Correction of one of Mr Sowell's statements: Tsar Nicholas II was not the tsar that freed the serfs of Russia. It was his grandfather, Tsar Aleksandr I, the "Tsar-Liberator," who was murdered by revolutionaries in 1881.

Great book - interesting, factual, a great window on how various ethnic groups changed America, and how America changed them.

In the second section of the book, Dr. Sowell examines equality, a much bandied-about word, but slippery in the extreme as to what it means. If we have learned anything from science it is that defining terms is crucial to progress - unless one is pursuing cosmic justice, of course. He talks of ". . . politically imposed equality . . . poisonous relations between the races and sexes . . . internal dissensions and demoralization have played a crucial role in the decline and fall of other civilizations, and there is no reason to expect this one to be immune."

Visions, their necessity for humans to operate and the things that can go wrong with them, are treated in the third section. The final section concerns the quiet repeal of the American Revolution. Comparisons of the French Revolution to the American Revolution were very informative, at least to me. I remembered an awful lot of heads got chopped off in France, but hadn't made the connection between that and the philosophy underlying the French Revolution. "At the national level as well, the 'Committee of Public Safety' under Robespierre ruled by decrees that could over-ride any laws."

Now, let's see . . . are Executive Orders when Congress doesn't do what the President wants equivalent to Robespierre's decrees that led to the guillotine?

Dr. Sowell grew up in Harlem during the 1930's and 1940's. He graduated from Harvard College (A.B. magna cum laude 1958), Columbia University (A.M. 1959), and University of Chicago (Ph.D. 1968) - all degrees being in Economics. With the quality of his education and particularly with his race, given the politics of the past half century, one might expect him to end up as a prominent bauble on some elitist university's faculty tree. Such was not the case. He displayed much too much independence of mind to be safely tucked into anybody's pocket. We learn on page 141 that as early as 1970, "a black professor named Thomas Sowell" warned against programs become too great to disguise, or to hide under euphemisms and apologetics, the conclusion that will be drawn in many quarters will not be that these were half-baked schemes, but that black people just don't have it." Dr. Sowell moved through organizations (U.S. Dept. of Labor, AT&T, The Urban Institute) and universities (Howard, Cornell, Brandeis, UCLA, Amherst). Since 1980, he has been a Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, California.

The reason for looking at Dr. Sowell and his background so carefully is that he makes many bold statements in his book, Inside American Education. "The brutal reality is that the American system of education is bankrupt." " . . . the intellectual calibre of public school teachers in the United States is shockingly low." "Parents who send their children to school with instructions to respect and obey their teachers may be surprised to discover how often these children are sent back home conditioned to disrespect and disobey their parents." Should we listen to a person who says such things? I believe so. Dr. Sowell has been educated in our best schools back before it was de rigueur to have quotas. He has shown an independence of mind to withstand the blandishments of comfortable conformity. He has operated at the top intellectual realms of our country. He has the credentials to make the statements that he does. To decide for yourself, you will have to read the book for his detailed arguments in their favor, because they are far too extensive to cover in a review.

This book may make you paranoid about your children in our schools. You may wish to become more involved with what your children are being taught and who is doing the teaching. You may wish to become a "bigger presence" in the lives of your children by moving them up in your priorities. Time for panic? No. Any system that can produce a Thomas Sowell and allow him the freedom to speak out must have some very great strengths. But . . . read the book.

At the outset, I had expected to read more about his ideology. Instead, he wrote about the events which he encountered, and how he conducted himself.

After reading Sowell's Odyssey, I came away with the impression of a man who continuously seeks the truth, and who tries to live in accordance with that truth regardless of whether that is the easiest course. Perhaps that is his unspoken answer to the question of his ideology -- follow the truth wherever it leads.

Sowell retains his privacy about personal matters in a manner atypical of most modern memoirs; he refrains from airing dirty laundry except insofar as it affected his youth.

