Thomas Sowell's book about how cultural mixing is good and not appropriation.

[Katy]

I'm reading Thomas Sowell's book - Wealth, Poverty, and Politics - An International Perspective 

 

So far it's sort of the anti cultural appropriation theory book.  Basically, the more cultural groups mix ideas, the more they adapt better ideas.  The more they adapt better ideas, the more they value education.  The more they value education, they more upwardly mobile they are (perhaps not individually, but over the course of a few generations as immigrants to new areas make huge sacrifices for their children to get amazing educations).

 

He tracks this over different cultures throughout history, and accounts for geography (generally, plains peoples where trading is easier are financially more advanced than mountain cultures, whether in Appalachia or Tibet).

 

Isolationism, whether by cultural choice or by geography, tends to lead to poverty fairly quickly.

 

Edited and title changed for clarity

Edited December 11, 2015 by Katy

[Guest]

Yeah, I'm a big fan of amalgamation, but cultural appropriation in the disrespectful or mocking sense I believe can be avoided fairly easily while minorities are assimilated into the majority group. And I don't think amalgamation need mean erasure of all that defined that sub group - rather a selective conforming to the majority that eases tension and improved outcomes without wholesale dropping everything that makes a group unique.

 

It's a tricky balance but his observations are well met.

[Katy]

I didn't know he was that controversial.  I'm not trying to stir anything up.  Just thought the concept that making huge sacrifices to ensure your children have a great education leads to financial security for generations is something that some of us might appreciate....  hehehehe

[Guest]

He is an excellent and thoughtful columnist, and primarily known for his economic work.

[Guest]

I read the reviews. Then I found his "Random Thoughts" page. Yikes. He's a denier on way too many things. This also is an extremely political topic, and I think SWB is in no mood for partisan crap.

A 'denier'? Is that what intelligent people call those with whom they disagree? The man writes a column and makes various arguments and analyses based on current events and economic theory. He isn't denying anything, he is representing and in some cases making an academic defense of a particular viewpoint.

 

What a telling use of language.

[swimmermom3]

Here is a link for numerous columns by Sowell from The Jewish Review.

 

I read seven columns. The one on measles, vaccines, and autism was nothing revolutionary, but okay. The one on the disappearing governors was a bit baffling.

 

As is his most recent one, "The President's Speech," which contains the following statement which seems at odds with the book Katy was talking about:

 

"The illusion that you can take in large numbers of people from a fundamentally different culture, without jeopardizing your own culture — and everything that depends on it — should have been dispelled by many counterproductive social consequences in Europe, even aside from the fatal dangers of terrorists.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell120815.php3#LYzTYJHzfioxx0GH.99"

 

This seems ironic given the structure and development of the United States, but I could be tired.

[JoJosMom]

A 'denier'? Is that what intelligent people call those with whom they disagree? The man writes a column and makes various arguments and analyses based on current events and economic theory. He isn't denying anything, he is representing and in some cases making an academic defense of a particular viewpoint.

 

What a telling use of language.

 

Well, that tends to be how the word is used.  By intelligent people?  No.  Just loud ones.

[Catwoman]

I have to say that Thomas Sowell's books about late-talking children were a godsend for me when my ds was little. I still recommend those book to anyone whose child is a late talker. :)

 

I don't follow his other writings, and judging by this thread, it sounds like it may be for the best. ;)

[Guest]

Lisa - what I believe he is getting at there is the failures of amalgamation that are the issue. You have racism, essentially ghetto neighborhoods, no real efforts of the transplanted communities to adopt the culture of the country in which they are residing. That longer term dissociation and otherness entrenched issues, not improves them.

 

Gradual immigration also works better than swells, when it comes to bringing new people into the fold, so to speak.

 

I've read more on this topic by him and that's his general angle. That assimilating to the parent culture strengthens ties and that one or two small and independent groups leads to tension and an underclass situation, which hurts everyone.

 

And quite frankly, the attitudes of the people existing there already factor in hugely to how their immigrants fare. Having high and fair expectations without prejudice seems to be the sweet spot. It doesn't solve all problems, but it doesn't shut down communication and resist everyone unlike oneself, either.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Arctic Mama

[TammyS]

I'm reading Thomas Sowell's book - Wealth, Poverty, and Politics - An International Perspective 

 

So far it's sort of the anti-cultural appropriation theory book.  Basically, the more cultural groups mix ideas, the more they adapt better ideas.  The more they adapt better ideas, the more they value education.  The more they value education, they more upwardly mobile they are (perhaps not individually, but over the course of a few generations as immigrants to new areas make huge sacrifices for their children to get amazing educations).

