The ideology that informs the thinking of present-day “civil rights” agitation is cluttered with misconceptions. It is not true, for example, that discrimination must lead to poverty. As Thomas Sowell observes, the Chinese have never enjoyed an equal playing field in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, or Vietnam, yet the Chinese minority in these countries – a mere five percent of the population – owns most of these nations’ total investments in a variety of key industries. In Malaysia, the Chinese minority suffers official discrimination at the hands of the Malaysian constitution, and yet their incomes are still twice the national average. Italians in Argentina were subject to discrimination but ultimately outperformed native Argentines. Similar stories could be told about Jews, Armenians, and East Indians. In the United States, the Japanese were so badly discriminated against that 120,000 of them were confined in detention camps for much of World War II. Yet by 1959 Japanese households had equaled those of whites in income, and by 1969 they were earning one-third more. [Full Article]
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/2810/myths-about-discrimination/
Myths About Discrimination
Previous post: People Can Just Get Along
Next post: Unpromising start to Becker-Posner Blog
{ 5 comments }
I really enjoyed this article. Many blacks feel that they are working under racism, hence their lower scores on aptitude tests, lower median income, and lower advanced degrees vis-Ã -vis whites or Asians. So they scream bloody murder and blame it on whites, and the whites morally sanction their demands by making it easier for blacks to be admitted to excellent colleges, receive cheap credit, to be part of a firm’s racial quota, etc. than it is for whites or Asians. The result is that valuable resources (e.g., available spots for colleges, available credit, available jobs) are increasingly consumed by those whose productivity is less than those who now experience more difficulty getting top-tier education, cheap credit or good jobs. This results in inefficiency of resources, and ultimately the nation becomes poorer.
Although I do not doubt that there are many people out there who harbor anger, resentment or hatred towards blacks (and vice versa), in the end firms, colleges or banks who prejudice against a particular racial group will inevitably lose out to the firms who hire/admit/finance the best qualified individuals, irrespective of race. A good example is the Negro League, where a few astute Major League owners realized that by incorporating some of the best black players from the Negro League, their teams would trounce those that practiced racial segregation. It turns out that they were right, and soon every owner recruited black players, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to compete.
I’m sure many of you know this, but Bill Cosby is focusing most of his time, energy and money on campaigning against the “victim hood” that is so prevalent within African-American culture. He rightly believes that the self-defeating attitude of most blacks, coupled with the culture of instant gratification, consumption and disregard to education, is the real reason why many blacks suffer under poverty and violence. This has caused the ire of many, including the NAACP, whose livelihood depends on making whites feel guilty of blacks’ plight. Moreover, many blacks have said that Mr. Cosby has turned against his race.
I’ll speak a little Rand and say that it will always be hardest for those who rationally see the reason behind a problem and work towards a solution, especially when one deals with “looters”. Cosby and a growing number of African Americans realize that it’s not whites who are keeping them down, but themselves, and are trying to show blacks that morals, education, respect of individuals and the family, and hard work always lead to prosperity. I hope they succeed.
Its fascinating to compare this article and the one which immediately follows.
Particularly in light of the wise remark by KuhllaX24.
Discrimination is economically wrong, ie, counterproductive, regardless of its legal status. Those who thrive despite it do so because (absent the intervention of ‘Jim Crow’ laws or other statutory inflictions) others are free to ignore the social pressures and not discriminate (or discriminate differently).
That is the most pernicious aspect of statutory remedies for alleged discrimination — it forbids the very cooperation, the very individualism celebrated in the adjacent article.
One wonders if this will ever penetrate the skulls of the other lrc.com posters who are so in favor of anti-immigration statutes?
regards,
Shirley Knott
I must admit that I enjoy Woods’ opinions. In his “The Church Confronts Modernity…” one of the first books that he references is a favorite of mine, T. Jackson Lears’ “No Place of Grace: Antimodernism and the Transformation of American Culture, 1880-1920.” I do look forward to more writing by him.
I must admit that I enjoy Woods’ opinions. In his “The Church Confronts Modernity…” one of the first books that he references is a favorite of mine, T. Jackson Lears’ “No Place of Grace: Antimodernism and the Transformation of American Culture, 1880-1920.” I do look forward to more writing by him.
If “poverty” and other fashions do not explain
racial discrepancies and ethnic conflict, what
does? Dr. Woods does not venture an opinion, and
does not seem to think that finding an answer to that question is very important. The work of men
like Levin, Rushton, and Salter shed some light
on this issue, and libertarians should spend more
time pondering just what the implications are for
their theory of society. It may be the case that
there are conflicts that cannot be blamed entirely on the government.
I’d be interested in hearing what other
libertarians have to say on the topic of race.
Comments on this entry are closed.