This is an interesting overview of Sowell’s cultural influence, but it largely reflects an explanatory framework that feels somewhat dated in light of contemporary research. Sowell’s emphasis on culture, incentives, and institutional environment remains rhetorically compelling, and often corrective against simplistic oppression narratives, yet it sits somewhat uneasily with several decades of subsequent findings in psychometrics, behavioral genetics, and intervention research.
Modern work increasingly suggests that many of the traits most predictive of academic and social outcomes show substantial stability, partial heritability, and resistance to large-scale environmental manipulation. That doesn’t negate cultural or institutional effects, but it does mean disparities are unlikely to be resolved through cultural reform alone.
Sowell’s contributions to public debate remain significant, but a comprehensive explanation today likely requires a more integrative model than the one typically associated with his work.
It's a blessing that Thomas Sowell lived long enough to use the internet to spread his knowledge. The education system sure as fire is not going educate black Americans.
Problem isn't an econamist he doesn't do research he's a arm.chair econamist his methods aren't gonna afro Americans rich what Afro Americans is not white Anglo Saxon culture that's cancer no they need Singaporean confuscionist state lead growth culture.
But complaining about slavery or colonialism is washed today today it's more complex
Well written article - thanks! I was struck by Sowell's passing comment in Social Justice Fallacies along the lines that American Native has a proud history of surviving harsh climates but for the last 100+ years has had the most extensive of welfare support, especially on reservations, and the result is the highest rates of deprivation, substance abuse and lack of independence. I made this point (badly) at a recent social gathering and the conversation then moved on to how the West and the UK specifically, need to pay Pakistan reparations for the floods they have endured "as a result of climate change." So my point was not only missed (miscommunicated?) but catastrophically so.
I have noticed this trend of videos about Thomas Sowell, too. Who knows if it heralds some broader shift?
"...upon learning that slavery is not an exclusively black issue, that it has always been part of human society, that countless whites were enslaved, and that the very word ‘slave’ is derived from 9th century Slavic folk."
It never ceases to be shocking that there are adults who are unaware of these things. How ignorant must one be of classical antiquity to avoid learning that the ancient Greeks and Romans owned slaves?
"A Conflict of Visions" always struck me as Sowell's most memorable and persuasive book. Steven Pinker cites it in "The Blank Slate," and I think he praises it as the best exploration of philosophical differences between left and right to date. The basic idea that the volume explores isn't all that original, but people seem to regard Sowell's book as the most complete and true-to-the-mark elaboration of it, and I suppose that's probably true.
By the way, according to Wikipedia, Thomas Sowell "serv[ed] in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War."
Sowell is strongest when he shifts the debate from intentions to institutional incentives. His critique of American education has long been that the system protects adult interests and pedagogical ideology more reliably than it transmits knowledge—whether in his earlier attack on education schools and fads, or his later defense of charter schools as a challenge to incumbent bureaucracies. 
The deeper question, though, is not just whether Sowell is “right” about schools in the abstract, but which parts of the system are structurally misaligned: teacher training, district administration, union rules, curriculum incentives, or accountability design. Once you frame education as an institutional architecture rather than a moral drama, the issue stops being “do we care about children?” and becomes “which actors are rewarded for preserving failure?” That is where education policy gets interesting—because systems can be sincerely staffed and still be badly designed.
"Such insights have no doubt led some viewers to rethink black American leaders’ narrative and to question the worth of their leadership. Do they empower and achieve real results, or are they self-serving?"
It is not just the black American leaders’ narrative; it is the narrative of the left and those who own and control YouTube.
The elephant in the room is that Sowell's model is outdated and environmentalist when current discourse revolves more around psychometrics, behavioral genetics, and intervention research. Hereditarianism.
Sowell's model cannot fully explain nor solve the problems he highlights. It's certainly important to combat the victim narrative, but that can only ever at best effect minor changes and cannot remotely close the gaps in violent crime or academic achievement.
People need to understand this about Sowell and read his claims in that fuller context.
And why do the minds of young black Americans need to be changed by black scholars? Are we admitting that young black Americans are unable to identify with ideas transmitting from non-black people?
