A while back, I read Thomas Sowell’s book Black Rednecks and White Liberals and very much enjoyed it. Sowell, as an economist at the top of his profession, also invested considerably in communicating effectively with the general public, and his unique background – beginning in essentially a poor ghetto, developing into a Marxist and then eventually coming around to a more conservative position – makes his work particularly valuable. I especially enjoyed this book, which deals with some rather interesting and surprising facts of history. As I recall, the book is divided into roughly three main sections, which I cover in no particular order.

The history of slavery

Part of the book deals with the history of slavery, worldwide. This work seems even more relevant now than when it was written, given the focus in our time on social justice and racial inequity.

Sowell highlights how slavery was widespread worldwide throughout history. In fact, the word “slave” originated from word “slav” because at one point so many slaves were Eastern Europeans enslaved after capture from slavic countries.

Slavery, he notes, was essentially taken for granted all over the world, in all cultures, up until the 1700s and 1800s. Far from originating from racism, slavery tended to create racism. In particular, whichever groups lacked power could be oppressed and enslaved. This lack of power could come from ethnic differences, cultural differences, demographic differences, etc., but the resulting power differentials resulted in enslavement, and often that enslavement then led to discrimination which persisted.

When I read the autobiography of Frederick Douglass, I noticed how he observed that the act of enslaving people often resulted in the enslavers dehumanizing them and beginning to hate them. That is, it degraded those who did the enslaving. This parallels points C.S. Lewis makes in Mere Christianity concerning the Nazis – he says first they oppressed the Jews out of their disdain, but then they grew to hate them more and more because they oppressed them. The key principle is that how we treat people affects what we think and feel about them, making us better or worse over time.

Sowell makes similar argument here about racism; he notes that once people groups were oppressed, those who did the oppressing began to seek to explain why those they oppressed deserved it – essentially, to provide rationalizations for why they deserved enslaving and oppression. So this created racism or other -isms (class-ism, etc.) depending on which group was oppressed, as those doing the enslaving sought to excuse or justify their behavior.

Slavery persisted worldwide until the 1700s and 1800s, when slavery began to be uniquely opposed by Western culture, especially the British Empire and in America. (Sowell doesn’t go a great deal into exactly what forces caused this to happen, but for more on that read Metaxas’ excellent biography of William Wilberforce). He points out, however, that until this time, few wrote to justify slavery anywhere in the world because it was so taken for granted that none had to. It was simply a fact of life. But as opposition to slavery began to ramp up, that created efforts in the American south to justify slavery and even apologetics for slavery; these were very racist.

Ultimately, though, Western societies – especially the British Empire and America – began to work to eliminate slavery, with the story playing out very differently in these two societies. America lost hundreds of thousands of lives eliminating slavery via the Civil War, an extremely rapid and bloody transition relatively unique in the story of the abolition of slavery. In most other places it took far longer – centuries even. In England itself, of course, the elimination of the slave trade and slavery went fairly quickly – but it was a much more drawn out process over the rest of the world.

Sowell notes that the elimination of slavery had to be imposed on most of the world outside the west. In some places abolition was celebrated, of course, and he cites Brazil as a notable example of this. However, when the British attempted to eliminate slavery in parts of the Middle East, it resulted in rebellions, insurrections, murders and many other calamities.

Interestingly, the slave trade went on far longer to and in the Middle and Far East than in the West. In particular, there was a large East African slave trade into Turkey and other parts of the Middle East well after slavery was eliminated in the West. And slavery in China continued far after slavery in most of the world was illegal, even into living memory. He notes there are slaves still in some places even today.

Sowell argues that in some sense, the successful end of the slave trade was a result of so called “Western imperialism”: Opposition to slavery arose in the West at precisely the height of the British empire and it was this opposition and power which was eventually used to stamp out slavery throughout the world, when slavery had previously existed throughout recorded history. Thus, Sowell argues, while slavery is often considered a result of “Western imperialism” the reality is that if there was imperialism involved in slavery, it was most strongly involved with ending slavery.

