I don’t always agree with conservative economist Thomas Sowell but I found this WSJ interview with him interesting. Here’s a snippet:
What about Ta-Nehisi Coates, the black writer whose new book, a raw letter to his son about race relations in the U.S., is stirring public intellectuals? I read Mr. Sowell a line from Mr. Coates’s 15,000-word cover story for the Atlantic calling for reparations for slavery: “In America there is a strange and powerful belief that if you stab a black person 10 times, the bleeding stops and the healing begins the moment the assailant drops the knife.â€
“Ah . . . yes,†Mr. Sowell sighs, as if recognizing a familiar tune. “What amazes me is not that there are assertions like this, but that there is no interest in checking those assertions against any evidence,†he says. “One of the things I try to do in the book is to distinguish between what might be the legacy of slavery, and what’s the legacy of the welfare state. If you look at the first 100 years after slavery, black communities were a lot safer. People were a lot more decent. But then you look 30 years after the 1960s revolution, and you see this palpable retrogression—of which I think the key one is the growth of the single-parent family.â€
Mr. Sowell says he cannot remember ever hearing a gunshot when he was growing up in Harlem, and he used to sleep on the fire escape to beat the summer heat. He cites changes in black enrollment at New York City’s highly competitive Stuyvesant High School, which he attended. “In 2012, blacks were 1.2% of the students at Stuyvesant,†he says. “Thirty-three years earlier, they were 12%.â€
Here’s the point: Does anyone believe that racism and the legacy of slavery are stronger today than in the 1970s—or for that matter in 1945, when Mr. Sowell enrolled at Stuyvesant? “It’s not a question of the disproportion between blacks and whites, or Asians, but the disproportion between blacks of today and blacks of the previous generation,†he says. “And that’s what’s scary.â€
He offers another statistic: “For every year from 1994 to the present, black married couples have had a poverty rate in single digits,†Mr. Sowell says. “Those people who have not followed the culture—the ghetto culture—are doing fine.â€
I think the takeaway here is that good intentions are not enough. The policies you support really need to effect the changes you want them to without their unwanted secondary effects overwhelming their intended effects.
Sowell is correct. As long as black people knew their place, there were a lot fewer problems. Some of the secondary effects may be unwanted, but I don’t really know if they are avoidable. I also agree with Sowell that people who are not poor, are not poor. (Kind of a shame that this guy is deemed a public intellectual by some people.)
Steve
The collapse of the black family and the the high murder rate among urban blacks are a direct consequence of the way welfare was constructed over a period of a half century. The reduction in poverty among urban blacks of the late 90s and Aughts is a direct consequence of welfare reform.
Hwoever, the harm has already been done.
The only difference between Ta-Nehisi Coates and Vester Lee Flanagan is that one uses a pen and the other used a gun. Flanagan complained of racism because of people asking if anyone was swinging by a store, or if it was noted that a reporter was in the field. These are, of course, dog whistles used by white for lynching and slavery. Alternately, they’re common expressions that only a completely deranged person would think had any deeper meaning.
Good to see steve standing with the gangbangers against the white scourge of getting married and acting civilized. Keep it real, brother man!
“are a direct consequence of the way welfare was constructed over a period of a half century.”
Pretty strong assertion for something that is not provable, though it is an item of faith on the right. So many other things have happened at the same time so to assert that as truth is bizarre. Birth control happened as did no fault divorce. Women moved into the work force. Drugs became more of an issue for us. We have sen a massive loss of the kinds o jobs that used to pay well for the less educated. There were so many cultural changes happening at the same time, we don’t know what is cause and effect. Which is not to say that the “welfare state” is not partially to blame, but there is tons of evidence mitigating against it as sole cause.
We know that welfare states in other countries have not always lead to this kind of family break down. Last time I visited Canada, it seemed pretty nice. We know that cutting back on welfare like we did in the 90s has not changed anything. All of those other countries that abolished slavery after 1800 have happy and prosperous black populations? Don’t think so.
Just FTR, I will agree that marriage is a good thing when talking about economics and success. What is not clear is what is cause and effect. As I alluded to earlier, on this whole topic it is not clear to me what we should expect when you take people who have little to no freedom for hundreds of years and then declare them free, while often creating barriers so that they aren’t really quite free. Perhaps the disintegration of the family and the violence we have seen was inevitable absent any welfare state, and maybe it might have been worse.
“The reduction in poverty among urban blacks of the late 90s and Aughts is a direct consequence of welfare reform.”
Interesting. Link has chart showing black poverty rate. It decreased the most in the 60s, wandered around, dropped in the 90s and actually went back up in the 2000s. So, first, if you want to claim that welfare reform had such profound effects on employment, mind you most of the effects took place before welfare reform was passed in 1996, then why, didn’t we see sustained changes in the 2000s? Why did rates actually rise? Seems much more likely that the dotcom bubble and general strong economy explained any drop in black poverty and increase in employment. Black poverty actually increased in the 2000s, so welfare reform did not affect that positively. Finally, if you prefer to use the unemployment rate, note that it also follows the same patterns. It drop swell before welfare reform, goes back up in the very early 2000s, while it is still in effect, drops with the real estate bubble, then goes back up again, all while reform remains intact. It seems to pretty clearly follow employment trends, just like it has always done.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/11/poverty-in-the-50-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/
http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2010/african_american_history/
Steve
I got the idea that welfare was a direct factor in the breakdown of the black family from that noted right-winger, Pat Moynihan. However much you may rant and rave about it welfare reform was a centrist policy.
And I don’t much care what happened in other countries. We are larger and more diverse than Canada or any European country.
Now, was welfare reform the only factor? I doubt it. The world is just more complicated than that. But I think that claiming it was not a significant factor or denying it was a factor at all is excessive.
If I understand correctly, white people take to freedom like fish to water, but black people need to have the slavery breed out of them.
You gotta love those liberals. There is nothing like a nice thick diaper to keep the black people safe and sound, and when they start screaming, they just shove a pacifier in their mouth.
????? Exactly where have white people taken to freedom like fish out of water? When they overthrew the monarchy in France the country was in chaos for years. In Russia they got rid of the Csar and things got, if anything, worse. Look at more recent examples where dictators have been overthrown or ethnic groups freed and you certainly don’t find many instances of instant success. I think that the historical norm when groups are granted freedom is forvyhat to be followed by many years of difficulties.
Steve
The Bolshevik Revolution did not free the Russians. It traded one ruler for another. The French Revolution was no different, and the Chinese were left with your hero the bloody Mao. In these cases, violence and anti-social behavior is instigated by those in power for the purpose of remaining or furthering power.
Black, brown, yellow, green, and any other color people are capable of integrating into a functioning society where they are not excluded from participating in that society. Basically, the argument is that black people were less anti-social under Jim Crow.
Sorry, Charlie. Black people are not genetically, or otherwise, pre-dispositioned towards anti-social behavior. They were never freed. The truth is that they are still kept in their place, and that place does not include the nice gated communities of rich white liberals.
I notice that you all never invite Minister Farrakhan or the Nation of Islam to any of your fancy parties. I would like to see Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton explain to them why the Black man should trust any white person.
You forget. My “white privilege” allows me to attend the meetings. I have insider knowledge, and I am not afraid to share it. My “white privilege” will always trump any attempts to refute me. It is just another case of the white man trying to keep the truth from the black man.