Slavery Effects Disappear in Two Generations

FrontPageMagazine/The Dartmouth Online ^ | November 7, 2002 | Lance Kramer

[SJackson]

Economic disparities between the descendants of former slaves and free blacks largely disappeared within just two generations following emancipation, according to a study by Dartmouth economist Bruce Sacerdote that may lend ammunition to opponents of slavery reparations.

"There's nothing positive you can say about slavery," Sacerdote said. "But what the study shows is how little slavery actually has to do with today's problems. It seems rather unlikely that slavery itself caused a lot of the racism problems present in the U.S. today."

While the study does not set out to directly address the national debate on the topic, Sacerdote noted that his finding could be used to argue against slavery reparations.

Other economists and those involved in the reparations debate had varied reactions to the study.

Conservative thinker David Horowitz -- who made headlines over a year ago when he ran an advertisement in college newspapers nationwide citing reasons discounting the idea of slave reparations -- said the study's findings support his viewpoint.

"The study is a very strong argument against affirmative action and all these artificial programs set out by the government to rig the system," Horowitz said. "Even under the circumstances of extreme racism, it's obvious that slaves can make these advances in a short space and that once you remove the artificial barriers, the problem will solve itself."

However, supporters of reparations -- like Dorothy Benton Lewis, national co-chair of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America -- argued that the study's central question was irrelevant.

"The issue here isn't whether blacks could 'catch-up,'" Lewis said. "What [Sacerdote] is comparing here is victim to victim. Both of these groups were victims of white supremacy and that thanks to the attidudes of racist people, both groups have experienced the same outcome."

"If that's the kind of bogus research Dartmouth produces, I'm ashamed -- Dartmouth should be ashamed," Lewis continued.

Many studies to date have examined the differentials between blacks and whites. But Sacerdote's study, entitled "Slavery and the Intergenerational Transmission of Human Capital," is the first of its kind to specifically measure the status of the children and grandchildren of former slaves as compared to the descendants of free blacks.

"To date there's been no real empirical study of whether families were able to recover from the effects of slavery," Dartmouth economics professor Eric Edmonds said. "Bruce is really blazing the way in an important area. Prior to his study, this particular area has been ignored."

"It is an impressive piece of research," said Gavin Wright, an economics professor at Stanford University. "I would not have thought it possible to compare the descendants of free-born blacks, but Sacerdote shows that indeed it is. And the results are extremely interesting."

Sacerdote compared data on the children and grandchildren of free blacks and former slaves from the 1880 and 1920 U.S. censuses, concentrating on the outcome measures of literacy, school attendance, whether a child lives in a female-headed household and two measures of adult occupation.

Wright said that while each of the measures has its respective limitations, they nonetheless apply to the question at hand.

For example, the study found that the children of former slaves were less likely to be enrolled in school than the children of blacks born free. This gap disappeared, however, when examining the grandchildren of free blacks and former slaves.

"I was surprised at how quickly you get convergence between the two groups," Sacerdote said. "Today's biggest topic for domestic policy is black-white differentials, and the simplest explanation is that slavery was the direct cause."

Sacerdote noted, however, that emancipation itself did little to reduce economic disparities between blacks and whites. He said the results of his study indicate that other social factors must account for current social inequities between African-Americans and whites.

"It's certainly reasonable to think that past discrimination in the pre-civil rights era caused disadvantages that have persisted for a long time and that are still observable today," Sacerdote said. "But no one actually agrees on one specific factor to blame for these problems. There's something out there -- we just don't know what it is exactly."

According to the study, convergence between the two groups occurred substantially in every category except in the prevalence of female-headed households among the descendants of slaves. Sacerdote cited this as one possible way slavery could have had measurable and long-lasting effects on successive generations of black Americans.

Sacerdote and his colleagues emphasized that the point of his study was not to examine the legitimacy of affirmative action or slave reparations, though they accepted that the study will be used in many different ways since it has been released into public domain.

"A lot of the reparations debate isn't at all about the long-term consequences of slavery. Rather, people are trying to get paid the wages slaves were never paid," Professor Edmonds said. "Bruce's study has nothing at all to do with that aspect of the reparations debate. Rather, he is concerned about how individuals recovered from the experience of slavery and the distortions in investments, specialization, etc. that slavery implied."

[ClearCase_guy]

"The issue here isn't whether blacks could 'catch-up,'" Lewis said. "What [Sacerdote] is comparing here is victim to victim. Both of these groups were victims of white supremacy and that thanks to the attidudes of racist people, both groups have experienced the same outcome."

