'Straight White Male' is the Real World's easiest difficulty setting

If the best argument you have is "You just need to suck it up, you're not a child soldier in Africa", the same can be said of ANY group in America claiming underpriviledged status.

Gay guy? Sucks it up, you're not a child soldier in Liberia. Latino in Alabama? Suck it up, at least you're not getting blown to bits in Homs. Woman in Utah? Suck it up, you could be cannon fodder in the Congo.

An illegal immigrant who doesn't speak English, requires a wheelchair and is a muslim woman who lives in America has it better than your child soldier. Are you gonna tell them how easy they've got it? I somehow doubt it.

No one is saying that they automatically have it easy. Just easier.

Stephen_Clarke wrote:
> that pretty much means 'straight white male' is 'push X to win' difficulty

And here we get back to it's easy to see this as being a smug dick talking down to those who disagree when you're upper middle class with a college degree. Thanks for belittling the problems in my life, no no no, go ahead and tell me more about how I apparently can't "push X".

Actually, if you bothered to read the post right before what I think was your entry into this thread, I wrote: I personally would have went with a game like Ninja Gaiden or Catherine from what I've heard about them because life ain't easy just because you're white."

You misunderstood the context in which I said 'push X to win'.

Stephen_Clarke:

If they were somehow mistaken that being in America makes their life easier, then yes, I would say that. That is, however, highly unlikely. Just the fact that they illegally immigrated means that they appreciate how much of a leg up that condition gives them.

Mixolyde wrote:

No one is saying that they automatically have it easy. Just easier.

Is anyone saying that anyone automatically has it easy? I don't see it.

Stephen_Clarke wrote:

> that pretty much means 'straight white male' is 'push X to win' difficulty

And here we get back to it's easy to see this as being a smug dick talking down to those who disagree when you're upper middle class with a college degree. Thanks for belittling the problems in my life, no no no, go ahead and tell me more about how I apparently can't "push X".

Neither Scalzi nor anyone here is saying that every straight white male automatically has an easier life than every else, or that no straight white male has ever had a hard life. What Scalzi was trying to point out was that as whatever kind of life a given straight white male in our society has, it would be harder if they were a minority, female, or gay. Your situation sucks, but it'd be worse if you were a minority, a gay, or a woman. This is not trying to belittle your problems, which are very real, but tell you that you have it easy, because you clearly don't, but that doesn't mean that privilege does not exist.

Scalzi's original article wrote:

Now, once you’ve selected the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, you still have to create a character, and how many points you get to start — and how they are apportioned — will make a difference. Initially the computer will tell you how many points you get and how they are divided up. If you start with 25 points, and your dump stat is wealth, well, then you may be kind of screwed. If you start with 250 points and your dump stat is charisma, well, then you’re probably fine. Be aware the computer makes it difficult to start with more than 30 points; people on higher difficulty settings generally start with even fewer than that.

As the game progresses, your goal is to gain points, apportion them wisely, and level up. If you start with fewer points and fewer of them in critical stat categories, or choose poorly regarding the skills you decide to level up on, then the game will still be difficult for you. But because you’re playing on the “Straight White Male” setting, gaining points and leveling up will still by default be easier, all other things being equal, than for another player using a higher difficulty setting.

Likewise, it’s certainly possible someone playing at a higher difficulty setting is progressing more quickly than you are, because they had more points initially given to them by the computer and/or their highest stats are wealth, intelligence and constitution and/or simply because they play the game better than you do. It doesn’t change the fact you are still playing on the lowest difficulty setting.

You can lose playing on the lowest difficulty setting. The lowest difficulty setting is still the easiest setting to win on. The player who plays on the “Gay Minority Female” setting? Hardcore.
...
Oh, and one other thing. Remember when I said that you could choose your difficulty setting in The Real World? Well, I lied. In fact, the computer chooses the difficulty setting for you. You don’t get a choice; you just get what gets given to you at the start of the game, and then you have to deal with it.

I've bolded the parts that specifically relate to your situation. The computer chose your difficulty and stats for you. It chose the lowest difficulty setting for you, but gimped you in the stats department, which means that even on the lowest difficulty, it's still going to be extremely hard. It really helps to read articles like these before commenting on them, as Scalzi never did what you claimed, and in fact agrees with you that a straight white male can still have a very hard life.

