colonies revolted or otherwise abolished slavery on their own decades before England and others did. Some colonies that remained under European control maintained slavery into the 20th century.
(iv) Sowell credits the U.S. with British efforts to end the Atlantic Slave Trade - even though we opposed them.
(v) There are long-running disputes about the roles of altruism (which Sowell credits) versus economic advantage and industrialization in the end of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Once Britain had outlawed slavery and its participation in the Atlantic Slave Trade, it had every incentive to shut down the participation of its economic rivals - many of whom persisted.
D) In the first part of these arguments about the "hidden" history of slavery, Sowell states:
“It is estimated that there were more slaves in India than in the entire Western Hemisphere.”
This is one of relatively few claims Sowell makes for which there is a footnote. The first source listed (used for almost all his citations) says nothing about the number of slaves in India or the Western Hemisphere, let alone compares them.
Perhaps for that reason, Sowell changes his statement in the footnote to:
"As of 1840, there were still more slaves in India than those emancipated by the British in the Caribbean."
If the reader has not checked the footnote, they have been tricked. This is a very different claim:
*We are not looking at some historical point before the Atlantic Slave Trade.
*We are not looking at the Western Hemisphere, but just the Caribbean.
*We are not comparing slaves, but slaves to those slaves emancipated by the British.
Even for those readers who check the footnote, the claim is meaningless unless they coincidentally know how many slaves had been emancipated by the British in the Caribbean as of 1840. (If the British had emancipated 2 slaves in the Caribbean and there were 3 slaves in India it's just as true as if those numbers were 5,000 and 500,000.)
Still, this revised claim is essentially supported by the source in his footnote:
"In 1840, British abolitionists discovered to their horror (although the point had been made in reply to Cropper) that there were more slaves in British India than had been emancipated in the British Caribbean."
David Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution 1770-1823 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975), p. 63.
Sowell is still deceiving the reader by omitting "British India" (let alone he context). He is actually comparing Colonial slavery in India to Colonial slavery in the Caribbean and trying to pass it off as more slavery in a non-Western land than "in the Western Hemisphere." The bait-and-switch at both ends is not accidental in an argument about how the West ended, rather than perpetrated slavery.
Second, as evident even in the one sentence, Sowell's source directly contradicts Sowell's whole theme about Western Civilization saving the world from slavery. Even as Britain led the fight to end the Atlantic Slave Trade (despite opposition from some Western nations and the U.S.), it was still carrying on with slavery in India and elsewhere.
Sowell plucked that part of a sentence out of an entire chapter about "What Abolitionists Were Up Against” in trying to get just Britain itself out of slavery (still even by the early 1900s). Sowell, in contrast, has been telling the reader a fairy tale about how slavery was swept away across the world in the 1800s (except for nasty pockets “in the Middle East and Africa”) by the West.
Sowell also turns on its head how a putative anti-slavery crusade was used as an fig leaf for imperialism and the colonization of Africa that sometimes imposed new slavery.
E) There are two overarching aspects of this that are disturbing beyond both the big and little deceptions.
First, as noted, Sowell himself recognizes that the Atlantic Slave Trade and slavery in the Americas was unique because it was based on race. When it comes to the question of whether those slavery institutions have lingering impacts on race in the United States is far more relevant than whether the Romans or Arabs had slaves.
More importantly, scholars – including the sources cited by Sowell – agree that there have been 5 “slave societies” in world history: Greece, Rome, United States, Colonial Brazil, and Colonial Cuba/Caribbean. (All part of “Western Civilization.”) They also agree that the plantation-style slavery in the U.S., Brazil, and the Caribbean was particularly brutal and violent.
So, assuming Sowell looked at all at his sources, knows all of his huffing and puffing about non-Western slavery is at best tangential.
Second, the point of the chapter, which Sowell eventually, sort of, gets to is supposed to be whether there is evidence that slavery in the U.S. has lasting effects. I won't go into his answer, but he doesn't tie it in any way to the whole preceding diatribe about the history of slavery. He knew all along it was irrelevant.
IN SUM:
These are simply small examples of the sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph, chapter after chapter deceptions and inaccuracies in this book.
Given Sowell's academic prowess, it is a shame his political ideology leads to such works.
If you do read it, please do so with extreme skepticism about its claims. Check the footnotes and check those sources. Check for yourself whether factual claims are accurate. You will find that, beyond the analysis being jaundiced and skewed, the "facts" are wrong.
That is just one of copious reasons I cannot recommend against this book strongly enough. This is a polemic, not a work of scholarship. It is full of errors, half-truths, and blatant deceptions.
At the very least, check the footnotes and citations if you read. Not when there's no citation at all for facts. Look up his sources when you think an important point is made.
I read this book expecting Sowell to challenge my views and preconceived notions. I'm well-read on these issues, but one has to expose your thoughts to the marketplace of ideas and new information or you simply stagnate in old pools.
I was disappointed and disgusted that someone of Sowell's capabilities produced such drek. These are concepts Sowell has been repeating over and over since the early 70s with only slight variation regardless of developments or data that contradict his theories. The book is also racist - and not just for the reasons you might think.
Sowell is extremely learned and intelligent and I won't deny he makes some points worth discussing. That makes it all the more disappointing and frustrating that he spends so much of the book on disingenuous, misleading attempts to placate what his target audiences want to hear.
It would take a book many times longer than Sowell's to document all his deceptions. I'll have to stick to a few examples.
1) Whether one agrees with Sowell's ideology or general conclusions, one should be at least troubled by a book on race that treats Irish, Chinese, Malaysian, European, Slav, Cuban, Lebanese, Muslim, Jew, Greek, Indian, Belgian, Sinaheles , Argentinian, Scottish highlander, Costa Rican, German, Mayan, African, and Black as different RACES to be contrasted and compared. No system of human classification would label ALL (or almost any) of these as separate "races" - whether it be modern social constructions, "scientific racism," taxonomic models, polygenism, subspecies, cladistics, clines, phenotypes, genotypes, etc.
Just as he did with African, Nigerian, Black, etc., Sowell treats - when it suits him - the following as different races: European, Italian, Briton, Scottish highlander, Scottish lowlander, Gaelic-speaking Scott, English-speaking Scott, and Caucasian. Again, he treats as races: Asian, Asian and Pacific Islander, Asian-American, Japanese, Chinese, Tamil, etc.
You cannot take what he says on the subject of race seriously - except as an example of how not to think on the subject. Or arguably racist thinking.
2) An author who talks about certain "races" like the Irish and Blacks as "given to excitement, violence and emotionalism" and being particularly easily manipulated by "flamboyant leaders" and "strident rhetoric" perhaps should not be considered an expert on race or racism. They are an example of racism.
3) Sowell firmly believes that races (using his flexible definitions) have "ingrained characteristics" and lack the same "genetic potential."
Italians are "frugal" and "scupulous[ly] honest in the repayment of debt." Irish-Americans are alcoholics compared to other ethnic Americans, as are Estonians compared to Uzbekis. Malaysians are lazy compared to Chinese.
Although "developed and passed down," Germans are now inherently the best at brewing beer and Jains at cutting diamonds. Jews are "simply the best" in the apparel industry and watch-making.
The infamous "No Irish Need Apply" barriers were justified to modify the Irish's "proclivity to disease, violence, and social pathology."
These are "inescapable facts" Sowell insists and not "stereotypes." He is so very wrong. These are stereotypes. NINA was ethnic discrimination.