 

He tracks this over different cultures throughout history, and accounts for geography (generally, plains peoples where trading is easier are financially more advanced than mountain cultures, whether in Appalachia or Tibet).

 

Isolationism, whether by cultural choice or by geography, tends to lead to poverty fairly quickly.

 

For those of us who haven't read it (and aren't really up on cultural appropriation) can you give a quickie definition of cultural appropriation?  Because it sounds like, from what you wrote, that they do *better* to appropriate things from one another's cultures....but you say the book is "anti" that, so I'm thinking I'm not understanding something.

[TammyS]

. And I don't think amalgamation need mean erasure of all that defined that sub group

 

It's really sad when that happens, IMO.  My dh has family from Germany, Russia, and Poland.  All families were transplanted in the WWII era (some just before, some just after).  Many, many of the older people in the family (including his mother, who is from Russia) speak multiple languages.  My dh speaks only English.  Can't even understand the other languages.  Because there was SUCH a strong push to be Americans.  I think it's great that they wanted to assimilate and speak English, but sad that they gave up everything (though it may have seemed necessary to them at the time).  Very, very little of those cultures got handed to my dh.

 

My grandmother is from Greece.  Same thing.  I can understand a little Greek, not much.  And definitely I can't speak it.  No real Greek culture came to me, either.

 

Sad, IMO.

[Bluegoat]

For those of us who haven't read it (and aren't really up on cultural appropriation) can you give a quickie definition of cultural appropriation?  Because it sounds like, from what you wrote, that they do *better* to appropriate things from one another's cultures....but you say the book is "anti" that, so I'm thinking I'm not understanding something.

It gave me pause too, but it's because "cultural-appropriation" is normally used pejoritavly.  So - she is saying he is against seeing taking ideas from other cultures or absorbing cultural elements in a negative light.

[Bluegoat]

 

Here is a link for numerous columns by Sowell from The Jewish Review.

 

I read seven columns. The one on measles, vaccines, and autism was nothing revolutionary, but okay. The one on the disappearing governors was a bit baffling.

 

As is his most recent one, "The President's Speech," which contains the following statement which seems at odds with the book Katy was talking about:

 

"The illusion that you can take in large numbers of people from a fundamentally different culture, without jeopardizing your own culture — and everything that depends on it — should have been dispelled by many counterproductive social consequences in Europe, even aside from the fatal dangers of terrorists.

Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell120815.php3#LYzTYJHzfioxx0GH.99"

 

This seems ironic given the structure and development of the United States, but I could be tired.

 

Not necessarily at odds, I'd say.  You can have cultural exchange that is positive, where one element doesn't overwhelm another. And sometimes it isn't so much that the two cultures are being mixed - they may remain separate but they exchange ideas or technology. 

 

But - I think in many of the historical examples he looks at, while there may be fruitful exchanges, there can also be negative elements, or one culture may be subsumed.  In the case of immigration, he seems to be saying that while it could be true, even likely,  that there would be benefits from mass immigration, it could also affect elements of our culture that we highly prize.  I think so far as his European examples go, its hard to argue that mass immigration doesn't often cause significant social unrest.

 

The US might be a bit unusual in some ways - though there was a lot of unrest between ethnic groups, and a few were really screwed up because of it or left out, there was something of a sense of space and creating something new from scratch.  THat's a little different I suspect than suddenly inviting in a largely new cultural element and expecting that they will hold dear the same values you will.

[JoJosMom]

I have to say that Thomas Sowell's books about late-talking children were a godsend for me when my ds was little. I still recommend those book to anyone whose child is a late talker. :)

 

I don't follow his other writings, and judging by this thread, it sounds like it may be for the best. ;)

 

Dr. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.  He is a respected conservative writer and thinker; he is hardly the crank some would have you believe him to be.  He is, however, conservative.  That deems him worthy of derision by some of our oh-so-open-minded prolific posters. 

[Reefgazer]

I love Sowell and his common sense approach.  I have not read this book; I'll have to pick it up.  Thanks for the recommendation!

I'm reading Thomas Sowell's book - Wealth, Poverty, and Politics - An International Perspective 

 

So far it's sort of the anti-cultural appropriation theory book.  Basically, the more cultural groups mix ideas, the more they adapt better ideas.  The more they adapt better ideas, the more they value education.  The more they value education, they more upwardly mobile they are (perhaps not individually, but over the course of a few generations as immigrants to new areas make huge sacrifices for their children to get amazing educations).

