Anti-Racism Protests Take Place Across The UK
Growing up the son of a Nigerian father and Polish mother in Lagos, I often wondered what the real root of racial inequality was. Watching movies about the US civil rights movement with my father it was clear to me why whites were able to treat blacks so badly in America: they outnumbered them and so could dominate them. I had more difficulty understanding why Europeans had been able to colonise Africa without that advantage. My dad said it was because the Europeans had better weapons. And the British, in particular, were a very crafty people, who had deployed all sorts of trickery to bamboozle Africans. While this made a certain sense, I still wondered why Africans hadn’t then manufactured better weapons, and decided to be craftier.
I knew that the will to dominate did not exist only in whites: I saw Nigerians lording it over other Nigerians. So I understood why racial domination was practised — but not what made it possible. Or why, despite the grim facts of history, Africans (and the world in general) accorded white people more status than others.
For going on five centuries now, we’ve been living in a world that generally positions whites at the top, blacks at the bottom, and others somewhere in between. The story about how such an order came about is familiar, incorporating the transatlantic slave trade, colonialism and white supremacist ideas. But what is sustaining this order today, despite consensus that racial hierarchies are morally unacceptable? Any behavioural pattern that persists while being at odds with popular opinion must be driven by something very powerful indeed.
I believe that the chief shaper of racial group dynamics today is money. And it’s a case I make in my book It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth. It is not the only thing that matters but it is the thing that matters most in a capitalist world. Thomas Piketty has traced how the distribution of wealth determines the distribution of power. It is not merely about the raw purchasing power of money; it is also about the meaning people attach to wealth and the qualities they attribute to those who have it and those who don’t. Money, and our understanding of it, shapes racial group dynamics in everything from immigration, technology and media to stereotypes, prestige and geopolitics.
Single European states, including Britain and Germany, have larger economies than the entire continent of Africa, home to 1.4 billion people and roughly 90% of the world’s black population. And even the most diverse European countries still have large white majorities — Britain’s, for instance, is 82% — meaning there is a strong correlation between national and racial wealth. Sweden, a country of 10 million people, generates a larger GDP than Nigeria, the largest black nation, with over 200 million inhabitants. Tiny Ireland, with its five million citizens, has a GDP of $520 billion, compared with the $411 billion of South Africa, the most industrialised black-majority nation, which has a population of 60 million.
The economic gulf is not just between black and white-majority countries, of course. Norway’s five-million-strong economy boasts a GDP of $505 billion, compared with the $461 billion of Bangladesh, home to 170 million people.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“The correlation between race and wealth is also why Western academia, the world that I inhabit, dominates global academia.”
You just noted a correlation and then immediately used that as a cause – surely you were taught that “Correlation does not equal causation.”
Regardless, I’m not even sure the correlation holds up.
The Gulf states are far wealthier, the BRICS countries more populous, African countries have greater resources. So why does Western academia dominate global academia – do you really think its because of race, rather than culture? Do you not think that a few centuries of free inquiry since the enlightenment is the deciding factor here?
The “Golden Age” of Arabic science and mathematics between the 8th and 13th centuries gifted the world great advances in all sorts of disciplines. The culture of academic inquiry was valued and a source of great pride – until stifled by dogma. No one would suggest the Arab, or indeed wider Muslim world, is still an academic powerhouse.
Long before the Muslim tradition, long before even the Hellenistic tradition, ancient Chinese and Indian civilizations were centuries ahead of their counterparts in the West. Their time came and went. Just as I fear ours in the west is now waning.
The decline of learning is the rule, rather than the exception, of civilizations.
We in the west have long prided ourselves on our attitude to free thinking and free expression. Advances in learning are more possible if such a culture is nurtured and not restricted by law or religion – a world of ideas can fall prey to a one of ideology.
Currently we see across the west that our academies are in thrall to a censorious, anti-intellectual and ahistorical movement that actively hastens the decline in our own tradition of learning. That has nothing to do with race – beyond the fact that those driving the movement seem obsessed by it, and oblivious of genuine culture.
I’m also rather confused by your argument across the article as you seem to flip between the race/wealth elements between nation states, and then the race/wealth element between different sections of society in individual countries. Surely discussing such inequalities requires different debates because you’re seeking different solutions to different problems.
Your “Golden Age” (of Islam) seems a little exaggerated if I may say so.
al-Ghazali of Tus* put the brakes on Islamic thought when he published his seminal work: “Tahāfut al-Falāsifa “ which loosely translates as the “Incoherence of the Philosophers” in about 1100 AD.
From there on in there was no need to think, and most of Islam didn’t and still doesn’t.
(*1058c-1111 AD.
Abbasid Baghdad (751-1258) was a seat of great scholastic achievement well beyond that date. It resulted in the translation of almost all the scientific works of the classical Greeks into Arabic to be studied and built upon.
Beyond their translations, Arabic thinkers made original contributions, through writing and experimentation, in philosophy, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, geography, physics, optics, and mathematics. Scholars were protected and revered.
However that flowering of learning was ultimately extinguished in 1258 when the city was sacked by the Mongols and the libraries destroyed.
As has been the case for earlier civilisations – and now maybe our own – unless we recognise its importance and push back against those who would colonise and restrict our way of thinking – oxymoronically, in the name of decolonisation and diversity.
I do not think the scholars of the library at Alexandria were revered that much when Egypt was conquered by the muslim arabs.
Arab respect for knowledge appears to develop once they have an empire to run, say post 750 to 850 AD.
It is quite difficult to assess what is original Arab thinking and what was Greek, Hindu, Buddhist( university of Nalanda) or Chinese.
Nalanda mahavihara – Wikipedia
The knowledge which passed from Constantinople to Northern Italy was probably only a fraction of what existed.
Thanks Paddy – two excellent comments. It seems that what we are up against is the intentional cultivation of ignorance and misunderstanding in order to render us down to some kind of grey mush.
Just as in the 12th century Omar Khayyam opined the suffocating march of a religious ideology and dogma that would extinguish so much that was wonderful and joyful about life, we are witnessing similar events today.
I find it extraordinary that humans seem incapable of learning from history but would rather re-write it in order to better enable their continued decline.
I do not think the scholars of the library at Alexandria were revered that much when Egypt was conquered by the muslim arabs.
Arab respect for knowledge appears to develop once they have an empire to run, say post 750 to 850 AD.
It is quite difficult to assess what is original Arab thinking and what was Greek, Hindu, Buddhist( university of Nalanda) or Chinese.
Nalanda mahavihara – Wikipedia
The knowledge which passed from Constantinople to Northern Italy was probably only a fraction of what existed.
Thanks Paddy – two excellent comments. It seems that what we are up against is the intentional cultivation of ignorance and misunderstanding in order to render us down to some kind of grey mush.
Just as in the 12th century Omar Khayyam opined the suffocating march of a religious ideology and dogma that would extinguish so much that was wonderful and joyful about life, we are witnessing similar events today.
I find it extraordinary that humans seem incapable of learning from history but would rather re-write it in order to better enable their continued decline.
Abbasid Baghdad (751-1258) was a seat of great scholastic achievement well beyond that date. It resulted in the translation of almost all the scientific works of the classical Greeks into Arabic to be studied and built upon.
Beyond their translations, Arabic thinkers made original contributions, through writing and experimentation, in philosophy, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, geography, physics, optics, and mathematics. Scholars were protected and revered.
However that flowering of learning was ultimately extinguished in 1258 when the city was sacked by the Mongols and the libraries destroyed.
As has been the case for earlier civilisations – and now maybe our own – unless we recognise its importance and push back against those who would colonise and restrict our way of thinking – oxymoronically, in the name of decolonisation and diversity.
I too was baffled by this blindspot. It used to be the case that only the likes of Enoch Powell and the National Front would assert that there is a “racial hierarchy”, with “whites” at its apex. Now it seems to be a mainstream, progressive view, espoused by respectable academics, centre-of-the-(increasingly bumpy)-road politicians, and many a handsomely remunerated “DEI consultant”.
A few years ago, some research suggested that British people with Norman surnames were statistically wealthier than those with Anglo-Saxon surnames – see for example this Guardian article from the beforetimes (2011; with not a mention of race! What were they thinking?) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/apr/03/social-mobility-britain-aristocracy. Maybe those us who benefit from this systemic oppression should be checking our Norman privilege?
That said, the author is right of course that money and power breeds money and power. Perhaps turning our attention away from the social constructs that are ethnicity and race and on to a fearless critical analysis of money and power in the twenty first century would serve the vast majority of us – whether we are white, black, or (as the author puts it) “other” – far better than the antagonistic, self-defeating, agency-denying identity politics that far too many people seem to have got themselves mired in.
I am always reminded of the Fairlawne Estate near where I live in Kent whenever these sorts of discussions take place – 1,000 acres of prime real estate owned by that great scion of the English aristocracy Prince Khalid Abdullah
Formerly home to Royal jump trainer Peter Cazelet… one of the few gentleman ever to be found in Kent.
Formerly home to Royal jump trainer Peter Cazelet… one of the few gentleman ever to be found in Kent.
I am always reminded of the Fairlawne Estate near where I live in Kent whenever these sorts of discussions take place – 1,000 acres of prime real estate owned by that great scion of the English aristocracy Prince Khalid Abdullah
“You just noted a correlation and then immediately used that as a cause – surely you were taught that “Correlation does not equal causation.””
Correlation is necessary but not sufficient for causation. The presence of correlation between two phenomena increases the likelihood of there being a causal relation between them.
Apologies for the pedantry. I mostly agree with your comment.
Your post reminds me somewhat of this recent piece by Lord Sumption:
https://staging.unherd.com/2023/03/the-death-of-historical-truth/
As to why UnHerd have commissioned an article that makes various observations around the fact that European countries are currently wealthy (and which have previously been addressed and put into historical context) I am none the wiser.
The arabic civilisation conserved the Greek, Babylonian and absorbed the Hindu knowledge. When assessing what the arabs actually invented it was certainly algebra ( Al- Gebra )and possible alcohol ( Al- Cohol ) though distillation of oils to make perfumes may go back to Sumer.
The final destruction of the library of Alexandria by the arabs resulted in the loss of vast amounts of classical knowledge
Ibn Tayyimah after the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols said the doors of ijtihad( reasoning ) were closed. Most of arab knowledge was kept in the House of Wisdom which acted in similar manner to the Library at Alexandria, in that it contained knowledge from all over the World, so when it was destroyed, technology declined.
It was the conquest of Byzantium lands by Turks from about 1400 onwards which led many scholars to migrate to N Italy which led to The Renaissance. It was the conquest of Byzantiun by the Turks and hence control of the Silk Route which encouraged first the Portugese and then other European countries to sail to China.