3) Last, but far from least, Sowell lies.
I'll illustrate with a somewhat complicated and lengthy example of the chapter in which Sowell is arguing that there is no basis to conclude that slavery has left a legacy in the U.S. There are several layers to Sowell's deception.
A) Sowell begins by asserting "few facts in history" have been hidden as the history of slavery. He suggests intellectuals have led Americans to believe we invented slavery and we are thus unaware that history existed throughout history. Of course, that is absurd.
Although many appear to be fooled by Sowell's Jedi mind trick, a few seconds reflection would tell them the slavery in history has not been "hidden." Ever perused the Bible? It is chock full of slaves. Heard of Moses and the Israelites escaping slavery, aka Exodus? What about Joseph and the Coat of Many Colors (aka "Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat")? The Ten Commandments in Exodus: 20-2 begins: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”
Ever hear of the Roman Coliseum and Gladiators? Have you heard of Spartacus? Ben Hur? Mayan sacrifices of slaves?
Tales from Gilgamesh to 1001 Arabian Nights (Aladdin, Ali Baba) and many beyond are full of slaves. St. Patrick, St. Vincent de Paul, many other Christian saints, Pope Saint Clement I, a few other Popes, Diogenes, Aesop (who wrote the Fables), Alexandre Dumas, etc., were slaves.
If you have heard of any of these examples of slavery or slaves or any other myriad examples of historical slavery ubiquitous in our culture, you know Sowell is lying when he says intellectuals have peddled the notion the U.S. or the Atlantic Slave Trade invented slavery and hidden that history ever occurred elsewhere.
No doubt, Americans may be pretty ignorant about historical slavery around the world, but it would make sense for them to know more about U.S. slavery and they are pretty ignorant about that.
B) Sowell next "explains" that, prior to the 18th Century, no one thought slavery was wrong and, even then, that was "an idea peculiar to Western civilization." This is a wicked lie, even excluding slaves throughout history who have objected not just to their own bondage but to human bondage.
Examples of those speaking out that slavery was inherently wrong or seeking to abolish it prior to the 18th Century, outside Western Civilization, or both include:
*Greeks including some Stoics and Alcidamas (4th century BC);
*Some Romans including Stoics;
*Jewish Essenes (1st Cent. BC);
*Jewish Therapeutae (1st Cent, BC);
*China's Wang Mang (17 AD);
*St. Gregory of Nazinanzus (4th Cent.);
*St. Theodore Studites (9th Cent.);
*Korea's Choson dynasty (1392) (to a degree);
*Hongwu Emperor of the Ming Dynasty (14th Cent);
*Bartolome de Albornoz of Mexico (1573);
*Japan's Chancellor Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1590); and
*Quakers, such as in the U.S. in 1688.
This non-exhaustive list (pulled from sources Sowell himself cites) proves the lie.
It's a silly lie. But Sowell wishes to paint a picture in which the West - and the U.S. - are unique heroes in the history of slavery.
C) According to Sowell, Western Civilization was unique and first in banning slavery and acted altruistically in spending:
"more than a century destroying slavery, not only within Western civilization itself, but also in other countries around the world, over the often bitter and sometimes armed resistance of people in other societies. Only the overwhelming military power of Western nations during the age of imperialism made this possible."
Lot of lies there - I'm going to skip rebutting them all. We'll see a bit of detail on this, but I will note:
(i) Sowell equates Western imperialist colonization of Africa and elsewhere with the noble cause of ending slavery.
(ii) Nothing about these assertions in any way supports Sowell's conclusion that we cannot say slavery practiced in the U.S. has had any lasting effects.
(iii) Sowell is describing "the West's" ending of its own practice of slavery, the Atlantic Slave Trade in which it was a driving force, slavery in its colonies, and pressure on a few additional countries - in addition to the colonization of Africa.
Some European colonies revolted or otherwise abolished slavery on their own decades before England and others did. Some colonies that remained under European control maintained slavery into the 20th century.
(iv) Sowell credits the U.S. with British efforts to end the Atlantic Slave Trade - even though we opposed them.
(v) There are long-running disputes about the roles of altruism (which Sowell credits) versus economic advantage and industrialization in the end of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Once Britain had outlawed slavery and its participation in the Atlantic Slave Trade, it had every incentive to shut down the participation of its economic rivals - many of whom persisted.
D) In the first part of these arguments about the "hidden" history of slavery, Sowell states:
“It is estimated that there were more slaves in India than in the entire Western Hemisphere.”
This is one of relatively few claims Sowell makes for which there is a footnote. The first source listed (used for almost all his citations) says nothing about the number of slaves in India or the Western Hemisphere, let alone compares them.
Perhaps for that reason, Sowell changes his statement in the footnote to:
"As of 1840, there were still more slaves in India than those emancipated by the British in the Caribbean."
If the reader has not checked the footnote, they have been tricked. This is a very different claim:
*We are not looking at some historical point before the Atlantic Slave Trade.
*We are not looking at the Western Hemisphere, but just the Caribbean.
*We are not comparing slaves, but slaves to those slaves emancipated by the British.
Even for those readers who check the footnote, the claim is meaningless unless they coincidentally know how many slaves had been emancipated by the British in the Caribbean as of 1840. (If the British had emancipated 2 slaves in the Caribbean and there were 3 slaves in India it's just as true as if those numbers were 5,000 and 500,000.)
Still, this revised claim is essentially supported by the source in his footnote:
"In 1840, British abolitionists discovered to their horror (although the point had been made in reply to Cropper) that there were more slaves in British India than had been emancipated in the British Caribbean."
David Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution 1770-1823 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975), p. 63.
Sowell is still deceiving the reader by omitting "British India" (let alone he context). He is actually comparing Colonial slavery in India to Colonial slavery in the Caribbean and trying to pass it off as more slavery in a non-Western land than "in the Western Hemisphere." The bait-and-switch at both ends is not accidental in an argument about how the West ended, rather than perpetrated slavery.
Second, as evident even in the one sentence, Sowell's source directly contradicts Sowell's whole theme about Western Civilization saving the world from slavery. Even as Britain led the fight to end the Atlantic Slave Trade (despite opposition from some Western nations and the U.S.), it was still carrying on with slavery in India and elsewhere.
Sowell plucked that part of a sentence out of an entire chapter about "What Abolitionists Were Up Against” in trying to get just Britain itself out of slavery (still even by the early 1900s). Sowell, in contrast, has been telling the reader a fairy tale about how slavery was swept away across the world in the 1800s (except for nasty pockets “in the Middle East and Africa”) by the West.
Sowell also turns on its head how a putative anti-slavery crusade was used as an fig leaf for imperialism and the colonization of Africa that sometimes imposed new slavery.
E) There are two overarching aspects of this that are disturbing beyond both the big and little deceptions.
First, as noted, Sowell himself recognizes that the Atlantic Slave Trade and slavery in the Americas was unique because it was based on race. When it comes to the question of whether those slavery institutions have lingering impacts on race in the United States is far more relevant than whether the Romans or Arabs had slaves.
More importantly, scholars – including the sources cited by Sowell – agree that there have been 5 “slave societies” in world history: Greece, Rome, United States, Colonial Brazil, and Colonial Cuba/Caribbean. (All part of “Western Civilization.”) They also agree that the plantation-style slavery in the U.S., Brazil, and the Caribbean was particularly brutal and violent.