 

He tracks this over different cultures throughout history, and accounts for geography (generally, plains peoples where trading is easier are financially more advanced than mountain cultures, whether in Appalachia or Tibet).

 

Isolationism, whether by cultural choice or by geography, tends to lead to poverty fairly quickly.

 

Edited December 11, 2015 by reefgazer

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Dr. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution. He is a respected conservative writer and thinker; he is hardly the crank some would have you believe him to be. He is, however, conservative. That deems him worthy of derision by some of our oh-so-open-minded prolific posters.

 

It's not his being a conservative that is the problem.

[Katy]

For those of us who haven't read it (and aren't really up on cultural appropriation) can you give a quickie definition of cultural appropriation?  Because it sounds like, from what you wrote, that they do *better* to appropriate things from one another's cultures....but you say the book is "anti" that, so I'm thinking I'm not understanding something.

 

I meant it's against the theory.  As in, mixing of cultures is good.

 

It gave me pause too, but it's because "cultural-appropriation" is normally used pejoritavly.  So - she is saying he is against seeing taking ideas from other cultures or absorbing cultural elements in a negative light.

 

Yes, this.  Sorry I wasn't more clear.

[Annie G]

I have to say that Thomas Sowell's books about late-talking children were a godsend for me when my ds was little. I still recommend those book to anyone whose child is a late talker. :)

 

I don't follow his other writings, and judging by this thread, it sounds like it may be for the best. ;)

 

Late Talking Children changed our lives.  However, even that was met with criticism and derision when we referred to it when speaking to the pediatric psychologist the school district was paying to evaluate our son. He chided us for believing what Sowell wrote because he wasn't an expert. And yet this guy was using a standard IQ test on our ds, who was completely nonverbal.  

[Katy]

Changed the title and formatted the opening post to hopefully be more clear.

[Lb20inblue]

I'm reading Thomas Sowell's book - Wealth, Poverty, and Politics - An International Perspective

 

So far it's sort of the anti cultural appropriation theory book. Basically, the more cultural groups mix ideas, the more they adapt better ideas. The more they adapt better ideas, the more they value education. The more they value education, they more upwardly mobile they are (perhaps not individually, but over the course of a few generations as immigrants to new areas make huge sacrifices for their children to get amazing educations).

 

He tracks this over different cultures throughout history, and accounts for geography (generally, plains peoples where trading is easier are financially more advanced than mountain cultures, whether in Appalachia or Tibet).

 

Isolationism, whether by cultural choice or by geography, tends to lead to poverty fairly quickly.

 

Edited and title changed for clarity

I am wondering if this assumes immigrant groups don't value education. If that is the case, then I am not sure if this idea works. Immigrants from China, India, and Africa usually have a higher level of education then the general US population. Now whether their education is transferable, is a different story.

[Bluegoat]

I am wondering if this assumes immigrant groups don't value education. If that is the case, then I am not sure if this idea works. Immigrants from China, India, and Africa usually have a higher level of education then the general US population. Now whether their education is transferable, is a different story.

I'm not seeing the connection with valuing education?

[Catwoman]

It's not his being a conservative that is the problem.

What's the problem? (Not being snarky -- I really don't know!)

[Katy]

I am wondering if this assumes immigrant groups don't value education. If that is the case, then I am not sure if this idea works. Immigrants from China, India, and Africa usually have a higher level of education then the general US population. Now whether their education is transferable, is a different story.

 

Of course not. It's looking at how cultures around the world, both those who do and who do not value education, fare as immigrants to different cultures.

 

I haven't read anything about India yet.  But he did talk about how Chinese immigrants focus greatly on education and do very well wherever they go in the world within just a few generations.  Even if they are from upper class families in China they have a tendency to make huge sacrifices to ensure their kids have tutors, private schools, music lessons, and anything else it takes to get into very good schools.  And children tend to choose very lucrative professional careers that require graduate school.  So it's quite typical to be a somewhat well off family in China, move somewhere else for the sake of their children, the parents not be able to get a job in their fields due to language issues, they take any jobs they can get (hotel maids were one example) to ensure their kids get what they need.  Then the kids get into great schools and become doctors, lawyers, engineers, and college professors.

 

The only references to Africa I've seen so far have been Mediterranean countries, so I'm not sure where he'll go with that.

[Corraleno]

What's the problem? (Not being snarky -- I really don't know!)

 

Poor people are poor because they just don't work hard enough. If they can't/won't contribute anything worthwhile to society, then they deserve to be poor.

 

"White privilege" doesn't exist; if African-Americans are less successful than whites, it's because they choose "ghetto culture."

