|Posted on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 09:12 pm: |
Yukio you make an interesting point; "'Qualifications' mean what exactly?" It is impossible to answer this question in the general. However if we look at specific jobs it becomes a little easier to address. We find little difficulty determining, for example who is better qualified to represent the US's Olympic the 100 meter track team than it is to determine who more qualified to be hired as a manager in corporate America. As you introduce more variables into the equation evaluating relative qualifications becomes much more difficult, throw into the personal bias and it becomes impossible.
Chris, so does that mean you dislike Sowell? (smile). You said a lot and I won't address everything (at least not now) but I will say this: your statement, "yet he never comes up with statistics but uses anecdotal evidence or his opinions", is simply inaccurate. I'm not surprised that Sowell is "wimpishly pathetic as a talk show guest". I have never seen him on television. However I'm sure he was if was very charismatic (assuming that he is indeed whimpy) Sowell would be far more popular.
For example I find Stanley Crouch extremely entertaining when he speaks; whether the topic is Jazz or the state of black literature he is quite engaging. Louis Farrakhan (circa 1980s) is probably one of my favorite public speakers he is quite captivating -- he was able to get all those brothers to Washington DC for a reason. The two brothers are quite different in their views however both have a gift when is comes to communicating ideas verbally. It is unfortunate that charisma, in our society, determines if you get heard – no matter how important what you had to say it (thank God MLK knew how to move the crowd). If you are a woman to have to be good looking on too.
Chris, like I said, you did say a lot; but I’d like to probe this a little. I’d appreciate it if you could take just one issue, on which you disagree with Sowell, and describe why. I’d like to understand your reasoning.
Hey Cynique: I read Steele's "Content of our Character" about a decade ago, I don't recall being too impressed -- but that could be based upon when I read it versus what he said, but it was a long time ago. I see now, after looking him up that he and Sowell are cohorts at the Hoover institution. Perhaps they both sit around all day scheming on how to hamper black progress in America (smile). I see Steele’s latest book, “A Dream Deferred” is described by saying “…Steele argues that too much of what has been done since the Great Society in the name of black rights has far more to do with the moral redemption or self-satisfaction of whites than with any real improvement in the lives of blacks.” This is a common theme in Sowell’s articles. In today’s world, I agree with the statement. However well intentioned and loving the man is who gives me the fish today, I’m going the benefit more, in the long term, from the dude who teaches me to fish – even if I despise him every second of the lesson.
This sentiment is nothing new. James Brown expressed it when he said “just open up the do’ and I’ll get it ‘mah self”. Another brother Salome Thomas-El in his soon to be released book “I Choose to Stay: A Black teacher Refuses to desert the Inner City” (Dafina Books, March 2003 more on this book later) expressed it more directly “We wanted to get away from the old idea of begging the system for money”. Thomas-El was talking about getting the community to support their own children.
Sowell’s message may not be easy to read because it goes against so much we programmed to believe.