> Sociologist John Sibley Butler offers the most strident, multifaceted criticism of systemic race theory. Systemic racism, he suggests, conflicts with the successes of ... Nigerian Americans
I think this is one of the strongest points in the entire article. Recent African immigrants to America by and large don't experience the same societal problems as "traditional" African-Americans (ie. the descendants of slaves) experience. This strongly suggests that something other than race is responsible for the problems. Correlation may not imply causation, but non-correlation absolutely does imply non-causation.
The article mentions Thomas Sowell. His book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" takes a good look at a more likely cause: the violent and dysfunctional Antebellum South "redneck" culture that the slaves inherited from their masters bears a disturbing resemblance to the worst parts of black American "ghetto" culture today. Southern white rednecks have since moved on with the passage of the better part of two centuries, but with Jim Crow keeping black Americans culturally isolated to a large degree, the descendants of slaves all too often remain stuck with this toxic cultural heritage.
Agreed. I believe it is now true that Nigerian Americans are the single most highly educated demographic in America -- and very successful in their post-university endeavors. 40 years ago, I visited Lagos, which was the chaotic, nightmarishly dysfunctional locale I ever visited. And yet, one could feel the dynamism all about. At least in the circles I traveled in, everyone had huge plans, and one sensed that they would fulfill those plans.
Aug 31, 2023·edited Aug 31, 2023Liked by Robert F. Graboyes
> Was it passed on by white rednecks or is it present in the African cultures from which the slaves came?
IIRC, Sowell mentioned that the thing that inspired him to do the research in the first place that led to writing this was noticing a profound lack of African cultural elements within black ghetto culture.
I need to read that book. American Nations (Colin Woodward) was a fascinating read--even if his biases showed toward the end.
I think there are maybe more African elements (that being a poor shorthand for elements particular to a particular African country/tribe) evident in blacks in places like Miami and New Orleans. One sees it in the fusion of African faith traditions and Roman Catholicism..
To the point about the success of Nigerian Americans, I'll add that Professor John Obgu, Nigerian by birth, was a sociology professor at Berkeley. (Sadly, he died some 20 years ago.) In a remarkable paper on the impact of affirmative action on black students from well-to-do families in the Cleveland area, he found that it greatly reduced their drive to succeed in high school, since they knew that racial preferences would enable them to get into top colleges even without noteworthy achievements. What a contrast from earlier times when black kids were taught that they needed to work especially hard to overcome any bigotry against them. Scholars like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams grew up in that environment.
Steve Landsburg began his "The Armchair Economist" with "Most of economics can be summarized in four words: 'People respond to incentives.' The rest is commentary." Megan McArdle wrote a book titled, "The Up Side of Down: Why Failing Well Is the Key to Success."
(For literary fiends, Landsburg's opening is a sly reference to a comment by Rabbi Hillel (died 10 C.E.): "That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary; go and learn.")
Indeed. The proto-Golden Rule. The context is interesting. As the story goes, a man was considering converting to Judaism and told Hillel the Elder that he would do so if Hillel could explain the Torah to him while standing on one foot. The above quote was Hillel's response.
How is it that issues of accountability and effects of Black culture do not come up in the review? For a discussion, from a Centrist point of view, see The Last Lonely Traveler - From the Extremes, published 2023. Gary Baker, Esq., MT
To this layman, we’ve had 3 generations of liberal solutions to race; affirmative action, welfare, liberal run school systems, behavioral standard degradation, etc. Yet for native born US blacks I am told things have gotten worse.
We all know the definition of insanity yet the only solutions being proposed are the same things that have failed so far. Only we are now supposed to do more of them?
I liked Pat Moniyhan’s benign neglect. He looks prescient now.
Moynihan was a remarkable figure. Hard to think of any other senator who could match him in breadth, depth, or introspection--with the possible exception of James Buckley, the incumbent whom he defeated in 1976. Amazing that Moynihan managed to last four terms and then retire.
He's up there. I didn't say it was IMPOSSIBLE to think of other examples. But you do have to ponder them for a while. I'm not certain that Bradley was quite at the altitude of Moynihan or Buckley. Buckley and Moynihan would have been formidable intellects had they never set foot in the Senate for a day. I'm not sure we would be pondering the philosophy of Bill Bradley had he not served in high office. And for that matter, while I had respect for him, I cannot, at this late date, recall anything that he said, whereas it's easy to rattle off the insights of Moynihan and Buckley.
Good point. I am biased because I loved his Knicks teams. Hard to believe that Princeton was a contender for NCAA finals and he was the most dangerous college basketball player in America. In my day Penn was also a contender as well. Long time ago.
