Black Rednecks and White Liberals (2005), by Thomas Sowell

A Review

By Dom Nozzi

I just finished reading this excellent book. The following are excerpts a few of my thoughts…

“The history of the black population of the US might be summed up in broad outlines as follows: Sold into slavery by African leaders, at a time when slavery was widely accepted in all civilizations, blacks entered a particular segment of American society and culture at the bottom, acquiring only the rudiments of Western civilization – not including literacy, in most cases – and a way of life influenced by a peculiar redneck culture.” Pg. 261

Sowell lists attributes of the redneck culture – a culture that did NOT originate in the US South, but instead was imported by colonists centuries earlier. These colonists originated from the hinterlands in Wales, Scotland, England, and Ireland. These European nations were the origin of such culturally dysfunctional attributes as:

*Aversion to work.

*Promiscuity.

*Lack of entrepreneurship.

*Reckless search for excitement.

*Drunkenness.

*Neglect of education.

*Violence.

*Lively music and dance.

*Strident religious oration.

*Unbridled emotions.

*Unwillingness to be industrious or hard-working.

*Exaggerated pride and the related tendency to duel or feud.

*Wasteful expenditures.

Similarly, despite the conventional wisdom, the following phrases originated in Scotland, England, Ireland, and Wales:

*”You be

*”She ain’t

*It don’t

*I hain’t

*”chittlins”

*”Yaller” for “yellow”

*”ax” for “ask”

*”y’awl” for “you”

*”dis” for “this”

*”dat” for “that”

Sowell notes that many blacks in the US exhibit such redneck behavior to a greater extent than most Americans because whereas only a small percentage of Americans lived in the South long enough to adopt such a culture, an enormous percentage of blacks brought to the US as slaves lived in – and thereby adopted – that culture.

“Freed after the Civil War but poverty-stricken, illiterate, unskilled and unacculturated to the demanding way of life in a free republic with a market economy, blacks began their history as a free people at the bottom of American society [much as such groups as the Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Italians, and Poles had done in the past]. One sign of their lack of preparation for life as a free people was a rate of mortality among blacks in the aftermath of emancipation that was greater than it had been under slavery. This was just one sign of a more general lag in adjusting to the norms of the society around them.

“The small enclaves of New England culture transplanted among blacks – via Oberlin College and Dunbar High School, as well as in black colleges established in the South by New Englanders – did NOT promote pride in the existing black redneck culture. On the contrary, the clear message in these enclaves was that the way most blacks talked, the way they behaved, and the whole set of redneck values they inherited, were all wrong and were things to be overcome. The wholly disproportionate number of black leaders and high achievers who came out of these small enclaves is further evidence in the case of “pride” versus “self-hate.”

Among both blacks and white liberals, there were those who thought that cultural changes among blacks were unnecessary [indeed, Sowell points out that many liberals, educators and academics celebrate the redneck culture of blacks], that there could be progress without internal cultural change, effects without causes. In the post-1960s world, such views gained the ascendency – and those who held these views often wondered why it was so hard to raise ghetto blacks out of poverty and social disintegration. Their answer was usually a call for more welfare state programs, more “pride” and “self-esteem,” and more steeping in the history of black achievement or white injustice. The actual track record of this approach, compared to the opposite approach in the New England enclaves, received virtually no attention.

“Fortunately, in the decades before this mindset became fixed, most blacks had become better educated and had lifted themselves out of poverty at a rate HIGHER than that after the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. For example, more blacks rose into professional and other higher level occupations in the years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the years following its enactment. This factual history served no one’s political agenda and has since been replaced by a fictional history that does.

“The economic advancement of blacks has been widely portrayed as due to the civil rights movement, and to political leaders – black and white – who have proclaimed themselves champions of black Americans. Since no one has as large a vested interest in opposing this view as its proponents have in perpetuating it, the politically more convenient view has prevailed, along with attributing the continuing economic and social gaps between blacks and whites to the sins and shortcomings of the latter.

“…the decline in whites’ hostility and discrimination toward blacks in Northern cities during the 19th century, followed by a resurgence of hostility at the turn of the century, were not just inexplicable swings of the pendulum in white public opinion. The masses of blacks arriving in the North at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century were denounced in the BLACK newspapers of the time for their crudeness, violence, and crime. It was not just a question of ‘perceptions’ or ‘stereotypes’ among whites…

“Clinging to a counterproductive culture in the name of group pride and avoiding changes because they could be labeled ‘self-hate’ are patterns that have no track record that would justify optimism. The evidence is all on the other side – but that matters only to those who value evidence over ideology…” pp. 261-3.