The best books on the development of technology i have read are Connections and The Day The Universe Changed by James Burke and the Ascent of Man by Bronowski.
I would sugest there are two fundemental drives for technology:- Separate faith and reason and base decisions on facts not theories or beliefs. Have the drive combined with imagination, initiative and ingenuity to solve technical problems.
كحول al-Kuhl.
كحول al-Kuhl.
Well noted, the social differences have arrived largely as a result of culture admixed perhaps with the happenstance of genetics. More Neaderthal in Europeans might have produced tribes with different acceptance of risk. Culture in property rights is helpful in people willing to risk for reward, confident that the reward can be held. Wealth follows the ability to harness nature for the benefit of others with rewards for that behavior.
My African friends, from various regions, affirm your point about property rights. I’ve repeatedly heard that if you own a shop, the goods belong to you (since you bought them) and to every member of your extended family. Hard to establish a business if your cousin ‘borrows’ freely from your inventory.
My African friends, from various regions, affirm your point about property rights. I’ve repeatedly heard that if you own a shop, the goods belong to you (since you bought them) and to every member of your extended family. Hard to establish a business if your cousin ‘borrows’ freely from your inventory.
Culture is an important factor, not only between countries but within countries as well. Since the 1960’s a distinct black culture in the USA has developed that basically posits that anything white is ‘bad’. So learning and studying is bad, Being diligent and conscientious is bad. Even being on time is considered bad. Marriage is not that important as 78% of blacks today are now born out of wedlock. Fathers are not around. Although some of these counterproductive trends like illegitimacy is on the rise in general, within black communities it is the norm.
Clearly, not all blacks subscribe to these counter-productive behaviors, but it is a problem for their community; The lack of discipline, focus and grit results in vastly different outcomes between races. Moreover, liberal politics (the Democrat Party) is not helping American blacks to move ahead as it only reinforces their sense of victimhood and that somebody owes them rather encouraging blacks to work hard for what they need and want.
Your “Golden Age” (of Islam) seems a little exaggerated if I may say so.
al-Ghazali of Tus* put the brakes on Islamic thought when he published his seminal work: “Tahāfut al-Falāsifa “ which loosely translates as the “Incoherence of the Philosophers” in about 1100 AD.
From there on in there was no need to think, and most of Islam didn’t and still doesn’t.
(*1058c-1111 AD.
I too was baffled by this blindspot. It used to be the case that only the likes of Enoch Powell and the National Front would assert that there is a “racial hierarchy”, with “whites” at its apex. Now it seems to be a mainstream, progressive view, espoused by respectable academics, centre-of-the-(increasingly bumpy)-road politicians, and many a handsomely remunerated “DEI consultant”.
A few years ago, some research suggested that British people with Norman surnames were statistically wealthier than those with Anglo-Saxon surnames – see for example this Guardian article from the beforetimes (2011; with not a mention of race! What were they thinking?) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/apr/03/social-mobility-britain-aristocracy. Maybe those us who benefit from this systemic oppression should be checking our Norman privilege?
That said, the author is right of course that money and power breeds money and power. Perhaps turning our attention away from the social constructs that are ethnicity and race and on to a fearless critical analysis of money and power in the twenty first century would serve the vast majority of us – whether we are white, black, or (as the author puts it) “other” – far better than the antagonistic, self-defeating, agency-denying identity politics that far too many people seem to have got themselves mired in.
“You just noted a correlation and then immediately used that as a cause – surely you were taught that “Correlation does not equal causation.””
Correlation is necessary but not sufficient for causation. The presence of correlation between two phenomena increases the likelihood of there being a causal relation between them.
Apologies for the pedantry. I mostly agree with your comment.
Your post reminds me somewhat of this recent piece by Lord Sumption:
https://staging.unherd.com/2023/03/the-death-of-historical-truth/
As to why UnHerd have commissioned an article that makes various observations around the fact that European countries are currently wealthy (and which have previously been addressed and put into historical context) I am none the wiser.
The arabic civilisation conserved the Greek, Babylonian and absorbed the Hindu knowledge. When assessing what the arabs actually invented it was certainly algebra ( Al- Gebra )and possible alcohol ( Al- Cohol ) though distillation of oils to make perfumes may go back to Sumer.
The final destruction of the library of Alexandria by the arabs resulted in the loss of vast amounts of classical knowledge
Ibn Tayyimah after the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols said the doors of ijtihad( reasoning ) were closed. Most of arab knowledge was kept in the House of Wisdom which acted in similar manner to the Library at Alexandria, in that it contained knowledge from all over the World, so when it was destroyed, technology declined.
It was the conquest of Byzantium lands by Turks from about 1400 onwards which led many scholars to migrate to N Italy which led to The Renaissance. It was the conquest of Byzantiun by the Turks and hence control of the Silk Route which encouraged first the Portugese and then other European countries to sail to China.
The best books on the development of technology i have read are Connections and The Day The Universe Changed by James Burke and the Ascent of Man by Bronowski.
I would sugest there are two fundemental drives for technology:- Separate faith and reason and base decisions on facts not theories or beliefs. Have the drive combined with imagination, initiative and ingenuity to solve technical problems.
Well noted, the social differences have arrived largely as a result of culture admixed perhaps with the happenstance of genetics. More Neaderthal in Europeans might have produced tribes with different acceptance of risk. Culture in property rights is helpful in people willing to risk for reward, confident that the reward can be held. Wealth follows the ability to harness nature for the benefit of others with rewards for that behavior.
Culture is an important factor, not only between countries but within countries as well. Since the 1960’s a distinct black culture in the USA has developed that basically posits that anything white is ‘bad’. So learning and studying is bad, Being diligent and conscientious is bad. Even being on time is considered bad. Marriage is not that important as 78% of blacks today are now born out of wedlock. Fathers are not around. Although some of these counterproductive trends like illegitimacy is on the rise in general, within black communities it is the norm.
Clearly, not all blacks subscribe to these counter-productive behaviors, but it is a problem for their community; The lack of discipline, focus and grit results in vastly different outcomes between races. Moreover, liberal politics (the Democrat Party) is not helping American blacks to move ahead as it only reinforces their sense of victimhood and that somebody owes them rather encouraging blacks to work hard for what they need and want.
“The correlation between race and wealth is also why Western academia, the world that I inhabit, dominates global academia.”
You just noted a correlation and then immediately used that as a cause – surely you were taught that “Correlation does not equal causation.”
Regardless, I’m not even sure the correlation holds up.
The Gulf states are far wealthier, the BRICS countries more populous, African countries have greater resources. So why does Western academia dominate global academia – do you really think its because of race, rather than culture? Do you not think that a few centuries of free inquiry since the enlightenment is the deciding factor here?
The “Golden Age” of Arabic science and mathematics between the 8th and 13th centuries gifted the world great advances in all sorts of disciplines. The culture of academic inquiry was valued and a source of great pride – until stifled by dogma. No one would suggest the Arab, or indeed wider Muslim world, is still an academic powerhouse.
Long before the Muslim tradition, long before even the Hellenistic tradition, ancient Chinese and Indian civilizations were centuries ahead of their counterparts in the West. Their time came and went. Just as I fear ours in the west is now waning.
The decline of learning is the rule, rather than the exception, of civilizations.
We in the west have long prided ourselves on our attitude to free thinking and free expression. Advances in learning are more possible if such a culture is nurtured and not restricted by law or religion – a world of ideas can fall prey to a one of ideology.
Currently we see across the west that our academies are in thrall to a censorious, anti-intellectual and ahistorical movement that actively hastens the decline in our own tradition of learning. That has nothing to do with race – beyond the fact that those driving the movement seem obsessed by it, and oblivious of genuine culture.
I’m also rather confused by your argument across the article as you seem to flip between the race/wealth elements between nation states, and then the race/wealth element between different sections of society in individual countries. Surely discussing such inequalities requires different debates because you’re seeking different solutions to different problems.
Any lingering admiration for Europe or the west which might exist – it won’t go on for much longer – arises not from the mere possession of money but from the ability to generate it. And no, western wealth is not down to slavery, otherwise all those societies which depended more heavily on forced labour (long after the west had stopped the practice) would have done equally well – e.g the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, even at its height, the Atlantic slave trade generated at most some two to three per cent of European output. What, then, has been admired? Growth, innovation and enterprise. You mention the ease with which European technology overcame resistance to colonial expansion, but then flinch from the clear implication – that the admiration you speak of comes down to a very natural, very laudable interest in the intellectual and industrial sources of Europe’s sudden power. As for race, it is merely a marker; an insignificant and accidental label which happens to attach to a number of people caught up in a process of enlightenment. And in the ethnically mixed world of today and tomorrow, it is less and less relevant.
“ As for race, it is merely a marker”.
Rubbish, it is everything, always has been, always will be.
May I ask do you happen to have the misfortune of being Welsh?
It may explain you humourless demeanour and your extreme sensitivity on this subject.
Ah, a racist. No wonder you’re so touchy.
It is you who are “touchy” and indeed humourless to boot.
How very disappointing.
Are you perchance also an academic retired or serving, at one of our myriad of sink-hole universities, ranging from ‘the other place’ downwards’.
ps. As a quite correctly fervent anti Woke/Marxist ‘Crusader’, I was astonished that you used that hackneyed term Racist!
It seems that you yourself have been infected by the very same poison that you rail against so passionately.
All very disturbing.
Charles, try attacking your opponents’ evidence, logic, and arguments and not their person. That is one of the things the western intellectual tradition has given us.
Indeed it has, but his opening salvo was so puerile as to warrant a combative response.
As for spewing out the ridiculous remark “racist”, what astonishing hypocrisy!
Sadly Jones is one of those whose vanity far exceeds his intellect, which is a great pity, but an all too common problem these days I find.
However I thank you for coming to his defence, as indeed he should.
“Sadly Jones is one of those whose vanity far exceeds his intellect, which is a great pity, but an all too common problem these days I find.”
I was trying to work out what that (plus the unprovoked ‘perchance’) reminded me of.
Then I got it: Podsnap was “conscious that he set a brilliant social example in being particularly well satisfied with most things, and, above all other things, with himself”.
Podsnap?
Podsnap?
Charles. Count to ten when you’re emotional and then STFU. If you’re like this when you’re agitated, you’re probably not much fun when you’re relaxed.
STFU?
May I ask are you a relation of the humourless Selwyn? Or just another foul-mouthed American?
ps. It seems the answer to question one is NO and to question two YES.
Thank you.
STFU?
May I ask are you a relation of the humourless Selwyn? Or just another foul-mouthed American?
ps. It seems the answer to question one is NO and to question two YES.
Thank you.
“Sadly Jones is one of those whose vanity far exceeds his intellect, which is a great pity, but an all too common problem these days I find.”