Stengah wrote:

I've bolded the parts that specifically relate to your situation. The computer chose your difficulty and stats for you. It chose the lowest difficulty setting for you, but gimped you in the stats department, which means that even on the lowest difficulty, it's still going to be extremely hard. It really helps to read articles like these before commenting on them, as Scalzi never did what you claimed, and in fact agrees with you that a straight white male can still have a very hard life.

That was the point I was trying to (possibly inartfully) make: there is a disadvantage determined by fate versus a disadvantage determined by societal action. Everyone is subject to the former. Not everyone is subjected to the latter.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

John Scalzi has posted a follow-up:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/1...

It’s been a couple of days since I’ve posted the “Lowest Difficulty Setting” piece, and it’s been fun and interesting watching the Intarweebs basically explode over it, especially the subclass of Straight White Males who cannot abide the idea that their lives play out on a fundamentally lower difficulty setting than everyone else’s, and have spun themselves up in tight, angry circles because I dared to suggest that they do. Those dudes are cracking me up, and also making me a little sad.
There have been some general classes of statement/questions about the piece both on the site and elsewhere on the Internet, that I would like to address, so I’ll do that here. Understand I am paraphrasing the questions/statements. In no particular order:

See, that level of smug self-satisfaction didn't pass me by at all.

Yeah - from his follow up and skimming his site, it seems his intent was to troll, not have a worthwhile discussion. Oh well, I guess he got me.

Well, what if, like me, you're in a 90% homogeneous population?

I live in a place where 90% of the people are white French Canadians.

I'd say in my case, being a white straight male is not an advantage. In fact, a lot of places will favor pretty much everybody else over the straight white guy when it comes to offering a job. It seems like the world is for everybody else to take but us. Gay movement, feminist movements, etc. Nothing for plain old white dude.

I'm not complaining but I'm not surprised to see pretty much every other demographic thrive and our situation get worse and worse (dropout, suicide, etc.)

Saw this on kotaku earlier. Probably should unlike them on Facebook, since they frequently clutter my feed. Anyway, don't go there. It's 90% posts that start "I'm a straight white guy but this article is wrong because..." It's pretty worthless discussion.

Here is much more interesting. I still think there's some merit to the op mentioning money and ulari post on page 2? about money's effect. But as usual momgamer is bringing the good stuff. Would love to read more of her thoughts.

interstate78:

You could always pretend to be gay at an unimportant job interview and see how much better that improves your chances.

Cod wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

John Scalzi has posted a follow-up:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/1...

It’s been a couple of days since I’ve posted the “Lowest Difficulty Setting” piece, and it’s been fun and interesting watching the Intarweebs basically explode over it, especially the subclass of Straight White Males who cannot abide the idea that their lives play out on a fundamentally lower difficulty setting than everyone else’s, and have spun themselves up in tight, angry circles because I dared to suggest that they do. Those dudes are cracking me up, and also making me a little sad.
There have been some general classes of statement/questions about the piece both on the site and elsewhere on the Internet, that I would like to address, so I’ll do that here. Understand I am paraphrasing the questions/statements. In no particular order:

See, that level of smug self-satisfaction didn't pass me by at all.

Yeah - from his follow up and skimming his site, it seems his intent was to troll, not have a worthwhile discussion. Oh well, I guess he got me.

From his site:

SITE DISCLAIMER:

Everything on the site is my opinion (except comments written by others, which are their opinions). I have strong opinions. At times, you may not agree with these opinions, or how I choose to express them. This is not my problem.

I make no claims as toward being even-handed, fair, or nice. I write what I want here. Your being offended is not a reason for me to stop writing as I choose.

I run this site as I please. You do not get a vote. If you try to suggest that you do, I may be rude to you.

His intent isn't to troll. That it wasn't what you thought he should write doesn't matter. It's a personal blog, not a sociology journal.

interstate78 wrote:

Well, what if, like me, you're in a 90% homogeneous population?

I live in a place where 90% of the people are white French Canadians.

I'd say in my case, being a white straight male is not an advantage. In fact, a lot of places will favor pretty much everybody else over the straight white guy when it comes to offering a job. It seems like the world is for everybody else to take but us. Gay movement, feminist movements, etc. Nothing for plain old white dude.

