Thomas Sowell has a great many fans among ''conservatives'' and even among self-identified WNs and RRs. I've pointed out that on the issues that should matter most to us, he is not on our side -- which is to be expected.
But this recent piece from NR shows that he is clearly not somebody who can advocate for our interests; he does not see the world as we do. Nor should he be expected to do so, though his fans think he can and does.
He describes what he calls 'perverse racial policies' which require placing American Indian children with their own folk, as American Indians believe should be done. He provides tear-jerking anecdotes of weeping Indian children being torn from their White foster parents/adoptive parents. Now, I had thought this practice of placing Indian children with their own folk to be established policy for some time now; American Indian children are to be placed with their own tribe and kin if possible. I am not sure why Sowell is writing in protest of this just now.
If we are consistent with our principles, we ethnonationalists and ethnoloyalists, we would also demand that our children be placed among their own folk, if they are not able to be reared by their parents or immediate kin. Why would we support doing the opposite with children of other races?
Nowadays, trans-racial adoption is all the vogue among White status-seeking parents, especially those who are liberals, both of the secular and ''Christian'' variety. It is not an uncommon sight now to see White parents, with their own children in tow, also carrying or holding the hand of a child from Africa, Haiti, or Central America. Sowell in his article bemoans the detachment from reality, and the disregard of ''what happens to the actual flesh-and-blood human beings who are subjected to their grand visions and policies.'' There is reason to believe that these adoptions may likely raise many problems down the line for both the children and the adoptive families. For example, the likelihood, in the short term, that the adopted child will have what are euphemistically called ''special needs'', and thus divert the attention of the parents away from their natural children in favor of caring for the adoptee. There will be adjustment problems for all. There will be cultural and identity problems for the child(ren) as they reach adolescence. And on and on.
Generation 5's blog covered many of the potential problems in this post.
Of course liberals of whatever stripe (Republican, Democrat, ''Christian'' or secular) will cry 'racism!' to any objection to the trend of transracial adoption or fostering. But if they are consistent with their 'principles', (to the extent such principles actually exist), they have to admit that they preach that minorities should have a right to their own culture and to preserve their family ties. How many times have we read or heard some liberal's lament of how slavery 'tore families apart' or how sending illegal immigrants home would 'rip apart their families' -- yet they are all for ripping Third World or American Indian children from their people and culture, and transplanting them into White culture, which they paradoxically insist is racist and xenophobic. You can see the madness in this self-contradiction.
But there is no limit to the self-contradiction and the illogic practiced by all liberals, so it will not inhibit them from continuing to promote these kinds of notions.
As for Sowell, I believe he is a libertarian, and presumably thinks that race is a collectivist idea that should not be taken into account.
In any case, may we please, at least, acknowledge that Sowell and other such darlings of the 'respectables' are not to be our guides?