I was trying to work out what that (plus the unprovoked ‘perchance’) reminded me of.
Then I got it: Podsnap was “conscious that he set a brilliant social example in being particularly well satisfied with most things, and, above all other things, with himself”.
Charles. Count to ten when you’re emotional and then STFU. If you’re like this when you’re agitated, you’re probably not much fun when you’re relaxed.
But why ? THere is plenty of “evidence in the article … well statistics anyway … and it proves pretty much nothing. Most readers appear to agree more on the lack of value in the article than on any negative thinking about darker skin or habits of ethnic groups. I agree with Charles to an extent. There are a few brilliant black scholars in the United States and while these folks are outliers now, there is every indication that blacks as a race are using wealth wisely … which is the crux of the matter.
In my microcosm of work as a real estate broker and lawyer in East Austin, Texas, I have seen the displacement of minorities in a “gentrified” area over the past 25-30 years. I’ve interacted with minorities who have new-found wealth. Most of them do not know how to manage the wealth and the opportunity it presents. But a certain percentage of them do know how to manage it. And this smallish percentage will climb out of the dispossessed class.
Those who climb out understand the differences in money, capital, and a paycheck. Sadly public schools are not teaching this.
The accumulation of wealth does have a statistical pattern that follows race and ethnicity; that much the author has demonstrated in an elementary school fashion. (The writing is very good however and I hope it isn’t just the product of an editor.) At the root of the accumulation is attitude and character. The ability to take responsibility and the insight and will to apply some smarts and hard work. The ability to tolerate and manage risk, and the ability to defer and manage gratification. These are the traits that matter.
To any young person who is ambitious to join the upper middle class or above, I recommend a book called The Millionaire Next Door. Along with this case analysis of the working class, listen to videos of Glenn Loury, Thomas Sowell, Coleman Hughes and James McWhorter. And observe the black women who have become entertainment entrepreneurs or intellectuals like Oprah Winfrey and Condoleezza Rice. And if you can find a real life mentor, do so. They are there for the asking.
Indeed it has, but his opening salvo was so puerile as to warrant a combative response.
As for spewing out the ridiculous remark “racist”, what astonishing hypocrisy!
Sadly Jones is one of those whose vanity far exceeds his intellect, which is a great pity, but an all too common problem these days I find.
However I thank you for coming to his defence, as indeed he should.
But why ? THere is plenty of “evidence in the article … well statistics anyway … and it proves pretty much nothing. Most readers appear to agree more on the lack of value in the article than on any negative thinking about darker skin or habits of ethnic groups. I agree with Charles to an extent. There are a few brilliant black scholars in the United States and while these folks are outliers now, there is every indication that blacks as a race are using wealth wisely … which is the crux of the matter.
In my microcosm of work as a real estate broker and lawyer in East Austin, Texas, I have seen the displacement of minorities in a “gentrified” area over the past 25-30 years. I’ve interacted with minorities who have new-found wealth. Most of them do not know how to manage the wealth and the opportunity it presents. But a certain percentage of them do know how to manage it. And this smallish percentage will climb out of the dispossessed class.
Those who climb out understand the differences in money, capital, and a paycheck. Sadly public schools are not teaching this.
The accumulation of wealth does have a statistical pattern that follows race and ethnicity; that much the author has demonstrated in an elementary school fashion. (The writing is very good however and I hope it isn’t just the product of an editor.) At the root of the accumulation is attitude and character. The ability to take responsibility and the insight and will to apply some smarts and hard work. The ability to tolerate and manage risk, and the ability to defer and manage gratification. These are the traits that matter.
To any young person who is ambitious to join the upper middle class or above, I recommend a book called The Millionaire Next Door. Along with this case analysis of the working class, listen to videos of Glenn Loury, Thomas Sowell, Coleman Hughes and James McWhorter. And observe the black women who have become entertainment entrepreneurs or intellectuals like Oprah Winfrey and Condoleezza Rice. And if you can find a real life mentor, do so. They are there for the asking.
Charles, try attacking your opponents’ evidence, logic, and arguments and not their person. That is one of the things the western intellectual tradition has given us.
It is you who are “touchy” and indeed humourless to boot.
How very disappointing.
Are you perchance also an academic retired or serving, at one of our myriad of sink-hole universities, ranging from ‘the other place’ downwards’.
ps. As a quite correctly fervent anti Woke/Marxist ‘Crusader’, I was astonished that you used that hackneyed term Racist!
It seems that you yourself have been infected by the very same poison that you rail against so passionately.
All very disturbing.
Ah, a racist. No wonder you’re so touchy.
How do you explain the disaster (from what is reported anyway) that is South Africa today? Looks like they are on the way to total collapse.
Two major problems I have with this comment. Firstly, do you not think that Ottoman Empire was successful? A country which was original as big as an average European country population-wise ran an empire that lasted longer than 500 years controlling a territories as big as the Roman Empire.
Also, I don’t know where you are taking the 2-3% figure. It sounds like you’re measuring not the result of using slaves, but the act of doing the trade in here which of course is very much not the point when people refer to about the economic effect of the slave trade.
“ As for race, it is merely a marker”.
Rubbish, it is everything, always has been, always will be.
May I ask do you happen to have the misfortune of being Welsh?
It may explain you humourless demeanour and your extreme sensitivity on this subject.
How do you explain the disaster (from what is reported anyway) that is South Africa today? Looks like they are on the way to total collapse.
Two major problems I have with this comment. Firstly, do you not think that Ottoman Empire was successful? A country which was original as big as an average European country population-wise ran an empire that lasted longer than 500 years controlling a territories as big as the Roman Empire.
Also, I don’t know where you are taking the 2-3% figure. It sounds like you’re measuring not the result of using slaves, but the act of doing the trade in here which of course is very much not the point when people refer to about the economic effect of the slave trade.
Any lingering admiration for Europe or the west which might exist – it won’t go on for much longer – arises not from the mere possession of money but from the ability to generate it. And no, western wealth is not down to slavery, otherwise all those societies which depended more heavily on forced labour (long after the west had stopped the practice) would have done equally well – e.g the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, even at its height, the Atlantic slave trade generated at most some two to three per cent of European output. What, then, has been admired? Growth, innovation and enterprise. You mention the ease with which European technology overcame resistance to colonial expansion, but then flinch from the clear implication – that the admiration you speak of comes down to a very natural, very laudable interest in the intellectual and industrial sources of Europe’s sudden power. As for race, it is merely a marker; an insignificant and accidental label which happens to attach to a number of people caught up in a process of enlightenment. And in the ethnically mixed world of today and tomorrow, it is less and less relevant.
I’d say the blatant corruption at all levels throughout Africa has more to do with the gulf between the potential and the actual levels of wealth. Something we are not supposed to point out as apparently its racist.
I’d say the blatant corruption at all levels throughout Africa has more to do with the gulf between the potential and the actual levels of wealth. Something we are not supposed to point out as apparently its racist.
What on earth is this all about ?
First of all, he argues it’s really all about money.
Then he winds up with “Too many on the Right today deny the persistence of a racial hierarchy.”
Make your mind up.
If it’s really about money, then poor white people in Britain are as much the “victims” as black people (assuming I can still write that – I can’t keep up with the ever changing language rules here).
The article seems to be leading up to a demand for reparations or some sort of confiscatory regime to transfer wealth from Western countries to African ones. But written by an author too cowardly to actually put this in print.
It also ignores the fact that people’s decisions about their priorities and how they measure and value “status” are actually within their own control. People can think for themselves !
“I can’t keep up with the ever changing language rules here).”
Don’t bother, just remember that an Englishman has an inalienable right to say what he likes, when he likes, to whom he likes, whenever he likes.*
It was forever thus.
(* We have quite adequate Libel Laws for those who inadvertently go ‘over the top’)
Unless the Englishman wants to pray outside an abortion clinic, exhort men with same sex attractions not to act upon them, etc. The inalienable right is getting pretty alienable.
INALIENABLE:- that cannot be taken away from you.*
Isn’t it in the US Constitution somewhere?
(* Both Oxford & Cambridge Dictionaries concur.)
Depends on whether we have a fair application of law. In recent years we have witnessed unfair administration of law.
Indeed we have, to our eternal shame.
Indeed we have, to our eternal shame.
Depends on whether we have a fair application of law. In recent years we have witnessed unfair administration of law.
INALIENABLE:- that cannot be taken away from you.*
Isn’t it in the US Constitution somewhere?
(* Both Oxford & Cambridge Dictionaries concur.)
Unless the Englishman wants to pray outside an abortion clinic, exhort men with same sex attractions not to act upon them, etc. The inalienable right is getting pretty alienable.
I dunno. That’s a pretty bold declaration: ‘People can think for themselves!’
I mean, yeah, I can think for myself when it comes to thinking about things I want…like money, power, fame, more chocolate, and beautiful women following me around (not necessarily in that order, mind you). But when it comes to outcomes I don’t want and don’t like — well, none of those things are my fault….and I can’t do anything about them because I’m like, powerless & stuff.
In those cases I’m a victim of systemic badness…meaning I need more money, power, fame, chocolate, etc. that someone else gives to me. Equity, don’t you know!
“I can’t keep up with the ever changing language rules here).”
Don’t bother, just remember that an Englishman has an inalienable right to say what he likes, when he likes, to whom he likes, whenever he likes.*
It was forever thus.
(* We have quite adequate Libel Laws for those who inadvertently go ‘over the top’)
I dunno. That’s a pretty bold declaration: ‘People can think for themselves!’
I mean, yeah, I can think for myself when it comes to thinking about things I want…like money, power, fame, more chocolate, and beautiful women following me around (not necessarily in that order, mind you). But when it comes to outcomes I don’t want and don’t like — well, none of those things are my fault….and I can’t do anything about them because I’m like, powerless & stuff.
In those cases I’m a victim of systemic badness…meaning I need more money, power, fame, chocolate, etc. that someone else gives to me. Equity, don’t you know!
What on earth is this all about ?
First of all, he argues it’s really all about money.
Then he winds up with “Too many on the Right today deny the persistence of a racial hierarchy.”
Make your mind up.
If it’s really about money, then poor white people in Britain are as much the “victims” as black people (assuming I can still write that – I can’t keep up with the ever changing language rules here).
The article seems to be leading up to a demand for reparations or some sort of confiscatory regime to transfer wealth from Western countries to African ones. But written by an author too cowardly to actually put this in print.
It also ignores the fact that people’s decisions about their priorities and how they measure and value “status” are actually within their own control. People can think for themselves !
So in other words, it’s better to be wealthy, and it gives you more power.