I'm not complaining but I'm not surprised to see pretty much every other demographic thrive and our situation get worse and worse (dropout, suicide, etc.)

The state I live in is over 95% white, but I can still see how being a straight white male is advantageous to me.

  • Vs being gay: My marriage cost $40 (everything else was ceremony stuff, and not necessary to get married), I spent more time waiting in line to get the certificate than I did filing it out, and it is recognized in every state and by the federal government. The only time I've needed it has been to add my wife to my health insurance. I never have to awkwardly explain that the woman I'm out with is my spouse, or deal with any of the social stigmas a gay person has to.
  • Vs being a woman: As Prederick has pointed out, the biggest issue is that I have never worried about sexual assualt. I don't have to worry that complete strangers will brand me a skank or slut if I dress in a way they disapprove of, or worry if I weigh 10 more pounds than they think I should. I have no need to prove that I myself am capable, that there's not a secretly a man behind my success.
  • Vs being a minority: I don't have to worry about being hassled by police for having the wrong skin color. I don't have to worry about store clerks eying me like a thief whenever I shop. I don't have to worry about random people on the street being afraid I might mug them. I also don't have to worry about whether I was picked for something because I deserved it, or if I'm helping someone meet a diversity quota (self imposed or not), or other people thinking I was. Specifically in a place with low diversity, I imagine I'd feel pretty isolated. At least if there was a bigger percent of the population of people that looked like me, I could more easily escape the constant worrying about how others are judging me because I look different. This particular bit would depend on how well I had assimilated into the local culture.

Basically, the reason there's no movement specifically looking to advance the cause of the straight white male (outside of hate groups) is that we don't need it. Our status is what the other groups are trying to move their status to. Our cause is so far ahead of their causes that in order to not make things worse, they need to be allowed to catch up. That's not to say that it's time to give the straight white man a taste of discrimination, that will only lead to further problems. It's just that we've had some of our advantages for so long that losing them feels like discrimination even though it's actually just balancing things back out. Sometimes the method of balancing things will go too far, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying and revert back to "the good old days." It just means we should find a better way of doing the balancing.

Stephen_Clarke wrote:

If the best argument you have is "You just need to suck it up, you're not a child soldier in Africa", the same can be said of ANY group in America claiming underpriviledged status.

Gay guy? Sucks it up, you're not a child soldier in Liberia. Latino in Alabama? Suck it up, at least you're not getting blown to bits in Homs. Woman in Utah? Suck it up, you could be cannon fodder in the Congo.

An illegal immigrant who doesn't speak English, requires a wheelchair and is a muslim woman who lives in America has it better than your child soldier. Are you gonna tell them how easy they've got it? I somehow doubt it.

This is a good point. It is straight up irrelevant to the issues of privilege and access to social support that in some distant location there is a mythical group having a sh*ttier time. In the US and Europe there is a massive privilege divide and "Somalian orphans have a worse time" just becomes an excuse to not address class and privilege problems that are actually present in our societies.

The Scalzi analogy is just supposed to be a fairly cute way to help some people realise and engage with the privilege they leverage that they may be oblivious to. Using the analogy to rank countries' difficult level or trying to apply it to specific people is at best tasteless and at worst deeply offensive.

It's only deeply offensive when that level of difficulty is impossible for you to fall into and it's some sort of theoretical that you never think will apply to you. Some of the people I've met have had it really, really bad.

That is not to present an excuse not to make an effort to make it better. That's confirmation bias skewing the statement. That's just a direct response to Clarke's overtones of self-pity. He can't believe that he has it good because most of the people he meets on a daily basis have it better than he does.

Wordy exposition

Spoiler:

It seems to me that Americans use "An African kid has it worse," as an empty rhetorical platitude to justify not making things better. That is entirely the wrong thing. I did not bring that up to make that point.

At one point in my life, we were really, really poor. I was one car accident away from being a homeless street urchin in Manila with no parents, probably fated to end up in a sex den where I get buttf*cked multiple times a day by various people. When I see one of those folks, I think, "That could have been me," in a very real and personal way.

I can't even pretend to know what they've been through, are going through, and have to expect in the future, but I know that I was lucky not to be them and that they can use any help I can spare to ease their pain. I try to be sensitive when they cry out and I believe them when they tell me that something is a problem.