So, assuming Sowell looked at all at his sources, knows all of his huffing and puffing about non-Western slavery is at best tangential.
Second, the point of the chapter, which Sowell eventually, sort of, gets to is supposed to be whether there is evidence that slavery in the U.S. has lasting effects. I won't go into his answer, but he doesn't tie it in any way to the whole preceding diatribe about the history of slavery. He knew all along it was irrelevant.
IN SUM:
These are simply small examples of the sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph, chapter after chapter deceptions and inaccuracies in this book.
Given Sowell's academic prowess, it is a shame his political ideology leads to such works.
If you do read it, please do so with extreme skepticism about its claims. Check the footnotes and check those sources. Check for yourself whether factual claims are accurate. You will find that, beyond the analysis being jaundiced and skewed, the "facts" are wrong.
March 22, 2021
While I've watched many videos of Dr. Sowell and read articles from him and Dr. Walter Williams, I came across this one shortly after the death of Dr. Williams and it piqued my interest.
He did not disappoint. The transformation of academia's views on race is very interesting. He does a good job of comparing and contrasting the views of early 20th century views of superiority and inferiority to the more modern views of systemic racism explains everything. He argues that both don't capture what holds groups back, by using statistics and data to back up what he says.
Sociocultural issues among upper, middle, and lower classes despite race indicate growing problems that hold many people back.
He did not disappoint. The transformation of academia's views on race is very interesting. He does a good job of comparing and contrasting the views of early 20th century views of superiority and inferiority to the more modern views of systemic racism explains everything. He argues that both don't capture what holds groups back, by using statistics and data to back up what he says.
Sociocultural issues among upper, middle, and lower classes despite race indicate growing problems that hold many people back.
August 28, 2022
Great book. I don’t always check his source material, so he may be way off, but his points always seem so logical and like they should be obvious. This is another echo chamber book for me, so I’ll have to check out something I know I’ll disagree next
September 14, 2021
"Intellectuals and Race" is a deeply disingenuous book that nonetheless manages to ask some relevant questions. If you read this book, focus on the questions and take Sowell's alternative explanations with a spoonful of salt, and largely disregard his evidence.
Personally, I too think we assume too much from regarding issues through ideologically tinged glasses. And I think Sowell is correct in pointing out that there might be alternative explanations to any given situation than racism, sexism, discrimination, and so on. Ok, so far I'm kind of with him, even if only on the surface level. But it is really difficult to follow him any deeper than that in his argumentation.
There are so many half truths in this book. Blatantly deliberate misinterpretations, bad - even irrelevant - comparisons, and problematic extrapolations from known facts (admittedly often both true and lesser known) are liberally strewed throughout the book. They are intermixed with relevant points and questions, but the overall impression is simply one of disingenuousness. At times it's difficult, even, to differentiate whether Sowell is that disingenuous or just stupid.
Of course, I know Sowell isn't stupid, I just think he's assuming his readers are.
Personally, I too think we assume too much from regarding issues through ideologically tinged glasses. And I think Sowell is correct in pointing out that there might be alternative explanations to any given situation than racism, sexism, discrimination, and so on. Ok, so far I'm kind of with him, even if only on the surface level. But it is really difficult to follow him any deeper than that in his argumentation.
There are so many half truths in this book. Blatantly deliberate misinterpretations, bad - even irrelevant - comparisons, and problematic extrapolations from known facts (admittedly often both true and lesser known) are liberally strewed throughout the book. They are intermixed with relevant points and questions, but the overall impression is simply one of disingenuousness. At times it's difficult, even, to differentiate whether Sowell is that disingenuous or just stupid.
Of course, I know Sowell isn't stupid, I just think he's assuming his readers are.
July 18, 2020
This was such an intelligent book! I had to stop many times and reread. I found this book to be so refreshing and liberating. I really appreciated the insights about the history of race and how it is so multi-layered. I learned so much about the race industry. Thomas Sowell is a genius and I do think he is, as some people have said, the Booker T.
Washington of the 21st century. He makes a lot of sense. He talks about choice and accountability. Life isn't always fair! So what are we going to do about it? His views are enlightening. I would highly recommend this book to everyone. Thank you, Maren, for suggesting it to me.
Washington of the 21st century. He makes a lot of sense. He talks about choice and accountability. Life isn't always fair! So what are we going to do about it? His views are enlightening. I would highly recommend this book to everyone. Thank you, Maren, for suggesting it to me.
September 20, 2013
I don't know what to make of this book. Despite pulling out many interesting facts, there seemed to be a lack of compassion, or acknowledgment that the racism in the last 100 years is not necessarily comparable to that of hundreds and thousands of years ago. I found the book very thought provoking, however, Sowell needs to take his eyes off of the pure numbers and look around.
March 16, 2018
Having first seen Thomas Sowell in the documentary series "Free to Choose", I've been intending to read one of his books for about 6 months now. Given that the subjects of race and equality are particularly prevalent and inciting topics in society today - and also given the high frequency with which beliefs and opinions about these topics seem to be extremely radical - I figured that "Intellectuals and Race" would be a perfect introduction to Sowell's written work.
There are many intelligent and insightful people who have a platform for their ideas and arguments, but Sowell seems to be quite unique in the way he presents his own. As I mentioned already, my first impression of Sowell was from his presence in Milton Friedman's documentary series "Free to Choose". While watching that documentary, I was impressed by how heavily Sowell seemed to emphasize an importance on drawing conclusions from empirical data. His ideas and beliefs are heavily seated in facts and logic. Moreover, he has a way of explaining complex topics with incredible clarity. He is very much a "to-the-point" kind of guy, which prevents his narratives from becoming hard to follow or becoming unnecessarily burdened by drama. I observed these traits in Sowell's appearance in "Free to Choose", and I found the same traits in "Intellectuals and Race".
The main thesis of "Intellectuals and Race" is that discrepancies between races are very often claimed by intellectuals to be caused by either genetic differences (in the early 20th century) or intergroup discrimination (in the later 20th century and today), even though there is rarely sufficient empirical data to support these claims. Moreover, these "explanations" for racial differences are usually proposed by intellectuals and accepted by the society at large, without any demand for sufficient evidence to support these claims. Finally, intellectuals are in a particularly special position in societies in which the validity of their ideas are usually only determined by a consensus of their peers, meaning that the practical consequences of their ideas rarely have any impact on them.
Sowell mentions in the intro that "if this book succeeds in simply demonstrating through its facts and analysis how inadequate, and even dangerous, the currently fashionable assumptions and catch phrases about race are, it will have achieved its purpose." Not coincidentally, this was the most important takeaway I've received from reading this book. Virtually all media platforms today will constantly bombard you with race-related dramas, some of which are valid and many of which are contrived to support an agenda.
The prevailing societal vision of today is to recognize discrepancies between different groups of people as "social injustices" which manifest due to discrimination from one group toward another, and to then rectify these "injustices" through social awareness and governmental policies. While this vision seems quite benevolent, it is often misapplied in practice, causing new issues to arise between individuals and groups or to amplify existing issues. To put it more simply: our society has a tendency to assume as fact that any advantage that Group A has over Group B is a result of discrimination by Group A toward Group B, without giving any consideration to the innumerable other possible factors that could cause these discrepancies and without providing any empirical data to support their claim of discrimination.
