The Christian and Reparations Pt. 2 - Slavery By The Number$

A primary goal of reparations, proposed by Duke University’s William “Sandy” Darity (and prefaced in Thabiti Anyabwile’s - Reparations Are Biblical) is ”payments for the wrongs done.” While there is universal agreement that “reparations was owed at some point,” it was not issued at or close to the time of emancipation. Which would have satisfied, more conclusively, the core principles of compensation, restitution and responsibility - restitution to slaves and slaveholders being held responsible. Without the ability to hold slaveholders financially accountable, securing reparations for slavery presently, would depend on, among other things, identifying descendants of slaves and determining as accurately as possible, the wealth accrued through slave labour. However, similar to the history of slavery, the economics of slavery in the US is an area fraught with reframed, omissive or patently false narratives. These narratives, are rooted in ideological expectations; expectations hinged on slavery’s perceived ongoing societal impact (or legacy), and its role in building America’s financial infrastructure. This socioeconomic point of view utilises, what leading economist agree are “demonstrably” inaccurate accounting figures. Specifically, the inflated GDP (gross domestic product) and GNP (gross national product) figures for cotton production in the antebellum (pre-Civil War) South. These figures peddled by revisionist historians and echoed by politicians and political middle-men, attempts to satiate and underpin three main economic arguments: 1) slave production was the chief economic sector in America before the Civil War 2) as a result, the economic prosperity America enjoys is due primarily to “capitalistic” exploitation of unpaid labour i.e. slaves and 3) the legacy of slavery and other discriminative economic practices that proceeded it, are the primary causes for the wealth disparity experienced by black Americans today (especially when compared to whites). 

 

These points typically form the socioeconomic premise for the reparations argument today. Consequently, restitution as an ethical (or biblical) principle, on its own, cannot sufficiently meet the burden of proof needed to enact a “material or social repayment” presently, as Thabiti Anyabwile implies. In this instance, these claims used to buttress slavery’s persevering effects, would also require substantiating. Especially if present-day American citizens (particularly white citizens) are to be held emotionally and financially culpable for atrocities they never committed; and if blanket compensation is to be issued to all black Americans, on the basis of suffering under those persevering effects. In short, if the seemingly pathological need to reframe historical events (including allegations of cooking the books) is left unaddressed, justified by the repackaged racism embedded in the “social justice” ideology - current reparations efforts could in fact be deemed immoral. It would be the difference between reparations for slavery being an exercise in well-intentioned, compensatory justice or just a political and racial shakedown.

Back-Of-The-Envelope-Accounting…But Not Really!

The most regurgitated number associated with slavery’s economic output is $600 million. Which equates to almost half of the GDP at the time - the “economic activity in the United States in 1836,” specifically. This according to historian Edward ‘Ed’ Baptist of Cornell University, which he asserts in his 2014 book The Half Has Never Been Told. Carol Anderson, author of White Rage, asserted that in 1860, as much as 80% of America’s GNP was linked to slavery. These figures have been found primarily on the lips of those in academia and political middle-men, to even being recited in US congressional hearings. Ta-Nehisi Coates, a political commentator and activist, cited Baptist in front of congress in his defence of reparations, “By 1836 more than $600 million, almost half of the economic activity in the United States, derived directly or indirectly from the cotton produced by the million-odd slaves” Coates stated.

Phillip W. Magness, (Senior Researcher at American Institute for Economic Research) called Baptist’s figures, parroted by Coates a “stunning statistical claim…” and “unambiguously false.” The problem with Baptist’s figures is that they are the result of double and even tripled counting. The initial figure for cotton output in 1836 was $77 million which equated to 5% of the GDP - GDP  is defined as the annual value of all the final goods and services produced; minus goods and services used in production. This Baptist calls “the economic activity,” and gets right, at least as it pertains to the first part of the definition. The second part of the definition is either overlooked or ignored, and Baptist  “…adds the cost of the inputs to the production of cotton,” Bradley Hensen (Economic professor at Mary Washington University), points out.

Baptist adds “freight, insurance and interest paid on commercial credit; purchase of slaves; purchase of land, cost of credit on these; tools used by slaves; luxury goods bought by slaveholding families; profits of the merchants; cotton related trades…” etc. This is a clear violation of Macroeconomics, and is called “double counting,” Hensen argues.

