|
|
| Welcome Page |
| Table of Contents |
| Affiliate Links |
| Contact Us |
|
The "EveryBody" Insider |
| Review of Thomas Sowell’s Book
"Black Rednecks and White Liberals"
By Bahati Osayimwese 9-05-05 © ETBlack.com Greetings! This review is provided as a result of an invitation by a friend to look into this book called "Black Rednecks and White Liberals". I have summarized my thoughts below at various stages of my reading. There is the before reading the book segment, the beginning to read and the middle of the reading segments, the finished reading segment, and the further reflection segment. Please enjoy the review and visit some of the reference sites. Bahati ----------------------------------------- [ Segment 1 Before I Started Reading] I Got Your Redneck, Thomas Sowell ( part 1 of 3) Thoughts before I read the book By Bahati Babatu Osayimwese Thomas Sowell. He is a very intelligent, educated, conservative and provocative scholar and "Black-bashing" "Black" man. He is to Black editorial commentary what Clarence Thomas is to Black judicial opinion. It is a sign of our freedom to think more freely, that you find some Black folks taking on views, attitudes and behaviors that may seem untraditional or unorthodox. Thomas Sowell pushes the envelope. I have read several of his essays over the years. He wrote articles for Forbes about a decade or more ago. I had a subscription back then. Those articles were quite interesting. He does read, research and think. My concern with him is that he seems to go out of the way to find something wrong with Black folk. I guess this is no different than going out of one's way to find something wrong with White folk. He does have the don't-blame-White-folk-for-everything philosophy. He also has a don't-blame-White-folk-for-anything philosophy. It is important to be aware of the Thomas Sowell's and Clarence Thomases, and Clarence Pendleton's ( deceased, he was a Reagan man). I think we'll note that White liberals are being cast out of the good graces of the White family while these Black rednecks are trying to take those spots at the table of White brotherhood. Thomas has the slavery-wasn't-that-bad-and-everybody-had-it-anyway philosophy. Racism is a non-event. Only economics and education matter. Gray matter and green matter is all that matters. But, my dear sister and brother as you know, crossing those "invisible" color lines and breaking those taboos exposes some of the hypocrisy of this "colorblind" society and philosophy. As I wrote in Bahati's First Book of Poems - the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to African Americans AND descendants of slaves. A Black man HAD NO RIGHTS that the White Man was bound to respect prior to that( not that those rights were respected after that either). That was the ruling of the HIGHEST court in the land ( Clarence Thomas) in the Dred Scott case pre-Civil War. There were really no "free" Black folks in this country until after the 14th Amendment was passed because they were not officially recognized as citizens until then. Furthermore, once Black folk became citizens, they got the right to vote via the 15th Amendment (post-Civil War). And, that is when the crap hit the fan and the KKK was formed. Ain't no way in heck you gonna convince yourself that Black folk lynched themselves and hung themselves from trees. (Also, alluded to in my book). This was no equal opportunity terrorism here ( Thomas Sowell). And, if Black folks are still psychologically mixed up, confused and misdirected, it is no doggoned wonder. It doesn't matter, Thomas, whether slavery created racism or the other way around when you got your butt whipped or your mama raped or your kid sold and your name taken away. How many African names survived the process, Thomas? How many files did the FBI keep on MLK? Yes. Black folk are confused and many of us are making terrible mistakes. Others of us are mad as you know what. In my lifetime I had to vote just to state that it was legal for consenting Black and White adults of complementary genders to marry. But, we're colorblind? What the heck does that got to do with anybody's "ghetto" originating in northern England or Scotland? That's just stupidity. And, darn near 40% of the folks voted to keep that stupid -you know what law- on the books in the year 2000! Explain that one, Thomas. 40% of the voters - not 40% of the Klan - not 40% of folks in insane asylums - but 40% of the voters in the whole-doggoned state said interracial marriage should be banned even in this millennium! And, how many ships did Native Americans (American Indians) sail to Europe from North and South American to take up land and set up colonies there later declaring "independence"? It was not a two-way ocean. It was not a two-way trip. If you like or dislike the above try this - -------------------------------------- Declaration of Independence - 1776 http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ paragraph 2 ...." We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." .... paragraph ~16 - referring to the abuses of British King "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions...." ----------------------------------------- Texas Declaration of Causes for Secession -1861 http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html paragraphs 22 & 23 "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. ..." ---------------------------------------------- DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD (1857) http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/21.htm Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. " The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the constitution... ..... The question then arises, whether the provisions of the constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts? The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts. " -------------------------------------------- Which came first slavery or racism? What difference does it make to engage in an intellectual discussion on that when we still see problems in our relations today. Race is a term codified in