Replies

Is it his contention that a program about American slavery is detrimental if it doesn't cover the entire history of slavery in civilization? You may have localizes the origin of the whole point here.

No study has an obligation to "cover the entire" subject. Any such writing contains, as a matter of course, a statement of scope; that is, how the subset of issues in focus is related to the rest of the body of knowledge. Placing such a statement is mandatory in academic writing (and has been for centuries, as you know) as well as legal and technical papers (including such mundane things like software specification documents). It is fairly universal thus.

The reason for this is simple: mere concentration on a subset of issues (facts, regularities, etc.) creates in a reader a justifiable impression that this is the whole subject. A perfectly logical reader will make erroneous conclusions upon reading the study. Since the one writing the book is presumably more informed, putting the body of worked being offered into a proper perspective is considered to be the author's (fiduciary) duty to the reader.

It is to this omission that Sowell points in his article. He also points out that, in the absence of proper perspective, erroneous conclusions are drawn by many blacks in this country. You too can witness that in the form of the "reparation movement."

In sum, Sowell merely holds "The Roots" to an appropriate, well-established standard.

Not surprisingly, A. Einstein has put it much better than I did:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible. But not simpler."

Sowell has eloquently argued that the "The Roots" has portrayed slavery simpler than possible.

You too can witness that in the form of the "reparation movement."

I don't interpret the reparations movement as being cause by an "erroneuous conclusion" derived from a TV show with a narrow scope, relative to the whole of human civilization. I see that more as an opportunistic movement. As for the scope of Roots, you and I will just have to disagree. The TV show was not an academic exericise; It was a dramatization of the experiences of African slaves brought to America. I don't recognize any obligation on the part of the producers to make any special statements to remind viewers that, for example, Egyptian slavery wouldn't be covered in the film. That would go without saying, IMO, just as it would go without saying that a movie about Mickey Mantle isn't about Ty Cobb.