Eric Stoller's blog

I suspect I know where you are going with this and what you hope it shows: they are all white males. However, all except for three made their money in an era when white males did, indeed, enjoy significant institutional advantages due to inequities in our society. (I still do not think that necessarily negates any successes they had, but there is a reality to that.) However, the three who made the list from the “modern business day” – Sam Walton, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates – may be white, they earned their fortunes. Even if you did argue that they had some “privilege,” that cannot account for the out sized success each of these men had.

Sam Walton grew up in a poor family. He started with one store and built it into possibly the greatest example of a corporation in many ways that America has ever known. Buffett and Gates did come from more privileged backgrounds but that privilege cannot account for the genius that Gates has had with personal computer software – the reason reason for the success of Microsoft – and with Buffett’s investing insight. Buffett especially has to be lauded for his peculiar business insight (though I did have a finance professor that argued that, based on the theory of efficient markets, that Buffett’s success could be that of a personal on the fair end of the tail of the distribution of investing results – in other words a product of extreme luck that is extremely rare but statistically valid. That is a finance disucssion, however, and not a privilege discussion).

Thus, 27 of these men may prove your point (if that is the point you were driving toward) but that aspect of our country’s history is not in dispute so there is nothing really to prove. The other three fall short of demonstrating privilege, and even if it did, these are three men out of millions of Americans. It is hardly as if this type of success is systematic.

FB,

Doesn’t this sort of history have any lasting material effect? Forget fault, privilege, etc: does this history have any lasting material effect?

Yes, they’re white and yes, they’re male – and probably heterosexual and probably able-bodied, as well – but perhaps their next-most-striking characteristic in common is that their fortunes are built on either the destruction of the environment or the exploitation of others (or both).

Well I cannot deny, on the surface those stats, do merit further examination. What if anything that implies, I could not say without digging into it further.

Michelle,

I look at Wal-Mart and see a company that has had an enormous positive effect on many Americans and even people of other countries. They have brought low prices to people in locales where, prior to Wal-Mart, they had limited choice at higher prices. I also think Wal-Mart deserves some praise for helping to wring efficiencies out of their supply chain to realize these lower prices. This is not to say there are not some concerns with Wal-Mart, but overall I think they have helped as many if not more people than they have hurt.

As for the trappings of power, this is reality regardless of who has the power. In their time, granted, white males help the bulk of this power, but today power is more widely distributed. A powerful minority will be able to garner special treatment in the “system” just as well as a powerful white person. I still consider O.J. Simpson’s acquittal to be an example of this. Had he been a average Joe black man as opposed to former NFL star, movie star, and Heisman Trophy winner, the only place he would be looking for the real killer would be in the mirror of his cell in the California state penn.

I find it interesting that the list focuses on individuals, rather than households. Most of these men likely had wives that influenced them and took part in their reaching such success. Somehow, only the singular “man” makes the list.

If very wealthy and powerful woman (Martha Stuart,Oprah, etc.) married a very wealthy and powerful man and together boosted the household net worth to the Top 30 list, who’s name would go on the list?

Well, Michelle and Kiwi, why don’t we list every single person who ever influenced them? I suspect the reason the men are listed is because they were the CEO or Chairman or whatever title of their companies. And if Oprah or Martha Stewart had this much wealth, they would be listed as well, especially given their fame, regardless of who the husband was.

So for those dudes who never married, who else would you defer their success to (since apparently no white man can be independently successful in America if not for the trampling of people of color). Or is this the point where you dismiss their hard work and start talking about their unearned privileges?

And I hope you’re not trying to knock those people just because they’re white and nerdy (not saying you are, by the way). If you made a second list of “The Most Philanthropic Americans Ever” and compared it with that Wealthiest Americans list, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a pretty big subset. Or would that be intersection? I suck at Venn diagrams, so I might have my terms messed up. You know what I mean though! And really, do you think those people only donated money to their fellow aryan brethren and none to people of color? C’mon now.

Look at Bill Gates and all the money he’s pumping into Africa. And here’s a little blurb about Rockefeller from Wikipedia: “In 1884, he provided major funding for a college in Atlanta for black women that became Spelman College (named for Rockefeller’s in-laws who were ardent abolitionists before the Civil War). Rockefeller also gave considerable donations to Denison University and other Baptist colleges.” Sam Walton’s philanthropy foundation has given millions to organizations like the Black Alliance for Education. And that’s just three of the thirty that my lazy ass decided to look up, out of the thirty heterosexual, white males on that list.

To put blinders on and just look directly at the color of their skin as the only talking point in this blog post is kind of… I don’t know, you can insert your own term there. I’m going to get back to work now. Can’t be letting the white man keep me down and all!

G-Dub,

It would prove that they were all from the Middle East. Specifically, 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. This is not news.

The real question, I think, is this:

What is the significance of that? Is there any?