The question then is presumably how one goes about that. Given the obvious success stories of the later 20th century, the answer is right there. There’s even a range of choices, compare RoK with PRC, or Singapore. Take a look at how places like Poland have done since 1989.
What you hear from non of the successful countries is a litany of complaints and excuses about the ‘legacy of colonialism’ or ‘structural racism’. The problem isn’t race, but it is culture – some cultures produce constructive political cultures and effectively functioning economic and legal systems. Some just don’t seem to be so good at that.
You see this even with immigrants ie people put in the middle of a foreign culture. Some cultures succeed and some remain poor for generation after generation. And it’s the same ones, regardless of where they fetch up. It’s really only communism that can keep the successful cultures down.
Until people are willing to face the truth about culture, we’ll all have to put up with this BS about race.
So in other words, it’s better to be wealthy, and it gives you more power.
The question then is presumably how one goes about that. Given the obvious success stories of the later 20th century, the answer is right there. There’s even a range of choices, compare RoK with PRC, or Singapore. Take a look at how places like Poland have done since 1989.
What you hear from non of the successful countries is a litany of complaints and excuses about the ‘legacy of colonialism’ or ‘structural racism’. The problem isn’t race, but it is culture – some cultures produce constructive political cultures and effectively functioning economic and legal systems. Some just don’t seem to be so good at that.
You see this even with immigrants ie people put in the middle of a foreign culture. Some cultures succeed and some remain poor for generation after generation. And it’s the same ones, regardless of where they fetch up. It’s really only communism that can keep the successful cultures down.
Until people are willing to face the truth about culture, we’ll all have to put up with this BS about race.
What an odd article. Lots of facts without any attempt to relate them to each other logically. Africa has many more people and natural resources but Europe is a richer and more desirable place.
So?
Lots of tentative conclusions could be reached. I don’t really know what conclusions our “academic” drew.
What an odd article. Lots of facts without any attempt to relate them to each other logically. Africa has many more people and natural resources but Europe is a richer and more desirable place.
So?
Lots of tentative conclusions could be reached. I don’t really know what conclusions our “academic” drew.
The truth just can’t be said, can it? The European nations were just BETTER ORGANISED, their cultures were superior.
Around 1500 AD the Reformation and its successors took hold, with the crucial detail that loyalty was transferred from the extended family to the nation state.
This allowed mobilisation of resources on a scale never seen before. They then progressed to the Rule of Law, most importantly the Law of Contract and the Law of Property.
This was driven by Christisnity, which taught that probity and integrity were the greatest of virtues.
Suddenly a man’s influence was no longer limited to the length and power if his sword-arm. Ever greater enterprises could be set in train, with confidence. England, followed by other European countries could transform its industry while Africa crouched in squalor amid the wealth of Croesus, and Araby relied upon its armies of zealots to destroy everything they touched.
500 years on and Africa is STILL locked in poverty and corruption. Islam is STILL incapable of living in peace with its neighbours.
Plus ca change.
Perhaps with the collapse of Christian principles we have laid the groundwork for the collapse of society itself. Alternate religions like woke and climate hardly improve society itself.
Perhaps with the collapse of Christian principles we have laid the groundwork for the collapse of society itself. Alternate religions like woke and climate hardly improve society itself.
The truth just can’t be said, can it? The European nations were just BETTER ORGANISED, their cultures were superior.
Around 1500 AD the Reformation and its successors took hold, with the crucial detail that loyalty was transferred from the extended family to the nation state.
This allowed mobilisation of resources on a scale never seen before. They then progressed to the Rule of Law, most importantly the Law of Contract and the Law of Property.
This was driven by Christisnity, which taught that probity and integrity were the greatest of virtues.
Suddenly a man’s influence was no longer limited to the length and power if his sword-arm. Ever greater enterprises could be set in train, with confidence. England, followed by other European countries could transform its industry while Africa crouched in squalor amid the wealth of Croesus, and Araby relied upon its armies of zealots to destroy everything they touched.
500 years on and Africa is STILL locked in poverty and corruption. Islam is STILL incapable of living in peace with its neighbours.
Plus ca change.
I grew up in a West African Colony and it always amazed me that a relatively large chunk of africa could be governed by my Dad using a Landrover a Union Jack and a tin box handcuffed to his Camp bed.
And the answer seemed to be that the locals didnt mind. The British kept the tribal chiefs in place. The British were not really bribable. And when the Africans wanted independence it was freely given.
There wasn’t a colour bar of any sort. But , like everywhere , if you wanted to join a club you needed to have adequate funds.
My Generation of British kids brought up in colonies are getting old now- but what we experienced bears no relationship to the shrill untruths parrotted about the evils of colonialism. Most of current comment is completely wrong and deeply offensive both to old colonials and Africans of that time. They were not subservient folk. They were proud and lovely.
Genuinely great comment.
A Ghanian friend in his 70s said the British should stayed another fifteen years and trained up more engineers, applied scientists and doctors. One of the problems in Africa and Pakistan is that the majority of technical and project managements skills were in the Armed Forces which had been trained by the British Armed Forces while the politicians had studied politics and law often at the LSE. Consequently incompetence by the politician resulted in coups by the Armed Forces who had the practical skills for such actions.
Below is a link to a video about the rise of Sumer which was in southern Iraq. What is incredible is how the Sumer turned an area of incredible summer heat subject to floods into a civilisation. The constructed ditches to drain and irrigate the land and planted date palms which provided food and shelter from the sun which enabled them to grow a vast number of crops. Using the clay to make bricks.they built structures 30m high.
The start of civilisation which came to be known as sumerian started 7000 years ago.
8. The Sumerians – Fall of the First Cities – YouTube
Genuinely great comment.
A Ghanian friend in his 70s said the British should stayed another fifteen years and trained up more engineers, applied scientists and doctors. One of the problems in Africa and Pakistan is that the majority of technical and project managements skills were in the Armed Forces which had been trained by the British Armed Forces while the politicians had studied politics and law often at the LSE. Consequently incompetence by the politician resulted in coups by the Armed Forces who had the practical skills for such actions.
Below is a link to a video about the rise of Sumer which was in southern Iraq. What is incredible is how the Sumer turned an area of incredible summer heat subject to floods into a civilisation. The constructed ditches to drain and irrigate the land and planted date palms which provided food and shelter from the sun which enabled them to grow a vast number of crops. Using the clay to make bricks.they built structures 30m high.
The start of civilisation which came to be known as sumerian started 7000 years ago.
8. The Sumerians – Fall of the First Cities – YouTube
I grew up in a West African Colony and it always amazed me that a relatively large chunk of africa could be governed by my Dad using a Landrover a Union Jack and a tin box handcuffed to his Camp bed.
And the answer seemed to be that the locals didnt mind. The British kept the tribal chiefs in place. The British were not really bribable. And when the Africans wanted independence it was freely given.
There wasn’t a colour bar of any sort. But , like everywhere , if you wanted to join a club you needed to have adequate funds.
My Generation of British kids brought up in colonies are getting old now- but what we experienced bears no relationship to the shrill untruths parrotted about the evils of colonialism. Most of current comment is completely wrong and deeply offensive both to old colonials and Africans of that time. They were not subservient folk. They were proud and lovely.
No mention at all of the role played by corruption. I’m at a loss as to what I’m supposed to have learned from this article.
No mention at all of the role played by corruption. I’m at a loss as to what I’m supposed to have learned from this article.
Surely wealthy, uber-educated, Western whites would never stoop to ginning up fake race hatred just to cement their own class power. Yale / Harvard / Stanford / Oberlin / Wellesley students are protesting for black, lesbian, transwomen, whose lives are under assault daily by the whiteness-infused, capitalist system. In fact, even writing such a suggestion is violence perpetrated against trans-black-allies in support of whiteness. In the name of fighting fascism, your publisher should be hounded in submission, and you silenced, only to speak again to issue a groveling apology for your own racism.
Yes, that entire paragraph is facetious. What’s scary is that many Ivy League students wouldn’t realize that and would instead cheer the sentiment.
The new culture war makes a whole lot more sense once you realize it’s just the old class war dressed in a new coat.
And only in a world of plenty can these well-off people afford such protest. The majority of us must provide for ourselves and family – so their children might afford the idle joy in yelling in protest of the hands that fed them.
And only in a world of plenty can these well-off people afford such protest. The majority of us must provide for ourselves and family – so their children might afford the idle joy in yelling in protest of the hands that fed them.
Surely wealthy, uber-educated, Western whites would never stoop to ginning up fake race hatred just to cement their own class power. Yale / Harvard / Stanford / Oberlin / Wellesley students are protesting for black, lesbian, transwomen, whose lives are under assault daily by the whiteness-infused, capitalist system. In fact, even writing such a suggestion is violence perpetrated against trans-black-allies in support of whiteness. In the name of fighting fascism, your publisher should be hounded in submission, and you silenced, only to speak again to issue a groveling apology for your own racism.
Yes, that entire paragraph is facetious. What’s scary is that many Ivy League students wouldn’t realize that and would instead cheer the sentiment.
The new culture war makes a whole lot more sense once you realize it’s just the old class war dressed in a new coat.
The comments are better than the article, which I suppose shows some merit in being provocative. I’d hope that by now we would have the wisdom to learn from one another’s experience and grow wiser and wealthier as a result. If only. In Britain we believe the NHS is the best healthcare system in the world, and we cannot alter our view that this has always been thus.
And here is where a weighted opinion matters. Should one really ask the dispossessed about the quality of healthcare or education provided in a society ? Compared to a non-existent system in say, an immigrant’s home country, or someone coming from a welfare home, ANY free, semi-free, or nationalized system looks great! When services are free or guaranteed, the weight of the opinions of those who suddenly find themselves “covered” at the society’s expense, will drag down the quality of the service. Instead, why not ask the elite opinions about quality. Ask people who have. a context for good health care, not someone who never had it.
The school district where I placed my children was difficult to get into because the cost of the real estate in the tax base was largely out of reach for the average person. It was, and still is, an elite school district that turns our very successful people who are largely white, or wealthy and professional immigrant families. The District is also a leader in advancement of special education. Because wealthy families, just like poor families, give birth to children with special needs, Now, there is a “Robinhood” law which siphons off tax money from wealthy school districts. When my children participated, there was pride in the District. Today, they are bringing in the anti-racist nonsense that will degrade that pride and turn it into shame. Will that be the result of losses in funding ? No .. it will be due to attitude. It will create “equity” and a race to the bottom. Perhaps there will be enough money in the District for a good while to soften the “equity” blow. Who knows.