Has this lady read Thomas Sowell's excellent articles about Black attainment in the 1940's and 1950's? Many wonderful communities. Fabulous schools which often were of higher quality than white schools in the same city. Less than 100 years after slavery, blacks in this country truly were on the verge of becoming equals to whites. Then the Great Society kicked in and the liberals made sure that the blacks were kept in their place at the bottom of the barrel.

Democrats: didn't free the slaves, fought reconstruction, implemented Jim Crow, founded the KKK, supported segregation, opposed Civil Rights laws, and created contemporary legislation (affirmative action, etc) which says that judging people by the color of their skin is what society should do.

The Democrat agenda is anti-black.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Hello? I'm no advocate of making reparations to the descendants of slaves but I think this article is missing a very important point.

Namely, that 300 years of race-based slavery created a climate of racism and segregation against black people in general. The attitude of whites has had a direct affect on the economic situation of blacks. If you don't think this is the case you are fooling yourself (Keep in mind I am talking about the last 137 years of history, not necessarily present day). This point was mentioned, "It's certainly reasonable to think that past discrimination in the pre-civil rights era caused disadvantages that have persisted for a long time and that are still observable today,"

. but then dismissed,

"But no one actually agrees on one specific factor to blame for these problems. There's something out there -- we just don't know what it is exactly."

The real question is, have we, as a society, taken the necessary steps to truly compensate for this admitted disadvantage rather than hand out some pittance of a check for "past wrongs"? Do people in this country still judge others by the color of their skin? Are qualified indviduals denied promotions or scholarships or access to services because they are black?

The answer is occassionaly, but most of the time no, not any more. This was once the case, but we have worked hard to change it(Don't forget the same people who shouted "segregation forever" are still alive. Human beings are not known to be quick to alter such attitudes). Have we gone to far? Quite possibly. Are some people going to be poor and stupid no matter what opportunities they have? Absolutely.

Are all men created equal? Absolutely not. But the situation of one's birth should not be a limitation on one's chances.

Everyone should get a chance, but no one should get a crutch.

As far as compensation for unpaid wages of slaves forefathers are concrned, this is a direct consequence of the fund set up by German companies to compensate Nazi slave laborors. These are similar but there is one glaring difference that makes the argument moot, those people are still alive.

[Rebelbase]

"study by Dartmouth economist Bruce Sacerdote "

Soon to be ex-Dartmouth economist.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

My ass. Spanish expenditures to maintain its empire in the 1500s and 1600s so wrecked the economy that they are still being felt in Spanish economic cycles today. My mother knew a poor man born a slave - this was in the early '50s - and he hadn't overcome the effects at that point, nor had his family.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

My ass. Spanish expenditures to maintain its empire in the 1500s and 1600s so wrecked the economy that they are still being felt in Spanish economic cycles today. My mother knew a poor man born a slave - this was in the early '50s - and he hadn't overcome the effects at that point, nor had his family.

[ClearCase_guy]

Perhaps Spain should pay reparations. But I haven't heard a good reason why the US should pay reparations.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I mentioned Spain only because of the "two generations" finding. I agree - the US owes nothing, but any corporation which has maintained a continuous existence since that period and was dumb enough to retain records is and should be in some trouble.

[oyez]

bfl

[ClearCase_guy]

Not to be harsh, but there's not much logic flow in your statement.

I mentioned Spain only because of the "two generations" finding.

Why bring in Spain at all? The topic is race is the US. Other geographic entities are quite irrelevant.

I agree - the US owes nothing, but any corporation which has maintained a continuous existence since that period and was dumb enough to retain records is and should be in some trouble.

Dumb enough to retain records? Historians shudder at such thinking. Strictly speaking, your sentence indicates that they should be punished for keeping records. I'll bet that you mean the corporations that were involved in slavery and which kept records may be liable today. But the victims are dead, the perpetrators are dead. Most of the corporations no longer exist.

What you seem to be proposing is punishing corporatiosn which manage to maintain existence for long periods of time, and which keep proper records. Are you trying to discourage these behaviors? Don't tell me you're trying to discourage slavery -- that hardly seems necessary. You won't be rewarding the victims. You won't be punishing perpetrators. What you will be doing is influencing future behaviors. Which behaviors? Maintaining records? Corporate longevity and success?

[babyface00]

Corporations are non-entities, created by government. They are only the sum total of the investments of the stockholders, and the decisions of the managers chosen by the stockholder representatives (board).