Law. How do we fix this society so that we can live in peace and do GOD's will? That's THE issue. I just got my jury summons ( U in America now!). As a good citizen, I am required to complete an information survey. My date is Aug 16, 2005 8am 1019 Congress Ave Downtown Houston. Let's check this out. http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/Jury_Info/juror_services/PDFFiles/officialjurysummons.pdf Name and address - they got that filled already Male /Female - there are boxes to select from Race(required by State Law) - I could go to jail for messing this one up? Age - spot for me to enter info Date of Birth - they already know this and filled it in These are all blank - Home phone, mailing address if different, County, TDL#, Occupation, employer, phone, how long, marital status, education completed, spouse's name, employer, how long, occupation, number of children, age range, ever accused or witness on criminal case, ever on civil jury, ever sustain bodily injury requiring medical attention On the back there are several requirements and exemptions Looks to me like all I gotta do by law is tell them I'm Black (can't lie - I don't wanna go to jail) and I'm done... The other things are either already filled in or "not" required by State Law. ----------------------------------------------------- I Got Your Redneck, Thomas Sowell ( Part 2 of 3) After I Started Reading the Book By Bahati Babatu Osayimwese I have chased down a copy of the Book - "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell. ( This was published by Encounter Books San Francisco 2005. 291 pages. ) It took me two weekends and about $28 plus time and gas to track down and purchase. I can see why someone would buy-in to this way of thinking that liberals are behind the downfall of Black folks today. I covered 60-70pp. last nite and I see where this is heading. Basically, the fringe White folks from the outskirts of England and Scotland - the trashy, low morals, vicious, lustful, ignorant, overly emotional, etc. types came from there and brought all of the bad habits found in America with them. Supposedly this is where the "redneck" came from. He does a very poor job of explaining the term "Redneck". He just tells you that it came from across the Atlantic. The enslaved Black folks in the South then acquired the bad habits of the "rednecks". It is the "redneck" within Black people today that holds them down. It started with the rednecks from the lower classes of England and Scotland. It crossed over to the Blacks of the South who made some strides toward progress after the Emancipation Proclamation with the help of education from White Northerners. White Liberals rekindled this "redneck" backwardness in the 1960s. The White liberals, especially the New York Times, are keeping Blacks down and failing to blame Blacks for being their own problem. He insists on calling Blacks "rednecks" so much so that it is beyond annoying. There are many holes in his arguments. In the preface he talks of "trade-offs" instead of solutions. ( I'll get back to this after I read more.) He starts the 1st chapter showing that White Southerners were thought undesirable in 1951 in Detroit per a survey which showed that 21% felt that way but only 13% felt that way about Blacks. An obscure "survey" done over 50 years ago in which the majority had other opinions than the one he chose to discuss. On p. 6 he really talks bad about Southern Whites. He does not explain anything about the Southern elite, statesmen, etc. He implies their existence and mentions Robert E Lee and John C Calhoun but he doesn't call THEM rednecks. He seems down on Black preachers, politicians and activists. He takes pains to investigate as much dirt on the South as he can. Was/is the North paradise? He repudiates Black pride and Black culture as being really negative and "redneck". He states that the South was basically economically stupid. It did not produce milk and cheese for example like smarter folks in Wisconsin and like Germans. He talks of mental tests and IQ tests suggesting that Blacks have an IQ of 85 on average. He denies the possibility that Blacks retain any culture from Africa - "Much of the cultural pattern of Southern rednecks became the cultural heritage of Southern blacks, more so than survivals of African cultures, with which they had not been in contact for centuries." He neglects to find/acknowledge words, music, practices, knowledge, etc. from Africa transplanted to America. He neglects to mention the role that Blacks played in securing their freedom - The Maroons, slave uprisings, etc. He describes Blacks as a sort of Blank African waiting for some White Northerner or White Liberal or White redneck or White whatever to give him/her culture - good or bad. He has an annoying habit of using the term "ghetto blacks". Is that you or I? He doesn't define what he means. On p. 28 he misspells "Kwaanza" which should be "Kwanzaa". He neglects to explain the roots of the Holiday - he doesn't care. Redneck culture not slavery is to blame for Blacks' problems. He neglects to quantify or even discuss the impact of slavery on Black folks. Everyone had slavery and all slavery was bad and equally bad but the West was brilliant in getting rid of it, he implies. He neglects to mention the Haitian revolution and the numerous slave uprisings as well as the Civil War, which caused people to relook at the institution. Worst he fails to recognize that slavery still exists in the U.S. as punishment for a crime as stated in the 13th Amendment. When Blacks migrated north after 1865, White northerners then developed discriminatory practices to guard against the "redneck culture" that came in. It makes it seem like the backlash was justified if not at least reasonable. He touches on the House Negro v. Field Negro theme a few times but seems to suggest that the "redneck" culture is consistent with the "Field Negro" condition while the "House Negro and the mulatto" had at least a step away from that. He does not discuss the divide and conquer; or Willie Lynch models for keeping Blacks weak thru