And here is where a weighted opinion matters. Should one really ask the dispossessed about the quality of healthcare or education provided in a society ? Compared to a non-existent system in say, an immigrant’s home country, or someone coming from a welfare home, ANY free, semi-free, or nationalized system looks great! When services are free or guaranteed, the weight of the opinions of those who suddenly find themselves “covered” at the society’s expense, will drag down the quality of the service. Instead, why not ask the elite opinions about quality. Ask people who have. a context for good health care, not someone who never had it.
The school district where I placed my children was difficult to get into because the cost of the real estate in the tax base was largely out of reach for the average person. It was, and still is, an elite school district that turns our very successful people who are largely white, or wealthy and professional immigrant families. The District is also a leader in advancement of special education. Because wealthy families, just like poor families, give birth to children with special needs, Now, there is a “Robinhood” law which siphons off tax money from wealthy school districts. When my children participated, there was pride in the District. Today, they are bringing in the anti-racist nonsense that will degrade that pride and turn it into shame. Will that be the result of losses in funding ? No .. it will be due to attitude. It will create “equity” and a race to the bottom. Perhaps there will be enough money in the District for a good while to soften the “equity” blow. Who knows.
The comments are better than the article, which I suppose shows some merit in being provocative. I’d hope that by now we would have the wisdom to learn from one another’s experience and grow wiser and wealthier as a result. If only. In Britain we believe the NHS is the best healthcare system in the world, and we cannot alter our view that this has always been thus.
I really appreciate the author’s desire to move beyond the race baiting that dominates most discussions of race today, and of course economics and wealth are a huge part of any explanation of human social development. But this essay is more than a little cringe-y… basically he starts by saying “Has anyone noticed that blacks have been underdeveloped as a race for centuries? What’s up with that?”
Then, in a startling leap he says, “The story about how such an order came about is familiar, incorporating the transatlantic slave trade, colonialism and white supremacist ideas.” But that’s not correct at all… the transatlantic slave trade, colonialism and white supremacist ideas were first an *effect* of racial disparities before they became a *cause* of them.
Europeans (and Muslims and others) arrived in Africa, saw underdeveloped primitive societies where slavery was endemic, and concluded that here were peoples suited to slavery. This was wrong, obviously, but Africans’ pre-existing commitment to slavery as a moral good is an essential part of the explanation for why Europeans developed such sophisticated economic systems of human exploitation. And then after abolishing slavery in their own societies, it took Europeans decades to force Africans to give it up, too. Blacks no less than whites have grossly undervalued black lives from the beginning of time.
The entire history of race and slavery as now taught is basically a dream world, a fiction imagined and manufactured in an academia that now prioritizes social change over historical fact. This is wrong, but they do it because all of us are deeply uncomfortable with the facts of racial disparity, and at a loss to reconcile them with our moral commitments. It’s not a happy situation – but the mass propagandizing amnesia that now substitutes for history is only making it worse.
But I suggest that most of us are *not* uncomfortable with the facts ! And nor should we be. How are we responsible for what some British people did in the past ?
It isn’t possible to change the past. And societies that have tried to rewrite history (Third Reich, Soviet Union, etc) show that doesn’t work.
Our responsibility is to do our best now and in the future.
The ‘uncomfortable facts’ I’m referring to are the lamentable underdevelopment of this particular race of humans, both historically and presently. The ‘moral commitment’ I’m referring to is the equality of man, which I think most of us hold dear.
It’s a very unhappy place to be, but to navigate between the Scylla of traditional racism (‘blacks are intellectually inferior’) and the Charibdys of woke neo-racism (‘whites are morally inferior’) requires subtle, generous analysis – otherwise we just fall into race-baiting on one side or the other.
The ‘uncomfortable facts’ I’m referring to are the lamentable underdevelopment of this particular race of humans, both historically and presently. The ‘moral commitment’ I’m referring to is the equality of man, which I think most of us hold dear.
It’s a very unhappy place to be, but to navigate between the Scylla of traditional racism (‘blacks are intellectually inferior’) and the Charibdys of woke neo-racism (‘whites are morally inferior’) requires subtle, generous analysis – otherwise we just fall into race-baiting on one side or the other.
But I suggest that most of us are *not* uncomfortable with the facts ! And nor should we be. How are we responsible for what some British people did in the past ?
It isn’t possible to change the past. And societies that have tried to rewrite history (Third Reich, Soviet Union, etc) show that doesn’t work.
Our responsibility is to do our best now and in the future.
I really appreciate the author’s desire to move beyond the race baiting that dominates most discussions of race today, and of course economics and wealth are a huge part of any explanation of human social development. But this essay is more than a little cringe-y… basically he starts by saying “Has anyone noticed that blacks have been underdeveloped as a race for centuries? What’s up with that?”
Then, in a startling leap he says, “The story about how such an order came about is familiar, incorporating the transatlantic slave trade, colonialism and white supremacist ideas.” But that’s not correct at all… the transatlantic slave trade, colonialism and white supremacist ideas were first an *effect* of racial disparities before they became a *cause* of them.
Europeans (and Muslims and others) arrived in Africa, saw underdeveloped primitive societies where slavery was endemic, and concluded that here were peoples suited to slavery. This was wrong, obviously, but Africans’ pre-existing commitment to slavery as a moral good is an essential part of the explanation for why Europeans developed such sophisticated economic systems of human exploitation. And then after abolishing slavery in their own societies, it took Europeans decades to force Africans to give it up, too. Blacks no less than whites have grossly undervalued black lives from the beginning of time.
The entire history of race and slavery as now taught is basically a dream world, a fiction imagined and manufactured in an academia that now prioritizes social change over historical fact. This is wrong, but they do it because all of us are deeply uncomfortable with the facts of racial disparity, and at a loss to reconcile them with our moral commitments. It’s not a happy situation – but the mass propagandizing amnesia that now substitutes for history is only making it worse.
“Harvard University has more in its endowment fund than the Nigerian state has in foreign reserves.”
Is that including the US$200 billion that corrupt Nigerian rulers have salted away in Swiss bank accounts? Until you look honestly at why countries like Nigeria are failing, no amount of blaming others will do you any good. For one thing, your analysis ignores the fact that India and China, hardly white majority countries, are doing rather well.
“Harvard University has more in its endowment fund than the Nigerian state has in foreign reserves.”
Is that including the US$200 billion that corrupt Nigerian rulers have salted away in Swiss bank accounts? Until you look honestly at why countries like Nigeria are failing, no amount of blaming others will do you any good. For one thing, your analysis ignores the fact that India and China, hardly white majority countries, are doing rather well.
Interesting article for sure. I wish the author would explored the role that China plays in Africa today. Also, what are the solutions to poverty in Africa?
Interesting article for sure. I wish the author would explored the role that China plays in Africa today. Also, what are the solutions to poverty in Africa?
An interesting and thought-provoking article. But it doesn’t get to the bottom of why some countries can be rich in natural resources, with a wonderful rainfall and climate for agriculture – yet have a population that remains poor despite all that abundance.
Nigeria is a very good example. Huge oil production, poor people. South Africa is another.
Corruption, theft, greed, lack of education, overpopulation and – sometimes – culture prevent these countries developing in an influential manner. But we seem to have trouble naming these malign self-generated influences. In the West we are too eager to blame ourselves for every woe in the world, which is patronising and infantilising for countries to whom it applies.
Poor countries certainly have less influence on the world stage. But poor countries full of riches have an increasingly small excuse for their continuing poverty. There has to come a time when blaming the West for all a country’s woes has to cease. It’s a convenient excuse to distract the focus on where the blame actually lies.
An interesting and thought-provoking article. But it doesn’t get to the bottom of why some countries can be rich in natural resources, with a wonderful rainfall and climate for agriculture – yet have a population that remains poor despite all that abundance.
Nigeria is a very good example. Huge oil production, poor people. South Africa is another.
Corruption, theft, greed, lack of education, overpopulation and – sometimes – culture prevent these countries developing in an influential manner. But we seem to have trouble naming these malign self-generated influences. In the West we are too eager to blame ourselves for every woe in the world, which is patronising and infantilising for countries to whom it applies.
Poor countries certainly have less influence on the world stage. But poor countries full of riches have an increasingly small excuse for their continuing poverty. There has to come a time when blaming the West for all a country’s woes has to cease. It’s a convenient excuse to distract the focus on where the blame actually lies.
It reminds me of our hypocritical western values here in Canada towards immigration. We pride ourselves in taking the best and brightest where ever they are because we’ve got money, safety and rather low inflation(relative to others). On the other hand, by taking these same doctors, engineers and developers from other nations, we continuously keep these nations from developing internally. Of course you wouldn’t hear the aforementioned part from government heads.
What the West continues to do is be the gatekeeper of high earning, intelligent people at the cost of ruining other communities.
Now let me jump back into my electric Porche and eat half my avocado toast.
Have these “best and brightest” never heard of the Canadian winter?
Have these “best and brightest” never heard of the Canadian winter?
It reminds me of our hypocritical western values here in Canada towards immigration. We pride ourselves in taking the best and brightest where ever they are because we’ve got money, safety and rather low inflation(relative to others). On the other hand, by taking these same doctors, engineers and developers from other nations, we continuously keep these nations from developing internally. Of course you wouldn’t hear the aforementioned part from government heads.
What the West continues to do is be the gatekeeper of high earning, intelligent people at the cost of ruining other communities.
Now let me jump back into my electric Porche and eat half my avocado toast.
The same rules for economic success apply to whites, Asians and black people. Stay in school, stay married, stay in work and, most important, stop selling your votes to the highest bidder.
The same rules for economic success apply to whites, Asians and black people. Stay in school, stay married, stay in work and, most important, stop selling your votes to the highest bidder.
“Thomas Piketty has traced how the distribution of wealth determines the distribution of power.”
Wealth is earned, not distributed. I am not certain from this article that Dr Adekoya understand this. If you assume wealth is distributed (and not earned) then it follows that you will see unfairness and all manner of other grievances in disparate distributions of wealth. Disparate outcomes do not prove discrimination of course and there are any number of reasons for wealth disparities between countries from geography to culture to climate. Countries, like people, are not equal and never have been so why anyone would think they are or should be is a mystery.
Of course money buys you power, as well as comfortable houses, clean clothes, decent food etc. That’s the whole point of earning money.
“Thomas Piketty has traced how the distribution of wealth determines the distribution of power.”
Wealth is earned, not distributed. I am not certain from this article that Dr Adekoya understand this. If you assume wealth is distributed (and not earned) then it follows that you will see unfairness and all manner of other grievances in disparate distributions of wealth. Disparate outcomes do not prove discrimination of course and there are any number of reasons for wealth disparities between countries from geography to culture to climate. Countries, like people, are not equal and never have been so why anyone would think they are or should be is a mystery.
Of course money buys you power, as well as comfortable houses, clean clothes, decent food etc. That’s the whole point of earning money.
