Different histories, geography, demography, and cultures have left various groups, races, nations, and civilizations with radically different abilities to create wealth.
In centuries past, the majority population of various cities in Eastern Europe consisted of people from Western Europe — Germans, Jews, and others — while the vast majority of the population in the surrounding countrysides were Slavs or other indigenous peoples of the region.
Advertisement
Just as Western Europe was — and is — more prosperous than Eastern Europe, so Western Europeans living in Eastern European cities in centuries past were more prosperous than the Slavs and others living in the countrysides, or even in the same cities.
One of the historic advantages of Western Europe was that the Romans conquered it in ancient times — a traumatic experience in itself, but one which left Western European languages with written versions, using letters created by the Romans. Eastern European languages developed written versions centuries later.
Literate people obviously have many advantages over people who are illiterate. Even after Eastern European languages became literate, it was a long time before they had such accumulations of valuable written knowledge as Western European languages had, due to Western European languages’ centuries earlier head start.
Even the educated elites of Eastern Europe were often educated in Western European languages. None of this was due to the faults of one or the merits of the other. It is just the way that history went down.
But such mundane explanations of gross disparities are seldom emotionally satisfying — least of all to those on the short end of these disparities. With the rise over time of an indigenous intelligentsia in Eastern Europe and the growing influence of mass politics, more emotionally satisfying explanations emerged, such as oppression, exploitation, and the like.
Since human beings have seldom been saints, whether in Eastern Europe or elsewhere, there were no doubt many individual flaws and shortcomings among the non-indigenous elites to complain of. But those shortcomings were not the fundamental reason for the economic disparities between Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans. More important, seeing those Western European elites in Eastern Europe as the cause of the economic disparities led many Eastern Europeans into the blind alley of ethnic-identity politics, including hostility to Germans, Jews, and others — and a romanticizing of their own cultural patterns that were holding them back.
What happened in Eastern Europe, including many tragedies that grew out of the polarization of groups in the region, has implications that reach far beyond Europe, and in fact reach all around the world, where similar events have produced similar polarizations and similar historic tragedies.
Today, in America, many denounce the black-white gap in economic and other achievements, which they attribute to the same kinds of causes as those to which the lags of Eastern Europeans have been attributed. Moreover, the persistence of these gaps, years after the civil-rights laws were expected to close them, is regarded as something strange and even sinister.
Yet the economic disparities between Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans remain to this day greater than the economic disparities between blacks and whites in America — and the gap in Europe has lasted for centuries.
Focusing attention and attacks on people who have greater wealth-generating capacity — whether races, classes, or whatever — has had counterproductive consequences, including tragedies written in the blood of millions. Whole totalitarian governments have risen to dictatorial power on the wings of envy and resentment ideologies.
Intellectuals have all too often promoted these envy and resentment ideologies. There are both psychic and material rewards for the intelligentsia in doing so, even when the supposed beneficiaries of these ideologies end up worse off. When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.
Both politicians and intellectuals have made their choice.
Dear Dr Sowell,
I could recast your argument using Hong Kong and China as examples. In this scenario we can eliminate the ethnic divide (both Chinese) and look at the politics of envy and resentment ideologies that led to a dictatorial regime versus a liberal-democratic regime committed to the sanctity of private property, the rule of law and economic, legal and social freedoms. It is interesting that despite the reforms in China and rapid economic growth (considered by the leadership as a so-called 'modernization' of communism and a way to continue the Party's rule), that according to a study that children born in Hong Kong from mainland mothers (that is another controversy akin to the anchor baby arguments in the US) who stay in Hong Kong achieve the same academic results as Hong Kong- born parents' children. But children who return to the mainland and then later return to Hong Kong do not achieve academically and form part of the lower-income cohort. I've skipped over much detail that includes disparity in educational standards between Hong Kong and China (after all Hong Kong has a longer history of measuring its standards internationally than the marxist (how ironic for the internationale) standards on the mainland). I'm rambling but the point here is that ideologues and like-minded politicians who try to remake us in their own image fail, and free societies, however imperfect, endow us with the kit bag to survive and prosper. Happy Year of the Dragon!
The term "equality" has morphed into an insatiable beast, more akin to envy and resentment than mere equality. Perhaps it has been a misnomer all along, inviting an irresistible metastasis from the mundane protections of equal rights to the dreamy delusions that we can be what we are not by simply willing it so. The "equality" guaranteed in our constitution has a vital, but limited, scope. Beyond that, you're on your own, or should be.
Typically concise and clear column, Mr. Sowell. Thanks.
The following line should be always kept in mind as the overheated rhetoric of this presidential election threatens to turn into something much worse:
"But such mundane explanations of gross disparities are seldom emotionally satisfactory--least of all to those on the short end of these disparities"
This applies equally well to the strategies of the 1-versus-the 99-ers and the rest of the fomenters of racial and class animosities who promise to make this a vitriolic, if not violent, election year.