The danger in this type of rhetoric should be quite obvious. For one, it usually causes a greater stratification between races and genders instead of helping them to understand each other better. Two, it inverts the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", placing the onus on the accused to prove that they were not being discriminatory. Third, it places a facade over true analysis of certain issues, misguiding us from finding a cause which is supported by empirical data, and therefore misguiding us from finding a solution.
While "Intellectuals and Race" deals specifically with race, this issue is now prevalent in a large variety of groups. Examples include groups of people being perceived as "victims" or "oppressors" based on sexual orientation, race, gender, etc. The principles which Sowell demonstrates in regards to ideas about race apply just as well to these other groups, making this book even more relevant today.
True to his nature, Sowell offers many examples and statistics which support his claims. Moreover, the examples and statistics which he provides to support his claims are from a wide variety of races, cultures, geographies, and are taken across a large span of time. As Sowell himself mentions, these types of factors are often neglected by many people when they provide facts to support their claims. More generally, the point he makes is that it is very common for people to provide a set of factual and correct data when attempting to support a conclusion, but then misinterpret or fail to sufficiently analyze that data which, with a sufficient degree of scrutiny, would invalidate their original conclusion. Moreover, most people have a proclivity to accept these conclusions without demanding this higher degree of scrutiny or without analyzing the data for themselves.
In the 20th century, there have been 2 broad categories of understanding discrepancies between race. The first was genetic determinism - or the belief that discrepancies between races are a result of genetic differences between these races. The second is what I have already mentioned, which is the belief that discrepancies between races are a result of discrimination between these races. Sowell applies the thesis of "Intellectuals and Race" to both of these beliefs, demonstrating how many of the claims made on either side are not supported by the facts.
I could continue to write much more about this book because there are so many good points made and it is a very enjoyable and insightful read. Instead I will simply recommend that anyone who is more interested in the facts about racial discrepancies than the melodramas that accompany most discussions of them should read "Intellectuals and Race".
There are many intelligent and insightful people who have a platform for their ideas and arguments, but Sowell seems to be quite unique in the way he presents his own. As I mentioned already, my first impression of Sowell was from his presence in Milton Friedman's documentary series "Free to Choose". While watching that documentary, I was impressed by how heavily Sowell seemed to emphasize an importance on drawing conclusions from empirical data. His ideas and beliefs are heavily seated in facts and logic. Moreover, he has a way of explaining complex topics with incredible clarity. He is very much a "to-the-point" kind of guy, which prevents his narratives from becoming hard to follow or becoming unnecessarily burdened by drama. I observed these traits in Sowell's appearance in "Free to Choose", and I found the same traits in "Intellectuals and Race".
The main thesis of "Intellectuals and Race" is that discrepancies between races are very often claimed by intellectuals to be caused by either genetic differences (in the early 20th century) or intergroup discrimination (in the later 20th century and today), even though there is rarely sufficient empirical data to support these claims. Moreover, these "explanations" for racial differences are usually proposed by intellectuals and accepted by the society at large, without any demand for sufficient evidence to support these claims. Finally, intellectuals are in a particularly special position in societies in which the validity of their ideas are usually only determined by a consensus of their peers, meaning that the practical consequences of their ideas rarely have any impact on them.
Sowell mentions in the intro that "if this book succeeds in simply demonstrating through its facts and analysis how inadequate, and even dangerous, the currently fashionable assumptions and catch phrases about race are, it will have achieved its purpose." Not coincidentally, this was the most important takeaway I've received from reading this book. Virtually all media platforms today will constantly bombard you with race-related dramas, some of which are valid and many of which are contrived to support an agenda.
The prevailing societal vision of today is to recognize discrepancies between different groups of people as "social injustices" which manifest due to discrimination from one group toward another, and to then rectify these "injustices" through social awareness and governmental policies. While this vision seems quite benevolent, it is often misapplied in practice, causing new issues to arise between individuals and groups or to amplify existing issues. To put it more simply: our society has a tendency to assume as fact that any advantage that Group A has over Group B is a result of discrimination by Group A toward Group B, without giving any consideration to the innumerable other possible factors that could cause these discrepancies and without providing any empirical data to support their claim of discrimination.
The danger in this type of rhetoric should be quite obvious. For one, it usually causes a greater stratification between races and genders instead of helping them to understand each other better. Two, it inverts the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", placing the onus on the accused to prove that they were not being discriminatory. Third, it places a facade over true analysis of certain issues, misguiding us from finding a cause which is supported by empirical data, and therefore misguiding us from finding a solution.
While "Intellectuals and Race" deals specifically with race, this issue is now prevalent in a large variety of groups. Examples include groups of people being perceived as "victims" or "oppressors" based on sexual orientation, race, gender, etc. The principles which Sowell demonstrates in regards to ideas about race apply just as well to these other groups, making this book even more relevant today.
True to his nature, Sowell offers many examples and statistics which support his claims. Moreover, the examples and statistics which he provides to support his claims are from a wide variety of races, cultures, geographies, and are taken across a large span of time. As Sowell himself mentions, these types of factors are often neglected by many people when they provide facts to support their claims. More generally, the point he makes is that it is very common for people to provide a set of factual and correct data when attempting to support a conclusion, but then misinterpret or fail to sufficiently analyze that data which, with a sufficient degree of scrutiny, would invalidate their original conclusion. Moreover, most people have a proclivity to accept these conclusions without demanding this higher degree of scrutiny or without analyzing the data for themselves.
In the 20th century, there have been 2 broad categories of understanding discrepancies between race. The first was genetic determinism - or the belief that discrepancies between races are a result of genetic differences between these races. The second is what I have already mentioned, which is the belief that discrepancies between races are a result of discrimination between these races. Sowell applies the thesis of "Intellectuals and Race" to both of these beliefs, demonstrating how many of the claims made on either side are not supported by the facts.
I could continue to write much more about this book because there are so many good points made and it is a very enjoyable and insightful read. Instead I will simply recommend that anyone who is more interested in the facts about racial discrepancies than the melodramas that accompany most discussions of them should read "Intellectuals and Race".
February 28, 2021
Right after starting this book I began making notes on the problematic framing of the points he was making, these notes quickly built up until not long into it I realised what this book was. To properly explain all the faults of this book would require writing a book bigger than the book itself. I had no idea of who the author was before starting this so gave him the benefit of the doubt. I had however unknowingly seen and heard his 'ideas' before.
He seems to fall victim to the 'intellectual' problems I assumed this book was to address. While I think this book is very slightly informative in ways I find his lack of context highly problematic, misleading and much more damaging to discourse. With a tiny bit of research on the author (it's been a few days since I read it) it's plain to see that his work is predictably weaponised by those with the more extreme conservative and/or racist agenda's. Before you cry at me using the word 'racist' hear me out.
An example; the very beginning of the book he mentions those ("liberals") pointing out the disparity between white and black people in regards to their acceptance for loans, he points out that Asians are more likely than both to get those loans so we can't say there are racist business practices by white owned banks, and that black owned banks are worse for allowing black loans to go through. There is no context afterwards, no possible explanations, no claim that misconceptions about race could still play a strong factor in these cases, no references to countless studies on similar subjects, no insights, why elaborate when you have your 'gotcha' facts for fighting the ignorant liberals who know nothing on the subject, then he moves on. At the time of writing, there is currently a conservative narrative in the media heavily pushing the idea that black people are committing much more crime against Asians because of covid too. They want to put that idea out there, no explanations or reliable statistics to follow through with. This is the 'facts don't care about your feelings' crowd. The irony being that it's usually the lack of further known facts and the lack of context that is annoying to many. While I agree that some 'liberal' takes are uninformed that doesn't mean that taking one further step beyond that justifies their views of the truth when the reality is many steps ahead.
