Sad fact:. what Sowell covers in this book *used* to be taught at an early age in public schools. I was one of the students. I think today's society would be much different had that never changed.
Thanks for sharing! I picked up this book from the library the other day. I was appalled after reading the first chapter because I was never taught this in school. Now I'm onto the following chapters.
Enjoying this book from Kenya. It shows why Kikuyus dominate the economy except for manufacturing which is dominated by Indians. We're not genetically superior.
Hey buddy. This is the Rad Dad Investor on my personal account. Just over here showing you some support. Us smaller YTers need to stick together. Great content, you are a natural in front of the camera.
Here are some specific and detailed academic critiques of "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell: 1. There’s numerous historical inaccuracies presented throughout the book. Several scholars have criticized Sowell's historical analysis, arguing that he oversimplifies complex issues related to race and culture, and that his arguments lack nuance and depth. For example, historian Kevin Gaines argues that Sowell's portrayal of the "black redneck" is based on a flawed understanding of African American culture and history. Gaines argues that Sowell's analysis ignores the ways in which African American culture has been shaped by slavery, segregation, and discrimination. 2. Sowell lacks empirical evidence and relies too heavily on anecdotal evidence and personal opinions. For example, sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva argues that Sowell's analysis of race and culture is based on "folk theories" rather than rigorous research or data. Bonilla-Silva argues that Sowell's arguments are not supported by empirical evidence and that they perpetuate racial stereotypes. 3. Sowell's conservative political views also presents some problems, as he is incapable of separating his views from his analysis; they influence his analysis of race and culture. For example, historian David Roediger argues that Sowell's analysis ignores the role of systemic racism and discrimination in shaping African American culture and history (and if you argue that the Black Codes, Jim Crow, etc., were not systematic, then you’re an incredibly bad faith actor). Roediger argues that Sowell's conservative political views lead him to downplay the impact of racism and discrimination on African Americans. Anyway, these critiques suggest that Sowell's analysis of race and culture is flawed and lacks nuance and depth. Critics argue that Sowell's arguments are not supported by empirical evidence and that they perpetuate racial stereotypes.
I read the whole book. I disagree with these academic critiques. When someone brings up "systemic racism", I know they are leftist. If you disagree with conservatives, they think you're wrong. If you disagree with leftist, they think you're evil. I'm with Dr. Sowell. The book is filled with empirical evidences and eye-witnesses accounts if no empirical evidence was not available. I also watched a lot of videos featuring Dr. Sowell. The man is about facts, not ideology.
Systemic racism doesn’t make you a drunk promiscuous degenerate with a broken family structure and no healthy goals. The Jew was beaten, killed, and cast out all throughout Europe, but the Jews never rotted or resorted to degeneracy. Why? Culture.
His books are interesting to say the least, 15 to 20 pages of references at the back of this book. (I'm too lazy to grab the book off the shelf, because I was born in the south to get an exact number of pages) I have seen Thomas Sowell for decades (since Milton Friedman's free to choose on PBS) & did not buy his books until about 20 years ago and have regretted that decision on the delay on not reading his works earlier ,ever since.
From reading his work he states that the civil landmark cases of the 1960s were very important to eliminate the racial legislation. This allowing equal opportunity amongst ALL Americans however, the push for equal outcomes in that same decade where it be affirmative action, race based quotas etc is where thomas sowell pushes back. Since there is no objective way to make sure people use their opportunities to their fullest. In addition by favoring a certain group (not the same as equal opportunity) you decrease the opportunity for others even if more fortunate.
I would like to know if you do book reviews. I wrote a book and I am planning on writing a second one. I am a new author and I plan on writing a huge franchise. I would like it if you could review my first book.
Based on your video essay, Sowell has attacked straw man arguments. For example no one is telling people on welfare “just lie down, it’s okay you’re a victim.” Most welfare programs have conditions to them, so again he attacks a straw man (poor people are told to be victims) instead of the truth (social welfare is temporary and conditional, you’ll have to earn those benefits).
So what do we learn by saying “all groups have been a slave owner and slave?” Seems like a false equivalence fallacy because we know some groups were much more negatively impactful as slave owners (white Americans) than others, but Sowell just says “well look there was other slavery too!” So? Again it’s more of a what-about-ism than a real point.
Didn't you just do what you're accusing TS of doing? "We know..." . Do we? Do we know? There's a tremendous amount of variability when you look at slavery across all backgrounds. The variables are not so insignificant. It's a well structured analysis from Sowell. Whether you know it or not, you just proved a lot of points about the victim card.
Sad fact:. what Sowell covers in this book *used* to be taught at an early age in public schools. I was one of the students. I think today's society would be much different had that never changed.
Agreed!
No it absolutely wasnt
Thanks for sharing! I picked up this book from the library the other day. I was appalled after reading the first chapter because I was never taught this in school. Now I'm onto the following chapters.
I’m glad you’re enjoying the book! I was also shocked at how much it felt history had been altered.
So glad to find your channel. Hope you keep posting!
You clearly grasped the message that Sowell shares with us in his writing. How fortunate we are to be people who can learn from him
I've had this book on my radar for years and still haven't bought it. I need to put it on my wish list. thank you for your review.