separations such as this. Again he suggests that Blacks started to become discriminated against because they were "rednecks" not because of skin color! Oh, by the way, he skipped over the separate water fountain, segregation era completely - maybe he talks about it later? He seems to be down on the civil rights efforts. He has not quoted Dr. King - yet? He discusses the "welfare state" arising from the 1960s as being promoted by White liberals to rescue Black folks. This resuscitated the "redneck". He fails to define racism but insists that it cuts both ways. He cites some survey that Blacks are anti-Semitic. I couldn't follow that one at all. He cites success of West Indian Blacks in the U.S. as proof that Blacks born in the U.S. possess bad culture. Which begs numerous questions - was it poor West Indians or wealthy ones who migrated to the U.S.? How do U.S. born Blacks fare in The Caribbean? Is the Caribbean a paradise? If so, why did people leave there? He neglects to recognize or acknowledge any Pan-African consciousness or political movement. No mention of Garvey - yet? He credits "religious conservatives" with supporting the abolition of slavery but actually those would have been considered religious liberals in those times - Quakers, for example - not mainstream. But, free Blacks and freed Blacks also supported the abolition effort; and, some folks shed blood for it. John Brown was no religious conservative! p. 115 "No other nation ended slavery in the same way as the United States did and few ended it after so short a struggle, as history is measured." - really? Amendment XIII - except as punishment for a crime. gotta read the "fine" print. ------------------------------------ http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am13 Amendment XIII - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. ------------------------------------------- I read some more of the book. I've made it thru 170 pages. After finishing the section on "The Real History of Slavery", I arrived at a few more conclusions. Sowell, does not share much on Portuguese and Spanish history. He does not cite much about Spain; and, he makes only brief mention of Portugal in the chapter. P. 121 "It was precisely the fact that Europeans-except for the Portuguese-seldom participated in the raids that captured and enslaved Africans..." "except" - It WOULD have been the Portuguese since the Pope gave them permission to rule the East while the Spaniards ruled the West in 1493! ---------------- http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Treaty-of-Tordesillas " Exploration and colonization It was intended to resolve the dispute that had been created following the return of Christopher Columbus. In 1481 the papal Bull Aeterni regis had granted all land south of the Canary Islands to Portugal. In May 1493 The Spanish-born Pope Alexander VI decreed in the Bull Inter caetera that all lands west of a meridian only 100 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands should belong to Spain while new lands discovered east of that line would belong to Portugal, although territory already under Christian rule would remain untouched. Naturally the Portuguese King John II was not happy, so he opened negotiations with King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain to move the line to the west, arguing that the meridian would extend all around the globe - limiting Spanish control in Asia. The treaty effectively countered the bull of Alexander VI but it was sanctioned by Pope Julius II in a new bull of 1506. Very little of the newly divided area had actually been seen, as it was divided according to the treaty. Spain gained lands including all the Americas. The easternmost part of current Brazil, when it was discovered in 1500 by Pedro Álvares Cabral, was granted to Portugal. Although the line extended over the pole into Asia, at the time accurate measurements of longitude were impossible so uncertainties arose. The line was not strictly enforced - the Spanish did not resist the Portuguese expansion of Brazil across the meridian. The treaty was rendered meaningless between 1580 and 1640 while Spain controlled Portugal. It was superseded by the 1750 Treaty of Madrid which granted Portugal control of the lands it occupied in South America. The Treaty of Madrid was a document signed by Spain and Portugal concerning their empires and status of their slave plantations in what is now Brazil. ... The remaining exploring nations of Europe such as France and England were explicitly refused access to the new lands, leaving them only options like piracy, unless they (as they did later) rejected the papal authority to divide undiscovered countries. The view taken by the rulers of these nations is epitomized by the quotation attributed to Francis I of France demanding to be shown the clause in Adam's will excluding his authority from the New World. " --------------- 1. He does mention the Haitian Revolution and Nat Turner's Rebellion; but, he dismisses the Haitian revolution as a bloodbath. p. 139 "The race war and bloodbath that erupted with the emancipation of blacks in Santo Domingo-today's Haiti- cast a long shadow over the South..." 2. He convinces himself that the West just got religion one day and went on a worldwide campaign to end slavery at any cost. P. 123 "It would be hard to think of any other crusade pursued so relentlessly for so long by any nation, at such mounting costs, without any economic or other tangible benefit to itself." p. 116 "Slavery did not die out quietly of its own accord. It went down fighting to the bitter end - and it lost only because Europeans had gunpowder weapons first." p. 126 "On the issue of slavery, it was essentially Western civilization against the world." 3. He maligns Brazil for being so slow to end slavery p. "It may be significant that the only other independent nation in the Western Hemisphere with a large slave population - Brazil - was the last Western nation to abolish the institution, a quarter of a century after the United States." 