Thomas Sowell discusses his newest book, Intellectuals and Race

[theworldismine13]

No you shouldn't be outraged.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/02/25/the-fairness-fraud-n1799865



He does have some good stuff though.. well unique stuff.

Reading this though... I can see why you like him..... he give the same passes to cac, the west.. and disses the things you diss
http://www.deadcatsandclippings.com/?page_id=321

so where is it that he called black people lazy?

yeah of course i agree with him on a lot of things that is why i posted the vid, i agree with him that the fundamental things we as black people have to deal with is culture, and specifically an anti academic culture that permeates black culture

as opposed to focusing on white racism

this focus on white racism is itself in a round about way a form of white supremacy because it starts with the premise that the destiny of black people is in the hands of whites, a premise that i have a serious problem with and a premise which eventually leads to an intellectual dead end where black people dont know how to analyze and solve problems without white people

but none of this theory involves calling black people lazy, that is why im wondering where yall getting that word from

 

[DEAD7]

Reading this though... I can see why you like him..... he give the same passes to cac, the west.. and disses the things you diss
http://www.deadcatsandclippings.com/?page_id=321

Lets take a look...

History from Sowell: Paraphrased and Quoted
(All italics and bold faced emphasis were added by JB. All page numbers in parentheses refer to Sowell’s original essay in Black Rednecks and White Liberals.)

1) We neglect current slavery in Mauritania, Sudan, and parts of Nigeria and Benen but complain, debate, and demand favors because of events over a century old and focused in the United States.

Seems pretty straight forward.

2) Writings are meager, however, about the larger number of Africans enslaved in Middle Eastern Islamic territories and within Europe. Further, a million or more Europeans were enslaved by North African pirates from 1500-1800 and whites were sold at auctions in Egypt until August 1885, years after the American Emancipation Proclamation. (There is bluster about “reparations” for the modern handicaps that grew from events more than a century ago. There is no evidence, however, that past enslavement suppressed contemporary white achievement!)

This definitely downplays the racism found in American slavery and the systemic challenges it created.

3) “Slav” became the root for “slave” in English, Arabic, and other languages because Slavs were widely captured by traders from the southern and eastern Mediterranean. Asians and Polynesians were also bought and sold by Asians and Polynesians. India, according to Sowell, had more slaves than in the entire Western Hemisphere and slaves were the majority in some Asian cities.

Fact.

4) The popularized history of slavery underlies the claim that slavery grew out of racism. Not so. Sowell points out that slavery for centuries was of like-against-like. “Europeans enslaved other Europeans, Asians enslaved other Asians, Africans enslaved other Africans, and indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere enslaved other indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere became the first region in history in which slavery was also associated with racial differences…. This enshrinement of racism as an over-arching causal factor accords far more with current instrumental agendas than with history.” (114)

I see nothing wrong here.
Slavery is about power not race. It was the U.S. government that made it about race.

5) “While there is a sizeable literature on the American Civil War, for all its staggering carnage and historic legacy within the United States, in an international perspective it s only a small and highly atypical part of the story of the worldwide crusade against slavery.No other nation ended slavery in the same way as the United States did and few ended it after so short a struggle…”

Another factual statement. Slavery ended in country after country without war. Those who argue it wouldnt have died on its own are simply choosing to ignore history.

6) Slavery ended as “more and more territories around the world consolidated into nation states with their own armies and navies, raiding those territories to capture and enslave the people who lived within them became more hazardous…” (115). Further, “Slavery did not die out quietly of its own accord. It went down fighting to the bitter end – and it lost only because Europeans had gunpowder weapons first.” … “Ironically, the anti-slavery ideology behind this process began to develop in eighteenth-century Britain, at a time when the British Empire led the world in slave trading, and when the economy of most of its overseas colonies in the Western Hemisphere depended on slaves …While slavery was common to all civilizations, as well as to peoples considered uncivilized, only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late in hits history…not even the leading moralists in other civilizations rejected slavery at all….Moreover, within Western civilization, the principle impetus for the abolition of slavery came first from very conservative religious activists – people who would today be called ‘the religious right.’…this story is not ‘politically correct’ in today’s terms. Hence it is ignored, as if it never happened.” (116)

“Within the British Empire, the abolition of slavery was accompanied by payment of compensation to slave owners – not to slaves – this cost the British government 20 million pounds… about five percent of the nation’s annual output.” (122)

“We took possession…in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped. Some ran away from us, these we killed and others we killed – but what of that? It was in accordance with our customs.” (118) “In short, what was so patently wrong about slavery….was almost incomprehensible to many non-Westerners.”

Evil cacs

7) “…the region of West Africa…was one of the great slave-trading regions of the continent – before, during, and after the white man arrived. It was Africans who enslaved their fellow Africans, selling some of these slaves to Europeans or to Arabs and keeping others for themselves. Even at the peak of Atlantic slave trade, Africans retained more slaves for themselves than they sent to the Western Hemisphere….In East Africa, the Masai were feared slave raiders and other African tribes – either alone or in conjunction with Arabs, enslaved their more vulnerable neighbors…Arabs were the leading slave raiders in East Africa, ranging over an area larger than all of Europe.”

I dont know if this is a fact or not, but seems reasonable.

8) “A vast literature has detailed the vile conditions under which slaves from Africa lived – and died – during their voyages to the Western Hemisphere. But the much less publicized slave trade to the Islamic countries had even higher mortality rates …most of the slaves who were marched across the Sahara…died on the way. While these were mostly women and girls, the males faced a special danger – castration to produce the eunuchs in demand as harem attendants in the Islamic world.” (126) “…vestiges of slavery still survived in parts of Africa into the twenty-first century.”

This is like the third time this specific argument has come up on this board this week I really need to look into this islamic slave trade.

9) There was disagreement about slavery within the West: “In addition to whites who defended the enslavement of Africans on racial ground, or who opposed general emancipation on social grounds, there were many whites – and even blacks – who defended slavery as matter of self-interest as slave owners….there were thousands of … blacks in the antebellum south who were commercial slave owners, just like their white counterparts. An estimated one-third of the ‘free persons of color’ in New Orleans were slaveowners and thousands of these slaveowners volunteered to fight for the Confederacy…”

now this is some fukkery. I cannot cosign this in any way.

 

[Blackking]

interesting indeed.... he makes good points, but he also downplays that cac shyt.

 

[The Real]

I believe this is true, and I would love to hear your argument(s) to the contrary.

There's more than one notion of equality. For example, equality could be making a man who was born with no legs run a race against a regular man while not giving him any prosthetics, because that would be unequal treatment, or equality could be giving him prosthetic legs so he actually has a more equal chance to be competitive.

 

[DEAD7]

There's more than one notion of equality. For example, equality could be making a man who was born with no legs run a race against a regular man while not giving him any prosthetics, because that would be unequal treatment, or equality could be giving him prosthetic legs so he actually has a more equal chance to be competitive.

Absolutely, but in the case of rights, I think "equal rights for all" covers everyone. Specifying and drawing up categories IMO does more harm than good.

 

[J-Nice]

I have this book in PDF, might crack it open.