So, even if I'm having a hard time, when they tell me I have it better, I just shut up and listen.

LarryC wrote:

It's only deeply offensive when that level of difficulty is impossible for you to fall into and it's some sort of theoretical that you never think will apply to you. Some of the people I've met have had it really, really bad.

That is not to present an excuse not to make an effort to make it better. That's confirmation bias skewing the statement. That's just a direct response to Clarke's overtones of self-pity. He can't believe that he has it good because most of the people he meets on a daily basis have it better than he does.

Wordy exposition

Spoiler:

It seems to me that Americans use "An African kid has it worse," as an empty rhetorical platitude to justify not making things better. That is entirely the wrong thing. I did not bring that up to make that point.

At one point in my life, we were really, really poor. I was one car accident away from being a homeless street urchin in Manila with no parents, probably fated to end up in a sex den where I get buttf*cked multiple times a day by various people. When I see one of those folks, I think, "That could have been me," in a very real and personal way.

I can't even pretend to know what they've been through, are going through, and have to expect in the future, but I know that I was lucky not to be them and that they can use any help I can spare to ease their pain. I try to be sensitive when they cry out and I believe them when they tell me that something is a problem.

So, even if I'm having a hard time, when they tell me I have it better, I just shut up and listen.

Nonetheless "people have it worse in country/place X" is still irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It's just a red herring that takes our eyes off of whether or not white male privilege exists and what we should (or shouldn't) do about it.

Frankly, I'm surprised that its existence is still a matter of discussion. Straight, white, male privilege is merely the flipside shadow of bigotry against those three groups - sexism, and racism. So long as those exist, then SWM privilege exists, if only because members of that group are not subject to the discrimination the relevant groups suffer.

Obviously the converse is that the only way to get rid of it is to get rid of the associated bigotry.

LarryC wrote:

Frankly, I'm surprised that its existence is still a matter of discussion. Straight, white, male privilege is merely the flipside shadow of bigotry against those three groups - sexism, and racism. So long as those exist, then SWM privilege exists, if only because members of that group are not subject to the discrimination the relevant groups suffer.

Obviously the converse is that the only way to get rid of it is to get rid of the associated bigotry.

Totally right, but the kind of person who denies the existance of SWM privilege is exactly the kind of person that can't see that sexism, racism, classism are or ever were problems

I think life in places like North Korea or Sub-Saharan Africa are different enough (and the rules are particularly different enough) that we can conclude that they are different games altogether. So any comparison to life in America for privileged or underprivileged classes breaks the analogy and is pretty unconstructive. Most importantly, it really does nothing to address what really are important issues in our own society -- the one we should, collectively, be trying to improve.

I will definitely say that we have been making steady improvement over time. As I've mentioned before, I actually did have to sit through the humiliation of a "neighborhood interview" in the 1970's because the good white folks in the neighborhood didn't like the idea of a pack of chinks stinking up their little piece of heaven. I can't imagine that happening around here anymore (though news stories from the South make me wonder if this is truly an extinct practice).

I talked with my nephew a little while back about whether or not he was the target of bullying for his ethnicity. He said that half of his school is Asian, so doing so would be deeply unwise. I laughed and told him that when I moved to Columbia in the 1970's, we were one of only 10 Korean families in Howard County.

I read someplace that non-white births in this country outnumbered white births for the first time ever. Most of the increase is in the Latino population. I suspect that as the population becomes more heterogeneous, white privilege will begin to wane. And as more women are going to college and graduate school, I suspect the critical mass of female professionals will also erode male privilege was well.

Paleocon wrote:

I read someplace that non-white births in this country outnumbered white births for the first time ever. Most of the increase is in the Latino population. I suspect that as the population becomes more heterogeneous, white privilege will begin to wane. And as more women are going to college and graduate school, I suspect the critical mass of female professionals will also erode male privilege was well.

I hope your prediction is true. I'm afraid it just means that the middle class is shrinking and we're just going to see a bigger and bigger underclass that the 1% manage by stoking ethnic tensions and conflict.

Oso wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I read someplace that non-white births in this country outnumbered white births for the first time ever. Most of the increase is in the Latino population. I suspect that as the population becomes more heterogeneous, white privilege will begin to wane. And as more women are going to college and graduate school, I suspect the critical mass of female professionals will also erode male privilege was well.