"When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear." Yes! One of the most brillant things I have ever read. God bless you Thomas Sowell.
A proverb as powerful as Sowell's observation that there are no solutions, only trade-offs. His "Reader" is on my to-buy list, and yet I still think there's a market for a small gift book of his most powerful stand-alone sentences.
"One of the historic advantages of Western Europe was that the Romans conquered it in ancient times..."
You are so right Mr. Sowell. This is the reason blacks should be grateful that their ancestors were sold into slavery; it gave them social and financial literacy. In fact, as a Christian nation it is incumbent on us to revive that practice so that even more illiterate Africans can begin to enjoy the opportunity to chase the American dream..
I would say that it takes some work to argue in such bad faith, but I'm sure idiocy comes easy to you, just as I'm sure that you're quite proud of a comment for which you should be ashamed.
Lawrence--you have correctly assessed marcc. I read his comment and was stunned--how on earth did he come up with that conclusion when Dr. Sowell was so clear in his essay? Incredible--marcc must have gotten a negative number on his "reading comprehension" section of the SAT!
I know you thought you were being a smart-a%%, but there is actually a good case to be made that, while slavery was very bad for its direct victims, the descendants of those brought to this country as slaves were, and in many cases are, much better off economically than those who remained in Africa. This is not a justification or defense of that abhorrent practice, just an acknowledgement that even very bad things can have later effects which may be beneficial.
What? Your post doesn't make sense. Slavery was ugly and caused profound damage to this country as well as to the enslaved. Although you bring up an interesting subject. A couple of years ago we had a young man who had been orphaned by an awful accident living with us. Both of his parents had escaped Poland during the soviet occupation. The managed to get to Canada, where he was born and eventually moved here where they thought their children would have the most opportunity. When his parents died he came to stay with us to finish school and get a foot hold in this country.
One day he and I were arguing with the daughter of some liberal neighbors. She'd been given the assignment to read some silly book called Guns and Germs (or something). She was making the argument that the book put forth that societies progressed because their location favored growing and storing grain or some silly such thing. My young friend was making excellent arguments stating that Christianity and freedom were what made societies progress so rapidly. Finally he put her in her place with this excellent example: If you look at the antebellum United States you see a north where everyone is fundamentally free and Christian values and ethics are predominate in society. If you look at the south on the other hand Christian ethics and values are thwarted by slavery which not only enslaves the Africans who were brought here, but it enslaves their owners who have to suppress them, and it enslaves the surrounding community which has lost jobs and industry to this ugly business. Once slavery was ended the blacks that made it to the north wasted little time when given their freedom to compose music, express extraordinary creative talent, invent things (the term 'the real McCoy was based on an African American inventor whose inventions allowed for expanded rail road travel among other things) become doctors and lawyers and famous writers. In other words, my young friend said that two ingredients were needed for success in society. The first is the Ten Commandments. The second is freedom. I would add to that high expectations. After all, if you set the bar high people will try to reach it. If you set the bar low you'll get what you ask for.
That silly book you reference in your anecdote is "Guns, Germs & Steel: The Fates of Human Societies," by Jared Diamond. I would say that the beginning paragraph of Sowell's essay pretty much contemplates the thesis of "Guns, Germs & Steel," which, to paraphrase, means to express that historical circumstances come about in a variety of complex, but mundane, ways. Why disparage well-thought out, thoroughly researched notions like the relationship between geographical distribution and germ-parasitical symbiosis with domesticated animals, and communication and warfare, as factors in the establishment, growth and comparative advantage of human civilization, unless you have pointed criticism or a better theory?
Your young man acquitted himself well on that debate with that girl, but he and you debated a flawed presentation of Diamond’s theory, which by the way, says location, ease of communication and access to domesticable animals are an important reason for success, NOT the sole reason for it. And if you add freedom to the mix, perhaps success comes. Religion could help if it helps to create community, but as Jesus suggests in his dialectical exchange in the Gospel of Matthew, rendering to God and rendering to 'Caesar' are two different things.
As usual a cogent an well written article. I wish more people would pay attention to your writings, they have been nearly uniformly excellent. A few have been only very good. I have never read the politics of envy so simply and clearly disparaged.
"When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear." You've summarized why America's debt problem won't be fixed by Romney, Santorum, or our current Congress.
"When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear."
Indeed it is a brilliant observation. I just wonder if we realize that we all are both subject to and capable of that assertion. I tend to think that the sentiment was intended to be applied to one side alone. In our current political discourse, both sides see themselves as victims of the ambitions of the other, and both sides engage in the rhetoric of appeasement.