Finally, the Library Journal editorial reviewer appears to have an axe to grind; he blatantly misrepresents the book. In addition to that reviewer's inability to spell ("verbal dual" should have been "duel"), he describes events which weren't in the book. Sowell doesn't describe "verbal duels", and even a casual reader will quickly realize that Sowell is neither self-aggrandizing nor self-congratulatory.

Although this entire book is a must-read, I would like to touch on a couple of areas therein that really got my attention. One was Sowell's view on race-based affirmative action. From the very beginning Sowell saw the inherent flaws in this policy, particularly in college admissions. Granting academically underqualified and underprepared minority students to elite and academically intensive universities all in the name of "equality" was, as Sowell saw early on, basically a case of putting students in academic settings there they were sure to fail. It was a recipe for disaster from the outset. In particularly, he saw many college and university administrators bypassing the most qualified minority students in favor of the most ideologically and politically "pro-black" younsters who were just not prepared for the rigors of, say, a Cornell University, where Sowell taught for a time. He adamantly spoke out against this time and again, but to no avail.

Which brings me to another aspect of Sowell's life and personality that appealed to me: He was not afraid to question or challenge authority. True, he made many an enemy as a result, but this didn't shake him. In fact, as he points out, the thing that hurts people the most is the truth. He was not afraid to tell the truth, whether anyone like it or not.

Thomas Sowell is one of the greatest intellectual minds of our time. I highly recommend this book.

First although I always admired Sowell, but I never suspected that he had anything that came close to what I would call a sense of humor. He never smiles during a TV interview (understandable after reading his book). His writing is always scholarly and emotionally detached. However, the pranks he pulled while a Marine were hilarious and made me laugh aloud. It wasn't what I was expecting of Sowell. Second, much of what I learned about him on the TV news was false. Within the pages of this book, I was quite shocked to read about his political and economic positions during the Reagan administration. News reports were outrageously inaccurate. I always pictured him as a "Black Republican." In reality, he never fit into that category. At best, he could be described as a libertarian. More accurately, he ignores ideology and selects a position that includes some empirical support. The bottom line is: Sowell's perspective is thoughtful and he embraces positions that are "right" rather than popular. He has never followed the path of least resistance except for one possible exception.

I find only one sour note in the entire book. While working for US Government, he was confronted with two conflicting theories regarding wage control for sugar manufacturing in Puerto Rico. He was the only economist in the department that conceptualized a research design to resolve the theoretical conflict. Because of some bureaucratic agendas within our government, he was unable to acquire the data. The theory was never tested and this saddens me. It is uncharacteristic of Sowell to surrender so easily. Based on the rest of his autobiography, I am quite surprised that he never returned to the issue. I'm sure he could get grant funding for this unfinished business.

This is a delightful book. It is humorous and insightful. Sowell sees himself as unassuming. The best single word to describe him is courageous. I wish I read this book sooner. It is quite inspiring.

On this topic of race, the book is most provocative in Sowell's chapter "Race and Intelligence". Sowell is clear in his analysis and the reader comes away feeling that he has presented a balanced set of findings. Sowell is careful with his assumptions; he extensively reports the results of IQ tests worldwide without going so far as to suggest that these tests actually measure innate intellectual ability. Although he unflinchingly points to differences which fall along racial lines, he also points to the fact that these test scores change over time (dramatically in some cases, with some American immigrant groups acquiring 18 points of IQ as their racial group assimilated into American culture and the academic tradition.)

Differences in test scores, therefore, are presented as differences in performance. It is undeniable that some groups, such as African Americans, consistently score lower on certain standardized tests. It takes a balanced look at all the data to understand why. As an African American who is interested in such issues, I came away feeling that Sowell had not ducked the hard issues, considered all of the evidence, and reached valid conclusions.

At the end of the day it is clear that Sowell is an economist; one can almost see supply and demand curves superimposed on the page behind the wording. If there is a flaw in the book it is that his academic viewpoint as an economist skews his view of human nature. We're presented with repeated examples of the un-economic results of discrimination. While we know that this is true, we also know that people often make un-economic decisions for emotional reasons.