I hope your prediction is true. I'm afraid it just means that the middle class is shrinking and we're just going to see a bigger and bigger underclass that the 1% manage by stoking ethnic tensions and conflict.

That is clearly a possibility. Like I said, motivations are complicated when you realize that privilege resides in a matrix of factors.

One development I've noticed is the steady migration of well off ethnicities (e.g.: South Asian, NE Asian) toward fiscally conservative politics. Affluent Korean and Indian folks, in particular, tend to vote and organize for anti-tax conservatives. I suspect much of that might have to do with their willing acceptance of the inevitability of a permanent, generational underclass.

Sigh.

Paleocon wrote:

One development I've noticed is the steady migration of well off ethnicities (e.g.: South Asian, NE Asian) toward fiscally conservative politics. Affluent Korean and Indian folks, in particular, tend to vote and organize for anti-tax conservatives. I suspect much of that might have to do with their willing acceptance of the inevitability of a permanent, generational underclass.

Sigh.

Yeah, I wish this were different. However, I find that a lot more respectable and understandable than poor white voters being co-opted to vote against their economic self-interest. (Note: one side effect of privilege is feeling free to comment on how I know what is in people's self-interest better than they do themselves.)

I think life in places like North Korea or Sub-Saharan Africa are different enough (and the rules are particularly different enough) that we can conclude that they are different games altogether.

Look, I wasn't trying to muddy the waters. I just get frustrated at arguments that start off with how much suffering and inequality exist in America, then ignore the fact that as a whole Americans have it better than the rest of the world, and far better than any other group of human beings in history. I was just trying to bring perspective, not say we have nothing to improve.

And yes, I'm still a very vocal supporter that the American dream may be harder to acquire, but it's still very much alive. Anyone can better their station, even if things are pretty unpleasant in the short run.

I read someplace that non-white births in this country outnumbered white births for the first time ever. Most of the increase is in the Latino population. I suspect that as the population becomes more heterogeneous, white privilege will begin to wane. And as more women are going to college and graduate school, I suspect the critical mass of female professionals will also erode male privilege was well.

Nobody commented on my earlier posts that already show women significantly outpacing men in terms of pursuing college degrees, or that women are quickly overtaking men in terms of income. The changing demographics of America only further assure that Mr straight white male is getting the karmic nerf bat. The only thing I'll agree with is historically there was white privelege, but I doubt that trend will continue past the next 20 or so years.

Oso wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

One development I've noticed is the steady migration of well off ethnicities (e.g.: South Asian, NE Asian) toward fiscally conservative politics. Affluent Korean and Indian folks, in particular, tend to vote and organize for anti-tax conservatives. I suspect much of that might have to do with their willing acceptance of the inevitability of a permanent, generational underclass.

Sigh.

Yeah, I wish this were different. However, I find that a lot more respectable and understandable than poor white voters being co-opted to vote against their economic self-interest. (Note: one side effect of privilege is feeling free to comment on how I know what is in people's self-interest better than they do themselves.)

That is a rather odd and counterproductive development, but it isn't without historical precedence. Roughly 3% of Southern whites before the quelling of the Southern Insurrection were slave owners. And nearly all of the wealth in the South was concentrated in about 1000 families. But they didn't seem to have any difficulty getting a quarter million of their white brethren to die in the name of wishful thinking. Nor did they have any trouble getting them to murder a more than equal number of loyal Americans.

jdzappa wrote:

And yes, I'm still a very vocal supporter that the American dream may be harder to acquire, but it's still very much alive. Anyone can better their station, even if things are pretty unpleasant in the short run.

Just because the dream is alive doesn't mean that the reality reflects that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-e...

I don't recall what I'll dub the Third World Argument being deployed against whitey, seems it's usually against the poor in general--most recently when conservatives rallied behind the study that showed the poor in America were living the high life with their electric ovens and non-pit-in-the-ground refrigerators.

John Scalzi wrote:

without invoking the dreaded word “privilege,” to which they react like vampires being fed a garlic tart at high noon. It’s not that the word “privilege” is incorrect, it’s that it’s not their word. When confronted with “privilege,” they fiddle with the word itself, and haul out the dictionaries and find every possible way to talk about the word but not any of the things the word signifies.

