Sign in with Facebook
Bob Anderson's Reviews > Black Rednecks and White Liberals
Black Rednecks and White Liberals
by
by
This book is a collection of a few long essays from Sowell, an economist of some fame, and of special value to conservatives because he is an African-American conservative intellectual. I’ll be discussing only the first, titular, essay in this book, because it’s the one I was most interested in. I think it’s fair to judge a book on its most advertised section, don’t you? Sowell’s thesis here is that nearly all of serious problems facing black Americans today come from a culture they shared during slavery with white Southerners which those white people cast aside and those black people spread these last decades, and from the condescension of white liberals (by which he means programs such as welfare in its various forms and affirmative action). He claims that this culture, a violent “cracker” culture of machismo from England’s borderlands in pre-colonial times that was transplanted by a few immigrants to the American South, is the explainer of current economic disadvantage much more so than racism or prejudice, and that black people will have to voluntarily discard it and not receive welfare in order to prosper.
However much this theory sounds like the academic equivalent of blaming rap music and sagging pants for inner-city violence, such easy mockery doesn’t actually disprove his claims. There is either significant evidence against or no real evidence for the two parts of his argument, though: there is no reason to suggest that this “cracker” culture spread from Renaissance-era Britain to modern black people, and there is evidence that such a culture isn’t the explainer of modern racial economic inequality. To support his theory that ruffians from England’s hinterlands are the primary cultural influences on modern black people, he cites a book called Cracker Culture published in the 1980s by a fringe scholar named Grady McWhiney. This book was not widely accepted, to say the least, not least because of the problems with its theory: Celtic immigrants of the type he talks about were influential in both the North and the South instead of just the latter, and genteel Englishmen were certainly not unrepresented in the Southern culture. And none of this explanation of antebellum North/South differences, if true, can serve to replace an actual cultural history of black people in America from the 1800s to today with the convenient explanation Sowell needs for his thesis.
As to the second part of Sowell’s argument, that for black people in America to prosper they must receive no government help, forsake their violent culture, and copy the successful white people around them, it doesn’t hold up. Certainly violence in black communities is a problem and unwanted, but the arrow of cause and effect doesn’t match Sowell’s model: violence doesn’t create and perpetuate poverty, but poverty can create and perpetuate violence. Some simple points: the antebellum South was very prosperous despite having one of the most insanely violent systems on the planet in place (it was slavery, not “cracker culture”), whereas the correlation between long-poor populations and high rates of violence is omnipresent in the world. Populations don’t start off rich, begin tolerating violence and so become poor. Furthermore, cutting off black children from food stamps, housing assistance and public schools would in absolutely no way produce a new generation more likely to succeed because they were “hungrier”; you’d see a lot more homeless children of billionaires if this were a logic designed for use on anyone other than poor minorities. And emulation of whites is not a surefire way to the top either; the quality Sowell would most like to see is a strong work ethic, and many studies that research this exact phenomenon show that if anything, black people work harder than white people. Still not sweeping economic justice. Sowell’s arguments have many holes like these, based on insufficient evidence or wishful thinking, or even counter-factual claims about reality. Sowell is correct when he states that race is not a cause of this inequality; race is not, in fact, a determiner of skill, motivation, etc. But he is wrong to suggest that racism isn’t. There is a wealth of evidence that points at the great importance of racism in the history of America, and none that points away. Read this book only with these grains of salt in mind.
Two stars for being interestingly written even if I disagree with nearly every word on some pages.
However much this theory sounds like the academic equivalent of blaming rap music and sagging pants for inner-city violence, such easy mockery doesn’t actually disprove his claims. There is either significant evidence against or no real evidence for the two parts of his argument, though: there is no reason to suggest that this “cracker” culture spread from Renaissance-era Britain to modern black people, and there is evidence that such a culture isn’t the explainer of modern racial economic inequality. To support his theory that ruffians from England’s hinterlands are the primary cultural influences on modern black people, he cites a book called Cracker Culture published in the 1980s by a fringe scholar named Grady McWhiney. This book was not widely accepted, to say the least, not least because of the problems with its theory: Celtic immigrants of the type he talks about were influential in both the North and the South instead of just the latter, and genteel Englishmen were certainly not unrepresented in the Southern culture. And none of this explanation of antebellum North/South differences, if true, can serve to replace an actual cultural history of black people in America from the 1800s to today with the convenient explanation Sowell needs for his thesis.