Sowell’s book introduced me to a term I had not heard before: “Cultural Cringe.” The term refers to instances where a culturally backward or dysfunctional culture encounters a more advanced, successful culture. Historically, dysfunctional cultures that experienced the “cringe” eventually became successful cultures because those dysfunctional cultures adopted the successful, beneficial traits of the more advanced culture they had encountered. Examples of this long ago are the backward Japanese culture and Scottish culture, and the many dysfunctional cultures that encountered the German culture. Sowell’s book shows, tragically, that many problems seen in America for black success and achievement in contemporary times are based on blacks (as well as white activists) who have resisted efforts to have the black culture more comprehensively adopt the successful traits of American culture, and instead have retained too much of their “black redneck” cultural traits.

While Sowell does not mention this, I think similar things could be said about many Native Americans.

Sowell also does not use the term “melting pot,” but it seems to me that the term can be applied to the “cultural cringe” as well. That is, for a less successful culture to become more successful, it needs to be able to adopt the cultural traits of an encountered successful culture in a “melting pot” sort of way. One example of this is to have members of the less successful cultures immigrating to the US be urged to speak proper English.

Sowell is one of America’s leading black scholars. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard and later earned Master’s and Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University and the University of Chicago (Illinois), respectively.

The Rise of Hyper-Partisanship and the Decline in Civility

By Dom Nozzi

Why are Americans more at each other’s throats politically than ever before? I agree with much of what is said in this short video (below) in the sense that there is a loss of a sense of community (and civility) due to the decline in institutions such as public schools, religion or military service.

I would go beyond the comments in the video, however. I think the hyper-partisan, hyper-incivility we see is also due to the decline in strong two-parent households, the rise in TV watching, the rise in travel by car, and the fact that the media has aggressively latched on to the discovery that they can make enormous amounts of money by terrifying us and making us furious about “oppressors” (ie, “racists,” “sexists,” white males, and Republicans).

On Being Open Minded in Politics

By Dom Nozzi

I strive to not be in a political or tribal bubble. Being in a bubble breeds extreme divisiveness and hyper-partisanship, where we falsely believe those on the “other side of the political fence” are evil people who we have nothing in common with, and who are never correct. As studies show, this mainstream media narrative (which they aggressively promote to make more money) is false. Studies show that we and those on the “other side” have a huge percentage of things in common.

I have noticed over and over again in recent years that when I watch stuff from the “other side,” I often learn things (things that often turn out to be accurate) that I never heard from “my side” because such things don’t fit the tribal dogma. One great example is how the left BLASTED Trump for “making fun of a “spastic” reporter at a press conference. Turns out that this was a completely inaccurate portrayal of what was happening, but the Democratic Media Machine presented a false narrative to promote the “Trump is evil” narrative.

A great many on the political Right – as well as on the Left — are critical of Critical Race Theory. It just tends to be the case that the most well-done critiques of CRT come from the Right.

In sum, I think it is important that we be open-minded and work to get “both sides of the story,” rather than staying in a tribal bubble. I’m proud to say that I get both sides fairly often. Speaking as someone who is mostly (but increasingly less commonly) on the political Left, I do not believe it is true that the Right is ALWAYS wrong or ALWAYS evil, and that it is not worth ever listening to the Right for insights.

CRT shows how a number of people on the Left (not all) have lost their minds and are now, ironically, pushing a totalitarian, ruinous, racist, sexist, divisive agenda. And why so many parents are pulling their kids out of public schools so their kids are not indoctrinated to become racist totalitarians.

Culture matters far more than skin color, gender, or income. Which is in line with my position regarding shabby clothes, forms of speech, and uncivil behavior. My position these days is that to be successful (ie, to be strong and be happy as an adult), our families must nurture dressing neatly, speaking proper English, obtaining a good education, and engage in civil behavior.

What Explains the Loss of Functional Civility in Our Society?

By Dom Nozzi

A friend recently sent me a photo of young women in the 1950s wearing fashionable dresses. Next to that photo was a much more recent photo of young women wearing tattered jeans with huge holes and rips in them.

I think a big part of the explanation for why a lot of people wear shabby clothes these days is the “cultural revolution” lead by the New Left, Hippies, Yippies, Militant Feminists, Marxists and Black Panthers in the 60s. Each of those groups thought, ruinously, that part of the way to achieve what they believed would be a glorious, liberating, loving, peaceful revolution was to promote “diversity” and “anything goes” and “abandonment of bourgeois standards” and “tolerance of ethnic preference for behaviors/appearance/hygiene” and “rejection of white male western European science.”