This, however is nit-picking (it is easy to bash economists). Overall this is a balanced treatment and an impressive work of scholarship that will leave the reader thinking. This is a book to which I'll refer in the future.

Sowell's thesis maintains that differences in productive skills and cultural values are the key to understanding the advancement or regression of ethnic groups. In his opinion, skills and values make up the cultural capital of an ethnic group or of a people, whereas politics, environmental factors and genetics do not play the important roles widely attributed to the success of a group or nation.

Since Sowell's central topic is the universe of values, the reader will easily accept the general layout of his book: a world view. In order to make his universal perspective convincing, Sowell pays his respect to a one page long list of scholars world wide from whose wisdom he has been able to draw.

What is the result of Sowell's approach to "Race and Culture"? We learn that certain peoples have been more or similarly successful than others because of their human capital, their particular pattern of cultural values which enabled them to perform better than others. The Jews are said to have prospered wherever they went in the world because they were experts in the textile business. Italian immigrants we! re often similarly successful in the field of wine production. The Germans are said to have always been successful farmers and craftsmen, and the Chinese succeed everywhere as retailers and restaurant owners.

In one chapter he goes into the question whether intelligence tests allow any conclusion as to the genetic supremacy of one race over the other. The answer is negative. Chinese and some other immigrant groups have been economically and socially successful in America regardless of how they score on intelligence tests. This proves, in his opinion, that inherited traditional values and skills as well as the culturally based capacity to adapt to new conditions are the essential factors, and not genetics. He says the assumption that always environmental conditions are the determining factors of a group's success or failure is wrong. Consequently, he does not think that a disad- vantaged group of American society like the uneducated and poor blacks could be put on their feet by just improving the environmental factors of their lives. Throughout his argumentation he reproaches the intellectuals of often taking the lead in spreading misconceptions of history and doing harm to society: "The role of soft-subject intellectuals - notably professors and schoolteachers - in fermenting internal strife and separatism, from the Basques in Spain to the French in Canada, adds another set of dangers of political instability from schooling without skills." (p. 24)

He believes in hard core skills like the technologies and crafts which are the basis of cultural success. Cultures are conceived of as dynamically engaged ! in a competitive process in which the weaker and less successful elements are weeded out. At that, there are many parts of group cultures which do not deserve any respect. That is why he thinks the notion of "mutual respect" cannot always hold as a premise when comparing cultures.

To his mind there is the widely observable development of a modern world culture which gradually overcomes those cultures which are less apt. This looks much like social Darwinism.

No wonder that the book may easily be misunderstood as ultra conservative. In fact, its title would be almost impossible to translate directly into German because of the nazi connotations of the word "race".

The book provides stimulating reading because nowhere else does one get such a pragmatic concept with a material and substantial understanding of culture. Probably everybody has secretly believed that according to his private observations certain nations and cultures are more or less successful and deserve more or less respect. But for the sake of not nurturing prejudices everybody refrains from speaking out.

On the other hand it must be feared that the book will be grist to the mill of those conservative forces in society who have always believed that only they themselves deserve to be rich and powerful because in their blindfolded eyes the lower strata of society lack cultural stamina and don't like to work hard.

From the back cover:

"Alongside Gary Becker's and Theodore Schultz's conception of human capital and Bob Putnam's conception of social capital, we should add Thomas Sowell's notion of cultural capital. In an impressive use of materials drawn from around the world, Sowell describes the enormous impact of cultural capital in employment, education, migration, and politics. One finishes reading this book awed by Sowell's capacity to bring together so much material in such a readable fashion."

--Myron Weiner, Professor of Political Science, M.I.T.