Absolutely! It was short and east to read yet so packed full of info!
This book says it as it is
@@stephenholmes1036 Hello, I've finally read this book and thought it was superb. I want to read all of Sowell's books now.
This book is ground breaking
Absolutely
Amen
🙌🏻
One of the best video that I watched during my morning coffee, thanks, and liked !
I greatly appreciate the comment. I hope you enjoyed your coffee!
Enjoying this book from Kenya. It shows why Kikuyus dominate the economy except for manufacturing which is dominated by Indians. We're not genetically superior.
Hey buddy. This is the Rad Dad Investor on my personal account. Just over here showing you some support. Us smaller YTers need to stick together. Great content, you are a natural in front of the camera.
Thanks man!!! I love what you do! Thanks for the support!
Great video my man…
People need to be educated
Here are some specific and detailed academic critiques of "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell:
1. There’s numerous historical inaccuracies presented throughout the book. Several scholars have criticized Sowell's historical analysis, arguing that he oversimplifies complex issues related to race and culture, and that his arguments lack nuance and depth. For example, historian Kevin Gaines argues that Sowell's portrayal of the "black redneck" is based on a flawed understanding of African American culture and history. Gaines argues that Sowell's analysis ignores the ways in which African American culture has been shaped by slavery, segregation, and discrimination.
2. Sowell lacks empirical evidence and relies too heavily on anecdotal evidence and personal opinions. For example, sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva argues that Sowell's analysis of race and culture is based on "folk theories" rather than rigorous research or data. Bonilla-Silva argues that Sowell's arguments are not supported by empirical evidence and that they perpetuate racial stereotypes.
3. Sowell's conservative political views also presents some problems, as he is incapable of separating his views from his analysis; they influence his analysis of race and culture. For example, historian David Roediger argues that Sowell's analysis ignores the role of systemic racism and discrimination in shaping African American culture and history (and if you argue that the Black Codes, Jim Crow, etc., were not systematic, then you’re an incredibly bad faith actor). Roediger argues that Sowell's conservative political views lead him to downplay the impact of racism and discrimination on African Americans.
Anyway, these critiques suggest that Sowell's analysis of race and culture is flawed and lacks nuance and depth. Critics argue that Sowell's arguments are not supported by empirical evidence and that they perpetuate racial stereotypes.
I read the whole book. I disagree with these academic critiques. When someone brings up "systemic racism", I know they are leftist. If you disagree with conservatives, they think you're wrong. If you disagree with leftist, they think you're evil. I'm with Dr. Sowell. The book is filled with empirical evidences and eye-witnesses accounts if no empirical evidence was not available. I also watched a lot of videos featuring Dr. Sowell. The man is about facts, not ideology.
@@larryonting what's your argument exactly?
Systemic racism doesn’t make you a drunk promiscuous degenerate with a broken family structure and no healthy goals. The Jew was beaten, killed, and cast out all throughout Europe, but the Jews never rotted or resorted to degeneracy. Why? Culture.
Those critics are mostly incorrect.
@@NotOurRemedy source: “trust me me, bro”
His books are interesting to say the least, 15 to 20 pages of references at the back of this book. (I'm too lazy to grab the book off the shelf, because I was born in the south to get an exact number of pages) I have seen Thomas Sowell for decades (since Milton Friedman's free to choose on PBS) & did not buy his books until about 20 years ago and have regretted that decision on the delay on not reading his works earlier ,ever since.
Jackson Brenda Rodriguez Larry Harris Christopher
Grgić :)
Is Thomas Sowell against integration and The Civil Rights Act of 1964?
From reading his work he states that the civil landmark cases of the 1960s were very important to eliminate the racial legislation. This allowing equal opportunity amongst ALL Americans however, the push for equal outcomes in that same decade where it be affirmative action, race based quotas etc is where thomas sowell pushes back. Since there is no objective way to make sure people use their opportunities to their fullest. In addition by favoring a certain group (not the same as equal opportunity) you decrease the opportunity for others even if more fortunate.
Just bought the book
I hope you enjoy reading it!
I would like to know if you do book reviews. I wrote a book and I am planning on writing a second one. I am a new author and I plan on writing a huge franchise. I would like it if you could review my first book.
I’m all booked as far as doing reviews. I wish you the best of luck!
Based on your video essay, Sowell has attacked straw man arguments. For example no one is telling people on welfare “just lie down, it’s okay you’re a victim.” Most welfare programs have conditions to them, so again he attacks a straw man (poor people are told to be victims) instead of the truth (social welfare is temporary and conditional, you’ll have to earn those benefits).
So what do we learn by saying “all groups have been a slave owner and slave?” Seems like a false equivalence fallacy because we know some groups were much more negatively impactful as slave owners (white Americans) than others, but Sowell just says “well look there was other slavery too!” So? Again it’s more of a what-about-ism than a real point.
Didn't you just do what you're accusing TS of doing? "We know..." . Do we? Do we know? There's a tremendous amount of variability when you look at slavery across all backgrounds. The variables are not so insignificant. It's a well structured analysis from Sowell.
Whether you know it or not, you just proved a lot of points about the victim card.