Skip to comments.An Ignored 'Disparity': Part III (Thomas Sowell)
Posted on 01/17/2012 10:47:30 AM PST by jazusamo
Anyone who has ever been in a Third World country, or even in a slum neighborhood at home, is likely to wonder why there can be such dire poverty among some people, while others are prospering.
Both politicians and intellectuals have tended to have simple answers to that question, even if these simple answers have been different in different eras.
A hundred years ago, the prevailing answer was that some people are innately and genetically inferior. Not only was this answer thundered from political platforms in redneck dialect by politicians in the Jim Crow South, the same message was delivered in cultured and lofty tones from academic podiums in the most prestigious colleges and universities across the country.
Nor was this unique to the United States. In Britain, a study of high-achieving families by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, concluded that the reason for their achievements was genetic superiority. From there it was a short step to seeing various races as genetically superior and inferior.
More ominously, Galton saw those who were inferior as a drag on society who should be eliminated. As often happens when a big idea seizes the imagination of the intelligentsia, their strongest argument is that there is no argument that "science" has already proved what they believe.
As Sir Francis Galton put it: "there exists a sentiment, for the most part quite unreasonable, against the gradual extinction of an inferior race."
The idea that those with different views had only "sentiment" on their side, while he had science, was common among intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic.
Eugenics a term Galton coined became a crusading creed, and eugenics societies were set up by such stellar intellectuals as John Maynard Keynes, H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw in England. In the United States there were 376 college courses devoted to eugenics in American colleges and universities in 1928.
By the end of the 20th century, the pendulum had swung to the opposite end of the spectrum. Now differences in achievements among classes, races or the sexes were seen as being a result of discriminatory treatment. And, again, as with the intelligentsia of the Progressive era, those with different views were dismissed with a word often "racist" now, as compared to "sentimental" in the earlier period. But in neither era were views different from the crusading creed of the day seriously engaged.
In our supposedly more enlightened time, it became dangerous even to express differing views on the subject on leading college and university campuses.
A very fundamental question was seldom asked, in either the earlier or the later period: Was there ever any realistic reason to expect the same achievements among races, classes or other subdivisions of the human species?
Could we really have expected Eskimos to have the same ability to grow pineapples as the people of Hawaii had? Could the Bedouins of the Sahara really know as much about fishing as the Polynesians of the Pacific? Could the people of the Himalayas have the same seafaring skills as people living in ports around the Mediterranean?
On a more general level, could people living in isolated mountain valleys realistically be expected to develop their own intellectual potential as fully as people living in cities that were international crossroads of commerce, cultures and ideas from around the world?
When the Spaniards discovered the Canary Islands in the 15th century, they found people of a Caucasian race living at a stone age level. Isolation and backwardness have gone together in many parts of the world, regardless of the race of the people involved.
Historical happenstances the fact that the Romans invaded Western Europe but not Eastern Europe, for example left a legacy of written languages in Western Europe that people in Eastern Europe did not have until centuries later.
But the innumerable factors affecting human achievements are not only complex and hard to untangle, they offer neither politicians nor intellectuals the opportunity to simply be on the side of the angels against the forces of evil. Factors which present no opportunity to star in a moral melodrama have often been ignored in favor of factors that do.
I love Dr. Sowell, but it is fun to point out the 0.56% of the time where he is wrong. And this is one of them.
Some of the most thoughtful people in America (cowboys, for instance) live in isolated mountain valleys. And some of the dumbest live astride international crossroads of commerce, cultures and ideas from around the world and manage to adopt the most degenerate from each. Think San Fransicko.
You’re mis-stating and twisting his point.
He said, “... expected to develop their own intellectual potential as fully as ...”.
His point about general trends among groups of people in no way contradicts your example about particular individuals. He didn’t say the people in places like San Fransicko would always adopt the best of everything they’re exposed to. But a group exposed to lots of outside ideas isn’t limited to just what they come up with on their own (good or bad).
But your example is weak anyway. American cowboys in “isolated” mountain valleys aren’t really isolated; they have access to nearly all the news and information the San Fransickans have. Indeed, the cowboys can easily get news about San Fransickans (and learn from it); the San Fransickans are somewhat less likely to get accurate information about the cowboys. So maybe your example really supports Sowell. :-)
Isolation was more of a factor in the past than it is today. But there are still places in the world that are MUCH more isolated than rural American folks. Nowadays the causes of isolation tend to be more political than geographic.
But these people are all members of a far larger society that straddles the continent, not a unique nation and culture unto themselves. The United States was not as severely impacted by geography as some nations, such as Japan or Germany, or at least in a negative way. And modern advances in technology, such as transport and communications has blurred the regional lines in America even further.
I've spent a good share of my life in rural America and can attest for certain that most rural people are much more aware of the going-ons of urban areas than the reverse.
Some urban areas are naturally curious about what goes on outside their own enclave. Think of the world traveling Japanese. Others are amazingly incurious. Think of the ultra parochial New Yorker who spends his entire life within a radius of 4 or 5 subway stops or less.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.