"For nearly a generation, Thomas Sowell has defined the terms of debate on affirmative action. His latest book expands the discussion beyond America's preoccupation with white racism and black disadvantage to examine how different groups fare in widely disparate societies and what role race and culture play in the process. Sowell has no match in his breadth of knowledge on these issues, but he is interested more than simply analyzing data. Race and Culture is ultimately a cautionary tale of American history with broad implications for current public policies directed at racial and ethnic groups in the U.S."

--Linda Chavez, Manhattan Institute

Dr. Thomas Sowell is a black man, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His many books include 'Ethnic America,' and most recently 'Inside American Education.' He also writes a nationally syndicated newspaper column and a bi-weekly column in Forbes magazine. His essays have appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Newsweek, and Fortune. He has also published articles in scholarly journals in the United States and other countries. And, he has sat in for Rush Limbaugh, in his absence, on the EIB Radio Network.

So, he is well qualified to write on this subject, erudite, and much respected.

And, he does not support affirmative action, and his reasons are cogent and many.

This book held my attention from beginning to end, and the heady praise of Weiner and Chavez in the back cover blurbs, I found to be well deserved. The book is a tour de force thst will set standards on this complex subject for decades to come.

Sowell discusses the impact of geographical disparities, as well as of economic differences between peoples as they effect not only incomes or occupations, but also in terms of productivity differences. He points out that racial or national differences alone cannot account for the differences between the cultures of, say, Britain and the Iberian Peninsula.

And, he makes a persuasive case.

Let me suggest that you add this book to your library.

Joseph Pierre,
Author of THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS: Our Journey Through Eternity

In fact, there isn't much original thought here at all. Sowell seems to be some sort of synthesis of Toynbee and Henry Thomas Buckle, using statistic after statistic to prove that some cultures are inherently superior to others. Agree or disagree, it is up to the reader...but this has been done before.

The methodology here can try one's patience. When one tries to wrap up the whole of human historical development in one grand, unifying theory, the result is grossly simplified history. An attempt to explain the differences between the Yankee North and the Antebellum South in the US, for example, by drawing links to the Roman occupation of Britain can really tax one's patience. There may be a point to be made here, but it isn't that simple. Also, Sowell's compulsive use of statistics to prove his points borders on silliness at times, and is compounded by his inconsistency. To demonstrate the superiority of one culture to another, he might cite the fact that one nationality's average height was greater than another...presumably showing that nutrition and medical care were superior, thus producing taller citizens. However, that particular statistic is not applied to all of the cultures that Sowell discusses; statistics are only useful when they are consistently applied, and Sowell should know that. Otherwise, he appears only to be picking and choosing the statistics which might bolster his argument, and that only tends to undermine his whole thesis.

I am not particularly a fan of Better History Through Lots of Statistics. It ignores the human element, the fact that individuals can have a great impact on the flow of history. A great leader can overcome his nation's disadvantages just as a poor leader can squander his nation's superiority. Capable leadership can slow the inevitable decline of a culture. This is an element that Sowell largely chooses to ignore.

In fact, as one looks through the bibliography, it is apparent that Sowell depends almost entirely on almanacs and similar sources. Perhaps this is why this book often reads like an almanac rather than like a coherent history.

This book fills a need to have a "conservatively correct" history of the world. Certainly the complaints about "political correctness" and Sowell allegedly demonstrating that minorities are totally responsible for their various plights is something a great many people want to hear so they won't feel any responsibility.

Sowell in this book uses a great many facts and much statistical information. Unfortunately he has far too much faith in the dubious and weak figures for the past (say before 1800 A.D.) and is too complacent about both their accuracy and his interpretations of the data.

Also Sowell judges cultures according to ethical criteria that argues that success somehow proves moral superiority. Sowell also more than implies that failure to devlop along the "proper" lines indicates somesort of serious moral failing.

For all of his discussion concerning the enviromental and geographical constraints on development of cultures his view is basically moralistic.

In the end his view is an apologia for the triumph of western culture and states by arguing that they "deserved" their success.