I wouldn't defend every educational trend in the US in the last 60 years. But this is so... tiresome. Yes it's a good idea for kids to be taught world history. There you learn that there's an incredibly long history of slavery among humans. And that slavery has taken many forms. How is that an indictment of Americans learning more about the history of slavery in... their own country? And about how it was, in fact, much worse than many other versions of slavery in human history?
Or Sowell's utterly bullshit stories about American history. A very large number of things changed between, say, 1950 and 2000. Sowell's causal story about liberal policies he doesn't like being the clear cause of social developments he doesn't like is a sham. I've read some of his papers on this and related topics. His causal analysis is laughable. An embarrassment to honest investigation and analysis. Pure ideological story time decorated with statistics.
There are embarrassing fraudulent causal stories on the left as well. The both sides solution isn't to embrace embarrassing fraudulent causal stories that support right wing views.
I'd say American chattel slavery was about as bad as many manifestations of enslavement of foreign people, and by no means the worst seeing as we have so many descendants of slaves today while there's not a trace of them in many Arabic nations since they were either worked to death or slaughtered.
As for his annoyance with American education for its coverage of American slavery, I think he just finds it deceptive by way of omission. People should be exposed to the horrors of slavery in a historic context so as to understand that American ancestors were not uniquely and peculiarly evil.
What is the point here exactly? Yes, humans have done lots of truly terrible things to each other. American slavery isn't the worst. So what? It's impractical to cover all of world history in detail in high school. Why is ranking the dimensions of badness of all the different forms of slavery in human history one of the most important things to spend limited time on?
We learn more about our own history than that of other parts of the world. A major fact about British colonization in the western hemisphere was the kidnap and enslavement of millions of (mostly West) Africans, along with a subsequent creation of a whole racial ideology so the enslavers didn't have to feel bad about shifting from an indentured servant model to a permanent chattel slavery model for African slaves. Why does it matter whether the American slavery system ranked 1st or 10th or 50th along dimension A or B versus other versions of slavery in human history? It was an important thing that happened in our history. And it's impossible to understand current American society without, among other things, understanding that story and how it helped shape the American economy and society and politics. Kids should learn about it.
Why can't we all stop being snowflakes and just teach our kids our history frankly and truthfully? There's a lot in the American story to proud of. We really did create the first ever credal, democratic nation, where you became a citizen by moving here and taking on the principles laid out in the declaration and the constitution. We remain the only truly credal nation today. There's also a lot of bad shit in American history. Why do we want to be all well, but, you know other people have done bad things too, we don't need to feel too bad... It's pathetic. Truthfully learn our history, good and bad. Teach kids their job is to strengthen the good and learn from and not repeat the bad. Why is that so hard?
"A major fact about British colonization in the western hemisphere was the kidnap and enslavement of millions of (mostly West) Africans"
Yes - this is a major fact (on human scale, not an economic one as most economic academics conclude it was a minor factor in the increase in wealth of the British empire).
I learnt this shameful fact in my (British) school in the 80s, because our teachers told us.
What I didn't learn, because it was not taught by those same well-meaning teachers, was the impressive efforts of the British people to end slavery; first in British colonies and then globally.
And that is analogous to the point raised in the article - a single focus on the iniquities of US slavery is only part of the story of the black American and a fuller picture teaches more useful lessons (2 parent black families have been dominant in the past and that 2 parent family stability is better) and gives a better sense of identity ("my ancestry includes people who strove hard and successfully to make a better life for themselves").
And Sowell is giving this richer, more uplifting picture with facts (not disputed) and theories (disputed) and the schools are not. And kudos to him for doing so.
Likewise, for me, I now know that the British people led (one of) the earliest of attempts to end slavery and that was it popular, sustained and hugely successful. And it gives me pride in my forebears and a hope that large scale change for the better can happen given the right conditions.
The point is simply to give rough context so that people aren't left with the false impression that American ancestors were so uniquely evil — especially given that we fought a bloody civil war that ended up concluding American slavery. You don't need an in-depth study of slavery throughout world history to give a proper impression of how our system compared to a few other types — along with an explanation of how it tied in with economies of the past.
My concern is based in my observation of how this false impression is used to perpetually guilt-trip Americans into tacit assent to the narratives and attendant demands of race activists — even though we should be able to recognize that people should not be held morally culpable for the wrongs of their ancestors. And furthermore because it's not unique to whites, we can do away with this preposterous talk of whiteness.