Another early point he makes, slavery isn't just a white against black thing, before being able to transport countless numbers across oceans people would enslave their own countrymen or neighbouring countries. It moves on. I thought it was going to explain some of these things at least slightly in depth and how to better address some issues in regards to the misconceptions but he stops after calling them wrong, the thing is I already know they're wrong and the reason I know that is because all these talking points are brought up in racist conservative and white supremacist dialogues everywhere and they have all been thoroughly explained by people much more informed on every subject he mentions. After this I watched a compilation of his talking points in the form of 'DESTROYED THE LEFT' video that you could assume was out of context but this book shows this is Sowell's main point. Started to realise that's just his grift.
I don't want to go back through this book in depth but I'll vaguely highlight one more big aspect of this book, why it isn't helpful, the effects it has outside of this book and how it is used. The IQ section. So the popular idea is that IQ cannot be talked about seriously because it is deemed 'racist' by the liberal illuminati that runs all intellectual discourse. This is a false narrative, pushback comes back in this regard when conservatives with questionable views want to talk about it to push a false narrative. Everything mentioned in regards to race and IQ in this book is not informative in anyway shape or form. There is a wide range of literature regarding this subject that does a very thorough job in explaining any causes, correlations and explanations. And it may come as a shock to conservatives but it's generally lefties that do the more informed research on the subject, the thing conservatives fail to mention is the context. I mention this because when this author is discussed there are people who praise that he is talking about race and IQ, "can't get that in lefty controlled discourse". I definitely didn't learn about it from conservatives.
If you want to see the result of trash like this book then check out the intellectual discourse surrounding the author, you will get people crying about the left silencing these views, people getting red-pilled, and honestly the very same kinds of people and points you will see in the more extremist sects of the internet. I'm in no way saying all fans of Sowell will fall into this catagory but it's more than a fringe amount and more than enough to say that this book does more damage to the discourse than help. Also, his framing of 'liberals' seems to be conflated with the whole 'left' who, like to the Ben Shapiro types, apparently don't exist outside of this naive college campus kid strawman. He has fans like people such as Dave Rubin and is used on conservatism propaganda channels like pragerU, while guilt by association isn't the best argument it just goes to show his 'info' isn't lauded by intellectuals of any value. Funny he names a few liberal intellectuals to make his point and ignore pretty much everything else regarding the discourse of the subjects, imagine doing that. Look into any of these subjects mentioned in this book in depth and you'll see the author as either the idiot or grifter that he is.
If you like little bits of research you should check out the study that shows conservative values are linked to low cognitive abilities. Is it causality or correlation? Does conservative values lead to proneness to fear (and conspiracies) and lack of understanding or is it the other way around? I'm going to do a Sowell and leave that up in the air and offer no further analysis. Thanks for reading. Hope you have a great day.
He seems to fall victim to the 'intellectual' problems I assumed this book was to address. While I think this book is very slightly informative in ways I find his lack of context highly problematic, misleading and much more damaging to discourse. With a tiny bit of research on the author (it's been a few days since I read it) it's plain to see that his work is predictably weaponised by those with the more extreme conservative and/or racist agenda's. Before you cry at me using the word 'racist' hear me out.
An example; the very beginning of the book he mentions those ("liberals") pointing out the disparity between white and black people in regards to their acceptance for loans, he points out that Asians are more likely than both to get those loans so we can't say there are racist business practices by white owned banks, and that black owned banks are worse for allowing black loans to go through. There is no context afterwards, no possible explanations, no claim that misconceptions about race could still play a strong factor in these cases, no references to countless studies on similar subjects, no insights, why elaborate when you have your 'gotcha' facts for fighting the ignorant liberals who know nothing on the subject, then he moves on. At the time of writing, there is currently a conservative narrative in the media heavily pushing the idea that black people are committing much more crime against Asians because of covid too. They want to put that idea out there, no explanations or reliable statistics to follow through with. This is the 'facts don't care about your feelings' crowd. The irony being that it's usually the lack of further known facts and the lack of context that is annoying to many. While I agree that some 'liberal' takes are uninformed that doesn't mean that taking one further step beyond that justifies their views of the truth when the reality is many steps ahead.
Another early point he makes, slavery isn't just a white against black thing, before being able to transport countless numbers across oceans people would enslave their own countrymen or neighbouring countries. It moves on. I thought it was going to explain some of these things at least slightly in depth and how to better address some issues in regards to the misconceptions but he stops after calling them wrong, the thing is I already know they're wrong and the reason I know that is because all these talking points are brought up in racist conservative and white supremacist dialogues everywhere and they have all been thoroughly explained by people much more informed on every subject he mentions. After this I watched a compilation of his talking points in the form of 'DESTROYED THE LEFT' video that you could assume was out of context but this book shows this is Sowell's main point. Started to realise that's just his grift.
I don't want to go back through this book in depth but I'll vaguely highlight one more big aspect of this book, why it isn't helpful, the effects it has outside of this book and how it is used. The IQ section. So the popular idea is that IQ cannot be talked about seriously because it is deemed 'racist' by the liberal illuminati that runs all intellectual discourse. This is a false narrative, pushback comes back in this regard when conservatives with questionable views want to talk about it to push a false narrative. Everything mentioned in regards to race and IQ in this book is not informative in anyway shape or form. There is a wide range of literature regarding this subject that does a very thorough job in explaining any causes, correlations and explanations. And it may come as a shock to conservatives but it's generally lefties that do the more informed research on the subject, the thing conservatives fail to mention is the context. I mention this because when this author is discussed there are people who praise that he is talking about race and IQ, "can't get that in lefty controlled discourse". I definitely didn't learn about it from conservatives.
If you want to see the result of trash like this book then check out the intellectual discourse surrounding the author, you will get people crying about the left silencing these views, people getting red-pilled, and honestly the very same kinds of people and points you will see in the more extremist sects of the internet. I'm in no way saying all fans of Sowell will fall into this catagory but it's more than a fringe amount and more than enough to say that this book does more damage to the discourse than help. Also, his framing of 'liberals' seems to be conflated with the whole 'left' who, like to the Ben Shapiro types, apparently don't exist outside of this naive college campus kid strawman. He has fans like people such as Dave Rubin and is used on conservatism propaganda channels like pragerU, while guilt by association isn't the best argument it just goes to show his 'info' isn't lauded by intellectuals of any value. Funny he names a few liberal intellectuals to make his point and ignore pretty much everything else regarding the discourse of the subjects, imagine doing that. Look into any of these subjects mentioned in this book in depth and you'll see the author as either the idiot or grifter that he is.
If you like little bits of research you should check out the study that shows conservative values are linked to low cognitive abilities. Is it causality or correlation? Does conservative values lead to proneness to fear (and conspiracies) and lack of understanding or is it the other way around? I'm going to do a Sowell and leave that up in the air and offer no further analysis. Thanks for reading. Hope you have a great day.
November 13, 2014
Thomas Sowell's latest slam down on racism was as factual and as accurate as ever. Sowell's analysis of the problem with racism over the centuries has provided beautiful insight on why the intelligentsia has been cashing on this term for many years. I'll summarise each chapter now:
-Introduction: debunking the myth of the discrimination against African Americans by introducing more racial groups into the statistics and you can see it's not the discrimination against the racial minority at fault.