Stanley Engerman, the leading expert on slavery economics, agreeing with Hensen offered an analogy on what he called the “double and triple counting and some confusion of assets and income flows…,” on the part of Baptist. It resembles, Engerman says, 

“the great effects claimed by an NFL club when trying to convince city taxpayers that they should provide the money to build a new stadium because of all the stadium’s presumed primary and secondary effects.” 

Additionally, the logical conclusion of Baptist’s method is also self-refuting, because to double count for one good - cotton, would also require double counting for all other goods making up the GDP that year, and the years that followed.

Still, the most revealing aspect of Baptist’s accounting is the words he uses to qualify his calculations - “perhaps $40 million, probably added up to about $100 million, might have added up to $200 million.” Back of the envelope accounting is meant to simplify not misrepresent reality or to prop-up ones idealogical expectations. Here Baptist clearly fabricates numbers, to support his version of history. That sees cotton production as contributing to about half of the US GDP. 

Magness concludes,

“The main takeaways are that (1) the actual percentage of GDP derived from slavery is measured from final goods and services that involved slave-based production, and (2) Ed Baptist clearly did not understand what he was doing when he calculated his statistic. Cotton was by far the biggest item on the list of final goods and services, and, while its output varied year by year, it is probably reasonable to place slave-based goods in the mid to high single digits, not the 50 percent claim that Coates repeated.”

Baptist's methodology is indicative of those who believe history is to be recast and not simply reported. Making things up or obfuscating the truth is acceptable, because their vision of what history and society should be, is not to be impeded, not even by lack of evidence or inaccuracies. If reparations is to appeal to our better angels and our sense of moral duty, wilfully fudging the numbers is a gross violation of this, tantamount to fraud if issued under Baptist's and others preferred calculations.

Capitalism, South vs. North Economy

Baptist’s efforts are best described as academic activism disguised as historical scholarship, with the primary goal of demonising industrial capitalism. By grounding its expansion, even its genesis on the exploited, scar riddled backs of cotton plantation slaves, and the raw cotton industry. Called the “New History of Capitalism,” books like Sven Beckert’s Empire of Cotton and Walter Johnson’s River of Dark Dreams, are other examples of this “genre of scholarship.” Economists Alan L. Olmstead and Paul W. Rhode argue that these books and their authors, similar to Baptist, “mishandle historical evidence...," and also "mischaracterise important events” - evidence and events that are crucial to understanding slavery, the inner workings of plantations and the true source of the Industrial Revolution. 

The motives of these revisionists appear far from academic, especially considering that many ardent pro-slavery apologists like George Fitzhugh (1806-1881) relentlessly attacked capitalism. Fitzhugh claimed, quite remarkably, that the capitalist structure of professional class/non-slave labourers found in most of the North US and in parts of Europe were much more oppressive than the southern master/slave structure. He also accused capitalist of exploitation motivated by greed. While with masterful and sinister agility justified sexual assault of slaves in the South, as educational encounters.

As a consequence of overlooking the pro-slavery opposition to capitalism, also overlooked or avoided is the commentary on the competing economic systems of the North vs. South United States pre-Civil War. Instead, overwhelming attention and emphasis is given to the South and its slave economy. Resulting in a gross-generalised view of the American sentiment and commerce activity, as pro-slavery. Ta-Nehisi Coates in his essay The Case for Reparations writes, “Nearly one forth of all white Southerners owned slaves“ and yet he also concludes that “The early American economy was built on slave labour.” Side-stepping the contradiction, Coates admits, the sparseness of slavery; while positing its central role in the American economy. The other assumption being asserted, is that owning slaves resulted in wealth accrued. Certainly individual slaveowners may have become rich, however to assume that slavery had a positive impact on the national or Southern economy, or on society as a whole, would be inaccurate. The late economist Walter E. Williams observes that,

“the poorest states and regions of our country were places where slavery flourished: Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia, while the richest states and regions were those where slavery was outlawed: Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts.” 

