Race and Culture: A world view A BOOK REVIEW Race and Culture by Thomas Sowell, BasicBooks (HarperCollins) 1994 331p. Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. I read this book as a result of reading a very favorable short review of it on the web page of Karl Bunday: (http://198.83.19.39/school_is_dead/learn_in_freedom.html) I also found it to be very interesting and informative. Almost everything discussed in the book is in keeping with everyday experience and common sense. But that means Sowell's views are considered to be out of fashion in many circles. The book is divided into a preface, eight chapters, 58 pages of footnotes and an index. Chapters have such provocative titles as "Race and Politics", Race and Intelligence" and "Conquest and Culture". INTERNAL or EXTERNAL Factors? There has been a controversy over the extent to which people are shaped by external factors, and to what extent by internal ones. By this, I don't mean the debate over genetics vs environment (but he does have some things to say about that too). Rather most of the focus of this book is on challenging the prevailing "social science" doctrines which say that a given group behavior is shaped primarily by the surrounding environment. Thus if some people don't do well, it must be fault of someone else. They must be oppressed or disadvantaged. While agreeing that the external factors play a role, Sowell thinks that the internal influences have been under rated. And by "internal" he means the cultural system and values that are imparted to people, usually as children. And while other books that I have read (the Truly Disadvantaged for example--see the review on my web page) deal with the problems of one group in one country, Sowell has a much broader perspective. He uses examples from all over the world and from many periods of history. Truly "A World View". Does this broad perspective dilute the impact by trying to do too much? I found just the reverse. Sowell is more convincing because he illustrates his points using a wide range of examples. Do We SEE only what we WANT TO? While reading this book, I was reminded of the story I have heard about the supernova explosion in 1054 that created the Crab Nebula. It was clearly visible on earth for several days, and was recorded by many ancient people in China, Australia and North America. But not in Europe. Why not? Well the Christian Church world view ruled Europe. And the prevailing theory was that the Heavens were the Domain of God: they were perfect and "incorruptible". Stars were not supposed to explode. So when it happened, people either didn't see it, or at least didn't talk about it. Sowell gives the example of the return of Magellan's ship to Spain after sailing around the world in 1519-22. The log book had been carefully kept and showed the day to be Saturday. But when the crew went ashore it was Sunday! Scholars called to explain this baffling discrepancy concluded that it indicated that the earth was rotating on its axis. So the king ordered the log book burned. Does our society react the same way to factors involving race and culture. The Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome? It is obvious that people from some cultures succeed more frequently than people from others. They work hard, do well in school and even if they immigrate into a new country and are poor, their children will be successful, unless strong measures are taken to hold them back. The "overseas Chinese" for example have done well in the USA, Asia, South America, the Caribbean and in every country where they live. It is only in China where a significant fraction of Chinese are poor. Other obvious examples of distinct cultural groups that have done well as minorities in many countries are Japanese, Koreans, Eastern European Jews and Asian Indians. And people from some other cultural groups sink to the bottom. Sowell concludes that all cultures are not "equal". Some are "better" than others. And the entire culture does not have to be rated as a unit. The number system that originated with the Hindus of India (called "Arabic") spread all over the world because it is better than, say, the Roman system. The advantage becomes obvious when multiplication is needed. People from some cultures are drawn to the same occupations, even in many different countries. He sites the disproportionate number of people of German heritage that have been military leaders in many countries from Czarist Russia to the USA. Jews usually chose to locate in major cities and engage in the same occupations whether in the US or Argentina or Australia. And how many college or NBA basketball games does a social science professor have to watch before he figures out that the players don't reflect a representative cross section of the population? It is commonly known that this is true, but it is considered "stereotyping" today to SAY it. Some Examples In the US we are conditioned to think that it is a disadvantage to be a "minority", and that such people are not expected to do as well as people from the "majority" group. In Malaysia the situation is just the reverse: The minority Chinese are resented for getting all the good jobs and generally rising to the top. Sowell points out that in the universities there, the Malay students mostly enroll in Malay Studies or Islamic Studies, while the Chinese students are taking math, science and engineering. As an example of how ideology can