-Question about race: explanation of the cultural development of different geographical regions and how it has impacted the generation of wealth for different groups of people.
-Disparities and their causes: Understand what disparity is and how it is manifested not only in African Americans but in other groups such as Jewish, Irish or Italian Americans and examining the disparities of racial groups in other countries such as Malay and Chinese. Stereotypes were used by the intelligentsia to control the behaviours of certain groups and even sub groups within a certain racial group can divide themselves such as Russian Jews lived clustered as well as Polish Jews, Hungarian Jews in Chicago, but German Jewish lived uptown in the Lower East Side of Manhattan.
-Changing racial beliefs: Debunking the myth of genetic determinism by introducing factual data in the real world and exposing the contradictions and biases in IQ testing. It is important to note, other Southern and Eastern Europeans were also discriminated. And by classifying people's intelligence using the idea of Regional Grouping is inherently wrong because Irish immigrants typically have score lower on IQ test even though they would belong in the Nordic group. Such racial theories have been used by Propagandist for their own benefit such as protecting privilege from an interest group or for political motives. In fact, Nordic groups were far inferior during the classical antiquity age.
-Internal response to disparities: Racial segregation has in fact generated tension through the propaganda by the racial leader who studied nothing but soft studies such as humanity and liberal arts, ultimately destroyed their country. Sowell used many examples but specifically the German and Czech relations, Anti Asian sentiment and antisemitism, while pointing out the hypocrisiy of the segregationist in their reluctance to acknowledge the discrimination against other groups but themselves or the reason why one group were able to be productive and the other cannot. Sowell also noted the acceptance of superior cultures by the Scots and Japanese has greatly improved both countries (Medicine and Engineering for Scots and Science and Technology for the Japanese).
-Race and intelligence: Sowell attacked both the concept of genetic between different groups being the main determinant of intelligence using historical facts and statistics.
-Liberalism and Multiculuralism: Liberation was the first movement to attempt to address the intelligence issue but still fails at recognizing it's more than just "Inequality" or "Legacy of Slavery" at work but it's the culture as a general that stop people from achieving. The best example is the similar delinquency in Brittons who have never been slaves themselves. Racism is deunked and to show the liberal era was doing more harm than good for the African Americans by promoting the identity politics. Multiculturalism was even worse, it created the entitlement mentality and no objective truth in the nation, for instance, by not teaching English properly to Spanish speaking Mexicans or African Americans.
-Race and cosmic justice: The intelligentsia now attempts to play the "social justice" card by blaming others for their own problems. Racially motivated crime perpetuated by the Africans on other races (including asians) were largely ignored, intelligentsia even outright said it's due to systematic inequality or institutional racism. The idea of slavery has been present for thousands of years and America was the only country to have a war to end it yet the mentality of slavery ruined everything has been ingrained in the mind of young people, especially the non slaves who now have the dichotomy of ancestral guilt or arrogance of one's race
-The past and the future: The false dichotomy is further deconstructed, in fact, all these ideologies presented by the intelligentsia were used as a race industry for their own benefit. Thousands of funds were spend on the organisations and commissions to bring about a false sense of achieving equality/closing the gap but it has greater impact than they expected. Affirmative action has done more harm than good, studies have found African and Hispanic graduates of Science and engineering degree rose by 51% after the abolition of preferential admissions and doctorates rose by 25%. Affirmative action also ignore the other disadvantaged races when it in fact serve to benefit the already advantaged groups. The disparate impact is the decline of ability and quality of the graduates in educational settings and reduced productivity in industrial setting. The only way we can stop this atrocity is equality. Respect for oneself and respect for the others.
It is a fascinating read, I couldn't put it down once I picked it up. Highly recommended for anyone interested in the destruction of racial politics.
-Introduction: debunking the myth of the discrimination against African Americans by introducing more racial groups into the statistics and you can see it's not the discrimination against the racial minority at fault.
-Question about race: explanation of the cultural development of different geographical regions and how it has impacted the generation of wealth for different groups of people.
-Disparities and their causes: Understand what disparity is and how it is manifested not only in African Americans but in other groups such as Jewish, Irish or Italian Americans and examining the disparities of racial groups in other countries such as Malay and Chinese. Stereotypes were used by the intelligentsia to control the behaviours of certain groups and even sub groups within a certain racial group can divide themselves such as Russian Jews lived clustered as well as Polish Jews, Hungarian Jews in Chicago, but German Jewish lived uptown in the Lower East Side of Manhattan.
-Changing racial beliefs: Debunking the myth of genetic determinism by introducing factual data in the real world and exposing the contradictions and biases in IQ testing. It is important to note, other Southern and Eastern Europeans were also discriminated. And by classifying people's intelligence using the idea of Regional Grouping is inherently wrong because Irish immigrants typically have score lower on IQ test even though they would belong in the Nordic group. Such racial theories have been used by Propagandist for their own benefit such as protecting privilege from an interest group or for political motives. In fact, Nordic groups were far inferior during the classical antiquity age.
-Internal response to disparities: Racial segregation has in fact generated tension through the propaganda by the racial leader who studied nothing but soft studies such as humanity and liberal arts, ultimately destroyed their country. Sowell used many examples but specifically the German and Czech relations, Anti Asian sentiment and antisemitism, while pointing out the hypocrisiy of the segregationist in their reluctance to acknowledge the discrimination against other groups but themselves or the reason why one group were able to be productive and the other cannot. Sowell also noted the acceptance of superior cultures by the Scots and Japanese has greatly improved both countries (Medicine and Engineering for Scots and Science and Technology for the Japanese).
-Race and intelligence: Sowell attacked both the concept of genetic between different groups being the main determinant of intelligence using historical facts and statistics.
-Liberalism and Multiculuralism: Liberation was the first movement to attempt to address the intelligence issue but still fails at recognizing it's more than just "Inequality" or "Legacy of Slavery" at work but it's the culture as a general that stop people from achieving. The best example is the similar delinquency in Brittons who have never been slaves themselves. Racism is deunked and to show the liberal era was doing more harm than good for the African Americans by promoting the identity politics. Multiculturalism was even worse, it created the entitlement mentality and no objective truth in the nation, for instance, by not teaching English properly to Spanish speaking Mexicans or African Americans.
-Race and cosmic justice: The intelligentsia now attempts to play the "social justice" card by blaming others for their own problems. Racially motivated crime perpetuated by the Africans on other races (including asians) were largely ignored, intelligentsia even outright said it's due to systematic inequality or institutional racism. The idea of slavery has been present for thousands of years and America was the only country to have a war to end it yet the mentality of slavery ruined everything has been ingrained in the mind of young people, especially the non slaves who now have the dichotomy of ancestral guilt or arrogance of one's race
-The past and the future: The false dichotomy is further deconstructed, in fact, all these ideologies presented by the intelligentsia were used as a race industry for their own benefit. Thousands of funds were spend on the organisations and commissions to bring about a false sense of achieving equality/closing the gap but it has greater impact than they expected. Affirmative action has done more harm than good, studies have found African and Hispanic graduates of Science and engineering degree rose by 51% after the abolition of preferential admissions and doctorates rose by 25%. Affirmative action also ignore the other disadvantaged races when it in fact serve to benefit the already advantaged groups. The disparate impact is the decline of ability and quality of the graduates in educational settings and reduced productivity in industrial setting. The only way we can stop this atrocity is equality. Respect for oneself and respect for the others.