The negative returns on slavery practices was not an isolated occurrence, the same provincial economic discrepancy could be found in Brazil, with its large slave population, as well as Middle Eastern/Arab countries before tapping their massive oil repositories; areas where slavery was concentrated were poorer than areas that featured no slave population. And rather than being a source of wealth, Thomas Sowell points out that the ownership of slaves, particularly those not used for commercial production, but as status symbols or domestic workers were a “drain on wealth already possessed,” in most cases. Consequently, generational wealth was not guaranteed, as antebellum Southerners were often in debt, having their plantation reclaimed by creditors, due to extravagant spending. Socially the South faced similar depressive outcomes, describe as the “…most backward region of the country,” Sowell writes. And if this economic and social stagnation could be blamed on the Civil War, it doesn’t explain the same pattern seen in countries like Brazil that fought no civil wars on the basis of slavery. To further dispel the bankrupting Civil War argument pre-Civil War Southern writer Hinton Helper wrote, “slavery, and nothing but slavery, has retarded the progress and prosperity of our portion of the Union.”

Today, that legacy has persisted, as research shows that Northeastern states continue to be wealthier than Southeastern states according to the Social, Economic and Housing Statistics Division of the census bureau (2017), p. 10. 

State Responsibility and Thabiti's Biblical Argument

Acknowledging the economic conditions of the South US is pertinent, as Thabiti Anyabwile and others, have invoked the state (the political community that enforces government rules) as the entity that should shoulder the responsibility and compensatory demands. Thabiti writes,

“I’m focusing on the state as the actor owing reparations to African Americans…The state derived inestimable benefit from those laws both economically and socially. So the state, in my view, is an appropriate target for reparations advocacy.”

Before exploring the efficacy of placing the yoke of responsibility around the neck of the state, lets tackle the Bible argument first - Thabiti’s argument is predicated on events taken from the Old Testament book of Ezra. There are three opposing observations to consider:

1. the argument for reparations, in principle, taken from biblical events found in the book of Ezra (as does all the Old Testament), depicts a distinct people group (the Israelites) and their relationship with God and other nations. This distinction is an important and necessary feature in establishing and tracing the messianic blood line (Matt. 1-1). Therefore reparations given to the subsequent generations of Israelites released from Babylonian captivity, were given by a distinct people group; to a separate and distinct people group - those responsible and those receiving restitution was unequivocal. This would not be the case presently in the US, whose population consist of Eastern Europeans, Irish, Jewish, Scandinavians, Asians etc. who came after slavery had ended. And what of those whites during slavery, who didn’t own slaves? Should their progeny still be held accountable? Thabiti does select an example that seems to cover this, as there were other peoples engrafted into the Babylonian citizenry after the fact, “the peoples Beyond the River”, who contributed to the compensation. The difference is the subsequent generations of Israelites were not engrafted into Babylon like the peoples Beyond the River were - to enjoy the progress, prosperity, protection, funding, and overall benefits of the Babylonian state, as recognised citizens. In contrast, black Americans have been given full access to the fruits of American progress, as recognised citizens since the 1960's. So the question is: would the Israelites be given reparations if they were made Babylonian citizens?

2. God’s principle in Ezekiel 18, on the individual existing within the collective and  the spiritual and social responsibility that individual incurs, irrespective of ancestral sins, require exploration. If for nothing else, to acknowledge that there is not a singular principle applicable in the biblical understanding of compensation. Especially when considering, once again, the “innocence objection” and the specificity of the crime of slavery. “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” 

3. God himself enacted this particular compensation, taken from Ezra. Using the same principle, we’ve seen other historical instances of this being done, though not necessarily initiated by God directly e.g. Holocaust survivors. Still, reparations is not always issued. For example the early Christian church and their brutal persecution by the Roman Empire. Also, as I’ve argued in part 1, most, if not all ethnic groups (including white Europeans) have a historical claim to be compensated for slavery. Yet according to His plan and will, every injustice will not be addressed on this side of Christ’s second coming and according to our preferences. It is reasonable to posit, that forcing it to be so, and not employing other gospel/spiritual virtues like forgiveness (Matt. 6:12), may be operating outside God’s will and purpose. Additionally, reparation efforts in conjunction with untenable justifications and misdiagnosed societal disparities, can and has resulted in disastrous social and spiritual consequences, as those opposing reparations, in this case, report. As to Thabiti's implication that to be a detractor of reparations, is to be critical of God and His actions: it is not mutually exclusive to say that a principle is godly and good; and can also result in injustice if implemented improperly. Using God to justify immorality is a grift as old as time.