We're already seeing white identitarianism becoming slowly more brazen, and many public intellectuals warned that this castigation of people for an immutable characteristic would lead to frustration and later spiteful identification with that characteristic. If we want to actually get back to healthier race relations, all this identitarian score-keeping needs to come to an end.
Is it truly necessary for the schools to assign a moral value to past actions as a part of a general survey of history?
Would it be possible to leave any debates about "good"/"bad" acts or policies to debate teams or focused discussion groups?
I'd like to see the verifiable facts--such as they can be objectively determined--directly instructed, and the subsequent results of these facts, taught, and leave the moral valuation out of the equation. Perhaps advanced studies can tangle with them, but from an objective basis.
Moral evaluation is what family values or religious beliefs are for.
I mean, sure, we don't literally want teachers deciding what counts as good and bad in American history and serving as propagandists. I'm kinda taking as a given that if taught accurately that students will take things like chattel slavery for Africans as bad things, and first in the world liberal democracy and only credal nation in the world as cool, valuable things.
I'm fine with that, although at my advanced age I'm less certain than ever that those reflexive American values are unviversally embraced--or even if they *should* be.
Specifically, I'm wondering if all the world would really *want* a liberal democracy, preferring instead perhaps a dictator of their own ethnicity, or maybe an unelected council of elders.
A lot of things changed between 1950 and 2000, sure, but how many of those would you describe as non-liberal social changes?
I've seen YouTube vids from black creators mentioning how they were never taught in school about any historical genocides beside the Holocaust. It's not that the Holocaust isn't worth covering, and I guess some teachers don't have a high opinion of their students' mental bandwidth, but there is such a thing as a conspicuous omission.
It is beyond tragic that one of the principle causes of the destruction of the black nuclear family was the "helping hand" of white politicians. Talk about unintended consequences.
This is an interesting overview of Sowell’s cultural influence, but it largely reflects an explanatory framework that feels somewhat dated in light of contemporary research. Sowell’s emphasis on culture, incentives, and institutional environment remains rhetorically compelling, and often corrective against simplistic oppression narratives, yet it sits somewhat uneasily with several decades of subsequent findings in psychometrics, behavioral genetics, and intervention research.
Modern work increasingly suggests that many of the traits most predictive of academic and social outcomes show substantial stability, partial heritability, and resistance to large-scale environmental manipulation. That doesn’t negate cultural or institutional effects, but it does mean disparities are unlikely to be resolved through cultural reform alone.
Sowell’s contributions to public debate remain significant, but a comprehensive explanation today likely requires a more integrative model than the one typically associated with his work.
It's a blessing that Thomas Sowell lived long enough to use the internet to spread his knowledge. The education system sure as fire is not going educate black Americans.
Problem isn't an econamist he doesn't do research he's a arm.chair econamist his methods aren't gonna afro Americans rich what Afro Americans is not white Anglo Saxon culture that's cancer no they need Singaporean confuscionist state lead growth culture.
But complaining about slavery or colonialism is washed today today it's more complex
Well written article - thanks! I was struck by Sowell's passing comment in Social Justice Fallacies along the lines that American Native has a proud history of surviving harsh climates but for the last 100+ years has had the most extensive of welfare support, especially on reservations, and the result is the highest rates of deprivation, substance abuse and lack of independence. I made this point (badly) at a recent social gathering and the conversation then moved on to how the West and the UK specifically, need to pay Pakistan reparations for the floods they have endured "as a result of climate change." So my point was not only missed (miscommunicated?) but catastrophically so.
I have noticed this trend of videos about Thomas Sowell, too. Who knows if it heralds some broader shift?
"...upon learning that slavery is not an exclusively black issue, that it has always been part of human society, that countless whites were enslaved, and that the very word ‘slave’ is derived from 9th century Slavic folk."
It never ceases to be shocking that there are adults who are unaware of these things. How ignorant must one be of classical antiquity to avoid learning that the ancient Greeks and Romans owned slaves?
"A Conflict of Visions" always struck me as Sowell's most memorable and persuasive book. Steven Pinker cites it in "The Blank Slate," and I think he praises it as the best exploration of philosophical differences between left and right to date. The basic idea that the volume explores isn't all that original, but people seem to regard Sowell's book as the most complete and true-to-the-mark elaboration of it, and I suppose that's probably true.
