"I do not think that it is a coincidence that all three groups were disproportionately successful when they chose careers in
• politics
• athletics
• music, and
• religion.
Is success in those fields a necessary first step in the process of integration and upward mobility? Did these groups all descend from societies that made this alternate pathway to success a necessity?
We will likely never know, but we do know that groups who chose other pathways have been more successful. Outside of the three groups discussed above, very few ethnic groups were heavily involved in politics or ideology. "
It occurs to me that those four (and perhaps a few other) "career" paths or endeavors tend to be orthogonal to the actual creation of wealth. Now, recreational services are a form of wealth, but they are not what we usually consider as contributing to our physical well being. Certainly there are a subset of the population that have superior capabilities in these areas and can and do make a good living at them, plus they enhance the the lives of us following more mundane "wage slave" career paths.
But if you want food on the table, gas for your car, and a road and bridge to drive it on or over, you are looking to other folks than the practitioners of the above four areas.
"Their refusal to copy Northerners kept the South an economic backwater for over a century."
What exactly did you want them to copy? In what ways did the South stifle copying the north? Specifically?
During the reconstruction era black votes gave the Republican Party dominance of several southern states? What did they do with it? From what I can tell, they ran those states about as well are black politicians run Detroit and Baltimore today.
The real reason the the GOP gave up on Reconstruction is that black run southern states were actually worse then white run southern states.
Before the advent of air conditioning, the south was pretty inhospitable. It didn't have great human capital either. It's not clear they would have had a comparative advantage in much outside agriculture. Even their comparative advantage in manufacturing today is mostly because they don't have unions and the local government is less socialist.
"From the 1850s until the 1960s, the stereotypical Democratic leader in the North was a cigar-chomping Irish Catholic politician."
Eventually urban progressives used violent blacks to chase them out to the suburbs in the 1960s, which gave the progressives more power but also made the cities pretty shitty to live in.
What's missing from all this, my dear sweet summer child, is the notion of capability. Were these groups capable of copying high IQ Northern Europeans.
In order:
1) Irish - Mostly
2) Southern Whites - Less
3) Blacks - Nope
I of course find the race hustlers disgusting. And I think Southern Whites* were very self destructive and morally reprehensible (especially leading up to the civil war, which was colossal failure on their part and they deserved what they got).
But generally, they worked with what they had. Often they were exploited by their leaders, but if the other side got their leaders in they would be exploited even more.
*The Southern white situation is complicated because its split between the planters and the Scott-irish.
I strongly disagree that these political leaders "they worked with what they had." All they were doing was forwarding their political careers. What their people needed was long-term economic growth, but their leaders had no interest in promoting that.
These leaders could have done exactly what the Americans did by copying the Commercial societies of Northwest Europe:
And it does not take above-average group IQ to copy what works. Half of all Americans have below average IQ in the 19th Century and they were able to do fine with farming and factory jobs.
Fascinating post. Thomas Sowell makes the same point that there is a strong inverse correlation between how involved a certain minority group is in politics and their economic and social wellbeing. In some areas, like the long march through the institutions, the left fully understands that politics is downstream from and subordinate to culture. In others, like with minority resentment, that understanding either evaporates, or more cynically, still exists and is exploited for political gain.
"I do not think that it is a coincidence that all three groups were disproportionately successful when they chose careers in
• politics
• athletics
• music, and
• religion.
Is success in those fields a necessary first step in the process of integration and upward mobility? Did these groups all descend from societies that made this alternate pathway to success a necessity?
We will likely never know, but we do know that groups who chose other pathways have been more successful. Outside of the three groups discussed above, very few ethnic groups were heavily involved in politics or ideology. "
It occurs to me that those four (and perhaps a few other) "career" paths or endeavors tend to be orthogonal to the actual creation of wealth. Now, recreational services are a form of wealth, but they are not what we usually consider as contributing to our physical well being. Certainly there are a subset of the population that have superior capabilities in these areas and can and do make a good living at them, plus they enhance the the lives of us following more mundane "wage slave" career paths.
But if you want food on the table, gas for your car, and a road and bridge to drive it on or over, you are looking to other folks than the practitioners of the above four areas.
They are talents that don't necessarily require abstract intellectual horsepower.
Athletics requires a bunch of fast twitch muscle fiber.
(Some kinds) of music the mental equivalent of fast twitch muscle fiber.
Verbal/Social IQ of a certain kind for other items.
But none of it is the same as having the chops to be say an engineer.
"Their refusal to copy Northerners kept the South an economic backwater for over a century."
What exactly did you want them to copy? In what ways did the South stifle copying the north? Specifically?
During the reconstruction era black votes gave the Republican Party dominance of several southern states? What did they do with it? From what I can tell, they ran those states about as well are black politicians run Detroit and Baltimore today.
The real reason the the GOP gave up on Reconstruction is that black run southern states were actually worse then white run southern states.
Before the advent of air conditioning, the south was pretty inhospitable. It didn't have great human capital either. It's not clear they would have had a comparative advantage in much outside agriculture. Even their comparative advantage in manufacturing today is mostly because they don't have unions and the local government is less socialist.
"From the 1850s until the 1960s, the stereotypical Democratic leader in the North was a cigar-chomping Irish Catholic politician."
Eventually urban progressives used violent blacks to chase them out to the suburbs in the 1960s, which gave the progressives more power but also made the cities pretty shitty to live in.
What's missing from all this, my dear sweet summer child, is the notion of capability. Were these groups capable of copying high IQ Northern Europeans.
In order:
1) Irish - Mostly
2) Southern Whites - Less
3) Blacks - Nope
I of course find the race hustlers disgusting. And I think Southern Whites* were very self destructive and morally reprehensible (especially leading up to the civil war, which was colossal failure on their part and they deserved what they got).
But generally, they worked with what they had. Often they were exploited by their leaders, but if the other side got their leaders in they would be exploited even more.
*The Southern white situation is complicated because its split between the planters and the Scott-irish.
If you ever address me as "my dear sweet summer child" again, I will ban your ass for this website permanently.
Got it?!?
I strongly disagree that these political leaders "they worked with what they had." All they were doing was forwarding their political careers. What their people needed was long-term economic growth, but their leaders had no interest in promoting that.
These leaders could have done exactly what the Americans did by copying the Commercial societies of Northwest Europe:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/how-the-usa-copied-the-five-keys
And it does not take above-average group IQ to copy what works. Half of all Americans have below average IQ in the 19th Century and they were able to do fine with farming and factory jobs.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-traditional-pathway-to-success
Fascinating post. Thomas Sowell makes the same point that there is a strong inverse correlation between how involved a certain minority group is in politics and their economic and social wellbeing. In some areas, like the long march through the institutions, the left fully understands that politics is downstream from and subordinate to culture. In others, like with minority resentment, that understanding either evaporates, or more cynically, still exists and is exploited for political gain.