I think this article would be better off asking “why are sub-Saharan nations so behind everyone else, and have been for so long?”. Moreover when the author uses the adjective “white” I think what he means is “not black” – East Asians and Middle-Easterners are not white yet they have accrued wealth, power and influence.
I think this article would be better off asking “why are sub-Saharan nations so behind everyone else, and have been for so long?”. Moreover when the author uses the adjective “white” I think what he means is “not black” – East Asians and Middle-Easterners are not white yet they have accrued wealth, power and influence.
So advanced nations are successful because they are wealthy and wealthy because they are successful. Going back to the authors questions to his father as a child, why?
So advanced nations are successful because they are wealthy and wealthy because they are successful. Going back to the authors questions to his father as a child, why?
Though he is biracial, he grew up in Nigeria. He would have been better off growing up in Poland. He would have been able to draw more sound conclusions from all the data he provides because he would have grown up around attitudes about wealth that he might have absorbed.
Though he is biracial, he grew up in Nigeria. He would have been better off growing up in Poland. He would have been able to draw more sound conclusions from all the data he provides because he would have grown up around attitudes about wealth that he might have absorbed.
Professor, if your goal is to sell your book, this article isn’t a great advertisement for it.
Professor, if your goal is to sell your book, this article isn’t a great advertisement for it.
It is illogical and incoherently presented argument by someone who is an academic.
What about overlaying IQ map of the world on the countries map?
It is not even true that white people have highest IQ. Others like Jewish, Chinese and Japanese have higher (if my recall is correct).
You can clearly see why some countries are successful and others are not.
Why many non white minorities in the West succeed and black people fail (statistically speaking)?
Why there is not a single successful African country?
Why population of Africa grew so strongly?
Because of European science, engineering and medicine.
Without constant help of the West what would be sustainable population of Africa?
300 millions?
The argument about slavery is just blatant lie.
When did European discover interior of Africa?
When slavery was abolished?
Yes, Europeans transfered slaves across Atlantic.
But this slaves were delivered to ports by other Africans.
Maybe author could tell us about amazing achievements of black people?
I like Jazz and Baldwin and they are good at sport but in comparison to Western Culture it is not much….
It is illogical and incoherently presented argument by someone who is an academic.
What about overlaying IQ map of the world on the countries map?
It is not even true that white people have highest IQ. Others like Jewish, Chinese and Japanese have higher (if my recall is correct).
You can clearly see why some countries are successful and others are not.
Why many non white minorities in the West succeed and black people fail (statistically speaking)?
Why there is not a single successful African country?
Why population of Africa grew so strongly?
Because of European science, engineering and medicine.
Without constant help of the West what would be sustainable population of Africa?
300 millions?
The argument about slavery is just blatant lie.
When did European discover interior of Africa?
When slavery was abolished?
Yes, Europeans transfered slaves across Atlantic.
But this slaves were delivered to ports by other Africans.
Maybe author could tell us about amazing achievements of black people?
I like Jazz and Baldwin and they are good at sport but in comparison to Western Culture it is not much….
The argument structure of this piece so extremely weak and confused that I asked chatGPT to write an essay on the same subject. It produced this, vastly superior, piece in about 5 seconds. It’s a bit bland, but there are not nearly as many non seqiturs.
“The issue of race has been a contentious topic for centuries, with many efforts aimed at addressing the various forms of discrimination and inequality that exist. While progress has been made in some areas, there is still a long way to go in terms of achieving true racial equality. One factor that has become increasingly apparent in recent years is the role that money plays in shaping racial group dynamics today.
In today’s society, money is a powerful tool that can be used to influence a range of social, economic, and political issues. When it comes to race, money can have a significant impact on the power dynamics between different groups. Wealthy individuals and corporations have the ability to shape the discourse around race, both through their financial resources and their ability to control media narratives.
One of the most obvious examples of money’s influence on racial dynamics is the way in which wealth is distributed among different racial groups. Studies have consistently shown that there is a significant wealth gap between white people and people of color in the United States, with white people holding the majority of the country’s wealth. This wealth gap can perpetuate systemic racism by making it harder for people of color to access opportunities like education, homeownership, and entrepreneurship.
Beyond this, money can also shape the ways in which racial issues are discussed and addressed. For example, wealthy individuals and corporations can use their financial resources to influence public opinion and shape media narratives around race. This can be seen in the way that certain news outlets and pundits discuss issues like police brutality or affirmative action, often framing these issues in a way that serves the interests of powerful elites.
Moreover, money can also shape the way that politicians approach issues related to race. Wealthy donors can wield significant influence over political candidates and elected officials, potentially shaping the policies and laws that are enacted. This can be seen in the way that certain policies like tax cuts or deregulation disproportionately benefit wealthy individuals and corporations, while doing little to address racial inequalities.
In conclusion, it is clear that money plays a significant role in shaping racial group dynamics today. While there are many other factors at play, it is important to recognize the ways in which wealth and power can perpetuate systemic racism and inequality. Addressing these issues will require a concerted effort to redistribute wealth and power, and to create a more just and equitable society for all.”
The argument structure of this piece so extremely weak and confused that I asked chatGPT to write an essay on the same subject. It produced this, vastly superior, piece in about 5 seconds. It’s a bit bland, but there are not nearly as many non seqiturs.
“The issue of race has been a contentious topic for centuries, with many efforts aimed at addressing the various forms of discrimination and inequality that exist. While progress has been made in some areas, there is still a long way to go in terms of achieving true racial equality. One factor that has become increasingly apparent in recent years is the role that money plays in shaping racial group dynamics today.
In today’s society, money is a powerful tool that can be used to influence a range of social, economic, and political issues. When it comes to race, money can have a significant impact on the power dynamics between different groups. Wealthy individuals and corporations have the ability to shape the discourse around race, both through their financial resources and their ability to control media narratives.
One of the most obvious examples of money’s influence on racial dynamics is the way in which wealth is distributed among different racial groups. Studies have consistently shown that there is a significant wealth gap between white people and people of color in the United States, with white people holding the majority of the country’s wealth. This wealth gap can perpetuate systemic racism by making it harder for people of color to access opportunities like education, homeownership, and entrepreneurship.
Beyond this, money can also shape the ways in which racial issues are discussed and addressed. For example, wealthy individuals and corporations can use their financial resources to influence public opinion and shape media narratives around race. This can be seen in the way that certain news outlets and pundits discuss issues like police brutality or affirmative action, often framing these issues in a way that serves the interests of powerful elites.
Moreover, money can also shape the way that politicians approach issues related to race. Wealthy donors can wield significant influence over political candidates and elected officials, potentially shaping the policies and laws that are enacted. This can be seen in the way that certain policies like tax cuts or deregulation disproportionately benefit wealthy individuals and corporations, while doing little to address racial inequalities.
In conclusion, it is clear that money plays a significant role in shaping racial group dynamics today. While there are many other factors at play, it is important to recognize the ways in which wealth and power can perpetuate systemic racism and inequality. Addressing these issues will require a concerted effort to redistribute wealth and power, and to create a more just and equitable society for all.”
There’s an old joke which crystallises a seminal fact: “Life is a sh * t sandwich: the more bread you got, the less sh * t you gotta eat.”
A fortiori, it is observed that people who’ve accumulated large amounts of capital will (quite logically) move to protect their position. This was enacted domestically in England by the acts of enclosure, inter alia (Karl Polanyi’s “The Great Transformation” is interesting to read on the emergence of paupers as an identifiable social group in England). So, historically, Englishmen were dispossessed and then later used as muscle to achieve the same elsewhere. “Race” – really a concept floated by 19th century eugenicists – was of largely secondary importance. Xenophobia was writ large within Europe at the time too, and when sent away from the cultural restraints of their homes, men behaved as beasts. (“The horror… the horror…”)
These events then, domestic and international, were logically understandable in terms of capital accumulation, though morally indefensible, as observed at the time and subsequently.
It’s self-evident that divorce of human endeavour from ethics and moral frameworks never ends well: science, economics, and at times, the laws enacted by temporal authority – all can be coldly uninterested in any human concerns. Thinkers such as John Ralston Saul argue (I think convincingly) for the individual exercise of ethical reasoning by an engaged and educated populace as being the ideal towards which we might strive (note: ideal, not actuality). The practical obstacles of ignorance and laziness found in any and every social stratum make this difficult, so temptation thus arises, to set up frameworks for enforcement of a given code of ethics or morality. (By this, I don’t mean laws, which I would see as a practical instrument intended – ideally! – to establish minimum enforceable standards of behaviour. In this they may be related to [though not interchangeable with] ethics and morality.)
Trying to actively reorder and micro- manage society in such a way is yielding to the temptation to see ethics as representing a destination or telos, an end-point at which we shall be glittering artefacts of petrified perfection. I think that this “end point”delusion is one of the biggest mistakes made by social engineers, current and historical, the second error being the conceit that there even exists such a single perfect universal schema.
Solon of Athens, asked his opinion on the best form of government, replied: “When, and for whom?”
To return to the above essay, however: the argument in this article has become a bit overextended, and has lost some coherence as a result (as has my comment, I am sure), but I enjoyed reading Mr Adekoya’s argument and I think it presents an interesting thesis for further discussion. The comment thread so far is reflecting this: something I continue to enjoy about UnHerd.
There’s an old joke which crystallises a seminal fact: “Life is a sh * t sandwich: the more bread you got, the less sh * t you gotta eat.”
A fortiori, it is observed that people who’ve accumulated large amounts of capital will (quite logically) move to protect their position. This was enacted domestically in England by the acts of enclosure, inter alia (Karl Polanyi’s “The Great Transformation” is interesting to read on the emergence of paupers as an identifiable social group in England). So, historically, Englishmen were dispossessed and then later used as muscle to achieve the same elsewhere. “Race” – really a concept floated by 19th century eugenicists – was of largely secondary importance. Xenophobia was writ large within Europe at the time too, and when sent away from the cultural restraints of their homes, men behaved as beasts. (“The horror… the horror…”)
These events then, domestic and international, were logically understandable in terms of capital accumulation, though morally indefensible, as observed at the time and subsequently.
It’s self-evident that divorce of human endeavour from ethics and moral frameworks never ends well: science, economics, and at times, the laws enacted by temporal authority – all can be coldly uninterested in any human concerns. Thinkers such as John Ralston Saul argue (I think convincingly) for the individual exercise of ethical reasoning by an engaged and educated populace as being the ideal towards which we might strive (note: ideal, not actuality). The practical obstacles of ignorance and laziness found in any and every social stratum make this difficult, so temptation thus arises, to set up frameworks for enforcement of a given code of ethics or morality. (By this, I don’t mean laws, which I would see as a practical instrument intended – ideally! – to establish minimum enforceable standards of behaviour. In this they may be related to [though not interchangeable with] ethics and morality.)