It is a fascinating read, I couldn't put it down once I picked it up. Highly recommended for anyone interested in the destruction of racial politics.
October 21, 2022
Thomas Sowell has shaped my thinking and understanding of politics and economics greatly. One of his great benefits is demonstrating that stats rarely tell the whole story in society. He will continue to be a thinker who shapes my worldview probably for the rest of my life.
February 3, 2024
This is my favorite book so far of the three I've read by Sowell and I highly recommend it for this present time in which the reasoning capacity of modern minds is being hijacked by a moral mania over race.
---------
Some pulled quotes:
Intellectuals who made genetic determinism the overriding explanation of intergroup differences in outcomes in the early twentieth century and discrimination the overriding explanation of these differences in the latter part of the twentieth century have in both cases made the prevailing belief of the day obligatory for anyone who wanted to be taken seriously or even to avoid being stigmatized as a shallow sentimentalist in the early part of the century or a despised racist in the latter part.
In both eras, intellectuals claimed the moral high ground – as saviors of their race during the era of genetic determinism and as moral crusaders against racial injustice in the era of the prevalence of discrimination theories. Nor were the intelligentsia in either era much open to other explanations of intergroup differences which could undermine or devastate their flattering vision of themselves.
***
…intellectuals are in a remarkably different position from that of other decision makers, and this is a fact to be taken into account when trying to understand the nature of their decisions and especially the ability of their theories and visions to survive in defiance of empirical evidence. Quite simply, intellectuals pay no price for being wrong, no matter how wrong or with what catastrophic consequences for millions of other people.
***
The point here is to suggest nothing more draconian in response than a loss of the gullibility towards ideas in vogue among the intelligentsia that can make their speculations so dangerous to others. All sorts of competing notions can be free in the marketplace of ideas without becoming dogmas backed by the power of government just because these notions are currently ascendant among people with high IQs and prestigious degrees and honors. All sorts of ideas, whether on race or on war or on many other subjects have prevailed among intellectuals with results now recognized in retrospect as having been as utterly invalid intellectually as they were catastrophic in their human consequences.
***
…just because some people are justly renowned within their specialties and may regard themselves as part of some larger class of “thinking people” does not mean that the rest of us can neglect to think for ourselves or to demand hard evidence from those with soaring visions and impressive rhetoric.
***
Intellectuals have all too often played a major role in promoting a sense of grievance over [naturally-occurring] inequalities. The kind of society to which that can lead is one in which a newborn baby enters the world supplied with prepackaged grievances against other babies born the same day. It is hard to imagine anything more conducive to unending eternal strife and a weakening of the bonds that hold a society together.
---------
Some pulled quotes:
Intellectuals who made genetic determinism the overriding explanation of intergroup differences in outcomes in the early twentieth century and discrimination the overriding explanation of these differences in the latter part of the twentieth century have in both cases made the prevailing belief of the day obligatory for anyone who wanted to be taken seriously or even to avoid being stigmatized as a shallow sentimentalist in the early part of the century or a despised racist in the latter part.
In both eras, intellectuals claimed the moral high ground – as saviors of their race during the era of genetic determinism and as moral crusaders against racial injustice in the era of the prevalence of discrimination theories. Nor were the intelligentsia in either era much open to other explanations of intergroup differences which could undermine or devastate their flattering vision of themselves.
***
…intellectuals are in a remarkably different position from that of other decision makers, and this is a fact to be taken into account when trying to understand the nature of their decisions and especially the ability of their theories and visions to survive in defiance of empirical evidence. Quite simply, intellectuals pay no price for being wrong, no matter how wrong or with what catastrophic consequences for millions of other people.
***
The point here is to suggest nothing more draconian in response than a loss of the gullibility towards ideas in vogue among the intelligentsia that can make their speculations so dangerous to others. All sorts of competing notions can be free in the marketplace of ideas without becoming dogmas backed by the power of government just because these notions are currently ascendant among people with high IQs and prestigious degrees and honors. All sorts of ideas, whether on race or on war or on many other subjects have prevailed among intellectuals with results now recognized in retrospect as having been as utterly invalid intellectually as they were catastrophic in their human consequences.
***
…just because some people are justly renowned within their specialties and may regard themselves as part of some larger class of “thinking people” does not mean that the rest of us can neglect to think for ourselves or to demand hard evidence from those with soaring visions and impressive rhetoric.
***
Intellectuals have all too often played a major role in promoting a sense of grievance over [naturally-occurring] inequalities. The kind of society to which that can lead is one in which a newborn baby enters the world supplied with prepackaged grievances against other babies born the same day. It is hard to imagine anything more conducive to unending eternal strife and a weakening of the bonds that hold a society together.
December 16, 2020
I found some of the original premises in this book interesting to consider but found the development of supporting evidence and arguments to lack strength.
Can the influencers (intellectual elite) get it wrong? Of course. Do all the “intelligentsia” hold the same beliefs? Not from my experience. Are people ultimately responsible for their own success? Mostly but not always. If the culture or local disparities in social circumstances hinder some and give others more of a chance for success then it is important to understand why so that a society founded on the premise that all men are created equal can live up to its potential.
Anytime an author seeks to discredit an entire group by assuming all are alike in the way they view the world I find the credibility of the argument questionable. Under his definition of “intellectual” he would be a part of the group yet he obviously does not agree.
It is equally disingenuous to claim that the primary support for eugenics or a belief of the connection between race and genetics which proposed that certain races were genetically inferior was centered in the progressive movement. Jim Crow, lynching, segregation as practiced in the south did not originate at the pens of the intellectual class.
I could point out each sloppy argument used to shift the failure of our society to live up to our promise of equality to the shoulder of the individual who may face a more challenging road to success.
I had hoped to find a more nuanced view to help provide an open and honest discussion of race. Because neither extreme seems plausible to me.
He talks a lot about the success of Asian Americans and assumes it is because of their work ethic and better performance. Yet, it is a common belief that Asians are smarter, come from high achieving backgrounds, and will be more successful. At the same time the general assumption is that black individuals will be less educated, many believe they are intellectually inferior, and this bias can influence the degree of success.
I am glad this was included with my subscription because it would not be worth wasting a credit.
Can the influencers (intellectual elite) get it wrong? Of course. Do all the “intelligentsia” hold the same beliefs? Not from my experience. Are people ultimately responsible for their own success? Mostly but not always. If the culture or local disparities in social circumstances hinder some and give others more of a chance for success then it is important to understand why so that a society founded on the premise that all men are created equal can live up to its potential.
Anytime an author seeks to discredit an entire group by assuming all are alike in the way they view the world I find the credibility of the argument questionable. Under his definition of “intellectual” he would be a part of the group yet he obviously does not agree.
It is equally disingenuous to claim that the primary support for eugenics or a belief of the connection between race and genetics which proposed that certain races were genetically inferior was centered in the progressive movement. Jim Crow, lynching, segregation as practiced in the south did not originate at the pens of the intellectual class.
I could point out each sloppy argument used to shift the failure of our society to live up to our promise of equality to the shoulder of the individual who may face a more challenging road to success.
I had hoped to find a more nuanced view to help provide an open and honest discussion of race. Because neither extreme seems plausible to me.