As to the second part of Sowell’s argument, that for black people in America to prosper they must receive no government help, forsake their violent culture, and copy the successful white people around them, it doesn’t hold up. Certainly violence in black communities is a problem and unwanted, but the arrow of cause and effect doesn’t match Sowell’s model: violence doesn’t create and perpetuate poverty, but poverty can create and perpetuate violence. Some simple points: the antebellum South was very prosperous despite having one of the most insanely violent systems on the planet in place (it was slavery, not “cracker culture”), whereas the correlation between long-poor populations and high rates of violence is omnipresent in the world. Populations don’t start off rich, begin tolerating violence and so become poor. Furthermore, cutting off black children from food stamps, housing assistance and public schools would in absolutely no way produce a new generation more likely to succeed because they were “hungrier”; you’d see a lot more homeless children of billionaires if this were a logic designed for use on anyone other than poor minorities. And emulation of whites is not a surefire way to the top either; the quality Sowell would most like to see is a strong work ethic, and many studies that research this exact phenomenon show that if anything, black people work harder than white people. Still not sweeping economic justice. Sowell’s arguments have many holes like these, based on insufficient evidence or wishful thinking, or even counter-factual claims about reality. Sowell is correct when he states that race is not a cause of this inequality; race is not, in fact, a determiner of skill, motivation, etc. But he is wrong to suggest that racism isn’t. There is a wealth of evidence that points at the great importance of racism in the history of America, and none that points away. Read this book only with these grains of salt in mind.
Two stars for being interestingly written even if I disagree with nearly every word on some pages.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Black Rednecks and White Liberals.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
June 1, 2015
–
Finished Reading
June 25, 2015
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-11 of 11 (11 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Erika
(new)
-
added it
Jul 17, 2016 10:47AM
I just finished reading this essay today and find that in your comments, you leave out a lot of points that Sowell makes about integration being affected by massive migrations, etc. He does point out periods where blacks advanced more economically than whites. Yes, these are his theories but they are well researched and provide a basis for discussion -- if only that discussion could be had. He actually takes up your points about poverty. He doesn't suggest emulation of whites as the answer, only that blacks assimilated into communities with a strong work ethic were successful, as were immigrant blacks who came from similar backgrounds. The way you talk about this book in such a critical manner suggests that you were not able to absorb his meaning due to your own biases.
reply
|
flag
*
I appreciate that your review is detailed, but I object that you are criticizing straw men. Sowell doesn't argue in this book that the solution to poverty among blacks is to cut off government assistance, per se. What he argues, very clearly, is that such aid won't solve a problem that is fundamentally cultural. And, in his titular essay, he argues that the roots of that culture are not some venerable African heritage, but a corrupt Southern one. I'd welcome more of your thoughts on Sowell's actual claims.
Erika L. and Jim C. are spot on!
I've refrained from responding to these comments until I had a copy of the book in my hands again. Hope you all weren't waiting on the edge of your seat. Page numbers are from the 2005 hardback edition.Erika - Of course I have to leave out many of the things Sowell writes about, even in this essay. It's 63 pages long, and you wouldn't read such a long piece from little old me, would you? I couldn't blame you if not, especially since I don't care to write such a response. The way that goodreads works I have to pick out the most essential pieces of his arguments and work from there. On to your criticism.
You say that Sowell doesn't suggest emulation of whites as the answer to his diagnosed cultural problem in black communities. I hope you will grant that Sowell argues that his proposed black redneck culture is detrimental to those inside it. What remains is to show that he suggests emulating surrounding white culture as a fix.
When discussing the 19th century migrations of American blacks, he states "In short, there were settled communities in both regions, and by all indications the Northern black communities at that time were acculturating to the norms of the Northern white society around them. But all of that changed radically within a relatively few years, as massive migrations from the South not only enlarged Northern black communities but transformed them culturally" (46). This is in the context of Northern black urban communities seeing improvements in public health, safety and order, before the swath of segregation that Northern towns and suburbs imposed on black communities. This passage, and others like it, including Sowell's regular invocation of the specter of "acting white", make it clear to me that Sowell sees adopting a culture more similar to successful white people as a solution, indeed the most accessible solution.
