Choosing the Red Pill
Intellectuals and Race: Part III | Thomas Sowell – the Conservative Top 10

Intellectuals and Race: Part III | Thomas Sowell

One would think that with the first African-American to rise to the presidency, the nation would have seen some progress in our racial dialogue.  Sadly, just the opposite has occurred.  Any objection to the policies of what most honest observers will admit is the most liberal president of modern times is met with charges of racism.  Such demogoguery effectively shuts down any honest assessment of the role of race in modern society.  By use of such tactics, the left has effectively frozen the discussion in place since the days of the civil rights era. 

While it is true that many of the same problems are still with us, it is also true that many things have changed.  Isn’t it time to do a thorough reevaluation of race as it applies to our current 21st century society?   

Intellectuals, whom we might expect to counter mass hysteria with rational analysis, have all too often been in the vanguard of those promoting envy and resentment of the successful.

This has been especially true of people with degrees but without any economically meaningful skills that would create the kinds of rewards they expected or felt entitled to.

Such people have been prominent as both leaders and followers of groups promoting anti-Semitic policies in Europe between the two World Wars, tribalism in Africa and changing Sri Lanka from a country once renowned for its intergroup harmony to a nation that descended into ethnic violence and then a decades-long civil war with unspeakable atrocities.

Such intellectuals have inflamed group against group, promoting discrimination and/or physical violence in such disparate countries as India, Hungary, Nigeria, Czechoslovakia and Canada.

Both the intellectuals’ theory of genetic determinism as the reason for group differences in outcomes and their opposite theory of discrimination as the reason have created racial and ethnic polarization. So has the idea that it must be one or the other.

The false dichotomy that it must be one or the other leaves more successful groups with a choice between arrogance and guilt. It leaves less successful groups with the choice of believing that they are inherently inferior for all time or else that they are victims of the unconscionable malice of others.

When innumerable factors make equal outcomes virtually impossible, reducing those factors to genes or malice is a formula for needless and dangerous polarization, whose consequences have often been written in blood across the pages of history.

Read the Article

And don’t miss these excellent contributions to the conversation:

The New Affirmative Action – Victor Davis Hanson – National Review Online

A History Lesson From Clarence Thomas – Reason.com

Comments are closed.