Poverty is not an excuse. See above. Consider also that by any measure, the geniuses who came before us lived in poverty relative to almost everyone alive in the US today.
Interesting piece. In 2021, I interviewed India's celebrated cardiac surgeon, Dr. Devi Shetty. (https://www.discoursemagazine.com/culture-and-society/2021/06/04/fortress-and-frontier-the-narayana-system-and-innovations-in-healthcare/) In that interview, and in our private conversations, he explained his preference for medical providers who came from poverty. He told me that if I named a gifted, innovative surgeon, he would almost guarantee that they came up from austere circumstances. He created a special class of "critical care assistants" (i.e., narrowly focused nurses) and specifically recruited bright young women from impoverished villages. He thought that U.S. healthcare would suffer from the relative lack of such providers.
My dad (now retired) was a surgeon. While not at the genius level, he was (according to his peers) extraordinarily gifted and good at what he did. He was raised by parents who grew up poor (his mom was one of 11 surviving children in a farm family--several who did not survive buried as infants in the backyard).
By the time my dad was in high school, his parents were solidly middle class, by the standards of 1950-60. Still, my dad worked from the age of 10, including all the way through college.
Maybe there are personality traits that lead a person to strive and achieve in difficult circumstances that foster ingenuity and innovation.
I suspect that's true. I also suspect that poverty encourages achievement and the development of those skills. In "The True Believer," Eric Hoffer explored the origins of political fanaticism and revolutionary tendencies. He said that such movements do not arise from those in poverty, as the impoverished experience a feeling of achievement every time they make it through a day with something on the table to eat. The malcontents, he argued, tended to be bored middle-class underachievers--searching for something to give their lives meaning.
While the genetic basis of intelligence and the traits that seem to predict success in life (respect for authority; future-orientation; strong impulse control) is a sensitive issue, I don't think we can ignore it. I believe Charles Murray lays out compelling arguments (see Human Diversity) for at least a significant effect of genetic determinants across demographic cohorts.
If a non-trivial portion of the achievement gap is due to genetics, we do no group any favors by ignoring it. What can't be fixed, can't be fixed. If a group's median intelligence is a standard deviation lower than another's--and the basis is genetic--that group will be less successful.
I get aggravated by the (to me) wishful thinking that everyone can go to college, work in the information economy, etc. Some people are not very smart. They need jobs, too.
Similarly, I get aggravated by the systemic racism argument. Black Americans' food choices are not dictated by Jim Crow. (And aren't much different from much of white, rural America!).
Redlining was abhorrent--but much of the continuing racial segregation in housing patterns is driven by the criminal behavior of the black underclass. Jim Crow and slavery are not the reason Oakland became unlivable for me. There is a book I am meaning to read if my failing memory will bring the title to mind--about why ethnic whites fled the cities of NJ in the 60s. Blacks who have the means also flee.
I am not arguing that racism doesn't exist, that sometimes it is an overlooked element in institutions, etc. I think it is way overblown, and focusing on it will drain energy from the hard questions we need to ask about group differences and how we can offer meaningful life choices to those (of every race) who are not able to "learn to code."
Of course, a big problem with what you suggest is the dismal track record of those who seek to measure the intelligence of demographic groups and then to build public policy around their often-arbitrary measures. In the 20th century, brilliant, sometimes-insightful eugenicists peddled half-baked theories, garbage data, and squalid public policies. And I have no confidence that things have particularly improved among today's "experts."
You make a good point. Still, there is meaningful research being done by academics who do not proffer public policy. There is a good reason you may not be aware of it--automatic condemnation of any such efforts. And the harm done by previous eugenecists doesn't mean we should not ask the question. And none of the good-faith researchers of whom I am aware argue that genetics is the only factor. Nor do any of them argue that any individual can be stereotyped based on cohort statistics. (Nor do the cohorts break down into our broad racial categories). There are important and valuable questions about nature vs nurture, the environment, and culture in how human beings have evolved and develop today. (And I think, if we reflect, a necessary lesson in humility and grace -- human beings must not be reduced to single attributes. My middle son, intellectually below the median is of no less worth, beauty and significance than my two intellectually gifted sons.)
Wouldn't it be better to know--at least in part--why Amy Wax has had the experience she has at Penn Law? Are we just going to attribute every difference in group achievement to residual racism? Public policy should not be formulated based on group statistics. But rational expectations can be informed by them. Should a Fortune 500 company adopt a racial quota based on the US Census and assert that any difference in hiring and promotion is due to white bias? (See, Pfizer, for ex.) Should medical schools do the same?