Perhaps I was unfair in saying that he prescribed this solution; it is possible the Sowell would be equally open to his black rednecks adopting all the trappings of immigrant Chinese culture. But when he contrasts the theorized black redneck culture with superior cultures, white culture is his go-to.
The work ethic argument I deal with in the original review; it falls completely flat for me when current data shows that, if anything, poor black people work harder and longer than successful white people.
Contrasting black populations to immigrant populations like you and Sowell do also feels completely dishonest. The brutal point is that immigrant populations chose to be here; they had the financial means to come over, in many cases support systems and networks, and in many cases valued trades or skills. In contrast, no slave ever signed up. I would compare the descendants of slaves, then, to peoples in similar conditions: Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, and the Mexican people who stayed behind when the US/Mexico border crossed over them. So from my perspective his comparison of Southern blacks to Caribbean immigrants is invalid from the word 'go'.
Lastly, you accuse me of letting my biases prevent me from absorbing Sowell's meaning. Lemme tell you that books aren't here for us to absorb their meaning. They make claims, they present arguments, they do all sorts of things better or worse depending on the author, but never, ever, ever do you have a duty to be convinced by the book. I carry with me knowledge of the world, personal experiences, analytical skill, and I use them whether I'm watching the news or reading a book or anything else. If I discard these just to meet an argument, then I have nothing to proceed on save the evidence and rhetoric of those trying to convince me. A skilled rhetorician like Sowell might be delighted to have such a subject, but then he'd lose me with the next well-written disagreeing author I read. I'm hard to win over, I'll admit, but when I am, it's earned. Sowell doesn't earn it here.
Jim - Thank you very much for letting me know that Sowell, in his titular essay, "argues that the roots of that culture are not some venerable African heritage, but a corrupt Southern one". I had this firmly in mind when I wrote the first paragraph of my review, but I can see how someone who only looked at the star rating I gave and skimmed the rest might think I didn't know this.
Sowell very much argues that welfare and other economic aid allow the black redneck culture to persist and even strengthen it. "The welfare state has made it economically possible to avoid many of the painful consequences of this lifestyle that forced previous generations of blacks and whites to move away from the redneck culture and its values" (51), he emphatically states. He also, on page 52, criticizes the welfare state for its indiscriminate charity. The cutting off of this indiscriminate aid is, by his argument, an essential part of changing the cultural problem.
Since you're welcoming my thoughts, here are some. He accurately states that blacks in America have had a history where economic parity is fleeting and selective, at best. He misdiagnoses both the cause and the solution, though, when he rejects racism and discrimination as possible or helpful explainers for the current state of affairs, especially when it comes to slavery. He grasps at straws when deciding on his cracker culture cause, and clings to a conservative economic ideology when he proposes that the solution can come primarily from inner cultural change rather than political or economic realignments. Furthermore, in order to make these arguments, he has to make himself ignore much of the available evidence on causes of black/white disparity in numerous fields since the 1860s. If you'd like some further reading, I'll suggest James Loewen's Sundown Towns. It deals in great depth with a subject, Northern turn-of-the-century segregation efforts, that Sowell deals with perfunctorily at best. After reading how these changes actually happened, you'll see how Sowell's use of them in this essay is a poor showing at best.
When discussing the 19th century migrations of American blacks, he states "In short, there were settled communities in both regions, and by all indications the Northern black communities at that time were acculturating to the norms of the Northern white society around them. But all of that changed radically within a relatively few years, as massive migrations from the South not only enlarged Northern black communities but transformed them culturally"----------
I'm actually going to disagree with Sowell on this point, or at least the way in which he made it if it is actually quoted correctly. Blacks lived side-by-side with whites in the North more because of American Values of letting neighbors live in peace and pursue their own goals, whether those are family, education, jobs, etc. It's not so much emulating whites as just fitting in. Everything these days has to do with race.
Actually, I agree with him about the effects of the migration of Southern blacks to the North. There, it became about race, which I believe is what he is saying, because the migrants came from a different and incompatible culture learned in the South and it became easier for Northerners to make decisions based on race than on heritage. It's like various Presidents who have quashed immigration from certain countries even though they knew that all potential immigrants were not bad people.