turn morality upside down, he cites the response to the expulsion of Pakistanis and Indians from the newly independent nations of East Africa. There was much criticism of England for not taking in the refugees: "they behaved more badly than the most racist tyranny in the world". England that is, not the African governments that expelled the Asians and confiscated all they had. Sowell has some unkind words for the "reformers" who pass laws to require people to live in "better housing". In many cultures it is considered desirable, even noble, to sacrifice NOW to provide a better future for your self and your children. Better, or less crowded housing, costs more money, and they would rather live in cheaper housing NOW and save the money for a much better house (and/or their own business) in the future. But the "reformers" are typically whites of northern European background and are insensitive to the values of other cultures. He has a chapter on the history of slavery. Europeans are often blamed for the existence of slavery, but it existed in every culture and every inhabited continent, from the beginning of recorded history. The word slav (as in yugoslavia) and slave are from the same root. It was European and American action (European imperialism, as he puts it) that finally stopped slavery everywhere (except for a few countries like Sudan and Mauritania, where it may remain today). HOW DID THEY GET THAT WAY? Once you understand that different cultures transmit different values and prepare people differently for life, and that some produce people who are more successful than others, the next question is why. He has a section on what I call physiography: how geography shapes the way a culture develops. And of course, there is always the question of the relative role of genetics vs environment. Unlike Charles (Bell Curve) Murray, Sowell thinks genetics play a lesser role and cites some convincing studies to support that view. The IQ of black kids adopted and raised by white parents in the US match that of the general white population, for example. Or kids fathered by US GI's in Germany after WW II and raised there by their German mothers have about the same IQ whatever the race of the father. But he is open to contrary evidence. And he points out that cultures change with time. Two thousand years ago the Mediterranean cultures were the leaders of civilization, while the north Europeans were wild savages. But today it is the Northerners who lead. Sephardic Jews were initially the leaders of Jewish culture after their expulsion from Spain in 1492, but by the founding of the state of Israel, the Ashkenazi were more advanced. Now intermarriage in Israel is merging the two cultures. WHAT is WRONG with this Book? I have only two criticisms of the book. I think he could have made more use of Robert W. Fogel and S.L. Engerman: he refers to "TIME on the CROSS" but does not follow up with any comments on "Reckoning With Slavery" and the attempt to found a science of Cliometrics (a sort of mathematical theory of history) based on their study of the economics of slavery. The idea here was to begin what could grow into something like the "psychohistory" of Isaac Asimov's SF classic Foundation Series. And he relies on Julian Simon as his only source for estimating the economic impact of immigration. He should at least acknowledge that there are opposing views, as for example George Borjas. The economic impact of immigration into the US today is a controversial topic: see the last several items in the Politics section of my web page. Want More? For reviews of other books, including "The End of Work", "Peddling Prosperity" and "The End of History and the Last Man" as well as many articles on a variety of political, economic and environmental issues, (PLUS the off beat Politically Incorrect Zone), see my web page. ,,,,,,, ____________________ooo__(_O O_)__ooo_________________________ (_) Jim Blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) University of Wisconsin, Madison (USA). For a good time, call http://www.execpc.com/~jeblair/index.html "This message is brought to you using biodegradable binary bits and 100 % recycled bandwidth." . There was some discussion of Sowell, and I have added this by Norman Nithman Hi, Your comments on Thomas Sowell are worth reading, and I want to add them to my review of Race and Culture on my web page. They were written for a different book but provide comments which apply to this one as well. (While I don't agree with you completely, notice that I try to include well expressed contrasting views in my web page files) Subject: Re: Why Does Thomas Sowell Detest African-Americans and Gays? jim blair wrote: >>While it is true that the US has a larger fraction of its population in >jail than most other countries, and than in the past, it is ALSO true >that if you commit a serious crime you have a LOWER probability of being >punished than in the past or if you were in most other industralized >countries. I hear Cook County, IL has a 97% conviction rate, the jails are full, and they are building more.---NN Yes, US jails are full to overflowing. But about half are in on drug charges and or other "non-violent" crimes. People who commit violent crimes now have a lower probability of serving jail time now than in the past. I just added a file on the "war on drugs", a big factor in our crime problem. (Drugs: Just Say YES!) And a 97% CONVICTION rate is not a 97% chance of being CAUGHT or going to trial.