By the way, according to Wikipedia, Thomas Sowell "serv[ed] in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War."
Sowell is strongest when he shifts the debate from intentions to institutional incentives. His critique of American education has long been that the system protects adult interests and pedagogical ideology more reliably than it transmits knowledge—whether in his earlier attack on education schools and fads, or his later defense of charter schools as a challenge to incumbent bureaucracies. 
The deeper question, though, is not just whether Sowell is “right” about schools in the abstract, but which parts of the system are structurally misaligned: teacher training, district administration, union rules, curriculum incentives, or accountability design. Once you frame education as an institutional architecture rather than a moral drama, the issue stops being “do we care about children?” and becomes “which actors are rewarded for preserving failure?” That is where education policy gets interesting—because systems can be sincerely staffed and still be badly designed.
We can only hope that this is successful
"Such insights have no doubt led some viewers to rethink black American leaders’ narrative and to question the worth of their leadership. Do they empower and achieve real results, or are they self-serving?"
It is not just the black American leaders’ narrative; it is the narrative of the left and those who own and control YouTube.
I have seen no evidence that things are changing.
I think Hannah Gal's argument is that we are on the cusp of change, not that major changes have already taken place.
—NC
I believe it is too early to tell.
I think you're right, but it's certainly an interesting trend.
—NC
I hope it continues to accelerate.
The elephant in the room is that Sowell's model is outdated and environmentalist when current discourse revolves more around psychometrics, behavioral genetics, and intervention research. Hereditarianism.
Sowell's model cannot fully explain nor solve the problems he highlights. It's certainly important to combat the victim narrative, but that can only ever at best effect minor changes and cannot remotely close the gaps in violent crime or academic achievement.
People need to understand this about Sowell and read his claims in that fuller context.
Likewise: no evidence.
And why do the minds of young black Americans need to be changed by black scholars? Are we admitting that young black Americans are unable to identify with ideas transmitting from non-black people?
No, unwilling.
I wouldn't defend every educational trend in the US in the last 60 years. But this is so... tiresome. Yes it's a good idea for kids to be taught world history. There you learn that there's an incredibly long history of slavery among humans. And that slavery has taken many forms. How is that an indictment of Americans learning more about the history of slavery in... their own country? And about how it was, in fact, much worse than many other versions of slavery in human history?
Or Sowell's utterly bullshit stories about American history. A very large number of things changed between, say, 1950 and 2000. Sowell's causal story about liberal policies he doesn't like being the clear cause of social developments he doesn't like is a sham. I've read some of his papers on this and related topics. His causal analysis is laughable. An embarrassment to honest investigation and analysis. Pure ideological story time decorated with statistics.
There are embarrassing fraudulent causal stories on the left as well. The both sides solution isn't to embrace embarrassing fraudulent causal stories that support right wing views.
I'd say American chattel slavery was about as bad as many manifestations of enslavement of foreign people, and by no means the worst seeing as we have so many descendants of slaves today while there's not a trace of them in many Arabic nations since they were either worked to death or slaughtered.
As for his annoyance with American education for its coverage of American slavery, I think he just finds it deceptive by way of omission. People should be exposed to the horrors of slavery in a historic context so as to understand that American ancestors were not uniquely and peculiarly evil.
The luckiest blacks on the planet are descendants of American slaves.
Well, worked or death or castrated. But yeah.
How about both? ;^)
What is the point here exactly? Yes, humans have done lots of truly terrible things to each other. American slavery isn't the worst. So what? It's impractical to cover all of world history in detail in high school. Why is ranking the dimensions of badness of all the different forms of slavery in human history one of the most important things to spend limited time on?
We learn more about our own history than that of other parts of the world. A major fact about British colonization in the western hemisphere was the kidnap and enslavement of millions of (mostly West) Africans, along with a subsequent creation of a whole racial ideology so the enslavers didn't have to feel bad about shifting from an indentured servant model to a permanent chattel slavery model for African slaves. Why does it matter whether the American slavery system ranked 1st or 10th or 50th along dimension A or B versus other versions of slavery in human history? It was an important thing that happened in our history. And it's impossible to understand current American society without, among other things, understanding that story and how it helped shape the American economy and society and politics. Kids should learn about it.