I don't have the arrogance to offer solutions. I just have anxiety--and it is not centered on any particular cohort. I feel ambivalence about libertarian economic policy, for instance, because I wonder what happens when people like my middle son can't flourish in an economy that centers on information and the life of the mind. That is tangential to this discussion, of course, but not unrelated.
Mike Rowe talks about these things a lot. Do we do harm by focusing on "systemic racism" in higher ed instead of making the trades a visible and attractive option (not race-specific)?
Maybe these things iron themselves out if the "brains" of society leave well enough alone. When a kid figures out he can make a great living welding instead of flailing through physics...
I agree with you on many or most of these points. I often say that experts make great witnesses and dangerous judges. "Academics who do not proffer public policy" is an endangered species, I fear. I often describe views as "libertarian-ish, with a strong emphasis on the "ish." Some years back, Richard Epstein wrote a good column ("My Rand Paul Problem" describe why he, Epstein, the author of a column called "The Libertarian" was not, in fact, a libertarian. I agree with his misgivings. (https://www.hoover.org/research/my-rand-paul-problem)
Aug 31, 2023·edited Aug 31, 2023Liked by Robert F. Graboyes
Thanks--that was an interesting read. I often jokingly think to myself that hard-core libertarians must all be Aspergersy--they do not seem to comprehend human nature.
The drug dilemma illustrates the problem. Perhaps human beings should be free to fry their bodies and brains with any substance they choose. But human nature is such that our society is unwilling to just watch people slowly deteriorate and die. Then MY wages are forcefully taken from me to rescue people from their free will. (Or we all suffer the crime and violence that goes along with drug abuse).
As an aside--that is my carp with people who claim the good-ole boys' system is racist. It ain't. It is human nature, and it happens in groups of both sexes and every possible racial/ethnic/religious permutation. (There are indications this happens in the Brahmin Indian managerical class in Silicon Valley.) I don't think it is a problem that can be eradicated.
Maybe we should just rewrite Faulkner: High school isn't dead. It isn't even the past.
> Sociologist John Sibley Butler offers the most strident, multifaceted criticism of systemic race theory. Systemic racism, he suggests, conflicts with the successes of ... Nigerian Americans
I think this is one of the strongest points in the entire article. Recent African immigrants to America by and large don't experience the same societal problems as "traditional" African-Americans (ie. the descendants of slaves) experience. This strongly suggests that something other than race is responsible for the problems. Correlation may not imply causation, but non-correlation absolutely does imply non-causation.
The article mentions Thomas Sowell. His book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" takes a good look at a more likely cause: the violent and dysfunctional Antebellum South "redneck" culture that the slaves inherited from their masters bears a disturbing resemblance to the worst parts of black American "ghetto" culture today. Southern white rednecks have since moved on with the passage of the better part of two centuries, but with Jim Crow keeping black Americans culturally isolated to a large degree, the descendants of slaves all too often remain stuck with this toxic cultural heritage.
Agreed. I believe it is now true that Nigerian Americans are the single most highly educated demographic in America -- and very successful in their post-university endeavors. 40 years ago, I visited Lagos, which was the chaotic, nightmarishly dysfunctional locale I ever visited. And yet, one could feel the dynamism all about. At least in the circles I traveled in, everyone had huge plans, and one sensed that they would fulfill those plans.
Was it passed on by white rednecks or is it present in the African cultures from which the slaves came?
I am not sure many white rednecks have moved on. J D Vance addresses the honor culture in which he was raised in Hillbilly Elegy.
> Was it passed on by white rednecks or is it present in the African cultures from which the slaves came?
IIRC, Sowell mentioned that the thing that inspired him to do the research in the first place that led to writing this was noticing a profound lack of African cultural elements within black ghetto culture.
I need to read that book. American Nations (Colin Woodward) was a fascinating read--even if his biases showed toward the end.
I think there are maybe more African elements (that being a poor shorthand for elements particular to a particular African country/tribe) evident in blacks in places like Miami and New Orleans. One sees it in the fusion of African faith traditions and Roman Catholicism..
Well, you can find it on Amazon easily enough. It's currently less than $10 for the Kindle version.
To the point about the success of Nigerian Americans, I'll add that Professor John Obgu, Nigerian by birth, was a sociology professor at Berkeley. (Sadly, he died some 20 years ago.) In a remarkable paper on the impact of affirmative action on black students from well-to-do families in the Cleveland area, he found that it greatly reduced their drive to succeed in high school, since they knew that racial preferences would enable them to get into top colleges even without noteworthy achievements. What a contrast from earlier times when black kids were taught that they needed to work especially hard to overcome any bigotry against them. Scholars like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams grew up in that environment.