In regards to the economics, there is substantial evidence that shows that Southern states in particular, did not “derived inestimable benefit…,” from slavery. Especially when, once again, considering the immense cost of life and purse the Civil War incurred, to end slavery. And while there is agreement that implicating the state as the restitution agent, certainly has its biblical grounding. A direct line from the biblical principle to the practical execution of reparations is quite difficult to draw, because of the US’s lack of historical symmetry with ancient Israel. The asymmetry is most evident in the social accommodations and financial amends, America has already made to acknowledge and correct its past oppressive and discriminative practices e.g. The Civil Rights bills of the 1960’s; the 22 trillion (with a t) dollars spent since 1964 in urban/social revitalisation programs and LBJ’s War On Poverty; and the implementation of Affirmative Action, the only racially discriminative law currently on the books, which favours black Americans. Now whether all these measures have been successful is another matter, but their general intent, as promoted, is undebatable. 

Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the state conveniently represents a robust financial source unfettered by time or the grave for those promoting reparations. By laying responsibility at its feet, in this case, does three things: 1) it creates a historical bridge, that only provides passage for the collective guilt of whites, and bars any acknowledgement of the positive gains or of the national contriteness concerning slavery and discrimination 2) recognised as a steady income-stream, it also justifies the positions of those who make a living from government-funded programs aimed at correcting societal ills and 3) in particular it provides the illusion that present day citizens are insulated from direct financial responsibility. In reality the state is not an entity separate from the citizenry, especially not economically. The state derives its funding from income, sales, and other taxes, along with transfers from the federal government. In other words, monies to be used for reparations would be obtained by taxing the labour, talents and time of current citizens. It is more confiscation and redistribution of physical wealth, between races, plain and simple - from faultless whites and others to blacks, who are either: not entitled to compensation; or for whom compensation can not be conclusively determined. 

Instructive is the biblical illustration in Luke 3:12-14, when “unscheduled” sinners (tax collectors and soldiers specifically) came to John the Baptist seeking to repent of their sins, and asked what imperatives they should adopt going forward. To the tax collectors he said,… “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.”… and to the soldiers he said,…“Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.” Just consider the “social justice” pretence under which reparations are demanded - the guilt of America/whites are being held hostage, with the promise of absolution if the ransom (aka reparations) is paid. And if not paid, remain eternally indebted to blacks as the source of all their ills including their socioeconomic lag. If accusations concerning poor societal outcomes as a symptom of slavery and racism, to justify a large payout, are proven to be unfounded, this would biblically qualify as extortion.  

Racial Wealth Gap 

Bolstering the sentiments for reparations is the socioeconomic disparities, starkly exhibited in the racial wealth gap between black and white American households. The white household earns 60% (p. 5) more than the black household does; and in regards to generational wealth, whites are three times more likely to inherit money from their families. Disparities such as these are said to validate the claim that discriminating practices are still operational in US institutions, and that the majority of American wealth and prosperity, as Ta-Nehisi Coates puts it, is “ill-gotten.” Once again, Coates's sentiment is irreconcilable with the fact that states who practiced slavery were/are poorer than states that did not, and the majority of whites did not own slaves. As previously stated, slavery’s contribution to GDP per year pre-Civil War, at best, was still in the single digits, leaving 90 plus percent to be accounted for through other commerce. 

In regards to wealth generally being a result of a initial historical crime - culture and political commentator Coleman Huges, notes Singapore as an interesting “case study.” Singapore “enjoys higher median wealth per adult” than both: Britain, that colonised it in the nineteenth century; and Portugal that raided it in the seventeenth century.” In 2021 Singapore was recognised as the 3rd most richest country on earth by Global Finance. And what was noted as the source of Singapore’s success? “hard work and smart policy, becoming one of the most business-friendly places in the world.“ Furthermore, using the 2016-2017 "median wealth per adult” breakdown, to rank the “Top 6 Countries That Grew Filthy Rich From Enslaving Black People,” published by Atlanta Black Star, those countries were positioned as follows: Spain (21st), Portugal (30th), Netherlands (12th), France (9th), England (11th), America (24th) - none in the top five. In conclusion, it was found that true lasting wealth in modern nations is and was created through ingenuity, effort and policies that hit more than they missed; and not through brutal confiscation or atrocities.