4. He fails to note that the U.S. issues the 13th Amendment in 1865 but Mexico ended slavery in 1829, 32 years before the start of the Civil War ( about slavery) in the U.S. ( with Texas part of the Confederacy after having left Mexico in 1836 to keep slavery going) 5. On the Civil War he contradicts himself by stating in one place that it cost much in the way of lives and money. But, in another breath, he acts likes the war was just a short but bloody inconvenience. p. 122 "Slavery was destroyed within the United States at staggering costs in blood and treasure, but the struggle was over within a few ghastly years of warfare. Nevertheless, the Civil War was the bloodiest war ever fought in the Western Hemisphere...." ..."But this was a highly atypical-indeed, unique- way to end slavery." 6. He gives examples of how slavery retarded economic growth but then he turns around and dismisses the idea that slavery is the cause of Black folks' problems in the U.S. p. 157 "...Both in Brazil and the United States-the countries with the two largest slave populations in the Western Hemisphere- the end of slavery found the regions in which slaves had been concentrated poorer than the other regions of these same countries. For the United States, a case could be made that this was due to the Civil War, which did so much damage to the South, but no such explanation would apply to Brazil, which fought no civil war over the issue. Moreover, even in the United States, the South lagged behind the North in many ways even before the Civil War." p. 160 "The physical and psychic sufferings of slaves in the past are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the economic and other differences between their present-day descendants and members of the general population. The economic and other disparities between Europeans and Africans living, respectively, in Europe and Africa are vastly greater than the disparities between the descendants of Europeans and Africans living in the United States. The latter have gained economically from living in the United States." The p. 160 statement is confusing - slavery does not explain the Black/White economic gap in the U.S. but the Black/White gap in the U.S. is not a big as the Africa/Europe gap and Blacks in the U.S. gained because they live in America. There is a gap but there is a "gain" at the same time. But, we're "rednecks" and "ghetto blacks" - what's up? He means that we were better off for having been slaves. P. 160 "That these gains derive from the tragic fate of their ancestors does not make them any less gains, over and above where these descendants would be today if their ancestors had been left alone in peace in their homeland." 7. Conclusion - he thinks that the West did us favors first by getting us over here and second by leading the worldwide intellectual, political, evangelical and military campaign to end slavery. 8. Thomas - remember Jim Crow, remember apartheid, remember Tulsa! 9. To his credit Sowell does discuss the evils of slavery throughout history in the world. It is just too short. He goes over some of the same points too many times. He does mention modern day slavery examples. He discusses the Turkish, Arab and African slave trading which few others discuss. It is disappointing that he does not talk about the role of Spain ( and Portugal) in the equation. This is a common problem that I see is that people begin the discussion of the "New World" with the English-speaking people. He mentions Brazil; but, he really does not go into great depth other than to show that it lagged the U.S. in abolition and economics. He does a great injustice in neglecting to reflect upon the role which the slave played in securing his/her own freedom. In order to give the slave credit for securing his own freedom, Sowell would have to discuss the culture behind it. The longing to be free and willing-to-fight-for-it culture was not credited to the slave. Yes - Fredrick Douglas, Nat Turner, Haiti, etc. are mentioned but the West is cherished as the great champion of abolition and anti-slavery culture. He misses and dismisses the Maroon effect - the we'll-fight-back effect. He omits the culture of Blacks' fighting back in many ways. Instead, he portrays Blacks as largely passive figures awaiting a fate to be decided by Europeans. He denies or omits the possibility that Africans can succeed and exceed without help from the West. The West is the great savior of Africa. We, in America, benefit from the closer proximity to the best of the West, which is America. Had we not been here, our fate surely would have been worse, is his logic. He turns right around to malign Black folks, for crime, poverty, broken homes, etc. due to misguidance from White liberals and rhetoric from Black activists, Black preachers, and Black politicians. He has the audacity to call us "rednecks" and "ghetto blacks". The only culture that we have is a bad one inherited from the wrong White people. It would seem from this that I disagree. But, in reality, I do agree with some of his logic. We DO inherit many bad habits, ideas, traits, etc. from White liberals as well as moderates and conservatives. But, to blame all of our present problems on the Civil Rights movements and Great Society efforts of the 1960s is appalling to me. Yes, we got problems but we NEVER got over slavery. The gap was NEVER made zero. Sowell wants to convince himself that the gap is due to anything BUT slavery. He will go to great scholarly lengths to "show and prove" it. He convinced himself that Black folks held onto this "redneck" culture for centuries but lost contact with African culture almost immediately. He dismisses the notion of Black pride as being a copy of something "crackers" and "rednecks" do. Black pride is associated only with bad traits and not good ones. His disdain for the post 1960 activism is evident. He strives to tell White people - don't listen to Black preachers, militants, and politicians - listen to me I'm an economist, I'm a scholar and an intellectual. I'll try to finish this book soon. He has dropped the earlier frequent references to "rednecks" and "ghetto