I think the problem with discussing "privilege" with straight white male guys is that it's all-too-easy to read it as an accusation that as a stright white male guy you:

  • Don't deserve anything you've achieved, because it's all due to privilege.
  • Are, by your very existence, oppressing everyone else who isn't a straight white male guy.
  • Are a douchebag for not pushing back with all your might against the societal structures that perpetuate privilege.

I have a friend who is a staunch feminist academic, and it took me some time to get to the point of being able to hear her talk about privilege without it sounding like an attack. The danger for me is that she see's "privilege" as some kind of Prime Mover, and it sometimes comes across as wilful ignorance to the rest of the variables in a highly complex system. Yes, it has been advantageous to me to be born white and with a penis. It's been far more advantageous to me to be born in a first world society, which is of course, another form of privilege (and ironically, one that she also benefits from having been born to an upper-middle-class family). It has also been advantageous to me that I'm smart, that I've tried hard to make good choices that have, for the most part, worked out. Privilege is definitely part of the equation, but it's not the be-all, end-all.

I keep coming back to a particular question: does it help to clarify things by talking about kyriarchy instead of privilege, or does it just add another newly-minted academic word that breaks Orwell's rule of 'never use a long word when a short one will do?"

Kyriarchy is a concept that separates the oppressor/subordinate relationship from who happens to be the oppressor in any one particular context. It was coined by feminist theologians who ran into exactly the same issue we're seeing here when talking about patriarchy in religion. The problem they had w/ patriarchy wasn't that men were in control, the problem with patriarchy was the uneven distribution of power regardless of which group held the advantage in any particular situation. It also recognizes that power dynamics shift and one may be privileged in some aspects of one's life (white, straight, male) and disadvantaged in others (education level, economic power, physical or cognitive disability).

So, I'm not sure if it helps to say "kyriarchy" instead of "privilege" or just to say that the point of explicity pointing out white straight male privilege is not to make white straight male people feel bad or less proud of themselves. After all, if some of our success isn't exactly our own doing (hardly a novel concept as LarryC and others have pointed out) then it follows that the underlying causes aren't our fault either.

The life lesson that awareness of privilege teaches us isn't that different from the life lesson the level-playing-field cohort would teach us: work hard and don't be an asshole. It just adds another variable to the equation. It isn't just {hard work + talent = success} it is {hard work + talent * (context and variables outside of our control) = success}.

It is extremely rare to succeed without both hard work and talent. However, there are millions of hard working talented people out there who have less to show for their effort than slacking white dudes w/ good connections. This does not mean that every white dude who isn't upper middle class must be stupid or lazy. (Really, it does not mean this. Really.) Economic class and education are big factors and while partially under our control, not completely. (If my parents hadn't paid cash for my college education, I still could have succeeded, but I would have had to make many more saving throws along the way.) For example, an ethnic minority from a middle-class family that values education has a giant leg up over a working-class white dude whose parents did not go to college.

Still, in general, the rule holds. All other things being equal* straight white males have the fewest barriers to success in Western culture today.

*All other things aren't equal all that often.

Jonman wrote:

Very good stuff

+1

The life lesson that awareness of privilege teaches us isn't that different from the life lesson the level-playing-field cohort would teach us: work hard and don't be an asshole. It just adds another variable to the equation. It isn't just {hard work + talent = success} it is {hard work + talent * (context and variables outside of our control) = success}.

Maybe part of the problem is how in America we only define success as driving a Porsche back to your gated McMansion. I'd argue that a more realistic sign of success would be the standards of the 1950s-70s. Do you have a relatively comfortable home, even if it's 800-1000 square feet big? Or if you don't own, do you live in someplace that's not run by a slum lord? Do you have a car that is reliable (not two cars mind you - one)? Can you put food on the table? Can you afford work clothes, school clothes for the kids and maybe a few extra outfits a year? Can you afford an in-state vacation every summer or maybe the occasional movie or night eating out?

Congrats, you are a success. The second type of success (basic needs met with a few luxuries) is possible for a far larger part of the population than the first type of success. It's also more possible for people of any race or background to accomplish through hard work/smart planning. Part of the problem is Americans have come to see all the trappings - smartphones, plasma TVs, leased sports cars - as necessities rather than luxuries.