Redneck culture

The first part of Sowell’s book deals with what he says could be called “redneck” or “cracker” culture, which originated in the British Isles and was associated with particular linguistic and cultural characteristics, including certain tendencies to violence. He traces how this culture moved with immigrants to America, especially the American South, where it became culturally ingrained well before the time of slavery. There, it was later inherited – and eventually retained – by part of black culture, but also in other parts of the united states (e.g. it also persisted far longer in certain regions of Appalachia). He traces how this “redneck” culture was later dropped by most other groups, but retained in some black communities.

When slavery ended, however, some put a great deal of effort into bringing about cultural change along with the end of slavery immediately following the Civil War. In particular, the American Northeastern culture often highly influenced certain black groups (e.g. early black schools such as Hampton, Tuskegee, and others brought a large number of missionaries and teachers from the north to educate and bring cultural change among blacks in the south; for more on this, read Booker T. Washington’s autobiography among others). These educators and workers sought to get rid of the negative aspects of “redneck culture”, and in so doing, did a tremendous amount to raise people up out of poverty, improve conditions, etc.

Part of why this study so valuable is that Sowell clearly shows how people of any ethnicity can adopt different cultures – a redneck culture imported from part of the British Isles, a culture more from the US Northeast, etc. – and these cultures result in very different outcomes. Some cultures, he argues, simply result in better outcomes than others, and if we treat all cultures as “equally valid” that does no service to those who would like to improve their condition.

Sowell’s work tracing cultural differences serves to highlight that culture and ethnicity are not the same, and in particular, he argues that there’s a great danger at present that we might try and preserve “black culture” when parts of what we think of as “black culture” (or, even gang culture) may simply be “redneck culture” which has done so much throughout history to keep people groups from succeeding.

Sowell further highlights how, in many parts of the United States outside the south, blacks had more rights at the end of 1800s and early 1900s than they did again until 1960s. Additionally, there was far less segregation. Yet in the first couple decades of the 1900s this began to change, with increasing segregation and limits on the rights of blacks. What happened? At some point, at slightly different times in different regions, there was a great migration of “redneck” blacks from the south to the north, faster than those migrating could culturally assimilate. Since the migration was so rapid, and it brought a corresponding increase in crime and other problems, it resulted in increasing discrimination and segregation, and thus ultimately a dramatic reduction in rights. Sowell notes, however, that this was driven by cultural differences; earlier blacks in these regions had assimilated without such problems. It was only when the influx of a different culture was too rapid for members to assimilate that problems arose.

Overall, Sowell’s work here helps provide valuable insight into how we arrived at the present reality in the United States. Additionally, in a time where we’re encouraged to consider all cultures equally valid, it seems worth taking a look at how inherited cultural differences might actually dramatically and adversely affect outcomes for certain groups.

Middleman minorities

Another section of Sowell’s book looks at what he calls “middleman minorities”, often immigrants from particular cultures who are minorities in their societies or regions. He notes how these groups often succeed in area of work with low barrier to entry, such as as grocers, peddlers, and so on (with the exact occupations depending on era, demographics, country, etc.), by working very long hours on very low profit margin to get ahead.

Sowell notes that these groups, though often highly successful, often are oppressed. He argues that in some cases they get blamed for their success, partly because those around them may see it as almost a personal insult when a minority group succeeds in a task or occupation where the dominant group failed.

Sowell further traces how children coming from cultures working as middleman minorities, those growing up surrounded by middleman minorities, often end up going on to do particularly well in certain areas of life. For example, they prosper in areas requiring long, dedicated training (science, for example), community support networks (like getting into higher levels of banking and finance), and so on. They tend to be overrepresented in such areas relative to those primarily based on individual ability (e.g. pro sports).

Sowell’s insight in this area is important, because it shows how the very specific culture individuals grow up in can have profound impacts on their long-term prospects, even when the culture or group they came from is oppressed or a minority group. Naively, being part of a minority or oppressed group would seem to be a disadvantage – but instead, for these “middleman minorities” it can prove a great advantage.

Overall, one thing I really enjoy about Sowell’s work and writing is how he addresses the real complexities of our lives and backgrounds and the many different forces and influences at work. Life, and outcomes, are complicated and influenced by many factors, and our current tendency to boil things down to a simple story of oppressed and oppressor make things far too simple.

I very much enjoyed this book, and I recommend it if you’re interested in thinking seriously about the cultural influences at work in our society.