blacks". But, I'm sure that he'll return to it later on. --------------------------------------------------- I Got Your Redneck, Thomas Sowell ( Part 3 of 3) Upon Finishing the book By Bahati Babatu Osayimwese I have gone thru page 225. I have jury duty today 8-16-05. I identified myself as African American ( race is required by State law). I left everything else blank. Let's see what happens. I will summarize two chapters here - one on Jews the other on Germans. Sowell is sympathetic to both people. It is not clear why either chapter is in the book. I think his point on the Jews' chapter is to show that a minority group can excel economically but may experience discrimination and violence. He does a poor job of explaining the difference between Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews. He fails to discuss the definitions. Sephardic - from Spain or Middle East origin ( the older branch). Ashkenazic - from Germany and other parts of Europe ( the more recent converts). He really speaks well of Germans. I agree generally with his assessment that Germans were not and are not grossly anti-Jewish. Jews would not have settled in Germany if it were hostile to them before Hitler. Germans were not slave owners around the world or in the U.S. German towns in the U.S. were/are rather friendly. Germans had a good work ethic and busted their own butts ( instead of someone else's). The Hitler era was very unbecoming the Germans. German descendants were U.S. generals in WW II - Eisenhower, Nimitz, and Pershing. He goes to great lengths to argue and show that Germans were good people and not anti-Semitic with few exceptions. Those few exceptions tainted the view of the whole. My problem is that he takes pains to show that Germans were NOT anti-Semitic ( and I agree with that position). BUT, he insists that Black people ARE anti-Semitic while offering little explanation for that position. I disagree in a big way with this position; but, I look forward to seeing what his information is. So far it is some obscure survey done by who knows who and who knows how and why. By the way - he omits discussion on the participation of Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and Native Americans in WWII and other wars fought on behalf on the U.S. and the West. He leaves the impression that only White Western European people and their descendants did the fighting and liberating, etc. I've started the chapter on Black Education - so far he likes Dunbar High School in Washington DC until it changed after Brown V. Board in 1954 when desegregation began. He acts like things were better when there was segregation in school; but, he only cites one example - Dunbar. Then Dunbar fell apart because it became a "neighborhood school" after desegregation. The poor Blacks around the school now went to the school instead of Blacks from outside the area. The irony is that the School itself did not help to uplift the Black folks right there in the community in the first place. For decades it created good individuals who made strides in Western society. But, what about those poor Black folks residing for decades right outside the doors of Dunbar? He misses this irony. If we are truly educated will we not uplift our brethren? How can we declare ourselves successes without uplifting all around us? For Sowell, all that matters is good test scores, degrees from good White colleges and titles in Western society. He dismisses diversity. But, that is the building block for the university - the free flow of ideas that HE is part of. He dismisses the idea of role models. But, mentors and role models are useful. To assist with success in life there are mentors, teachers and "role models". Those who can inspire one to excell to higher heights are useful. He doesn't care about that. Blacks can go to Whites for all necessary mentorship in his thinking. He dismisses the concept of "critical mass" which suggests that a certain minimal number of Blacks is needed in order to make Blacks feel comfortable in school. He states that achieving "critical mass" actually hurts Black performance. Yet, the ALL Black high school, Dunbar, serves as his example of glory. A minimum critical mass of Black students among White students is bad in college; but, an ALL Black select High School is ideal? He doesn't get into Black Colleges - yet? He dismisses the need for Black History. Who needs that if the objective is standardized test scores and roles in Western society. Actually, I agree. Study Greek, Latin, European History and Literature, etc. if you want to excel in this society. But, if you want to change, improve and/or move out of this society, you must study other fields, disciplines and people. If you want to be an African you sure as heck ought to study Africa. But, Sowell loves the West. He laments that striving for education leads to calls of "acting White". I agree that such behavior is not healthy. But, Thomas, if the ULTIMATE goal in LIFE is to be like and to exceed the best of the West, then what are you becoming but Western and by extension "White"? You, Thomas, wiped out the teaching of African history. You wipe out the remnants of Black culture. You deny the need for Blacks to work together except during the days of segregation when you think things were just fine. You minimize the pain that many Blacks feel/felt while showing that others had legitimate pain and suffering. You call us "anti-Semitic", "redneck", "ghetto blacks". And, you expect us to comment on, read and buy your damn book! $28 stinking bucks.... =========================================== I have completed the book - 291 pages. [By the way I had to give a little more information on my jury duty questionnaire. There was an announcement at the assembly of jurors instructing us to please fill out the sex, race and age sections. I penciled in the gender and age boxes then I went back to reading "Black Rednecks and White Liberals". Later, I heard a few names including mine over the loudspeaker asking us to come up front. There were several hundred people in the large assembly area. I read a few more