He talks a lot about the success of Asian Americans and assumes it is because of their work ethic and better performance. Yet, it is a common belief that Asians are smarter, come from high achieving backgrounds, and will be more successful. At the same time the general assumption is that black individuals will be less educated, many believe they are intellectually inferior, and this bias can influence the degree of success.
I am glad this was included with my subscription because it would not be worth wasting a credit.
June 19, 2014
Dr. Sowell never disappoints. Every one of his books is better than the last one and this one is a thought provoking look at facts and figures that fly in the face of conventional thought.
June 23, 2020
Even for an organization not unfamiliar to scandal, the fact that the Royal Swedish Academy never awarded Thomas Sowell a Nobel prize is an injustice that they may not soon be redeemed. Certainly even more scandalous, in a time when a canon of piffle is hitting the mainstream as essential race literature, is the fact that we never hear a mention of, let alone a thorough endorsement for, the work of Thomas Sowell. What this man has done to empirically analyze the root causes of disparities in our society should be preeminent reading for any claiming to want what is good, just, and as best as we can manage, equal.
Now to this book, which is actually a 3-chapter excerpt from Sowell's larger work 'Intellectuals and Society.' There seems to be a lot of nonsense going around these days from people who pretend quite well to know what they are taking about when it comes to the disparities of race in the United States. Many of the people promulgating such nonsense, race hustlers (or their followers) to a disgraceful degree, are often highly "educated," yet have no idea how the world and its inhabitants actually function. Instead, they think they can learn all they need to just by listening to (or perhaps I can say being conned by) other race hustlers and self-righteous, self-pitying do-gooders. Even worse, as Sowell points out, they face no consequences for the actual implementation of their so-called virtuous ideas. The people I refer to, of course, are those that make up the Intelligentsia. Idea sellers, often white, blinded by their arrogance into thinking that they might actually help solve societal problems by getting on board with the farce of what now appears to be an absolute consensus on this matter. What Sowell argues is that these people, shielded from the actual implications of their policy, only make the disparities worse. Even more shamefully, they bask in the ego-stroking of their fellow intellectuals for their bold, courageous action.
As written elsewhere by Sowell in relation to educational policy (not to race) in our struggling democracy: "If you want to see the poor remain poor, generation after generation, just keep the standards low in their schools and make excuses for their academic shortcomings and personal misbehavior. But please don't congratulate yourself on your compassion." A small, but appropriate reflection of Sowell's attitude toward today's intellectuals.
Now to this book, which is actually a 3-chapter excerpt from Sowell's larger work 'Intellectuals and Society.' There seems to be a lot of nonsense going around these days from people who pretend quite well to know what they are taking about when it comes to the disparities of race in the United States. Many of the people promulgating such nonsense, race hustlers (or their followers) to a disgraceful degree, are often highly "educated," yet have no idea how the world and its inhabitants actually function. Instead, they think they can learn all they need to just by listening to (or perhaps I can say being conned by) other race hustlers and self-righteous, self-pitying do-gooders. Even worse, as Sowell points out, they face no consequences for the actual implementation of their so-called virtuous ideas. The people I refer to, of course, are those that make up the Intelligentsia. Idea sellers, often white, blinded by their arrogance into thinking that they might actually help solve societal problems by getting on board with the farce of what now appears to be an absolute consensus on this matter. What Sowell argues is that these people, shielded from the actual implications of their policy, only make the disparities worse. Even more shamefully, they bask in the ego-stroking of their fellow intellectuals for their bold, courageous action.
As written elsewhere by Sowell in relation to educational policy (not to race) in our struggling democracy: "If you want to see the poor remain poor, generation after generation, just keep the standards low in their schools and make excuses for their academic shortcomings and personal misbehavior. But please don't congratulate yourself on your compassion." A small, but appropriate reflection of Sowell's attitude toward today's intellectuals.
November 28, 2020
This is an essential book to incorporate into one's attempt to build a robust understanding of racial tensions in America today. Sowell is known for being a bit of a contrarian voice in the prevailing conversation around issues like 'systemic' and 'institutional' racism, and especially in the conversation concerning policies like 'affirmative action' and 'welfare.' I was actually a bit reluctant to read him because of the way I've seen militant, white, right-wingers deploy his arguments, but I'm so glad I didn't let that ultimately keep me away from engaging him directly.
In 'intellectuals and race,' Sowell tackles a ton of thorny topics in a surprisingly short, supremely confident, and rigorously empirically-data-driven way. He challenges the currently-prevailing conventional wisdom of 'liberal multiculturalism' and attempts to pose a "third way" between ascribing all racial disparities to genetics (the error of the early 1900s) or attributing all racial disparities to discrimination and prejudice (the error, Sowell argues, of the current era). He argues for a more honest dialogue that isn't afraid to discuss "cultures" of subgroups, and how those cultures may play a role in perpetuating disparities.
I think Sowell is dead-on correct about most of what he writes about, but I don't think he addresses everything that is relevant to the issue of race in America. He's absolutely right about the ways that certain hypotheses about racial disparities are in no uncertain terms permitted in our current discourse, and I think he is also correct about the role that intellectuals can (perhaps unintentionally?) play in fostering harmful resentment between subgroups of people, and how this resentment can work against the goals of justice and equality that those intellectuals are supposedly interesting in furthering. I personally found his deployment of the term "cosmic justice" to be extremely helpful, and I thought his chapter on the rancorous subject of "intelligence" was extremely helpful.
I was a bit frustrated at the short shrift he gives the subject of slavery, and I found a few of his cultural/international comparisons just a bit on the simplistic side. I wish there was some deeper engagement with the scientific racial doctrines that were build over the late 18th century, and how those calcified the discourse in Europe and America in specific ways. But that all being said, I found Sowell a super refreshing, even-handed voice who carefully backs up and explains his conclusions, and he is one who those of us interested in pursuing an intellectually-honest perspective on race relations in our world and culture need to take seriously.
In 'intellectuals and race,' Sowell tackles a ton of thorny topics in a surprisingly short, supremely confident, and rigorously empirically-data-driven way. He challenges the currently-prevailing conventional wisdom of 'liberal multiculturalism' and attempts to pose a "third way" between ascribing all racial disparities to genetics (the error of the early 1900s) or attributing all racial disparities to discrimination and prejudice (the error, Sowell argues, of the current era). He argues for a more honest dialogue that isn't afraid to discuss "cultures" of subgroups, and how those cultures may play a role in perpetuating disparities.
I think Sowell is dead-on correct about most of what he writes about, but I don't think he addresses everything that is relevant to the issue of race in America. He's absolutely right about the ways that certain hypotheses about racial disparities are in no uncertain terms permitted in our current discourse, and I think he is also correct about the role that intellectuals can (perhaps unintentionally?) play in fostering harmful resentment between subgroups of people, and how this resentment can work against the goals of justice and equality that those intellectuals are supposedly interesting in furthering. I personally found his deployment of the term "cosmic justice" to be extremely helpful, and I thought his chapter on the rancorous subject of "intelligence" was extremely helpful.
I was a bit frustrated at the short shrift he gives the subject of slavery, and I found a few of his cultural/international comparisons just a bit on the simplistic side. I wish there was some deeper engagement with the scientific racial doctrines that were build over the late 18th century, and how those calcified the discourse in Europe and America in specific ways. But that all being said, I found Sowell a super refreshing, even-handed voice who carefully backs up and explains his conclusions, and he is one who those of us interested in pursuing an intellectually-honest perspective on race relations in our world and culture need to take seriously.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 215 reviews