Eric,

The list you use to prove your point consists of only two people who’ve been around since the advent of color photography. Yes, I am saying it is unfair. It’s clear what commonalities you are talking about. To be fair about it, I propose the following list:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

With regards to the “meritocracy myth”, I think you are wrong there too, Eric. The US is a meritocracy. Not a perfect one, but better than the much of the world. In some countries, if you are not born into the right family, tribe, caste or are born a woman, then it’s over. There will be no upward mobility for you, none. While many currently face unfair challenges in America, to say they have no chance to improve their condition would be untrue. History shows that, today, the challenges aren’t as bad as they were. It’s my belief that making tomorrow better is the resposibility of everyone. If I had a magic wand, it would be done by now.

If you want your arguments to sway people who may not see your way, you need to point out positives, as well as negatives. Harping only on white privilidge, patriarchy, etc just preaches to your choir. It does nothing for many, and for those that need it pointed out the most, it just hardens their hearts.

Racism, sexism and other forms of predjudice don’t define our system, they hamper it.

“If you want your arguments to sway people who may not see your way, you need to point out positives, as well as negatives. Harping only on white privilidge, patriarchy, etc just preaches to your choir. It does nothing for many, and for those that need it pointed out the most, it just hardens their hearts.”

Quoted for truth and emphasis.

G-Dub,

Your comments on the nature of the US meritocracy are….illustrative. I liked this part:

Racism, sexism and other forms of predjudice don’t define our system, they hamper it.

I think that’s pretty accurate, personally – or at least I agree that the “isms” hamper whatever system the US has in place. I’ve found that the idea that the US is a meritocracy is one that only works in the abstract.

One reason to point out things like the ethnicity and sex of the richest people in America – whether it be from Eric’s list or the Forbes list – is that they are examples of how the meritocracy is not working. In that sense, I agree with Eric that meritocracy is a myth. While we want to think the U.S. is a meritocracy, it does not have meritocratic outcomes, and we can track those unequal outcomes across race, class and gender.

Personally, I think the lack of meritocracy is affected by additional factors. One example is the idea of legacy admissions. A second is how people go about getting jobs. While lots and lots of folks go to website and slog through classifieds, a healthy chunk of folks get jobs based on who they know (I am one of them, at least thus far). I’d say getting a job based on anything but one’s merit is not emblematic of a meritocracy.

Good catch on the equality of outcome – I mean to talk about opportunity. I think my two examples fit it better anyway.

The sentence should have read something like this:

While we want to think the U.S. is a meritocracy, it does not have equality of opportunity, and we can track the resulting unequal outcomes across race, class and gender.

And I wasn’t implying that the original 30 were my evidence; from what I’ve seen of the Forbes list it would work just as well.

I do not have a problem with legacy admissions so long as they are in addition to the normal annual enrollment plans rather than preventing other, perhaps more qualified, students from getting in. The reality is that universities, public and private, depend on donations to survive. Even though my alma mater is a state school, it is fortunate enough to have one of the larger endowments among public universities. If you accept an alum’s kid who happens to be a large donor – so long as he/she meets some minimum requirements level and does not take a slot of a student you may be more qualified, then I think that is just catering to the funding reality.

@ FinanceBuzz

Any president that can’t see the importance of securing our borders in this day and age is an idiot.

I do not have a problem with legacy admissions so long as they are in addition to the normal annual enrollment plans rather than preventing other, perhaps more qualified, students from getting in.

Except, of course, that this is exactly how legacy admissions work, and why places like Oxford and Cambridge no longer have them.

Many legacy students have parents – or grandparents and parents – who attended college at a time when racism was more prevalent; granting preferential treatment to their kids seems like it is a direct holdover, an easily identifiable benefit, from the time when highly qualified people of color had a much harder time getting into four-year colleges.

Given the above, I would call many legacy admissions a privilege one gets from being white, or male.

Again, if legacy admissions meant accepting offspring of graduates who are qualified to attend, there would be no need for legacy admissions, since the students would be able to make it into college on merit in the first place.

So…does “catering to the funding reality” justify a program that’s not merit-based, one that lets in LESS qualified applicants? For that matter, what is the effect of legacy admissions on the overall quality of the student population?

For an interesting story on legacy admissions, see this Stanford Daily story from 2003.

No no – it’s not that I think the folks who went to college, say, in the 1950s weren’t qualified or didn’t work hard – of course they did.

However, there were undoubtedly qualified people of color who, but for institutional racism, would have gone to college. Who filled their spots? White people. In that sense, hard-working white people were and are benefiting from privileges they did nothing to earn, but were instead handed to them.

Note: Every time I bring up systems of oppression, or privilege, or racism/classism/sexism/etc, that doesn’t mean that people aren’t putting forth their maximum individual efforts. I almost take that as a given, that people are working hard, since most people do.

Instead, I am trying to draw attention to the fact that individual effort does not explain the entire picture. There are plenty of stories out there about the heroic individual efforts of people that allow them to succeed, but comparatively very little about larger social forces.