lines before getting up and going to the front. By this time, my name was being called a few more times. When I got to the front, MY name was the ONLY name still being called. When I got the announcer's attention, I asked what he needed. He stated politely that he needed to have my Driver's License no. and for me to fill out more of the questionnaire. I wrote my TDL No., marked "yes" for U.S. citizen, and marked "no" for having previously served on some special sort of civil jury. I handed the form back to the gentleman who then thanked me. I found another spot in the room to sit down and recommence my reading. There was a long wait for the jury ordeal; therefore, I had lots of reading time. I nearly completed the book before the last bunch of us was released. Later that same day I finished the book.] My initial impressions of Thomas Sowell remain pretty much as I had stated up front. He avoids blaming White people for anything. But, in this book the twist is that he credits White people with giving Black people bad culture which he labels "redneck" culture. This negative culture is the stew of all ideas and behaviors, which he finds unattractive. Those ideas that he finds attractive are departures from "redneck" culture. The best way to distance oneself from "redneck" culture is to embrace the best of the West - the northeast of the U.S., England, Germany, etc. Those cultures, which are most Western, are best. Japan gets credit for becoming Western and hence advancing. The Chinese outside of China get credit for Westernizing themselves. The book offers really no solutions to the problems that it mentions. The West, not the book, IS the solution. So, that is the point of it I suppose - convince everyone that the West is the best. Thus, IT IS our savior. Don't worry about its sins. Every place has sins. Look instead at its technology, economy, education, literature, culture, etc. It is great. And, it is just that it has the military power to maintain and expand itself. He believes in the West as if it is a religion unto itself. He downplays the hurt that Black people feel/felt. Slavery - everybody had it. Discrimination - many minorities had that. Lynching - oh even White people were lynched. Segregation - hey some of the segregated schools ( a handful) did okay. On the other hand he will cite the special hurt that Jews endured. And, he even goes as far as to show that Germans were mistreated before they mistreated Jews. He makes you feel for every group of people on Earth with the exception of African Americans and indigenous Australians. He takes pride in the Queen Victoria's "shedding a tear when she read Uncle Tom's Cabin" a book of fiction written by a White woman. But, then he blasts Roots a book of non-fiction written by a Black man. The Queen's tears are justified by her sense of humanity. But, we should be ashamed of shedding tears while reading or watching ROOTS? p. 273 "...Queen Victoria's concern about the fate of slaves in other lands. When Uncle Tom's Cabin author Harriet Beecher Stowe was granted an audience with Her Majesty during a trip to England, she found the queen able to discuss the Dred Scott case "in great detail," as well as saying that she had wept over some of the passages in the novel." ( Ironic that he alludes to the Dred Scott case but HE doesn't discuss it in the book.) p. 120 "Contrary to the "myths to live by" created by Alex Haley and others, Africans were by no means the innocents portrayed in Roots, baffled as to why white men were coming in and taking their people away in chains." The irony is that both books ( Uncle Tom's Cabin and Roots) show that Black people did the beating and slave catching on BEHALF of White people. But what is even more astonishing to me is how he dismisses one White woman in Australia for feeling bad about the plight of the indigenous population. P. 264 "...various kinds of differences between white and aboriginal Australians were lumped together by a white Australian woman as examples of social injustice:" (Sowell) 'The fact that I wake up each morning in a warm , safe, comfortable home, secure in the knowledge that the schools I send my children off to are organised to enhance their life chances and choices, and that good health, employment opportunities and respect are the norm not the goal in our lives has been made possible through the 208-year exploitation of land that belonged to indigenous Australians since the beginning of time.' " (The unnamed woman) p. 265 "..Yet her sense of guilt for her personal advantages and her ancestors' sins is greater because she lives in Australia. More important, it leads her to a conclusion all too characteristic of the quest for cosmic justice - that the aborigines should not have to change in order to achieve equality of results with whites in Australia..." (Sowell) Sowell permits only CERTAIN people to have feelings that are legitimate. The Queen is permitted to have feelings but not the anonymous White Australian woman. Sowell does give space and credit to Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Dubois. But, he fails to comment of the enduring success ( or failure) of the institutions they created. He applauds their efforts then he leaves those efforts in the dust of the early 1900s. Do those institutions, BTW's Tuskegee Institute and WEB's NAACP qualify for good marks today? He is silent. It is doubtful that Sowell is pleased with the current performance of either legacy but he wants us to think that he actually respects and honors their founders? He provides NO solutions. In the intro he states. p. x. "...Yet there is not the slightest danger that there will be a shortage of solutions. On the contrary, an abundance of uninformed solutions has been one of our biggest social problems." ( yea even after reading that I continued on...) p. x "Any serious consideration of social problems is likely to involve trade-offs rather than neat "solutions", and trade-offs depend on values which can vary from one individual to the next..." "...If this book can contribute to understanding on a subject where