---jeb BOOK REVIEW / NONFICTION; A MIGRATION PUZZLE THAT MAKES SIX CULTURES FIT A BIT TOO NEATLY; MIGRATIONS AND CULTURES: A WORLD VIEW BY THOMAS SOWELL; BASIC BOOKS $30, 516 PAGES; Thursday, April 11, 1996 Home Edition Section: Life & Style Page: E-3 By ANTHONY DAY SPECIAL TO THE TIMES In this grim tome, Thomas Sowell rakes through history for shards he can glue together to make a pot whose shape he has already determined. If the pieces don't fit, he will chip away at them until they do. This is his theory: "Cultures" largely determine human behavior." Though cultures transcend race, particular cultures are obviously often associated with particular racial and ethnic groups," he writes. These cultures persist for generations, for centuries, even as the groups they denominate move about the globe. He writes about six migrant groups of which he particularly approves, Germans, Japanese, Italians, Chinese, Jews and Indians from the subcontinent. As these groups have migrated, they have taken with them into their new homes what Sowell calls their "cultural capital." The six share certain virtues, notably hard work, thrift and belief in education, and they ultimately achieve economic success. And, most importantly to Sowell, they do not engage in "ethnic politics" in their new homes or, indeed, in much politics at all. The nations into which they have moved have done nothing to promote their interests; rather, they have often raised high barriers, which the immigrants nevertheless surmount in the end. Sowell does not argue that a "race" or "culture" can never change its characteristics, only that changes come slowly. Certainly, no government action can accelerate change or bring about improvement. He seems to be in the grip of a kind of historical Calvinism that saves some people and damns the rest, and leaves meager room for alteration. In the last chapter of the book, Sowell makes no bones about what he believes is its relevance to contemporary American life. Both "multiculturalism" and "affirmative action," he writes, "add to the cost of absorbing immigrants, not least by increasing the resentment of them by the native population. "Government-provided benefits have made immigrants more costly to absorb, quite apart from the question [of] whether they cause more immigrants to come, or reduce the selectivity of the immigrant population by including many without the initiative or ambition of those who immigrated when there was little or no help from the government. "Anti-immigrant feelings and movements have grown in the welfare states of Western Europe and the United States. "Unfortunately, among ideological zealots who have promoted immigrants as a symbolic cause, this resentment by the masses may only confirm their own sense of moral superiority, rather than serving as a warning that the combination of lax immigration laws, welfare state benefits and schemes to keep foreigners foreign are leading to potentially explosive conflicts. " Who are these "ideological zealots" with a "sense of moral superiority"? What is the "symbolic cause" they are said to be promoting? Sowell gives not a hint, leaving us vaguely uneasy that something sinister is somewhere a foot. Sowell's stories are inherently interesting. Why do some cultures do better than others? How do some characteristics persist through the ages? But by forcing these tales into a predetermined form he squeezes the lifeout of them. Take, for example, his treatment of the German migrations around the world. He much admires Germans. They have a capacity for "hard, thorough, unrelenting work." They have an "apathy about politics." They have strong traditions of both militarism and pacifism. They believe in education. But German anti-Semitism, which was so deeply embedded in the culture, evidently presents a problem for Sowell. So he simply wishes it away. Group prejudice and discrimination were less pronounced among Germans than among other Europeans, he writes. Only "a small fraction" of Germans, led astray by Hitler, perpetrated the Holocaust. As evidence for his astounding claim that the German people did not share the Nazis' views of Jews, he asserts that before the war the nation's residents did not mount "pogroms" against Jews. No reputable historian shares his opinion. The consensus is that, as Stanford historian Gordon A. Craig writes in the current New York Reviewof Books, when Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 he "could count on widespread sympathy and support" for his anti-Jewish program. In his book, Sowell barely mentions two prominent groups of migrants to this country, African Americans and Mexican Americans. I think he means to imply that the "cultures" of both probably doom them to failure.