Its nice that Sowell "sees" things, and he likes to make "claims", but Im talking about compelling and verifiable evidence that supports what he "sees" and establishes real relationships. There is a significant difference between general correlation, and casual factors ---- he's simply making reductionist claims that are ideologically based (I would say dishonest). I can say that the breakup of the Jackson 5 and the fall of Motown records "exacerbated" the negative outcomes in the black community. Whats the difference?
This is a legitimate criticism, but not one that I think applies to Sowell in this case. He provides examples from many different racial groups and time frames and uses statistics to draw his conclusions. One of the main takeaways from Sowell is that our orthodox views on this matter are out of line with what the statistics are. That's the opposite of making an ideologically based reductionist claim.
Economically speaking, redlining and an evaporation of low skilled work that blacks relied on due to the industrial restructuring ,and relocation of those jobs from cities to the suburbs (making it difficult for blacks to access) were the type of ' external pressures' that made life even more difficult for black homes in an already existing world of intense discrimination. These casual factors are empirically supported thru many studies.
Judging by Sowell's ready admission that blacks have started the race behind whites for historical and cultural reasons, it seems unlikely to me that he would disregard the effects of historically institutional factors such as the ones you outlined. He in fact says most people don't even realize how much further behind blacks started from other groups. I think his point is more that blacks were making great gains (particularly from the 1920s-1950s) in spite of these institutional factors, but the proliferation of the welfare state stagnated many of these gains. In fact, Sowell's believes that the welfare state could be seen as yet another institutional factor that has hindered black progress. I think the real area of difference between your view and Sowell's view is the analysis of Jim Crow era blacks. Whereas Sowell sees a story of incredible growth and upward mobility in spite of all the institutional factors, you see a story of unmitigated destitution that needed immediate and institutional remedy. From here, it's easy to see how you and Sowell would disagree on the effects of the welfare state. My question to you is this: how do you account for the precipitous decline in black prosperity and economic growth from the 1960s onward? Because Sowell's theory does. Those institutional and discriminatory factors you point to were no less a factor to the Jim Crow era black than the post-Civil Rights era black. So what great change happened in American (specifically black American) society during the 1960s? It wasn't more institutional racism.
Where are the studies that support welfare being a causal factor for black social dislocation? Countries from around the world have far more generous social safety net packages --- whats their relationship with that structure and out of wedlock birth rates? Why just the focus on American blacks? The variables of limited economic enterprise opportunity leading to poor outcomes is the relationship of strength --- you think if black neighborhoods had great schools and great available jobs, that welfare would be a "pressure" on black families? How could it? The theory is borderline preposterous.
I don't think Sowell is necessarily arguing against welfare, but against the welfare state. The theory is that any people who are conditioned to expect state welfare will invariably lose the traits that make it possible to economically and socially prosper in a society such as ours. I don't think that's preposterous at all. It seems to be supported by what we know of social and developmental psychology. He also cross references the black experience with the Jewish, Chinese, Japanese, Irish experience and finds that there was something at play that hindered blacks from prospering at the same rate as certain segments of those communities in modern times; culture. Jews, Chinese, Japanese and Irish all faced institutional discrimination in one form or another, but how these groups and the state responded to it was different from how blacks and the state responded to black discrimination in the 1960s. Sowell finds that the groups that prospered put a cultural emphasis on work, acquisition of skill, saving, and some degree of isolation. Pre-welfare state black communities were practicing the same values, which led to them prospering at similar rates as those groups, but the introduction of the welfare state necessarily removed those traits.
Show me a country with a strong social safety net package
especially targeted at a specific group that didn't lead to that group's decline in prosperity. Surely the Jim Crow era black faced at least equal, if not worse, levels of economic enterprise opportunities than the post-welfare state black. So how could that be the relationship of strength when was a standard variable across the timeframe of the change, and how do you account for the decline in prosperity?
Sowell's point is that it's not so much about the resources as the culture and mindset of the people utilizing them. You can have the best schools, but if the students believe they are destined for the dole, they're not going to take advantage of the resources at their disposal.
TLDR: Institutionally discriminatory practices were in more widespread usage during the time of the great rise of black social and economic prosperity (1920s-1950s when the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate, and the rate of black married couple families was higher than it is now), which leads us to believe that the cause of this dramatic decline in black prosperity was not the continuation of these policies, but rather the cultural shift within the black community that accompanied the expansion of the disproportionally targeting welfare state. The welfare state being aimed at blacks has removed the cultural values (work, acquisition of skills, saving) that allowed blacks of the early 20th century to prosper at a remarkable rate. This of course does not mean that things were all hunky-dory in that time, and Sowell himself acknowledges the critical gains in institutional rights for blacks resulting from the Civil Rights Movement, but there was an unacknowledged loss in prosperous values within the black community that accompanied the swelling of the welfare state.
Can't believe I'm about to dap No bammer fukking weed.
Am I on the right board?