Also note the progress of their dozens of millions of white-guy contemporaries. I think that being a white guy, even in the pre-civil-rights era, is probably not especially significant to the financial success of these people. If it were, I think many more white guys would be billionaires, right?
I'm sure what they did was easier because they were white males, but it definitely feels like a cop-out to bring that up like it was a major factor and not just another in the myriad of advantages anyone has to have to reach such financial excellence. You might as well complain that "but they all have entrepreneurial dispositions and personalities!", like their success was unfair or diminished because they had certain inclinations.
We're all born into different circumstances and we're born with different gifts; some make certain things harder and some make certain things easier. I don't see the point in whining about it all the time.
Oh please. How else can you explain that despite being 12% of the US population, only one out of the 403 US billionaires is black? That's more than a small advantage, it's practically a requirement. I'm not saying they didn't try hard or they weren't significantly gifted, but success comes much easier when the odds aren't totally stacked against you by the proud human tradition of racism.
Your comparisons of race to personality traits are particularly curious. Being born white (and male) isn't a "gift" unless patriarchal white society enforces it. This isn't sports -- there is no significant correlation between genetic advantages and being rich.
Being born white and male is, however, a circumstance.
Shall we remember the mantra "correlation is not causation"? A high incidence of white male billionaires does not necessarily make white maleness "practically a requirement" for billionaireship.
>This isn't sports -- there is no significant correlation between genetic advantages and being rich.
I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to make this statement definitively, and that it's also untrue. Those with "genetic" predispositions that lend toward perseverance, independence of thought and action, etc., are much more likely to become rich than those who don't have or eventually acquire such traits.
I'm sure what they did was easier because they were white males, but it definitely feels like a cop-out to bring that up like it was a major factor and not just another in the myriad of advantages anyone has to have to reach such financial excellence. You might as well complain that "but they all have entrepreneurial dispositions and personalities!", like their success was unfair or diminished because they had certain inclinations.
We're all born into different circumstances and we're born with different gifts; some make certain things harder and some make certain things easier. I don't see the point in whining about it all the time.