Trying to actively reorder and micro- manage society in such a way is yielding to the temptation to see ethics as representing a destination or telos, an end-point at which we shall be glittering artefacts of petrified perfection. I think that this “end point”delusion is one of the biggest mistakes made by social engineers, current and historical, the second error being the conceit that there even exists such a single perfect universal schema.
Solon of Athens, asked his opinion on the best form of government, replied: “When, and for whom?”
To return to the above essay, however: the argument in this article has become a bit overextended, and has lost some coherence as a result (as has my comment, I am sure), but I enjoyed reading Mr Adekoya’s argument and I think it presents an interesting thesis for further discussion. The comment thread so far is reflecting this: something I continue to enjoy about UnHerd.
Why do people of African and Caribbean descent make up the poorest and lowest achieving immigrants, and why do their countries come at the bottom of the economic, industrial, agricultural, commercial, and financial league tables, and have the lowest penetration of democracy?
Why do people of African and Caribbean descent make up the poorest and lowest achieving immigrants, and why do their countries come at the bottom of the economic, industrial, agricultural, commercial, and financial league tables, and have the lowest penetration of democracy?
What is the relation between money and race? The article doesn’t actually say. (or do I need to buy your book to find out?) How did white people, or majority-white nations, get more money to start with? And what is money anyway? In itself, it is nothing. I would like to see more explanation of how money and racial inequality are linked. (again, maybe I need to buy the book. Is it all explained in there? Because it’s not even touched on in the article)
What is the relation between money and race? The article doesn’t actually say. (or do I need to buy your book to find out?) How did white people, or majority-white nations, get more money to start with? And what is money anyway? In itself, it is nothing. I would like to see more explanation of how money and racial inequality are linked. (again, maybe I need to buy the book. Is it all explained in there? Because it’s not even touched on in the article)
I grew up in a West African colony and it always amazed me that Dad could run an area about the size of Cornwall on his own with a landcover , a union Jack and a tin box with money handcuffed to his camp bed.
Contrary to modern bleating about colonial rule (most is quite wrong) it was a happy peaceful time with good friends, little or no racism and little corruption.
I grew up in a West African colony and it always amazed me that Dad could run an area about the size of Cornwall on his own with a landcover , a union Jack and a tin box with money handcuffed to his camp bed.
Contrary to modern bleating about colonial rule (most is quite wrong) it was a happy peaceful time with good friends, little or no racism and little corruption.
Why don’t we just give Black people 5 million dollars in reparations?
Then they will be rich.
Problem solved.
Why don’t we just give Black people 5 million dollars in reparations?
Then they will be rich.
Problem solved.
The great economist of our age has figured out that money is essentially a unit of power.
The great economist of our age has figured out that money is essentially a unit of power.
It’s not about Whiteness?
Not sure what that even means.
If the western and Asian nations are wealthy it is a result of their cultures, geography and a bit of luck.
Your talking about cultures that had the benefit of being linked by rivers and exposed to large swaths of oceans and seas. Meaning they could engage in trade and have speedier communications. Technological advances could occur more rapidly. Wealth could be created. Outside of the African states along the Mediterranean you do not hear of a lot of trade, apart from slaves, with African nations in history. There was a lot of clashing of cultures, changing of national boundaries, the movement of ideas on everything from how to build ships, medicine, math, to forms of government and religion.
Outside of the states bordering the Mediterranean, access to the rest of the continent was, and to some degree still is, limited. The Middle East had a history of growth under the Persians. Asia had growth under the Mongols. The Romans linked them all. At one point the world circled around Constantinople/Istanbul. These empires spread knowledge but none of them ever entered deep into Africa.
The result of all this? Cultural and technological growth at a pace that Africa, being insulated and isolated could not take advantage of.
Then too, Africa remained largely, though not exclusively, built on tribes and tribal territories and not nation states. There does not appear to have been the kind of clashes that required the need to advance weaponry or technology. Why did no African nation learn to develop the kinds large sailing vessels necessary for international trade despite having huge coastlines? Europeans and Asians developed them out of necessity.
Simply put, Africa, at least that portion south and west of Egypt, got isolated and so therefore excluded from the types of interactions, communications and trade that enabled the west and Asia to advance socially, technically and to generate massive wealth, wealth that in turn fed back into the rest.
One could make the same argument for South America until the Spanish arrived or North America until the English colonies were established. Both had native peoples who were cut off from the major advances in Europe, Asia and the Middle East and who’s cultures, again, largely tribal, did not develop in a way that encouraged technical advancement beyond a certain point. One could, I suppose, include the impacts of religious views on their world views and that too impacted their social and technical development. An example of how that could impact a society would be to go look back at the Middle East and the effects of strict Islamic views on slowing and even reversing the major advances made under the Persians and the early Ottamans. One could also look at China. Both fell behind the west after being way ahead as a result of changes in religious and social views that lead to self isolation and a sense of superiority that convinced them they had nothing to learn from the outsiders. You could even extend that argument to China again after WWII and see how that impacted their development until the reopening in 1972 and the opening of their economy in the 1980’s.
The problems I see now in Africa stem from the fact that so many of the best educated and trained people are leaving for jobs in the west and that in some states tribalism still reins supreme and in others corruption. I see whole nations selling out to China, simply trading Europe and the US for an authoritarian, mercantilist nation. To top that off, Africa is rich in resources but poor in capital, both financial and human. It can only seem to sell off its assets while not building new ones. This is going to lead to more poverty as the population grows, which will lead to more conflict, even less investment and then more exploitation. Wash, rinse, repeat. The only way out that I can see is to find a way to achieve large scale, continent wide, political stability, then educate the hell out of the populace, trade services and finished products to import capital, and then grow from there.
It’s not about Whiteness?
Not sure what that even means.
If the western and Asian nations are wealthy it is a result of their cultures, geography and a bit of luck.
Your talking about cultures that had the benefit of being linked by rivers and exposed to large swaths of oceans and seas. Meaning they could engage in trade and have speedier communications. Technological advances could occur more rapidly. Wealth could be created. Outside of the African states along the Mediterranean you do not hear of a lot of trade, apart from slaves, with African nations in history. There was a lot of clashing of cultures, changing of national boundaries, the movement of ideas on everything from how to build ships, medicine, math, to forms of government and religion.
Outside of the states bordering the Mediterranean, access to the rest of the continent was, and to some degree still is, limited. The Middle East had a history of growth under the Persians. Asia had growth under the Mongols. The Romans linked them all. At one point the world circled around Constantinople/Istanbul. These empires spread knowledge but none of them ever entered deep into Africa.
The result of all this? Cultural and technological growth at a pace that Africa, being insulated and isolated could not take advantage of.
Then too, Africa remained largely, though not exclusively, built on tribes and tribal territories and not nation states. There does not appear to have been the kind of clashes that required the need to advance weaponry or technology. Why did no African nation learn to develop the kinds large sailing vessels necessary for international trade despite having huge coastlines? Europeans and Asians developed them out of necessity.
Simply put, Africa, at least that portion south and west of Egypt, got isolated and so therefore excluded from the types of interactions, communications and trade that enabled the west and Asia to advance socially, technically and to generate massive wealth, wealth that in turn fed back into the rest.
One could make the same argument for South America until the Spanish arrived or North America until the English colonies were established. Both had native peoples who were cut off from the major advances in Europe, Asia and the Middle East and who’s cultures, again, largely tribal, did not develop in a way that encouraged technical advancement beyond a certain point. One could, I suppose, include the impacts of religious views on their world views and that too impacted their social and technical development. An example of how that could impact a society would be to go look back at the Middle East and the effects of strict Islamic views on slowing and even reversing the major advances made under the Persians and the early Ottamans. One could also look at China. Both fell behind the west after being way ahead as a result of changes in religious and social views that lead to self isolation and a sense of superiority that convinced them they had nothing to learn from the outsiders. You could even extend that argument to China again after WWII and see how that impacted their development until the reopening in 1972 and the opening of their economy in the 1980’s.
The problems I see now in Africa stem from the fact that so many of the best educated and trained people are leaving for jobs in the west and that in some states tribalism still reins supreme and in others corruption. I see whole nations selling out to China, simply trading Europe and the US for an authoritarian, mercantilist nation. To top that off, Africa is rich in resources but poor in capital, both financial and human. It can only seem to sell off its assets while not building new ones. This is going to lead to more poverty as the population grows, which will lead to more conflict, even less investment and then more exploitation. Wash, rinse, repeat. The only way out that I can see is to find a way to achieve large scale, continent wide, political stability, then educate the hell out of the populace, trade services and finished products to import capital, and then grow from there.
The author wrote: “For going on five centuries now, we’ve been living in a world that generally positions whites at the top, blacks at the bottom, and others somewhere in between.”
It was never always thus; the word ‘slave’ is derived from ‘Slav’ when during the Middle Ages and even prior, trade in white persons up and down the baltic regions, first by Vikings and later others, dominated or was at least vigorous enough to coin the term.
As for the disparity in wealth, since the 1960’s the black nations have been seeking transfers of income from the West – lots of position papers outlining the need for foreign aid were presented at the UN. I can remember reading about the ‘wealth gap’ amongst nations in the 1970’s whilst in college; It was a popular topic back then. Western nations responded with lots of foreign aid. Unfortunately, too much of that aid went into the pockets of corrupt black Africa leaders. If am not mistaken Obama railed against this practice and advised stricter standards for forking over funds….so it’s not clear what’s to be done about the disparity. Work harder? Get educated? Fight government corruption?
The author wrote: “For going on five centuries now, we’ve been living in a world that generally positions whites at the top, blacks at the bottom, and others somewhere in between.”
It was never always thus; the word ‘slave’ is derived from ‘Slav’ when during the Middle Ages and even prior, trade in white persons up and down the baltic regions, first by Vikings and later others, dominated or was at least vigorous enough to coin the term.
As for the disparity in wealth, since the 1960’s the black nations have been seeking transfers of income from the West – lots of position papers outlining the need for foreign aid were presented at the UN. I can remember reading about the ‘wealth gap’ amongst nations in the 1970’s whilst in college; It was a popular topic back then. Western nations responded with lots of foreign aid. Unfortunately, too much of that aid went into the pockets of corrupt black Africa leaders. If am not mistaken Obama railed against this practice and advised stricter standards for forking over funds….so it’s not clear what’s to be done about the disparity. Work harder? Get educated? Fight government corruption?
Growing up the son of an English father and Irish mother in the middle of the middle of the country, I often wondered what the real root of racial inequality was.