The result is we get a lot of detail about non-western atrocities and less about western atrocities. For example Aztec Human sacrific is described with shall I say a less than critical look at the problems with Spanish descriptions of it. While at the sametime downplaying spanish atrocities in the Conquest of the Americas.

What we have here, dressed up in modern garb, is an old fashioned late nineteenth century world history in which the west is the summit of human achievement and that western dominance is praiseworthy and "deserved".

Sowell doesn't seem to get it that the failure to develop civilization and accumulate "cultural capital" is not a ethical failure but a rational response to a situation. Why should people develop civilization is a question Sowell can't seem to understand.

This results in a "stalinist" view of history in which economic development justifies or excuses all manner of acts. Thus the conquest of the New World lead to development so it was "justified" because the natives were "stagnant", one of Sowell's many ethical excuses and one that in this case is not true. But then Sowell as long been a purvayer of the idea that so long as atrocities are done by the operation of the "market" rather than the state that that is at least more "alright".

So the huge corpus of facts in Sowell's book make it a useful read but just remember that his interpretation is in the service of an ideology and a rather blinkered one at that.

Among other things, Sowell explains how the British came from the backwaters of the Roman Empire to lead an empire of their own. Why Eastern Europe has always been such a mess. Why the period of colonial rule was, generally, Africa's Golden Age. And, especially interesting to me, what explains the backwardness of pre-Columbian Native Americans.

The thing that particularly impresses me about Sowell's [massively footnoted] ideas is how daring they are, how very Politically Incorrect! He draws upon generally available historical and economic data in support of common sense ideas that are, nevertheless, revolutionary.

He proves (to my own satisfaction) that "disadvantaged" minorities are alone responsible for their status. He then proceeds to show the insignificance of race and demonstrates how pathetically misguided are racists.

This concludes a series that includes Race & Cultures and Migrations & Cultures, but you in no way need to have read the others in order to appreciate the brilliant insights contained here.

Everybody should read Sowell and Paglia. This would conclusively shatter all of the illusions put up by pseudo-Intellectuals. Then they would all have to go out and find real jobs.

Probably the best part of the book is Sowell's conclusion where he tries to debuke his critis and those that misterpret his views such as those saying that eliminating differences in IQ and education between ethnic groups would automatically eliminate economic differances but factors such as quality of education and choice of careers play important roles as well.

The book is absolutely filled with information like this. Moreover, Sowell also discusses the perils of attributing income disparities to "racism" and "discrimination." I had to laugh when I read the critical reviewer below who claimed that Sowell's book was "simplistic." Whatever criticism one might make of it, no one who actually read the book could describe it that way. In fact, I'm a college professor who assigned the book to my students, and their general complaint was actually that it was too complicated! Sowell's whole point is that it is the current "civil rights" establishment that is simplistic-all statistical disparities between groups can have only one cause: discrimination. Sowell demonstrates how utterly untenable-and, yes, simplistic-such a suggestion is.

Finally, the suggestion that because Sowell holds such views he can't "really" be black: that's an accusation this brave scholar has had to endure his whole life. Apparently, all blacks are supposed to hold the same opinions. I'd say that's pretty simplistic.

In short: I am not aware of any other book on this subject that is so relentless in its demolition of tired myths about affirmative action and civil rights.

Substantively, MIGRATIONS AND CULTURES looks at six cultures (Chinese, Germans, Indians, Italians, Japanese and Jews) and their experiences as migrants in new countries. A summary of some of his main findings is as follows:

1. A fairly common experience is arriving destitute, applying oneself with reliance on family, endeavor, and thrift; emphasizing education for the native-born 2nd generation, and contributing to increasing wealth of their new country. Concommitant with migrant success there is usually envy and/or prejudice from some native populations.

2. A clear distinction can be made between culture and race. The experiences of Chinese migrants in many countries is a frequent example used by Mr Sowell. As an illustration of the reality that cultural similarities can transcend race we are referred to the fully assimilated Chinese of the West Indies.