But do the differences of outcome trotted out by “social justice” advocates, prove discrimination at least? Or do they represent what economists Thomas Sowell calls “Aha! statistics?” Which can be defined as - the search for and use of specific numbers that are consonant with an individual’s preconceptions; to the exclusion of other numbers, typically in the same statistical set, that diametrically oppose a desired conclusion. For example, in the same Census Bureau study of median household income Asians are at the top of list, not whites, and Hispanics also outperform the black household (see p. 5, 8 of census study). 

Similarly, in what has been widely deemed as “predatory lending practices” by banks, news outlets like the Washington Post in a series of 1993 articles, were quick to label disparities in lending patterns between black and white applicants, discriminatory. But failed to mention that the same statistics showed that Asian-Americans were turned down less than whites. Was this discrimination and racism towards whites? Dr. Sowell observes, that when variables like credit score, debt, and property risk are accounted for, the assumed similarities between black and white applicants are not a one-one comparison. And when variables were identical the discrepancies in outcome almost disappear. When you consider preferential programs like subprime mortgages that targeted lending to minority recipients - the discrepancies shrink even farther. What is ironically overlooked is that black-owned banks, displayed similar patterns of lending. Rarely, if ever, are other people groups included in these black and white discussions by pundits, for no other reason it seems, than the fear of being robbed of the opportunity to exclaim “Aha! Racism! Aha! Discrimination! Aha! Legacy of slavery!”

Racial Wealth Gap: Disparities Do Not Equal Discrimination / Inconvenient Minorities 

Three assumptions undergird this bias statistical interpretation and is harboured in the “social justice” ideology or “vision,” Thomas Sowell argues. The assumptions and I’m paraphrasing, are that: 1) minorities would experience the same successful outcomes, if not for discriminative practices imposed by others - equal opportunity leads to equal outcome 2) unequal statistical outcomes are in and of themselves evidence for the preconceived cause(s) that created them (e.g. blacks earning less than whites; this must be a result of discrimination and racism) and 3) government intervention is necessary and “will produce either efficiently better or morally superior outcomes,” even triumphing over the lack of will and personal responsibility in an individual. Proving Sowell’s premise - Ibram X Kendi author of How To Be An Antiracist, declared that  “When you truly believe that racial groups are equal, then you also believe that racial disparities must be the result of racial discrimination.” 

Kendi dismantled his ideological position recently, specifically "white privilege," when he in October 2021, tweeted his disapproval of reported white college applicants pretending to be black, latino or pacific islanders, on college applications, to circumvent the discriminating effects of Affirmative Action. Recognising the ideological contradiction, that it was minorities receiving privilege, he quickly deleted the tweet, because in his worldview, discrimination only occurs in one direction. And he had just inadvertently advertised evidence to the contrary.

Also, Kendi and his ilk are mostly mum in tackling the meteoric mobility of Asian-Americans. Their mobility could not be because they experienced no discrimination, as the California Alien Land Law of 1913 to1952 shows. It prohibited the ownership of farm land and other property to Japanese-American immigrants. Not to mention the interment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II. Yet, Japanese-Americans by 1970 were out-earning Anglo, Irish, German, Italian and Polish Americans. Currently, Asian-Americans in general represent the highest earners per household in America, (this includes Indians, Filipinos and Pakistanis occupying top spots). They are truly an Inconvenient Minority to the “social justice” ideology. 

Similar to the Asian community, a damaging omission to the “social justice” ideology is the disparities within the black community itself. In the1920’s Harlem, the majority of black-owned businesses were owned and operated by Caribbean blacks, not native-born black Americans. West Indian women in New York’s garment district were found to occupy more skilled jobs. In the 1970 census, West Indian families in the New York metropolitan area out-earned black American families by 28%. The offspring of the West Indian immigrants feared even better, out-earning black families by 58%, Sowell found. The majority of black alumni for Harvard and other elite colleges as of 2004, were West Indian or African immigrants, or second generation. The same intra-ethnic disparities can be observed in other states, like Boston. This is significant, because Caribbean blacks as well as Africans are indistinguishable from black Americans, especially their children, they share a history of slavery, and would be subject to the same discriminations and socioeconomic hurdles black Americans face. If race and racism cannot explain these differences then what is left? The overwhelming variable that is constantly asserted by trained observers is “culture.” And if culture is the culprit; reparations will not be the apparatus to achieve sustainable economic and social growth. 