Steve Landsburg began his "The Armchair Economist" with "Most of economics can be summarized in four words: 'People respond to incentives.' The rest is commentary." Megan McArdle wrote a book titled, "The Up Side of Down: Why Failing Well Is the Key to Success."
(For literary fiends, Landsburg's opening is a sly reference to a comment by Rabbi Hillel (died 10 C.E.): "That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary; go and learn.")
Deep wisdom there.
Indeed. The proto-Golden Rule. The context is interesting. As the story goes, a man was considering converting to Judaism and told Hillel the Elder that he would do so if Hillel could explain the Torah to him while standing on one foot. The above quote was Hillel's response.
Wiser still!
How is it that issues of accountability and effects of Black culture do not come up in the review? For a discussion, from a Centrist point of view, see The Last Lonely Traveler - From the Extremes, published 2023. Gary Baker, Esq., MT
Thanks for the recommendation!
To this layman, we’ve had 3 generations of liberal solutions to race; affirmative action, welfare, liberal run school systems, behavioral standard degradation, etc. Yet for native born US blacks I am told things have gotten worse.
We all know the definition of insanity yet the only solutions being proposed are the same things that have failed so far. Only we are now supposed to do more of them?
I liked Pat Moniyhan’s benign neglect. He looks prescient now.
Moynihan was a remarkable figure. Hard to think of any other senator who could match him in breadth, depth, or introspection--with the possible exception of James Buckley, the incumbent whom he defeated in 1976. Amazing that Moynihan managed to last four terms and then retire.
Bill Bradley?
He's up there. I didn't say it was IMPOSSIBLE to think of other examples. But you do have to ponder them for a while. I'm not certain that Bradley was quite at the altitude of Moynihan or Buckley. Buckley and Moynihan would have been formidable intellects had they never set foot in the Senate for a day. I'm not sure we would be pondering the philosophy of Bill Bradley had he not served in high office. And for that matter, while I had respect for him, I cannot, at this late date, recall anything that he said, whereas it's easy to rattle off the insights of Moynihan and Buckley.
Good point. I am biased because I loved his Knicks teams. Hard to believe that Princeton was a contender for NCAA finals and he was the most dangerous college basketball player in America. In my day Penn was also a contender as well. Long time ago.
https://www.joannejacobs.com/post/low-ses-asians-are-top-students-can-excellence-gap-be-closed
Poverty is not an excuse. See above. Consider also that by any measure, the geniuses who came before us lived in poverty relative to almost everyone alive in the US today.
Interesting piece. In 2021, I interviewed India's celebrated cardiac surgeon, Dr. Devi Shetty. (https://www.discoursemagazine.com/culture-and-society/2021/06/04/fortress-and-frontier-the-narayana-system-and-innovations-in-healthcare/) In that interview, and in our private conversations, he explained his preference for medical providers who came from poverty. He told me that if I named a gifted, innovative surgeon, he would almost guarantee that they came up from austere circumstances. He created a special class of "critical care assistants" (i.e., narrowly focused nurses) and specifically recruited bright young women from impoverished villages. He thought that U.S. healthcare would suffer from the relative lack of such providers.
My dad (now retired) was a surgeon. While not at the genius level, he was (according to his peers) extraordinarily gifted and good at what he did. He was raised by parents who grew up poor (his mom was one of 11 surviving children in a farm family--several who did not survive buried as infants in the backyard).
By the time my dad was in high school, his parents were solidly middle class, by the standards of 1950-60. Still, my dad worked from the age of 10, including all the way through college.
Maybe there are personality traits that lead a person to strive and achieve in difficult circumstances that foster ingenuity and innovation.
I suspect that's true. I also suspect that poverty encourages achievement and the development of those skills. In "The True Believer," Eric Hoffer explored the origins of political fanaticism and revolutionary tendencies. He said that such movements do not arise from those in poverty, as the impoverished experience a feeling of achievement every time they make it through a day with something on the table to eat. The malcontents, he argued, tended to be bored middle-class underachievers--searching for something to give their lives meaning.
Ezackery. Humans with empty lives and idle hands are the devil's workshop.
While the genetic basis of intelligence and the traits that seem to predict success in life (respect for authority; future-orientation; strong impulse control) is a sensitive issue, I don't think we can ignore it. I believe Charles Murray lays out compelling arguments (see Human Diversity) for at least a significant effect of genetic determinants across demographic cohorts.