As black scholar Thomas Sowell points out, this “revolution” in the 60s contributed mightily to a widespread societal dysfunction that includes significant increases in various crimes, a big jump in women having kids without fathers being around to raise them, and an abandonment of civil behavior (such as dressing neatly).

Early in my career as a city planner, I retained much of the thinking of these “60s revolutionaries.” I had to be informed by my supervisors that giving speeches in public should be done only while I was wearing a tie. Up until that time, I had the belief that it was “revolutionary” to dress casually at more formal events by not wearing a tie. I intended to help spark the revolution by vowing to never wear a tie (that was something only “square, right-wing” people did). Since hearing that from my supervisors, I started wearing a tie and came to thoroughly enjoy doing so.

It is tragic that a large number of people in our society never grew up. Such people continue to childishly believe it is “cool” or “revolutionary” or “hip” to wear shabby clothes. I believe shabby clothes are emblematic of a society that is infected with dysfunctional societal norms (including child-raising).

In sum, our society has been seeing a catastrophic plunge in civil behavior in large part because of the “cultural revolution” of the 60s.

As an aside, I need to point out that I am very worried my above comments suggest I’m a political conservative.

I think one of the biggest blunders made by the “counterculture ideology” in the 60s was to create in the minds of many the thought that being uncivil was “progressive” and would lead to social advance.

I think the counterculture ideology of being hyper-tolerant and hyper-accepting of different values, forms of dress, and ways of speaking/writing has led many to wrongly believe it is perfectly okay to dress, speak, and behave any way you like (and in any situation, including at school or at job interviews or at an office you work at). An ideology that says criticism of people dressing, speaking, or behaving shabbily (ie, outside of cultural norms) is unacceptable because it is a denigration of that person’s ethnicity or “freedom to choose.”

Baloney.

This particularly applies to black Americans, a great many of whom were raised to NOT “dress white” or “speak white” or “behave white” — starting mostly in the 60s. A huge number of young blacks – especially males – dress or speak or behave terribly. It should be self-evident that such young black males are doing relatively poorly in school in part due to how they dress, speak, or behave. And it should be self-evident such people do poorly in job interviews.

And they SHOULD do poorly when they engage in such a rejection of cultural norms.

I absolutely reject the left-wing social justice claim that young black men should be able to dress or speak or behave any way they choose. Or the social justice claim that to not treat young black men well in school or in job interviews – when they are dressing or speaking or behaving shabbily — is racial discrimination.

Nonsense.

If white people need to “dress for success” (and “speak for success” and “behave for success”), how is it “unfair” or “racist” to ask black people to dress or speak or behave in a way that is normal or respected in our society? For most of my adult life, I have worked hard to dress well and speak well and behave well. It is nonsense for left-wing social justice crusaders to claim it is racist to ask blacks to do the same.

Should black people “act white”? Absolutely, if that means blacks dressing or speaking or behaving in ways that are normal or respected in our society. If I move to another part of the world, you can be sure that I will be completely accepting of an obligation to have me and my family adopt the dress and speech and behavior of the country I live in.

We call this sort of assimilation a “melting pot.”

Much of the black culture has ruinously adopted the opposite belief: that “black pride” means blacks should not “dress white,” “speak white,” or “behave white.” In part, that means blacks are often told that getting a decent education is a “white” thing to do and therefore something that black people don’t need to promote in their childraising. It is okay, under this line of thinking, for young blacks to dress like drug dealers or hookers. It is okay, according to social justice warriors, for young blacks to speak black or redneck slang. It is okay, we are told by race hustlers, for young blacks to have wild dreadlock hair.

I am ashamed by how much I bought into the countercultural ideology when I was in high school, college, and my early years in a job. I was embarrassingly naïve. So supportive of ideas that have turned out to be terrible for our society.

As it turns out, what is revolutionary and progressive is NOT to wear tattered clothes or have long hair or speak using “hip” slang terms or listen to strange music while smoking dope or dropping out of school. It is to blend into society in the way you dress and speak and behave, yet also develop persuasive skills that enable you to be a change agent or opinion leader. Growing long hair and saying “HEY, MAN!” moves a person in the opposite direction of being a change agent.

Adopting the norms of your society is a recipe for success in life. Rejection of such norms is not “revolutionary” or “progressive.” It is a recipe for failure.