Chances are that white migrants to the North met similar cultural challenges. Whites also get welfare; that just wasn't the subject of the essay. Essentially, it is not possible to address all of the problems of the U.S. in terms of race and heritage and government dependency in one essay. I believe Sowell has done a great job of opening up a lot of things for discussion.
Erika, Sowell does discuss welfare and other economic interventions in the "White Liberals" section. His take is that welfare shields people from the negative consequences of redneck culture. Since you agree with Sowell's idea that Southern blacks migrating to North caused segregation with their culture mismatch, I'll recommend Sundown Towns to you as well. Loewen argues that more so than cultural tensions, segregation movements were sparked by unwelcome economic competition between white and black laborers and businesses, competition that only became 'dangerous' with the large increase in black populations.
I appreciate that you see Sowell's arguments as a fresh new line of discussion, but to me they're just variations on a familiar theme. Different perspectives, I suppose.
I'm glad you see this topic as being so ordinary. Here in the Berkeley area, it's all about Black Lives Matter and no one will discuss this because it is "obvious that white people are bad and that's why blacks have such a hard time and are justified in killing and looting." I'll put your recommended reading on my list. I have no fantasies that what I learn will change anybody's mind because I live in a socialist state but I do appreciate learning things for themselves.
Bob, how do you account for Sowells comparisons of Caribbean and African blacks who have, as a group, succeeded as business owners and economically in America despite encountering the same discrimination and bias? They have also had to overcome a history of slavery, while not having a Southern American culture making the comparison apt. Also the same segregation patterns you discuss were universal to any new immigrant group in the country -the famous "No Irish Need Apply" signs or immigrant ghettos in early 20th century New York spring to mind.Personally I would not give a low score to an essay simply because I disagreed with the author. I'm far from a Communist, yet I'd be forced to agree that Marx and Engels manifesto make for compelling reading. The idea that I have to personally agree with an author in order to give credit to a compelling and well thought out thesis never made any sense to me.
Hi Andy. My first response to the Caribbean and African immigrants and relative success compared to slave descendants is: such people came to America voluntarily. Yes, slavery and oppression is in their past, but the self selection of, say, Haitians, into those who immigrated to America and those who stayed in Haiti has significant possible explanatory power. For further perspective, take a look at the Americo-Liberian population of Liberia. Descended both culturally and physically from American slaves and free blacks, they immigrated to Liberia and for a very long time were the dominant group of that country despite being a small minority. I think they serve as evidence that self selection into immigrant populations can matter greatly when it comes to discussing outcomes.I disagree that the same segregation was universal to every immigrant group. When I mentioned segregation earlier, I was referred specifically to the movements in the early half of the twentieth century and the late nineteenth to cleanse suburbs and rural areas of black populations. Asian and Hispanic populations did suffer from this on a lesser scale at the same time, but certainly not European immigrants. Just to let you know what I'll need to back down from this position: a newspaper article from 1880-1960 describing how a small town has kicked all the Irish out on pain of death, or better yet, a credible source describing ethnic cleansing of the Irish in the same time frame. Please read Sundown Towns if you think this isn't an accurate depiction of how post-Civil War segregation often happened.
As to personal preferences about number of stars given, I agree with you. I have given low marks to books written by those I have ideological sympathy towards, and high marks to some I've disagreed with. My issues with Sowell's title essay are not mere preference; I have serious issues with the quality of his scholarship here. To recap from the original review (almost two years later, wow!): he relies exclusively and not very critically on a fringe scholar to make his case on the English countryside origins of modern Black culture. I hope that if I read a book by a modern liberal humanist who relied on such a sketchy single source to diagnose societal ills I would judge them as critically as I have Sowell here. At the same time though I hope I would choose my reading more carefully than to wind up in this situation!
Sowell cite evidence of culture between Southern and Northern blacks. This book was a real eye opener. So few folks want to talk about culture and how black Americans do come from different cultures today.
Also great job on are the Jews so unique. Answer no they aren't. Well except they have attacked for over 21 centuries, no group of have been persecuted as long or achieved so much while dealing with hatred and suspicion.
