Walter Williams and the Race Hustlers

Wanjiru Njoya

In his book, Race & Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination? Walter Williams argues that socioeconomic outcomes are not determined by race.

Williams’ argument has infuriated race hustlers — traders in identity politics — who promote the theory that all socioeconomic outcomes are determined by race. According to race hustlers, the only way for black people to advance is by seizing power and using it to wreak some form of revenge on white people as reflected in the nostrums of critical race theory: The only remedy for past discrimination is present and future discrimination. Race hustlers view the institutions of America as “whiteness” and therefore as obstacles to the racial equality they seek. This is what they mean by their “abolish whiteness” slogans. Jude Russo argues that race hustlers view American institutions not as part of a shared American heritage but as the source of racial oppression; paradoxically, the race hustlers are “treating the characteristics of the American nation, from the Constitution to the English language, as manifestations of ‘whiteness,’ and the consequent direction of institutional power inward against the institutions themselves.”

According to the race hustlers, no amount of freedom is significant unless it comes with full political domination and control over others. They are wont to dismiss any progress as “not enough.” Nothing will ever be enough until they are lords over all they survey. Thus, we hear race hustlers saying that conditions today are worse than during Jim Crow, that blacks do not enjoy civil rights and therefore the civil rights acts of 1866 and 1964 achieved nothing, and similar claims. To race hustlers, all the evidence amassed by Walter Williams in support of his arguments would therefore be irrelevant.

Williams emphasizes the analytical distinction between whether a phenomenon (such as racial discrimination) exists and whether that phenomenon is the cause (or a significant cause) of life outcomes. He is not simply making a general abstract observation that correlation does not prove causation but embarks on a specific inquiry into whether poverty can be blamed on racism. Thus, Williams does not argue that racism (or even significant racism) “doesn’t exist” as claimed by race hustlers. Williams explains: “This is not to say discrimination does not exist. Nor is it to say discrimination has no adverse effects. For policy purposes, however, the issue is not whether or not racial discrimination exists but the extent to which it explains what we see today“ (emphasis added).

Williams’ main premise is that, 

…people will not engage in activities — including racial discrimination — no matter what the cost. Although racial discrimination imposes costs on those discriminated against, the person or entity doing the discriminating also bears costs. Recognizing that, along with the generalization that people instinctively seek to reduce costs, suggests that one of the contributions economics can make is to analyze methods a discriminator uses to reduce them.

Williams highlights the material progress made by black Americans, observing that “as a group, black Americans include many of the world’s richest and most famous personalities.” Yet nobody argues that black millionaires are only rich and famous because they never experienced racism. On the contrary, the billionaire Oprah Winfrey says she too has experienced racism: “The higher up you go in the chain of capitalism,” she said, “people don’t expect you to be sitting at certain board tables. I sense it, and you know it.”

Williams also points out that black Americans are not the only people who have historically experienced racism: 

In addition to black Americans, the Irish, Italians, Jews, Puerto Ricans, Poles, Chinese, Japanese, Swedish, and most other ethnic groups have shared the experience of being discriminated against by one means or another. … Contrary to what is often thought, no racial or ethnic group has a monopoly on racial oppression and discrimination.

Of particular interest is Williams’ analysis of early black economic achievement. This is instructive because it cannot be argued that there was no racism in America’s early years. He describes the practice of self-hire, in which “slaves turned over a portion of their earnings to their owners in exchange for de facto freedom.” Williams’ point is not that this means slaves were free or that it did not matter if they were slaves, as race hustlers claim, but that it shows the level of skill, economic productivity and entrepreneurialism achieved even in conditions of slavery and servitude.

Nor were these merely exceptional cases — it was a widespread phenomenon that benefited both slaves and slave owners: “As early as 1733-34, a Charles Town, South Carolina, grand jury criticized slaveholders for allowing their slaves ‘to work out by the Week,’ and ‘bring in a certain Hire.’” In 1831, in North Carolina, a law was passed to prohibit masters from allowing their slaves to go free on penalty of a fine — a law made necessary by the fact that this was widespread practice. Williams observes that “similar statutes were enacted in most slave states.”

Indeed, Williams observes that “so common was the practice of self-hire that historians have described the people so employed as ‘Quasi-Free Negroes’ or ‘Slaves Without Masters.’” Moreover, the increasing restrictions on these arrangements between slaves and slave owners had limited effect: “Despite all the legal prohibitions, the self-hire and quasi-free practices prospered and expanded. … Even owners with a strong ideological commitment to the institution of slavery found it profitable to permit self-hire, particularly for the most talented and trusted bondsmen.”

Race hustlers who fail to grasp the point of Williams’ analysis claim that capitalists say slavery was good because it allowed the practice of self-hire. But Williams’ point is not that enslaving people is good as long as you allow them to self-hire; his point is that even during slavery, it was beneficial to both sides to allow free economic participation: “Slaves, although obligated to pay their masters a monthly or yearly fee, could keep for themselves what they earned above that amount.”

Similarly, Williams’ point about quasi-free slaves and slaves without masters is not, as race hustlers assert, that being quasi-free is sufficient or that it is fine to be a slave if you have a good master. His point is that even in conditions of slavery, many slaves carved out such a significant scope of economic freedom and progress that it would be reasonable to expect even more economic progress today from people who are actually free and not merely quasi-free.

Williams also gives many examples of the economic gains made by free blacks who could not vote but nevertheless “dominated skilled crafts like bricklaying, cigar making, carpentry and shoe making.” The point he makes here is not that this shows that blacks should be confined to such trades, as many race hustlers seem to think, but that even in conditions of political disenfranchisement, blacks amassed millions of dollars’ worth of property and established thriving businesses. Prosperous blacks “also created privately supported benevolent societies, schools, and orphanages to assist their impoverished brethren.” The argument here, which Williams substantiates by reference to many other races in America and around the world, is that political power is not a necessary path to economic progress. On the contrary, political power often paradoxically impedes progress because the prospect of political advancement tends to attract the types of race hustlers who will happily destroy their own people in order to promote their own egos.

Prosperous blacks are not simply exceptional or isolated cases. Race hustlers often argue that successful blacks are exceptions, and therefore no significance should be attached to their existence — they are simply the exceptional case that managed to buck the trend. After all, we can’t all be Oprah Winfrey. From Williams’ examples, it is clear that the race hustlers are wrong on this point. The reason why so many laws were enacted in this era to prevent blacks from participating in trades — for example, licensing laws and minimum wage laws — was precisely because it was a widespread phenomenon in which significant numbers of blacks participated. Moreover, no matter the race of a billionaire, it is always true that not everyone of his race will be a billionaire. In a general sense, it could be said that great wealth is exceptional, but wealth distribution cannot be explained by reference to racial discrimination.

Williams therefore argues that “gross racial discrimination alone has never been sufficient to prevent blacks from earning a living and bettering themselves.” His point is that if it did not prevent them from doing so in the years of slavery and Jim Crow, there is no reason why it would prevent them from doing so today.

Back To Leeconomics.com