There are several books that I am actively reading at this time. They are A Conflict of Visions (again), Basic Economics (again in revised version), and Affirmative Action Around the World all three by Thomas Sowell, God's Politics by Jim Wallis, Scalia Dissents by Kevin Ring, and The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. In selecting books to read, it is often helpful to read reviews by others who have read those under consideration. Such reviews needn't necessarily be positive, but they should at least demonstrate a familiarity with the topic either because of or prior to the reading, deference and generosity toward the author, and the general sagacity and wit of an intelligent and honorable human being. Some of those who write reviews of conservative books in such places as Amazon.com exhibit none of these characteristics. It is almost as if there are Leftist web gangs who troll for conservative titles and then slam what they find with "reviews" that demonstrate fantastic stupidity, complete ignorance of the topic, and personal insipidity. These "reviewers" clearly do not read the books and have an utter disdain for the authors and their ideas. One "review" of Thomas Sowell's new book, Affirmative Action Around the World, An Empirical Study demonstrates this phenomenon very effectively. After giving the book one star—presumably because he could not give it a zero—an anonymous "reader" had the following to say about it:
"I am constantly bewildered by Sowell and his ilk - extremely well educated and qualified (you'd think), yet at the same time narrow minded and shockingly ill-informed. This book, 'Affirmative Action...', is so full of glaring inaccuracies that I found it difficult to understand. Sowell blames the vast majority of instabilities within developing nations on 'racial bias' or 'ethnic favouritism'. Did this guy actually ever attend high school? Or did he just skip history lessons and ignore current affairs for the past 50 years? All of the classic knock-on effects of colonialism - ethnic, racial or religiously-motivated violence in Sri Lanka, India / Kashmir, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, Somalia - have resulted from countries being carved-up by the UK, France, Holland, Spain on their exit, in what was always an ill-advised, hurried and poorly planned stab at racial harmony through segregation, resulting in perpetual conflict over lands and resources. This has been documented, studied, poured over and universally accepted for decades, yet Sowell has decided that it is his right to try to rewrite history. Does he deny the holocaust too? And don't get me started on his extremely ignorant views on black history and culture... this man has no concept of his own heritage. An arrogant, pompous piece of extremeist drivel. This man should be locked up."
Thomas Sowell, who is black, grew up in Harlem during the 1940s rising from a hardscrabble beginning to becoming one of the leading economists in the United States. He was awarded a PHD in economics from the prestigious Chicago School of Economics (University of Chicago) in 1968 and has been a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution (Stanford University) for over twenty-five years. He has taught economics at the college level and has conducted extensive research and written many books on that and related topics. Mr. Sowell is eminently qualified to write on the subject because he is a thorough researcher, fastidious data gatherer, and a prodigious writer. The fact that he is black has nothing whatsoever to do with his work. There are those, apparently to include the above "reviewer", who demand that a black man stick to the orthodoxy of Leftist thought and are prepared to patrol the Internet as thought police to censure those who commit the heresy of independent thought.
Reviews of this sort follow a typical pattern, and the one above is almost a case study. That pattern includes:
- Poor writing style.
- Withholding reviewer's identity and basis for knowledge.
- Use of the most inflammatory and defamatory language.
- Name calling.
- Assigning labels.
- Ad hominem argument.
- Making no attempt to discuss substantive ideas.
- Shotgunning disconnected thoughts.
- Treating author as if he is personally defective.
- Expressing a desire to censor author's work.
All of these techniques are present in the above "review". The "reviewer" was extremely disrespectful of Mr. Sowell. Using very poor grammar and spelling, the "reviewer" referred to Sowell's book as "An arrogant, pompous piece of extremeist drivel." In typical Leftist fashion, he also expressed a belief that Sowell poses a danger to society and, hence, "should be locked up" meaning "he should be silenced." He argued that the book was "so full of glaring inaccuracies" but offered no particulars. He only gave a very general rant about colonialism and nation building by certain Western powers. He also calls Sowell's views on black history "extremely ignorant" and having "no concept of his own heritage". What I wonder is what one's "own heritage" might be. Is it their own personal history, the history of their tribe or clan, or the history of their nation? To persons like the above quoted "reviewer", it is a set of ideas that he holds in his own head. Essentially, he is accusing Mr. Sowell of having thoughts that are not substantively identical to his own.
On many of the plantations in the antebellum American South, there were what have come to be known as house niggers. These were usually male slaves who were "overseers" of the slave population and were often as cruel to the other slaves as were their masters. Sambo in the book Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, was such a man. Although not usually so violent as before, there are Sambo's in our society today whose sole purpose it is to whip and control other blacks to keep them in line with their white liberal masters. These house niggers physically assault children in school for "acting white" by just trying to get a good education. Others are poised to bring claims of misconduct on black leaders who stray from the path such as has happened to Bill Cosby.
Leftist "reviewers" of conservative books in sites as above are not learned and will believe anything that comes from the Left and nothing from the Right. They are incapable of independent thought or thoughtful criticism of ideas. In our example, the "reviewer" simply assumes the validity of the history he has learned. It never enters into his very darkest nightmares that the fault lies with the historians he prefers. In any event, one does at least wonder at the complete lack of introspection and self-criticism and taking the liberty to slander the character of an eminently qualified and honorable man with the thinnest of justification, but this is daily bread for the leftist "reviewers". If you want integrity, thoughtfulness, and intelligence, you will have to look to the Right.
Comments