The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
The Public Policy
Print Email
Text Size

The Public Policy

Intellectuals and Race: Part III

The disastrous consequences of genetic determinism.

The desire of intellectuals for some grand theory that will explain complex patterns with some solitary and simple factor has produced many ideas that do not stand up under scrutiny, but which have nevertheless had widespread acceptance — and sometimes catastrophic consequences — in countries around the world.

The theory of genetic determinism which dominated the early 20th century led to many harmful consequences, ranging from racial segregation and discrimination up to and including the Holocaust. The currently prevailing theory is that malice of one sort or another explains group differences in outcomes. Whether the lethal results of this theory would add up to as many murders as in the Holocaust is a question whose answer would require a detailed study of the history of lethal outbursts against groups hated for their success.

These would include murderous mob violence against the Jews in Europe, the Chinese in Southeast Asia, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, and the Ibos in Nigeria, among others. Class-based mass slaughters of the successful would range from Stalin’s extermination of the kulaks in the Soviet Union to Pol Pot’s wiping out of at least a quarter of the population of Cambodia for the crime of being educated middle class people, as evidenced by even such tenuous signs as wearing glasses.

Minorities who have been more successful than the general population have been the least likely to have gotten ahead by discriminating against politically dominant majorities. Yet it is precisely such minorities who have attracted the most mass violence over the centuries and in countries around the world.

All the blacks lynched in the entire history of the United States would not add up to as many murders as those committed in one year by mobs against the Jews in Europe, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire or the Chinese in Southeast Asia.

What is there about group success that inflames mobs in such disparate times and places, not to mention mass-murdering governments in Nazi Germany or the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia? We can speculate about the reasons but there is no escaping the reality.

Groups that lag behind have often blamed their lags on wrong-doing by groups that are more successful. Since sainthood is not common in any branch of the human race, there is seldom a lack of sins to cite, including haughtiness by those who happen to be on top for the moment. But the real question is whether these sins — real or imagined — are actually the reason for different levels of achievement.

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.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

About the Author

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (8) |

Von Mises Jr| 3.14.13 @ 7:56AM

Dr. Sowell is surely the leading expert on race conflict as I have read his books "Race and Culture," "Conquests and Culture," "The Economics and Politics of Race" as well as a few of his books on Preferential Policies and Affirmative Action.
But I would venture to say that the same applies to "class" conflict. Of course class is typically in a single race especially outside the modern Western World. In the West, it can be traced back to serfdom. Tocqueville wrote of the intellectuals combining with the Nobles to pit the serfs and poorest in France against the Petite Bourgeoisie. The latter are the equivalent of today's small business owners. The objective was to subdue new wealth and return to serfdom.
So to this day, we hear the war drums against the "Top 1%, that "Didn't Pay Their Fair Share" and the "Fat Cat's" on Wall Street.
So whether it is race or class, there is a discernible pattern of human nature. And it is not flattering.

AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.14.13 @ 8:12PM

This from Bob K. demonstrates the gullibility:

"But it seems skin color is a non-issue in this issue. It is and has always been an economic grab by Argentina. First fishing, and now it's heating up again with oil possibilities."

DUH!

alice921| 3.17.13 @ 4:09PM

Its definitely the most-financially rewarding Ive ever done. Make money with Google. last monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9-months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83... per hour. I work through this link, http://tw.gs/YbVcey

Jacob McCandles| 3.14.13 @ 11:54AM

Step one: create an "us" and a "them". The rest, as they say, is history. The "us" will imagine or inflate a percieved injustice, like the lighting of a fuse. If the left would stop with the identity politics, we could all be Americans. It would help if we had a common enemy, but alas the left is cozy with the islamists.

snipelee25| 3.14.13 @ 1:13PM

Interesting that Dr. Sowell ignores the current battle - that being among various Muslin sects.

Of course, the next battle will be between the "public" and the "public servants".

Bob K| 3.14.13 @ 1:41PM

Professor Angelo Codevilla already wrote about that battle here in his "The Ruling Class."

See "America's Ruling Class and the Peril's of Revolution."

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ss-and-the

JD| 3.14.13 @ 1:48PM

Race is not the only identity that can be abused in the way Sowell describes. While modern American Leftists anoint themselves Champions of Tolerance, their entire agenda is justified by declaring that the Evil of certain groups in America is causing all of our problems. They determine this exactly as Sowell describes - with results-based "analysis" augmented only with anecdotes. Their "logic" does not stand up to scrutiny.

cicero| 3.14.13 @ 2:41PM

As is always the case, one needs only follow the money, or the power. The one element common to all who place themselves in the intellectual/elite catagories is that they know, for a fact, that they are smarter and wiser than everybody else. As a result, they are endowed with the right to tell everyone else how things should be, and as a result, be compensated for their state of wonderfulness. The problem comes in when they never know when to stop aggrandizing themselves. They can't just take a little wealth to themselves - they have to take it all. They can't arrogate themselves to just a little power over a function they may know something about - they have to control everything.

The real problem is that, in a democracy, the majority have the voting power to give them what they want, and can be had cheaply.

More Articles by Thomas Sowell

More Articles From The Public Policy

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/14/intellectuals-and-race-part-ii

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

Lerner's Plea

Ray V. Hartwell | 5.23.13

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer | 5.23.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

ADVERTISEMENT