Corporations that were responsible for slavery were engaged in a legal activity. The corporations were composed of stockholders who are now all dead. Any profits were long distributed to the stockholders.

Perhaps, you could make an argument that those governments who made slavery legal should be responsible. However, in the case of the U.S. being a representative democracy, all those who participated by voting are dead, and all their representatives are dead. The taxes they paid were long ago spent (the U.S. government is in debt, so certainly there is no money back from pre 19th century taxpayers).

All those who were victims of slavery in the U.S. are dead. All those who participated in enslaving them are dead. Even those on both sides who can trace their lineage back to slaveholder or slave comprise very small groups.

I'm not even considering the billions of dollars spent largely on blacks during the "great society" fiasco.

So, what it comes down to, is a large percent of the U.S. population who are not ancestors of slaveholders (and whose ancestors probably weren't even in the U.S.) have to shell out their tax money, or their investment capital to a bunch of other individuals, solely based on some as-yet-undisclosed formula to determine those individuals' "blackness" even though most of them aren't decendents of slaves and none of them were victims.

Its lunacy, which is why it makes perfect sense to the Left.

[MSgt Smith]

Whether people believe the Bible is the literal word of God or just a book of moral stories most agree the authors had the human condition pegged. With thousands of years of observation behind them they knew the effects (sins)of the parents lasted seven generations. I think I’ll go with that over some Dartmouth economist.

[webstersII]

The issue is how people think. If those people who are descendents of the Spaniards that you mentioned don't ever overcome their heritage in their own minds, then they will never prosper. How else could Spain still have these same economic challenges even centuries later? These thought processes exist in certain populations and are taught to successive generations, that's why it's self-perpetuating. And they will remain in the same condition they are in until enough individuals overcome that way of thinking and inspire the rest of the population. That's what happened with about 5-10% of the people in this country back around the mid-1700's. And you know the result of that.

It's up to each of us to overcome the things that hold us back. No one can do it for us, the government can't do it. It's up to each of us.

[billbears]

Thoughts gentlemen?

[rdb3]

Thoughts gentlemen?

Sure. Personally speaking, I've never thought of the so-called "slavery effects" because I've never been a slave. Saying that there were effects on me is hilarious!

If anything, I've studied history in this light and have come to the conclusion that putting on the cloak of victimhood because my forefathers were in bondage is gross disrespect to what they suffered. This also includes reparations. If I didn't personally suffer, then why should I receive financial gain from what I didn't suffer? That's blood money that I refuse to seek.

For each and every dream that was thwarted due to either racism or Jim Crow codified in law, I seek an achievement. Each achievement, therefore, is dedicated to those who didn't have the same chances that I have, of which I take advantage.

But I'll be damned if I ever thought of myself as some pantywaist, first-time-cycle pubescent girl. I'm a man, and a bad motha... (shut yo' mouth!). Some say that's cockiness. I say it's confidence. Some may say that this is conceit. I say it's being convinced.

Ya heard?

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.

[stainlessbanner]

It's attitude. If a person (or class of people) believes he is a victim, he is. There is no entitlement, in fact, I'll bet most Americans today did not recieve a big inheritance or gift from their ancestors. I could be dead wrong, but I know there was no silver spoon in my mouth.

I can whine all day that my ancestors weren't born into luxury and that keeps me down. But the fact is, I didn't grovel in it, I chose to make my own way.

Black middle class is the fastest growing segment of society today. I don't see them being held back.

[Rytwyng]

ping, again... same article, fresher thread. I'd be interested in your opinions on this.

[MEGoody]

"Spanish expenditures to maintain its empire in the 1500s and 1600s so wrecked the economy that they are still being felt in Spanish economic cycles today. My mother knew a poor man born a slave - this was in the early '50s - and he hadn't overcome the effects at that point, nor had his family."

Oh, baloney. If Spain is having economic problems, it's not because they held slaves over 400 years ago. And if your mother knew a guy who had been born a slave, that's quite different from saying the great, great grandchild of a slave, living in a country where slavery was abolished 150 years ago, is experiencing the affects of slavery.

[MEGoody]

"but any corporation which has maintained a continuous existence since that period and was dumb enough to retain records is and should be in some trouble"

Why corporations? Because they have deep pockets? You're a weird little man. Go back to DU.

[Henrietta]

Are qualified indviduals denied promotions or scholarships or access to services because they are black?

No, under the guise of "Affirmative Action," qualified individuals are denied promotions, scholarships, and access to services because they are WHITE.