-- Norman Nithman nrn@tezcat.com http://www.tezcat.com/~nrn Hi, Sowell stresses the cultures that have been successful. In the US, African- Americans and Mexicans (overall) have not. Why not? Well I will suggest a "culture" based answer. While other groups came here from a specific culture, slaves from Africa lost their tribal identity: by the Civil War most slaves didn't even know what tribe their ancestors had come from. There in no "African culture" any more than there is a "European culture". Zulu is no more Hutu than German is French. For Mexican, the case is not as clear, but (at least since the 1970's) Mexican immigrants have become "Hispanic": they are officially lumped in with people from Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Spain. Could this have diluted cultural identity? (but the various European immigrants have become "white" and that does not seem to have harmed THEM). And I think you are right about Sowell's failure to comment on the extent to which German culture has been anti-semitic. I admire much about German culture too. (I live in Wisconsin, Hey !) But that should not blind us to its dark side. Subject: Re: The End of Wage Work Date: 14 Jul 1998 14:23:59 GMT From: susupply@aol.com (SUSUPPLY) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: sci.econ Just the other day, in answer to Jim Blair's question about who had data regarding disparities in income between groups, I stated that Thomas Sowell had mountains of it. Coincidentally, the following appeared online today: Jewish World Review July 14, 1998 / 19 Tamuz, 5758 Thomas Sowell "IT'S ESPECIALLY PAINFUL to me to listen to the same old arguments of the 1960s being rehashed once again as part of Bill Clinton's supposedly new national "dialogue" on race. It so happens that I have spent the past 16 years researching and writing a series of three books on race and culture around the world. What I found in the course of this long project contradicts virtually everything that is being said and assumed in the one-sided "dialogue" being conducted by Clinton and his supporters. "At the heart of these retreaded 1960s arguments is the notion that statistical disparities between groups are strange and sinister, and can only be explained by discrimination based on "stereotypes." "What I discovered in the course of my 16 years of research, including circling the globe twice in the process, is that statistical disparities among groups is the rule -- not the exception -- in countries around the world. Many of these disparities, whether in income or IQ, are at least as great as those between blacks and whites in the United States. "Most of these other countries have histories that are very different from the history of the United States, so the factors that supposedly explain intergroup differences here are often not present there. Yet the differences are. "Nor are these differences due to "stereotypes," as some keep repeating like a mantra. Differences in performances are quite real, so it can hardly be surprising that there are differences in rewards. Moreover, these differences often endure for centuries. "In Malaysia, for example, the Chinese minority received a hundred times as many engineering degrees as the Malay majority during the decade of the 1960s. They received these degrees at institutions controlled by Malays. There was no way these disparities were due to discrimination, because the Chinese were in no position to discriminate against the Malays. "At the same time, the majority population of Nigeria, living in its northern provinces, provided less than 10 percent of that country's university students. In Poland and Hungary between the two world wars, Jews were no larger percentage of the populations of these countries than blacks are today in the United States. Yet an absolute majority of the physicians in both countries were Jews. "In the heyday of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks who ran the empire were wholly unrepresented among the leading financiers in its capital city of Istanbul. In earlier centuries, the leading financiers in London were not Englishmen but Italians, which is why there is today a Lombard Street in London's financial district. "None of this was due to discrimination, but to differences in skills. Yet we treat a pattern that is common around the world as if it were strange and sinister here. And we take as our norm something that is virtually nowhere to be found on this planet -- an even distribution of peoples in occupations, institutions and income levels. "Even though blacks in the United States have been subject to far more discrimination than blacks in Brazil, the black-white difference in income is greater in Brazil. This would be inexplicable if discrimination were the overwhelming factor that it is claimed to be. But such differences are readily explainable in terms of the different cultural histories of blacks in the two countries. "If discrimination were the key factor, then blacks in the United States would be among the poorest blacks in the hemisphere and blacks in Haiti would be the most prosperous, since Haitians have been free of white rule for two centuries. Yet it is Haitian blacks who are the poorest in the hemisphere and American blacks who are the most prosperous in world. "You don't even need to leave Washington, D.C., to see that discrimination is not the be-all and end-all depicted by Clinton and his supporters. Until the 1950s, the Washington public school system was racially segregated and discrimination was rampant. Yet the black academic high school in Washington held its own and often outperformed most of the white academic high schools in the city on tests as far back as 1899, nearly a century ago. "Today, with far more resources and a city controlled by blacks, there is no hope of any such academic performance within the foreseeable future. There are many reasons for this, but the all-purpose explanation of discrimination just does not fit these facts. "You are not going to solve today's problem with yesterday's rhetoric." Again, the above is Sowell, not I. Patrick