 

Only people with degrees in "real" subjects like math, science, medicine (and economics!) are likely to contribute anything of value to society. The "liberal arts" have been destroyed by a left-wing elite that only cares about advancing it's socialist agenda. Don't let your babies grow up to be English majors!

[Bluegoat]

Poor people are poor because they just don't work hard enough. If they can't/won't contribute anything worthwhile to society, then they deserve to be poor.

 

"White privilege" doesn't exist; if African-Americans are less successful than whites, it's because they choose "ghetto culture."

 

Only people with degrees in "real" subjects like math, science, medicine (and economics!) are likely to contribute anything of value to society. The "liberal arts" have been destroyed by a left-wing elite that only cares about advancing it's socialist agenda. Don't let your babies grow up to be English majors!

 

You know, I think that does come down to rejecting his ideas because they are "conservative."  They don't adhere to the orthodox answers a certain faction of the left considered to be beyond question.   I don't agree with him, he's about as far from my economic views as you could get (though there is some truth I think on his view of the humanities, alas), but he's a serious academic, and his perspective isn't one to be discarded without more consideration than that.  These are not self-evident questions.

 

The other threads recently on race and privilege had a number of people who seemed to think that claims by non-whites about privilege should be accepted at face value.  Is that only true if they have the right perspective? 

[Tsuga]

I'm reading Thomas Sowell's book - Wealth, Poverty, and Politics - An International Perspective 

 

So far it's sort of the anti cultural appropriation theory book.  Basically, the more cultural groups mix ideas, the more they adapt better ideas.  The more they adapt better ideas, the more they value education.  The more they value education, they more upwardly mobile they are (perhaps not individually, but over the course of a few generations as immigrants to new areas make huge sacrifices for their children to get amazing educations).

 

He tracks this over different cultures throughout history, and accounts for geography (generally, plains peoples where trading is easier are financially more advanced than mountain cultures, whether in Appalachia or Tibet).

 

Isolationism, whether by cultural choice or by geography, tends to lead to poverty fairly quickly.

 

Edited and title changed for clarity

 

I would agree that rich people do benefit from taking other people's ideas, yes, and that isolationism isn't economically viable.

 

I do not agree that you have to be an a-hole about it. If someone says no, I can't take their idea to sell, I can just say, "Okay, it's yours, so I won't take it."

 

I don't have to construct a theory about how sharing makes us all richer.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Sounds like an interesting book. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

Here is a link for numerous columns by Sowell from The Jewish Review.

 

I read seven columns. The one on measles, vaccines, and autism was nothing revolutionary, but okay. The one on the disappearing governors was a bit baffling.

 

As is his most recent one, "The President's Speech," which contains the following statement which seems at odds with the book Katy was talking about:

 

"The illusion that you can take in large numbers of people from a fundamentally different culture, without jeopardizing your own culture — and everything that depends on it — should have been dispelled by many counterproductive social consequences in Europe, even aside from the fatal dangers of terrorists.

Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell120815.php3#LYzTYJHzfioxx0GH.99"

 

This seems ironic given the structure and development of the United States, but I could be tired.

 

 

I am tired for sure so if I make no sense you will know why.  I once read an opinion that the former Soviet Union collapsed and separated in large part because anyone not Russian was forced to not only accept the Russian culture and language, but that they had to forgo their own culture and language.  Many never really did that.  So eventually that all fell apart.  I think what might possibly be a bit different for the US is that, while not perfect always, people were/are allowed to hold onto their heritage, religion, etc.  Again, not perfectly perfect all the time, but if there has been melding and blurring in the US that may have happened naturally over time and not because it was officially forced.  Some groups are probably an exception to this.  I'm thinking in broad terms and not individual areas that notoriously discriminate against certain people. 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Sounds like an interesting book.  I don't think I have read anything he has written though.

 

In "The World Is Flat" Friedmann makes the point that there are two ways of taking away someone's culture.  One is by destroying it militarily and the other is by making the whole world the same a la McDonalds.  That was a downside as well as prosperity and education can be considered upsides of globalization.  That was a while ago, and I doubt that he would make the same claim now.  Ethnic and other identities have asserted themselves so much since then that the wistfulness inherent in his statement would now read as more of a call to arms.

 

It's so hard.

 

Separate but equal does not work.  But homogenization does not work either.  There is always a tension between taking pride in one's heritage and putting others down.  One of the classic observations about the US was that people could live with disagreements that would bring them to arms in any other country.  That is less and less true, and it concerns me a great deal.