misunderstandings abound, then it will have done its work." Sowell lowers the bar at the outset admitting that he will not offer solutions. Then he mentions that trade-offs are needed; but, he won't tell us what those are. Finally, he hopes that he may be able to provide an understanding on "a" subject. He lowers his expectations of himself saying that if I hit any target then I hit the target! Here is how the book ends - p. 291 "Where beliefs are not checked against facts, but instead facts must meet the test of consonance with the prevailing vision, we are in the process of sealing ourselves off from feedback from reality. Heedless of the past, we are flying blind into the future." That last paragraph really clears things up and provides for enormous quantities of understanding - doesn't it? HE believes that Brown V. Board and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s did no good or did more harm than good. p. 242 ".. poverty rate among blacks ... cut in half before either the civil rights revolution or the Great Society social programs began in the 1960s. The continuation of this trend can hardly be automatically credited to these political developments...." ..."Whatever the merits of various movements and programs on other grounds, the claim that they were the primary factor in the economic advancement of blacks cannot be squared with the facts...." The book really makes little sense other than that we should just embrace the West with all its flaws and things will be dandy. Forget about slavery, forget about discrimination, forget Jim Crow ( there was a good school Dunbar High in Washington DC back then), forget Brown V. Board, remember BTW and WEB but forget the NAACP and Tuskegee Institute, forget Africa, forget Afrocentricity, forget the ghetto, forget lynching, forget role models, forget affirmative action, forget the civil rights movement, forget Black studies, forget diversity, forget multiculturalism, forget Black pride, forget Black culture, forget reparations, etc. Only remember the bad stuff that Blacks did in the past and do in the present. Forget a black man trying to catch a cab in New York... Forget MLK and Malcolm X neither of who got a footnote in the book. Forget Marcus Garvey. Forget the Haitian revolution. Forget the freedom of slaves in Mexico preceding Texas' revolution. Forget Kwanzaa. Forget bilingual education. ( I am appalled at that since I have tutored many bilingual or Spanish only students. I am proud of my student's ability to learn in whatever language it took for me to teach in. I am glad a system was available to help them. I am glad that I was able to help in a small way.) Sowell gives a very confusing message on education especially for someone who is in the business of education. He applauds some programs like teaching phonics; but, he says bad things about bilingual education. He denounces African studies or Black studies; then, HE goes and studies everything on Earth that he can get HIS hands on. He downgrades diversity; but, he tries to understand minorities and ethnic groups the world over. Then, he sits over at a prestigious University where diversity is in full swing. He ridicules the concept of critical mass; then, he applauds Oberlin College for educating so many Black folk ( enough to constitute a critical mass?). He has not offered a single solution to higher level education for Black people; but, he considers himself part of the intelligentsia. Forget your African name and origin. Think only of test scores and economic gaps to close. That is his message. In summary - "Heedless of the past, we are flying blind into the future." - Thomas Sowell That's the way I read, "Black Rednecks and White Liberals." ========================================= Upon finishing the book A few more observations to add He does not sympathize with American Indians either. This is in addition to lack of sympathy for African Americans, Africans in general and Indigenous Australians. By the way - he spells black and white in the lower case ( which is common except for a few others and me). He spells aborigine in the lower case. The proper term should be Aboriginal Australian ( using the upper case). In addition to my comments below on the Indigenous Australians, I note that he fails to mention that most of the population has been killed and nearly wiped off the face of the Earth. The word is GENOCIDE. The fact that one White lady laments their plight should not be taken as a case of stupidity or insanity. The full-blooded Indigenous Tasmanians are ALL gone now. They're all DEAD! He has no sympathy for them either? The last full-blooded Tasmanian, Truganini (ca. 1812 - May 8, 1876), a Tasmanian Aboriginal woman, died during the era in which the West was purging the Earth from slavery and making it safe for freedom and prosperity for all according to Sowell. The tourist version of Tasmania http://www.discovertasmania.com.au/home/index.cfm?SiteID=215 " Today's Tasmanian Aboriginal community retains strong links to the land. In Tasmania's river valleys, forests, coastlines and offshore islands, important cultural sites are a physical and spiritual connection linking Aboriginal people of the past, the present and the future. " --------------- The historic version of Tasmania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tasmania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_arm_band_theory_of_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truganini " Tasmania was once inhabited by an indigenous population, the Tasmanian Aborigines, and evidence indicates their presence in the territory, later to become an island, at least 35 000 years ago. The indigenous population at the time of British settlement in 1803 has been estimated at 5 000, but through persecution (see Black War and Black Line) and disease the population was decimated (some mixed-blood descendants still survive). The impact of introduced diseases, prior to the first European estimates of the size of Tasmania's population, means that the original indigenous population could have been somewhat larger than 5 000. The