Three Conversions 

The 16th century reformer Martin Luther said “There are three conversions necessary in the Christian life: the conversion of the heart, the mind, and the purse.” As it pertains to the discussion of the economics in reparations, the stewardship of God’s money is in distinct view (Ps. 24:1; Haggai 2:8 et al). Whether it comes out of our pocket literally or is handled by our governing officials - how we obtain it, spend it or vote on how it is spent, has social as well as spiritual implications. Wanting to protect ones money from theft, under what is rightly perceived as cultural and emotional blackmail is justified. And engaging in dishonesty or obfuscation of the truth in order to secure monies from innocent people is wrong. “Social justice” in the contemporary sense, recasts history, society and reality through the lens of race, while ignoring inconvenient evidence and events. It is no more than a cosmetic term meant to induce an uncritical emotive response, that is not congruent with the Bible, gospel, Christianity or justice. Conversion of the mind means that the truth, ultimately found in Christ, and whatever knowledge corresponds with reality as He has constructed it, wherever it is found (Jn 14:6; 8:32), should not be compromised, but sought in full. Conversion of the heart means the virtues exercised by a heart made flesh, are informed by a Christ-like mind that seeks to align with God’s will and purposes and not our inconsistent and unreliable emotions (Rom. 12:2). 

Thabiti concludes his post by saying "The principle is solid. The programs and policies require debate.” I again agree, in part. I disagree that the principle is applicable to America. And as for “policies and programs” the wisdom of economist Walter E. Williams is invaluable when he said “Compassionate policy requires dispassionate analysis. Policy intentions and policy effects often bear no relationship to one another.” With or without reparations the unfortunate reality is that black Americans have been in favour of far too many “compassionate” policies and programs, that have only resulted in the decimation of the black family and urban cities. But what black America has not heard and imbibed nearly enough of, is "dispassionate" and honest analysis. 

References:

Thabiti Anyabwile, Reparations Are Biblical, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/reparations-are-biblical/

Phillip W. Magness, The Statistical Errors of The Reparations Agenda, https://www.aier.org/article/the-statistical-errors-of-the-reparations-agenda/

Olivia Paschal and Madeleine Carlisle, Read Ta-Nehisi Coates’s Testimony on Reparations, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/ta-nehisi-coates-testimony-house-reparations-hr-40/592042/

Edward E. Baptist, The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism, p. 321-22

Bradley A. Henson, The Back of Ed Baptist's Envelope, https://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-back-of-ed-baptists-envelope.html

Stanley L. Engerman, (quoted by Phillip W. Magness) Review of The Business of Slavery and the Rise of American Capitalism, 1815-1860 by Calvin Schermerhorn and The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism by Edward E. Baptist, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jel.20151334

Alan L. Olmstead and Paul W. Rhode, Cotton, slavery, and the new history of capitalism, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014498317302292

Mary Alice Kirkpatrick, (Summary) of George Fitzhugh, 1806-1881, Cannibals All! or, Slaves Without Masters, https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/fitzhughcan/summary.html

Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Case for Reparations, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

Walter E. Williams, Language And Thought, https://www.dailywire.com/news/williams-language-and-thought

Hinton Helper (quoted in Thomas Sowell’s Black Rednecks & White Liberals) from The  Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It, p. 34

Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks & White Liberals, p. 3

Ibid. p. 157, 158

Coleman Hughes, Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap, https://quillette.com/2018/07/19/black-american-culture-and-the-racial-wealth-gap/

Thomas Sowell, Wealth, Poverty and Politics, p. 235

Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities, p. 215

Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, p. 34-35

Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning, p. 11

Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks & White Liberals, p. 31, 32, 33

Ira De A. Reid, The Negro Immigrant: His Background, Characteristics and Social Adjustment, 1899-1937, p. 248.

Ibid. p. 138-139

Ibid. p. 120

Ibid. p. 35

Nancy Foner,“West Indians in New York City and London: A Comparative Analysis,” International Migration Review, Summer 1979, p. 285.

Randy Alcorn, (Martin Luther quote) Managing God’s Money, Introduction, p. xiv

Walter E. Williams, Race & Economics: How much can be blamed on discrimination? Kindle location p. 50