I loved the game of basketball; played it as often as I could and watched it whenever I couldn’t play it. I watched, in fact, a lot of college basketball. But I quickly noticed that Black players seriously outnumbered White players on the court and on the bench. And when I watched the NBA, I saw 8 Black players for every 1 White player out there. This began to bother me.
‘My dad said it was because the Black players had better courts and higher quality basketballs. And the urban Blacks, in particular, were a very crafty people, who had deployed all sorts of trickery to bamboozle White players from the Midwest. While this made a certain sense, I still wondered why White Midwesterners hadn’t then manufactured better courts, and decided to be craftier.
I knew that the will to dominate did not exist only in Blacks: I saw White guys from one small town lording it over other White guys from other small towns. So I understood why racial domination was practised — but not what made it possible. Or why, despite the grim facts of history, White Basketball fans (and the world in general) accorded Black players more status than others.
For going on fifty years now, we’ve been living in a world that generally positions Black players at the top, White players at the bottom, and others somewhere in between. The story about how such an order came about is familiar, incorporating great high school play, good coaches, and Black supremacist ideas. But what is sustaining this order today, despite consensus that racial hierarchies are morally unacceptable? Any behavioural pattern that persists while being at odds with popular opinion must be driven by something very powerful indeed.
I believe that the chief shaper of racial group dynamics in basketball today is money. I mean…what else could it be???
LeBron makes a ton more than any White guy I know. So does Steph Curry….Kevin Durant….James Harden. I mean: it’s obvious isn’t it??!! Look at the cars they drive!
Too many fans on the Right today deny the persistence of a racial hierarchy. Too many on the Left believe it can be lectured out of existence. But debating the details of practice time, coaching, vertical leaps, and Urban Black Basketball Imperialism won’t change the status quo and its consequences for the basketball lives of people of non-colour. Not if money remains on the margins of the race debate!!
Wellllllllllllllllll, it’s either money….or….God….how do I say this: generations of quality output produced by hard work….kinda like the same quality output generated by LeBron, Steph, James, Michael, Kareem, Magic, etc etc etc.
Nah….it’ gotta be bias, doesn’t it???? gotta be economics!!
(a sillier essay on a sillier topic is impossible to imagine)
Growing up the son of an English father and Irish mother in the middle of the middle of the country, I often wondered what the real root of racial inequality was.
I loved the game of basketball; played it as often as I could and watched it whenever I couldn’t play it. I watched, in fact, a lot of college basketball. But I quickly noticed that Black players seriously outnumbered White players on the court and on the bench. And when I watched the NBA, I saw 8 Black players for every 1 White player out there. This began to bother me.
‘My dad said it was because the Black players had better courts and higher quality basketballs. And the urban Blacks, in particular, were a very crafty people, who had deployed all sorts of trickery to bamboozle White players from the Midwest. While this made a certain sense, I still wondered why White Midwesterners hadn’t then manufactured better courts, and decided to be craftier.
I knew that the will to dominate did not exist only in Blacks: I saw White guys from one small town lording it over other White guys from other small towns. So I understood why racial domination was practised — but not what made it possible. Or why, despite the grim facts of history, White Basketball fans (and the world in general) accorded Black players more status than others.
For going on fifty years now, we’ve been living in a world that generally positions Black players at the top, White players at the bottom, and others somewhere in between. The story about how such an order came about is familiar, incorporating great high school play, good coaches, and Black supremacist ideas. But what is sustaining this order today, despite consensus that racial hierarchies are morally unacceptable? Any behavioural pattern that persists while being at odds with popular opinion must be driven by something very powerful indeed.
I believe that the chief shaper of racial group dynamics in basketball today is money. I mean…what else could it be???
LeBron makes a ton more than any White guy I know. So does Steph Curry….Kevin Durant….James Harden. I mean: it’s obvious isn’t it??!! Look at the cars they drive!
Too many fans on the Right today deny the persistence of a racial hierarchy. Too many on the Left believe it can be lectured out of existence. But debating the details of practice time, coaching, vertical leaps, and Urban Black Basketball Imperialism won’t change the status quo and its consequences for the basketball lives of people of non-colour. Not if money remains on the margins of the race debate!!
Wellllllllllllllllll, it’s either money….or….God….how do I say this: generations of quality output produced by hard work….kinda like the same quality output generated by LeBron, Steph, James, Michael, Kareem, Magic, etc etc etc.
Nah….it’ gotta be bias, doesn’t it???? gotta be economics!!
(a sillier essay on a sillier topic is impossible to imagine)
May I recommend two videos, the first from the NewAfrica channel::
Why Socialism failed in AFRICA | George Ayitteh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUBXW6SjuQA
Considering capitalism to be equal to colonialism, Africa’s founding fathers rejected it and adopted marxist-socialism in the 1960s. Foreign companies were nationalised, state-owned enterprises were created and all sorts of controls on rents, prices, imports and foreign exchange. According to Ghanaian economist George Ayitteh, the socialist experiment failed woefully all across the board.
and one from the renowned African-American economist Thomas Sowell:
How Socialism Failed And Ruined Tanzania https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-tUQmXQ-xk
May I recommend two videos, the first from the NewAfrica channel::
Why Socialism failed in AFRICA | George Ayitteh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUBXW6SjuQA
Considering capitalism to be equal to colonialism, Africa’s founding fathers rejected it and adopted marxist-socialism in the 1960s. Foreign companies were nationalised, state-owned enterprises were created and all sorts of controls on rents, prices, imports and foreign exchange. According to Ghanaian economist George Ayitteh, the socialist experiment failed woefully all across the board.
and one from the renowned African-American economist Thomas Sowell:
How Socialism Failed And Ruined Tanzania https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-tUQmXQ-xk
I have seen no metion of tribalism. We do much the same with our sports teams, and, indeed in gangs. I am not as erudite as most here but I have travelled, and some of that travel took in Kenya. Still having tribal trouble, albeit to a lesser extent now, but still present.
I have seen no metion of tribalism. We do much the same with our sports teams, and, indeed in gangs. I am not as erudite as most here but I have travelled, and some of that travel took in Kenya. Still having tribal trouble, albeit to a lesser extent now, but still present.
Not so much an academic statement, as an expression of hope, based on a quaint belief in statistics, surveys and polls.
Just look at the statements below, accepted seemingly without question. No consideration that people lie through their teeth in such surveys, become complete fantasists when asked for their views by a stranger.
And we now live in a world in which national policy is formed on these ludicrous assumptions by “academics”, worshipped by politicians as “the science”.
Little wonder that there is no credibility in governance any longer.
“But what is sustaining this order today, despite consensus that racial hierarchies are morally unacceptable?…”
“Brits placed the lowest value on wealth with only 19% saying it was important to them…”
Not so much an academic statement, as an expression of hope, based on a quaint belief in statistics, surveys and polls.
Just look at the statements below, accepted seemingly without question. No consideration that people lie through their teeth in such surveys, become complete fantasists when asked for their views by a stranger.
And we now live in a world in which national policy is formed on these ludicrous assumptions by “academics”, worshipped by politicians as “the science”.
Little wonder that there is no credibility in governance any longer.
“But what is sustaining this order today, despite consensus that racial hierarchies are morally unacceptable?…”
“Brits placed the lowest value on wealth with only 19% saying it was important to them…”
This article was predicated on a racist view of the world; anti-white bigotry in particular – now so fashionable and acceptable. Such prejudice is wearisome (and boring) but is now de rigeur..
Read the book by Martin Meredith to understand why Africa with its massive potential, an expanding youthful population, and abundant natural resources, is an economic, political and social mess.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Africa-History-Continent-Independence/dp/0857203886
As long as Black Africa externalises blame for its horrendous failures (the victim culture), rather than confronting and sorting its catastrophic shortcomings, it will never realise its potential and will fall short of the wealth of western civilisation it craves.
Nothing is for free – hard work and ordered, uncorrupt administration plus a respect for the law and human rights are what create wealth. Stealing established wealth rather than creating it enriches a few ‘strong men’, and leaves the majority in worsening poverty. Africa’s ‘liberation struggles’ were in effect wars of acquisition that did little or nothing for the majority of those who were ‘liberated’. To the contrary, standards of freedom, health and wealth plummeted following the unrolling of independence across that continent; most latterly in South Africa, one of the most industrialised and economically advanced nations South of the Sahara – an inheritance that has been trashed. But of course, that is blamed on apartheid – what a convenient, ongoing excuse! When the next millennium is celebrated and Africa is still a calamity, Whites will continue to be blamed for its failures not doubt.
This article was predicated on a racist view of the world; anti-white bigotry in particular – now so fashionable and acceptable. Such prejudice is wearisome (and boring) but is now de rigeur..
Read the book by Martin Meredith to understand why Africa with its massive potential, an expanding youthful population, and abundant natural resources, is an economic, political and social mess.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Africa-History-Continent-Independence/dp/0857203886
As long as Black Africa externalises blame for its horrendous failures (the victim culture), rather than confronting and sorting its catastrophic shortcomings, it will never realise its potential and will fall short of the wealth of western civilisation it craves.
Nothing is for free – hard work and ordered, uncorrupt administration plus a respect for the law and human rights are what create wealth. Stealing established wealth rather than creating it enriches a few ‘strong men’, and leaves the majority in worsening poverty. Africa’s ‘liberation struggles’ were in effect wars of acquisition that did little or nothing for the majority of those who were ‘liberated’. To the contrary, standards of freedom, health and wealth plummeted following the unrolling of independence across that continent; most latterly in South Africa, one of the most industrialised and economically advanced nations South of the Sahara – an inheritance that has been trashed. But of course, that is blamed on apartheid – what a convenient, ongoing excuse! When the next millennium is celebrated and Africa is still a calamity, Whites will continue to be blamed for its failures not doubt.
It is ALWAYS about the money. Occupy Wall Street was exactly the right movement for the left to pursue. Why do you think Wall Street embraced Woke Capitalism is not to deflect this universal truth into another direction that didn’t affect their pockets. The progressive left’s insistence that it’s about race can hardly be a surprise. Billionnaires and their trustifarian offspring know what they’re about ….
It is ALWAYS about the money. Occupy Wall Street was exactly the right movement for the left to pursue. Why do you think Wall Street embraced Woke Capitalism is not to deflect this universal truth into another direction that didn’t affect their pockets. The progressive left’s insistence that it’s about race can hardly be a surprise. Billionnaires and their trustifarian offspring know what they’re about ….
Academia is not the real world, and the point of this essay is – what, exactly?
HOW DO I Cancel my f*****g account? “Unherd”
appears to offer NO Such Option
Academia is not the real world, and the point of this essay is – what, exactly?
HOW DO I Cancel my f*****g account? “Unherd”
appears to offer NO Such Option
Money MattersMight be a good topic for a book!