last full-blooded Tasmanian Aborigine was Truganini - she died in Hobart in 1876. " ------------------------------ On page 278 Sowell excuses the need to study history from the perspective of certain minority groups. "One need only ask how many slaves - the vast majority of whom were illiterate- contemplated the Constitution of the United States at all to see the absurdity of such posturing. As for the Arawaks, the first people Columbus encountered in the Western Hemisphere, none has survived and none left any writings. How Columbus or Andrew Jackson or any other historic figure looked to any Western Hemisphere Indians is knowledge vouchsafed only to those Indians at that time-certainly not to others centuries removed from the scene, living in a very different cultural universe, and possessing not even isolated written statements from the indigenous peoples, much less any scientifically conducted polls among them." Thomas - study Frederick Douglas on the Constitution. Study Robert Smalls of South Carolina and other Black leaders of the 1860s and 1870s regarding their impression of the document from which they later governed in the congress and States in which they lived. The former slaves thought enough of the Constitution to run for office or establish businesses and newspapers when they were allowed the opportunity! Thomas - Columbus first encountered the Taino of the Bahamas ( Guanahani) not the Arawaks of Jamaica. But, in both cases, the tragedy is that they, the Taino and Arawaks, are DEAD. All are gone with the exception of a few descendants of mixed heritage surviving here and there. The tragedy is their death not your or my intellectual discourses. How Columbus and Jackson looked to American Indians is irrelevant to Sowell. But, how the Indians looked to Columbus and Jackson is documented. That part IS history. Is it really that hard to see that all of the indigenous populations of all the islands that Columbus visited are now almost 100% dead? Arawaks of Jamaica - dead. Taino of the Bahamas - gone. Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti - Taino - dead, Dominican Republic - dead. Nearly every Island of the Caribbean, with the exception of Dominica, has lost 100% of the indigenous population. Now, Sowell wants to even bury their memories and forget to even ponder their feelings and lives! Read "Historia de Los Indios" written in the 1500s by Fr. Bartolome De las Casas - Thomas! As for Jackson, is it such a huge strain to ponder how the Cherokee felt on the Trail of Tears March? This thousand mile march from east to west has been discussed in writings, song, art, commemorative marches, etc. I have a button to commemorate the Trail of Tears and to try to understand how people felt and the conditions, which led to the tragedy. Sowell misses the whole tide of events, which put people on reservations. Cherokee: March from east to west http://www.cherokeemuseum.org/html/collections_tot.html "We, the great mass of the people, think only of the love we have for our land. For we do love the land where we were brought up. We will never let our hold to this land go. To let it go will be like throwing away our mother that gave us birth." --Letter from Aitooweyah to John Ross, Principal Chief. ------------------------------------------- Chiricahua Apache: Captured in the South Following his campaigns south in and out of the U.S. and Mexican territories, Geronimo was led to a life on the reservation. After his capture in 1886 Geronimo( Gokhlayeh, Goyathlay - "One Who Yawns") said, "I give myself up to you. Do with me what you please. I surrender. Once I moved about like the wind. Now I surrender to you and that is all." In 1906 his memoirs were published in a book, "Geronimo's Story of His People". ---------- http://www.desertusa.com/web_cart/db/pages/3005.html "I am thankful that the President of the United States has given me permission to tell my story. I hope that he and those in authority under him will read my story and judge whether my people have been rightly treated." -- Geronimo ---------- Nez Perce: Frozen in their tracks in the North Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce [Hin-Mah-Too-Yah ("Thunder Traveling to Loftier Mountain Heights")], after trying to go north to evade capture and enter into Canada to escape the pursuing armies of the U.S. admits his fate and resigns to it. --------- http://www2.gsu.edu/~eslmlm/chiefjoseph.html I Will Fight No More Forever Surrender Speech by Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce "I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed. Looking Glass is dead. Toohulhulsote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led the young men is dead. It is cold and we have no blankets. The little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are--perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children and see how many I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. " The stories are here for all to read and see. Why, Thomas, is it so difficult to feel the suffering of people, who have not advanced economically or achieved good IQ and other test scores by Western standards, that you think are so important in defining not only the quality of life but also the meaning of life and its purpose? How do we live in peace, take care of our brother and uplift all of humanity scorning and shaming no one? How do we remember the failings and successes and feelings of our ancestors? How do we teach our children to advance the good of all the Earth? You offer no solution. You ridicule and/or forget those who are DEAD and cannot give their personal testimony to you directly. They may not have left you the results of their "scientific" exit polls as they breathed their last. Yet, even the rocks around you cry out their stories shattering the wind in the air that you breathe. Inhale their spirit as it may awaken you from the slumber that you no doubt are unaware that you are in. Awaken! Do not scorn those whose wise fathers/mothers are dead and gone leaving the children and great-grandchildren to fend for themselves. |