Why can't we all stop being snowflakes and just teach our kids our history frankly and truthfully? There's a lot in the American story to proud of. We really did create the first ever credal, democratic nation, where you became a citizen by moving here and taking on the principles laid out in the declaration and the constitution. We remain the only truly credal nation today. There's also a lot of bad shit in American history. Why do we want to be all well, but, you know other people have done bad things too, we don't need to feel too bad... It's pathetic. Truthfully learn our history, good and bad. Teach kids their job is to strengthen the good and learn from and not repeat the bad. Why is that so hard?
"A major fact about British colonization in the western hemisphere was the kidnap and enslavement of millions of (mostly West) Africans"
Yes - this is a major fact (on human scale, not an economic one as most economic academics conclude it was a minor factor in the increase in wealth of the British empire).
I learnt this shameful fact in my (British) school in the 80s, because our teachers told us.
What I didn't learn, because it was not taught by those same well-meaning teachers, was the impressive efforts of the British people to end slavery; first in British colonies and then globally.
And that is analogous to the point raised in the article - a single focus on the iniquities of US slavery is only part of the story of the black American and a fuller picture teaches more useful lessons (2 parent black families have been dominant in the past and that 2 parent family stability is better) and gives a better sense of identity ("my ancestry includes people who strove hard and successfully to make a better life for themselves").
And Sowell is giving this richer, more uplifting picture with facts (not disputed) and theories (disputed) and the schools are not. And kudos to him for doing so.
Likewise, for me, I now know that the British people led (one of) the earliest of attempts to end slavery and that was it popular, sustained and hugely successful. And it gives me pride in my forebears and a hope that large scale change for the better can happen given the right conditions.
The point is simply to give rough context so that people aren't left with the false impression that American ancestors were so uniquely evil — especially given that we fought a bloody civil war that ended up concluding American slavery. You don't need an in-depth study of slavery throughout world history to give a proper impression of how our system compared to a few other types — along with an explanation of how it tied in with economies of the past.
My concern is based in my observation of how this false impression is used to perpetually guilt-trip Americans into tacit assent to the narratives and attendant demands of race activists — even though we should be able to recognize that people should not be held morally culpable for the wrongs of their ancestors. And furthermore because it's not unique to whites, we can do away with this preposterous talk of whiteness.
We're already seeing white identitarianism becoming slowly more brazen, and many public intellectuals warned that this castigation of people for an immutable characteristic would lead to frustration and later spiteful identification with that characteristic. If we want to actually get back to healthier race relations, all this identitarian score-keeping needs to come to an end.
Is it truly necessary for the schools to assign a moral value to past actions as a part of a general survey of history?
Would it be possible to leave any debates about "good"/"bad" acts or policies to debate teams or focused discussion groups?
I'd like to see the verifiable facts--such as they can be objectively determined--directly instructed, and the subsequent results of these facts, taught, and leave the moral valuation out of the equation. Perhaps advanced studies can tangle with them, but from an objective basis.
Moral evaluation is what family values or religious beliefs are for.
I mean, sure, we don't literally want teachers deciding what counts as good and bad in American history and serving as propagandists. I'm kinda taking as a given that if taught accurately that students will take things like chattel slavery for Africans as bad things, and first in the world liberal democracy and only credal nation in the world as cool, valuable things.
I'm fine with that, although at my advanced age I'm less certain than ever that those reflexive American values are unviversally embraced--or even if they *should* be.
Specifically, I'm wondering if all the world would really *want* a liberal democracy, preferring instead perhaps a dictator of their own ethnicity, or maybe an unelected council of elders.
A lot of things changed between 1950 and 2000, sure, but how many of those would you describe as non-liberal social changes?
I've seen YouTube vids from black creators mentioning how they were never taught in school about any historical genocides beside the Holocaust. It's not that the Holocaust isn't worth covering, and I guess some teachers don't have a high opinion of their students' mental bandwidth, but there is such a thing as a conspicuous omission.
It is beyond tragic that one of the principle causes of the destruction of the black nuclear family was the "helping hand" of white politicians. Talk about unintended consequences.
I’ve never met a black person who can do basic algebra.