3. Cultural capital, which he defines as the habits and beliefs that migrants bring to a new country - is much more important in determining the migrants fate, than is the new homeland's economy, culture, or political system.

It is this last point that both sides will debate. It immediately sours the palate of the far right who offer the idea that the goodness of the US as the ultimate land of opportunity, is there to be tasted, if only the migrants would jump into the melting pot. At the same time Mr Sowell scrambles the eggs of the academic left by saying not all cultures are equal. He says plainly that variations in cultural capital account for differences in economic and social outcomes.

This is a well reasoned book, satisfyingly light on the polemics. For those who don't like statistics it's a bit heavy with the numbers. He's an economist so maybe you'll understand and forgive this emphasis. Anyhow, you should definitely read him.

By looking at the histories of Germans who migrated to various places in Russia - Baltic, Volga, Black Sea - as well as the differing histories of Germans who migrated to various places in the United States, Brazil, Paraguay, and Australia, he avoids drawing false conclusions that are often made when only one or two particular cases of migration are studied. Sowell applies this broader historical frame of reference to each of these six groups to better understand cultural phenomena. For example, Orlando Patterson at Harvard once wrote that the Chinese were prominent in Jamaica for reasons peculiar to Jamaican history. But by looking at the Chinese in other cultures, one sees they are dominant "middleman minority" in other places as well, ranging from Thailand or the Philippines to Panama City or Lima, Peru. So that one is forced to conclude that it wasn't something unique to Jamaican history that made Chinese prominent as middlemen, but rather due to something in the culture the people brought with them to China, whether in the form of particular skills or work habits or inclinations and attitudes to life.

After years of exhaustive research, consultation with other scholars, and wide-ranging travels in preparing his trilogy (RACE AND CULTURE, MIGRATIONS AND CULTURES, CONQUESTS AND CULTURES), Sowell concluded, "If there is one pattern that emerges from all these histories it is that each group has its own cultural pattern - and that these patterns do not disappear upon crossing a border or an ocean." Some things, such as external cultural manifestations of language or dress, may change far more readily than internal cultural values such as social mores, marital choice, religious practice, propensity to sacrifice and to save earnings, or attitudes towards work, all things which go into that little phrase, "cultural capital".

Sowell's book is exhaustively researched but not pedantic. His numerous specific examples for the general statements he puts forth not only make his work readable but reliable as well: in making a point, he backs it up with specific historical examples. His book is not "light reading" in the way a intriguing novel might be, but it is "sound" reading, enlightening and trustworthy. I didn't get the feeling Sowell tried to pull the wool over his readers' eyes: he instead attempted to lay out the facts in a coherent, honest fashion. His conclusions are insightful (and sometimes controversial). Provided one keeps a pen or pencil in hand to stay attentive to this text, I believe most will find this an enjoyable reading experience.

Overall, the book tries makes connections between how cultures affects its inhabitants even as the move to new lands and how it affects the descendants of those people.

Marxist writings on economics and history are found on the Internet in public domain archives. Moreover, must are incredibly dry reads written in verbage that is non-sensical, technical and forceful in its sometimes unsupported assertions. Thus, if you're looking to understand Marxism in précis, I'd recommend this strategy. Get Sowell's book, which outlines the basic tenets of the Marxist Worldview... Get Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Time by David Noebel... and get the Communist Manifesto programme.

Sowell's book outlines the Marxist view of history... its spin on the Hegelian dialectical that views class strugle as the driving force of history and the Marxist belief the communism is inevitable. Sowell looks at Marx in the 'pure' Marxist context minus Leninist assumptions... Though, it is readily apparent that following Marx's prescription for change will ultimately led to Soviet-style totalitarianism. Lastly, though some may find the book and indeed the subject boring, Sowell writes lucidly with the implicit purpose of surmising Marxist ideology less the arcane language.

By understanding the Marxist perspective on history - you can see how many communists feel communism didn't die with the Soviet Union, and it is the unknown ideal somehow destined for mankind.