Race doesn't hold back America's "black rednecks." Nor does racism.

[Kire]

Crippled by Their Culture
Race doesn't hold back America's "black rednecks." Nor does racism.

BY THOMAS SOWELL
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

For most of the history of this country, differences between the black and the white population--whether in income, IQ, crime rates, or whatever--have been attributed to either race or racism. For much of the first half of the 20th century, these differences were attributed to race--that is, to an assumption that blacks just did not have it in their genes to do as well as white people. The tide began to turn in the second half of the 20th century, when the assumption developed that black-white differences were due to racism on the part of whites.

Three decades of my own research lead me to believe that neither of those explanations will stand up under scrutiny of the facts. As one small example, a study published last year indicated that most of the black alumni of Harvard were from either the West Indies or Africa, or were the children of West Indian or African immigrants. These people are the same race as American blacks, who greatly outnumber either or both.

If this disparity is not due to race, it is equally hard to explain by racism. To a racist, one black is pretty much the same as another. But, even if a racist somehow let his racism stop at the water's edge, how could he tell which student was the son or daughter of someone born in the West Indies or in Africa, especially since their American-born offspring probably do not even have a foreign accent?

What then could explain such large disparities in demographic "representation" among these three groups of blacks? Perhaps they have different patterns of behavior and different cultures and values behind their behavior.

More: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006608

[Stand and Fight]

1. Kick

Good article.

[Psephos]

2. Makes some sense to me n/t

[pop goes the weasel]

3. Sowell is such a bigot

A class bigot, that is. Oh, those horrible "crackers," who were transported to the colonies against their will for their violent, dramatic ways. No mention the English land laws that purposely deprived the masses of land rights in order to create a servile class that could be forced to take any occupation, anywhere in the British Empire, on pain of death.

Southern blacks found they had something in common with their poor white trash brethren, something so pervasive that even legalized white privilege couldn't hide it. And poor whites were uncomfortably aware of how easy it would be for them to lose what little they had. Darn those uppity poor people for even noticing this! And it's their fault they were illiterate, Sowell insists. The complete failure of the land-owning class to provide adequate or, in the first 3 centuries of American life, even *any* public education couldn't have anything to do with it, could it?

And that he would use against poor Americans who happen to be black, a study that shows that most of Harvard's black alumni are immigrants only emphasizes his class bigotry. Why is it that, rather than do any actual outreach to black disadvantaged Americans, Harvard would rather pretend that Africans and West Indians are American blacks? That study does not put Harvard in a good light, and that Sowell sees nothing wrong with it does not reflect well on him either.

[Kire]

4. so how is he a bigot?

what race (or class) is he? does it matter?

Edit: it would if he were to properly be defined a bigot.

[pop goes the weasel]

5. class bigot

That was in the very first line in my post. In his own editorial, he rails against urban blacks for having cultural attributes shared with "crackers." Now last I looked (and you can look too), Sowell is not a cracker ethnically or by his own class-based definition. However, he has decided that blacks who are not successful can be categorized as crackers. And he makes it pretty clear that he despises crackers, that he blames them for their own poverty and social ills. To Sowell, poverty=cracker. And if someone is a cracker, they are trash. That's class bigotry, IMO.

[figureditout]

9. FYI-Thomas Sowell is an older BLACK MAN

[fortyfeetunder]

6. For all he knows, Sowell might be a redneck too!

Redneck has nothing to do with color. It's a state of class and mind.
If Sowell listened to a bit of Jeff Foxworthy's "You Might be a Redneck if..." he might find some of those descriptions apply to him!

[Kire]

7. the mind reels

Jeff Foxworthy, I bet Sowell would have gotten a better grade on his thesis papers if he used that source more often.

[zyx]

8. That sounds like something I heard before

Some right winger said this on a forum attacking Affirmative Action. Can you believe the attitude some people have towards minorities.

________________________________________________________________

The term is "bullshit".

It's funny how the left thinks it's just the thing for minorities, yet facts disprove this again and again. On the right, Bill Cosby tells them to stop acting like ghetto kids, start learning manners, and start being parents.

On the left, you have idiots like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson that go off about how blacks are "held back". Do you mean that people don't hire them? Would you hire someone that came in and talked like 50 Cent in a job interview? No? Then why do you expect employers to do so? So they're being "held back" because they don't talk like adults? Whose to blame for this? The left's answer: government. Clearly the lack of "affirmative action" laws keep black people from getting hired...

So let's recap, the right says that black people should start acting like they don't want to stay in the ghetto, and the left tries to excuse them.

The right says that blacks should take on the traits that have made whites successful, and the left says that makes them "uncle toms". So, a black person who stops using that "ebonics" bullshit, gets an education, and makes a name for himself deserves to be called derogatory names?

A lot of people appreciate that message, too bad they're all wearing white hooded robes.

Oh and if there's any doubt left, here's a gem from liberal cartoonist Ted Rall.



So a black woman becomes part of a president's cabinet and the left calls her a "house nigga". Shouldn't the party that claims it's all about diversity be celebrating a minority's success?

Oh they would be doing that if it were a democrat president, and that democrat president would be labeled as the champion of diversity. But it's a republican so we can't give him any recognition for such because it would hurt our image.

So, black people who are successful need to be re-educated into the ghetto lifestyle? So much for the left's belief in making minorities more successful.

[NVMojo]

10. KICK!

[triakis36]

11. Okay this is clearly racist

Plus the Wall Street Journal is notoriously conservative.

His whole argument a thinly veiled attempt at reselling Social Darwinism. Remember all the human rights violations that happened the last time our country believed in that. There is absolutely no reason to right off southern blacks or "ghetto" culture for bringing about their own misfortune. That kind of thinking smacks squarely of racism and classism. And if Sowell really is an old black man, then he is victim to his own internal racism. There is no formula that says a person needs to be white or act white to be successful. That kind of thinking is born from white dominance and is perpetuated by white priviledge.

[java-fiend]

12. Sowell's a racist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

Triakis36, your post was nothing but ad hominem. What's wrong? Incapable of actually engaging Sowell's arguments?