If a non-trivial portion of the achievement gap is due to genetics, we do no group any favors by ignoring it. What can't be fixed, can't be fixed. If a group's median intelligence is a standard deviation lower than another's--and the basis is genetic--that group will be less successful.
I get aggravated by the (to me) wishful thinking that everyone can go to college, work in the information economy, etc. Some people are not very smart. They need jobs, too.
Similarly, I get aggravated by the systemic racism argument. Black Americans' food choices are not dictated by Jim Crow. (And aren't much different from much of white, rural America!).
Redlining was abhorrent--but much of the continuing racial segregation in housing patterns is driven by the criminal behavior of the black underclass. Jim Crow and slavery are not the reason Oakland became unlivable for me. There is a book I am meaning to read if my failing memory will bring the title to mind--about why ethnic whites fled the cities of NJ in the 60s. Blacks who have the means also flee.
I am not arguing that racism doesn't exist, that sometimes it is an overlooked element in institutions, etc. I think it is way overblown, and focusing on it will drain energy from the hard questions we need to ask about group differences and how we can offer meaningful life choices to those (of every race) who are not able to "learn to code."
Of course, a big problem with what you suggest is the dismal track record of those who seek to measure the intelligence of demographic groups and then to build public policy around their often-arbitrary measures. In the 20th century, brilliant, sometimes-insightful eugenicists peddled half-baked theories, garbage data, and squalid public policies. And I have no confidence that things have particularly improved among today's "experts."
You make a good point. Still, there is meaningful research being done by academics who do not proffer public policy. There is a good reason you may not be aware of it--automatic condemnation of any such efforts. And the harm done by previous eugenecists doesn't mean we should not ask the question. And none of the good-faith researchers of whom I am aware argue that genetics is the only factor. Nor do any of them argue that any individual can be stereotyped based on cohort statistics. (Nor do the cohorts break down into our broad racial categories). There are important and valuable questions about nature vs nurture, the environment, and culture in how human beings have evolved and develop today. (And I think, if we reflect, a necessary lesson in humility and grace -- human beings must not be reduced to single attributes. My middle son, intellectually below the median is of no less worth, beauty and significance than my two intellectually gifted sons.)
Wouldn't it be better to know--at least in part--why Amy Wax has had the experience she has at Penn Law? Are we just going to attribute every difference in group achievement to residual racism? Public policy should not be formulated based on group statistics. But rational expectations can be informed by them. Should a Fortune 500 company adopt a racial quota based on the US Census and assert that any difference in hiring and promotion is due to white bias? (See, Pfizer, for ex.) Should medical schools do the same?
I don't have the arrogance to offer solutions. I just have anxiety--and it is not centered on any particular cohort. I feel ambivalence about libertarian economic policy, for instance, because I wonder what happens when people like my middle son can't flourish in an economy that centers on information and the life of the mind. That is tangential to this discussion, of course, but not unrelated.
Mike Rowe talks about these things a lot. Do we do harm by focusing on "systemic racism" in higher ed instead of making the trades a visible and attractive option (not race-specific)?
Maybe these things iron themselves out if the "brains" of society leave well enough alone. When a kid figures out he can make a great living welding instead of flailing through physics...
I agree with you on many or most of these points. I often say that experts make great witnesses and dangerous judges. "Academics who do not proffer public policy" is an endangered species, I fear. I often describe views as "libertarian-ish, with a strong emphasis on the "ish." Some years back, Richard Epstein wrote a good column ("My Rand Paul Problem" describe why he, Epstein, the author of a column called "The Libertarian" was not, in fact, a libertarian. I agree with his misgivings. (https://www.hoover.org/research/my-rand-paul-problem)
Thanks--that was an interesting read. I often jokingly think to myself that hard-core libertarians must all be Aspergersy--they do not seem to comprehend human nature.
The drug dilemma illustrates the problem. Perhaps human beings should be free to fry their bodies and brains with any substance they choose. But human nature is such that our society is unwilling to just watch people slowly deteriorate and die. Then MY wages are forcefully taken from me to rescue people from their free will. (Or we all suffer the crime and violence that goes along with drug abuse).
As an aside--that is my carp with people who claim the good-ole boys' system is racist. It ain't. It is human nature, and it happens in groups of both sexes and every possible racial/ethnic/religious permutation. (There are indications this happens in the Brahmin Indian managerical class in Silicon Valley.) I don't think it is a problem that can be eradicated.
Maybe we should just rewrite Faulkner: High school isn't dead. It isn't even the past.
Excellent use of Faulkner. :)
I enjoy sharing a quote with libertarian friends: “A libertarian is one who is fiscally conservative and socially awkward.”