In Eat the Rich PJ O'Rourke tells the following story:
It is this cultural backwardness -- one that has been attacked by Bill Cosby for example -- that has played the primary factor in holding back Black America, according to Sowell -- more so than even Jim Crow or the legacy of slavery. He argues for example:
But the book isn't just about Black America. Actually the title subject occupies only the first essay, with subsequent chapters devoted to matters such as the success of German immigrants throughout the world (in places as diverse as Russia, Australia, Brazil and the U.S.), a history of slavery (basically the fact that slavery was practised in the U.S. is unremarkable -- slavery has been found throughout the world. Indeed, the word "slave" is derived from Slav. What is more remarkable is the lengths the Western world went to end the practise -- such as fighting a bloody civil war in the U.S. -- while slavery persisted elsewhere in the world for much longer. Indeed, it didn't formally end in Saudi Arabia until 1962), and a chapter on Jews.
The point that is driven home over and over again is that culture matters. Some cultures are more successful than others. While perhaps obvious I think this is a point that some people resist. But who can really contest this? Can we not admit that a culture that allows a woman to vote is superior to one that burns women at the stake or endorses female circumcision?
If one accepts the massive role culture plays then to me it seems logical to raise another question: what is the real ability of government to shape culture and behavior? Take gun violence for example. Which is more logical: Japan has lower rates of gun violence because of its restrictive laws on gun possession or because of the cultural values of its citizens? If the U.S. and Japan were to switch systems of law would crimes committed with guns suddenly spike in Japan and recede in the U.S.?
Now, does that mean that government has a zero or negligible effect? No, of course not. But I would submit that the role of culture is plainly considerable. To continue with the gun control example, even though gun control is far tougher in Washington DC than Wyoming, where do you worry more about being a victim of gun violence? The problem isn't the laws, it's that Washington DC seems to have more people willing to use guns to commit violent acts. Can government effectively promote cultural values less prone to violence? The answer to me is not at all obvious. Plainly it can increase penalties on the use of violence, but how can government change the underlying culture?
Further, think about the implications of culture on the poverty debate. The fact that so many immigrants can come to the U.S. and make a successful life should raise some serious questions. Basically that people can arrive in another country, often without even speaking the language, and accumulate significant wealth indicates that poverty stems not from an inherently unfair system of laws or rules but from inferior cultural values. Indeed, when I read this book about welfare reform what constantly struck me was not how lazy welfare recipients were, but their consistently poor decision making. How can government ameliorate that? Is it even possible?
Seems to me that the best way to promote enhanced cultural values is through trade and interaction among cultures, with superior cultures/values replacing inferior ones. Sowell notes that both Japan and Scotland rapidly made the transition from backwards societies to modern ones by throwing off their old ways and seeking to learn from abroad (which is why allowing foreign students to study in the U.S. is so important). Isn't this the exact opposite of multiculturalism? Indeed, is it any coincidence that the success of various racial groups in the U.S. is seemingly inverse to their participation in racial and identity politics?
The price of "keeping it real."
Update: Related thoughts, especially on the poverty angle, here.
A Scandinavian economist once proudly said to free-market advocate Milton Friedman, "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." And Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either."The point is that culture matters -- which is exactly what Thomas Sowell emphasizes in Black Rednecks & White Liberals. While you can read a column by Sowell in which he lays out his theory in some detail, essentially it is that many Black Americans have adopted the backward, redneck ways that were widespread among Southern whites -- a development that white liberals have not only failed to condemn but in some cases actually defended.
It is this cultural backwardness -- one that has been attacked by Bill Cosby for example -- that has played the primary factor in holding back Black America, according to Sowell -- more so than even Jim Crow or the legacy of slavery. He argues for example:
Those who try to claim that the shattered families in today's ghettoes are "a legacy of slavery" ignore the fact that, a hundred years ago, a slightly higher percentage of blacks than of whites were married and most black children were raised in two-parent families, even during the era of slavery.He also notes that many successful Black Americans today are products of West Indian culture -- Colin Powell, whose parents are from Jamaica, springs to mind -- rather than mainstream Black culture. The success of many African immigrants, who likewise are from a different culture, also seems relevant.
As late as 1950, a higher percentage of black women than of white women were married. The broken families of today are a legacy of our own times and our own ill-advised notions and policies.
But the book isn't just about Black America. Actually the title subject occupies only the first essay, with subsequent chapters devoted to matters such as the success of German immigrants throughout the world (in places as diverse as Russia, Australia, Brazil and the U.S.), a history of slavery (basically the fact that slavery was practised in the U.S. is unremarkable -- slavery has been found throughout the world. Indeed, the word "slave" is derived from Slav. What is more remarkable is the lengths the Western world went to end the practise -- such as fighting a bloody civil war in the U.S. -- while slavery persisted elsewhere in the world for much longer. Indeed, it didn't formally end in Saudi Arabia until 1962), and a chapter on Jews.
The point that is driven home over and over again is that culture matters. Some cultures are more successful than others. While perhaps obvious I think this is a point that some people resist. But who can really contest this? Can we not admit that a culture that allows a woman to vote is superior to one that burns women at the stake or endorses female circumcision?
If one accepts the massive role culture plays then to me it seems logical to raise another question: what is the real ability of government to shape culture and behavior? Take gun violence for example. Which is more logical: Japan has lower rates of gun violence because of its restrictive laws on gun possession or because of the cultural values of its citizens? If the U.S. and Japan were to switch systems of law would crimes committed with guns suddenly spike in Japan and recede in the U.S.?
Now, does that mean that government has a zero or negligible effect? No, of course not. But I would submit that the role of culture is plainly considerable. To continue with the gun control example, even though gun control is far tougher in Washington DC than Wyoming, where do you worry more about being a victim of gun violence? The problem isn't the laws, it's that Washington DC seems to have more people willing to use guns to commit violent acts. Can government effectively promote cultural values less prone to violence? The answer to me is not at all obvious. Plainly it can increase penalties on the use of violence, but how can government change the underlying culture?
Further, think about the implications of culture on the poverty debate. The fact that so many immigrants can come to the U.S. and make a successful life should raise some serious questions. Basically that people can arrive in another country, often without even speaking the language, and accumulate significant wealth indicates that poverty stems not from an inherently unfair system of laws or rules but from inferior cultural values. Indeed, when I read this book about welfare reform what constantly struck me was not how lazy welfare recipients were, but their consistently poor decision making. How can government ameliorate that? Is it even possible?
Seems to me that the best way to promote enhanced cultural values is through trade and interaction among cultures, with superior cultures/values replacing inferior ones. Sowell notes that both Japan and Scotland rapidly made the transition from backwards societies to modern ones by throwing off their old ways and seeking to learn from abroad (which is why allowing foreign students to study in the U.S. is so important). Isn't this the exact opposite of multiculturalism? Indeed, is it any coincidence that the success of various racial groups in the U.S. is seemingly inverse to their participation in racial and identity politics?
The price of "keeping it real."
Update: Related thoughts, especially on the poverty angle, here.
No comments:
Post a Comment