Helen Keller: privileged white person (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

It's a tangent but another way to view the question sometimes for me is asking, "Would I want to trade places?"

From Eddie Murphy's movie to Chris Rocks famous line about being rich but no white people wanted to trade with him, that can sometimes be an interesting question. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

It's accurate in a very specific, almost academic sense.  

In an ordinary English sense, it's kind of silly to describe Keller as "just another privileged white person" but saying it that way sure is exciting and incendiary.

This. 

And in my opinion, those kinds hot takes often lead to discussion that could be much better in my opinion. 

 

[JAA]

Take 2 blind and deaf people. One is white with money and opportunity. The other is non-white, poor and destitute. Is it fair to say one is privileged and the other is not?

The answer to "is the blind and deaf person privileged" is always no. 

Again, as I said before. If you have to create fictitious blind and deaf people to compare them to, the argument is over. 

How any deaf and blind people have you talked to?  I've talked to none.  However, if you do just a bit of research before speaking for all blind and deaf people you might learn that HK thought she was privileged and she noted her privilege in her autobiography.  Oh, and I don't have to make up fictitious anything, HK was a real person so ... uh ... yea.

I would recommend the book I listened to "The Story of My Life" by Hellen Keller - https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Story-of-My-Life-AmazonClassics-Edition-Audiobook/B07BSP46FG

 

[JAA]

Take 2 blind and deaf people. One is white with money and opportunity. The other is non-white, poor and destitute. Is it fair to say one is privileged and the other is not?

Hint:  It's not the white and non-white part that would provide the privilege. 

Let me answer this part first with a question, if its not the color of the persons skin what is causing the discrepancy?

The reason I ask that question is statistics clearly show white employees make more money than their non-white counterparts in the same role.

Is there a different reason for this than color?  If so, what is it?

 

[JAA]

It's accurate in a very specific, almost academic sense.  

In an ordinary English sense, it's kind of silly to describe Keller as "just another privileged white person" but saying it that way sure is exciting and incendiary.

There's a term for this.  It's called a "motte and bailey."  A speaker says something wild and exciting, gets called on it, and then retreats to a very narrow and boring re-definition of what they said.  Then, when people get bored with dunking on them, they leave the narrow/boring re-definition aside and go right back to the exciting position that they intended all along, without acknowledging that they never actually defended that position in the first place.  

Completely agree with this.  HK was not "just another privileged white person."

 

[Zow]

It's accurate in a very specific, almost academic sense.  

In an ordinary English sense, it's kind of silly to describe Keller as "just another privileged white person" but saying it that way sure is exciting and incendiary.

There's a term for this.  It's called a "motte and bailey."  A speaker says something wild and exciting, gets called on it, and then retreats to a very narrow and boring re-definition of what they said.  Then, when people get bored with dunking on them, they leave the narrow/boring re-definition aside and go right back to the exciting position that they intended all along, without acknowledging that they never actually defended that position in the first place.  

I don't disagree. 

 

[djmich]

We should rename the PSF to The Motte and Bailey
 

After a few months away I almost forgot what a troll fest the forum is.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This. That the first person with her disabilities wasn’t a girl in Nepal, or Burma, or Senegal, or Mongolia, or Indonesia, or Iran, or Ecuador, etc., and that it took until almost the twentieth century, defines that a ton of things had to converge at a point in time meeting socioeconomic conditions precisely.

I get the argument that people get triggered (and I use that word knowing it’s been appropriated) by terms like “white privilege.” But rather than putting the onus on “libs” who should know using such a term is “incendiary” and kills a dialogue, maybe we should encourage looking at the truth of a situation and not scuttling it because we refuse to engage around some politically defined concepts?

Since I was the one to put it that way, I should respond to this.  I'll try to return to this one a little later because I do agree with you on some of the points you're raising.

 

[djmich]

This. That the first person with her disabilities wasn’t a girl in Nepal, or Burma, or Senegal, or Mongolia, or Indonesia, or Iran, or Ecuador, etc., and that it took until almost the twentieth century, defines that a ton of things had to converge at a point in time meeting socioeconomic conditions precisely.

I get the argument that people get triggered (and I use that word knowing it’s been appropriated) by terms like “white privilege.” But rather than putting the onus on “libs” who should know using such a term is “incendiary” and kills a dialogue, maybe we should encourage looking at the truth of a situation and not scuttling it because we refuse to engage around some politically defined concepts?

Are we really that fragile?

I say this not to criticize any posters here. But you see this play out places like Fox News (Ingraham and Tucker,) where we move instantly from reasonable interpretation of facts to the audacity and motives of the messenger. 

Maybe we should reject that tactic, rather than the semantics.

For me personally it is simple.

There is absolutely nothing wrong talking about Helen Keller and the fact that without the supporting environment she lived in she would not be able to have achieved everything she did.

Frankly, this is the case for every human on the planet that ever achieved anything.  But yes, Helen Keller certainly had supporting circumstances that many others did not.

What is the benefit though of trying to degrade her accomplishments by using language like “just another, despite disabilities, privileged white person,”.  There is no good reason for it, it is intended to diminish her accomplishments, it is trolling.

Are we really that fragile?  If you are referring to an expectation that we treat each other with respect and dignity rather than looking to denigrate...are you saying we shouldn't expect that?  Are you saying we should create exceptions for this standard based on color or income?

 

[JAA]

For me personally it is simple.

There is absolutely nothing wrong talking about Helen Keller and the fact that without the supporting environment she lived in she would not be able to have achieved everything she did.

Frankly, this is the case for every human on the planet that ever achieved anything.  But yes, Helen Keller certainly had supporting circumstances that many others did not.

What is the benefit though of trying to degrade her accomplishments by using language like "just another privileged white person".  There is no good reason for it, it is intended to diminish her accomplishments, it is trolling.

Are we really that fragile?  If you are referring to an expectation that we treat each other with respect and dignity rather than looking to denigrate...are you saying we shouldn't expect that?  Are you saying we should create exceptions for this standard based on color or income?

Can you get the quote right from the OP please?

“just another, despite disabilities, privileged white person,”

 

[parasaurolophus]

This. That the first person with her disabilities wasn’t a girl in Nepal, or Burma, or Senegal, or Mongolia, or Indonesia, or Iran, or Ecuador, etc., and that it took until almost the twentieth century, defines that a ton of things had to converge at a point in time meeting socioeconomic conditions precisely.

I get the argument that people get triggered (and I use that word knowing it’s been appropriated) by terms like “white privilege.” But rather than putting the onus on “libs” who should know using such a term is “incendiary” and kills a dialogue, maybe we should encourage looking at the truth of a situation and not scuttling it because we refuse to engage around some politically defined concepts?

Are we really that fragile?

I say this not to criticize any posters here. But you see this play out places like Fox News (Ingraham and Tucker,) where we move instantly from reasonable interpretation of facts to the audacity and motives of the messenger. 

Maybe we should reject that tactic, rather than the semantics.

So ignore the ridiculous assertion that helen keller was just another privileged white person and look for the merits in how Helen Keller had more money than some people and therefore, what exactly? 

Whats the underlying positive message that we can find that isnt somehow being conveyed and outweighs the obvious positive message already conveyed when it comes to helen keller.

Is there some segment of the population that uses Helen Keller to denigrate black people that are blind and deaf? 

Is it that we should learn more about some black people that are deaf and blind when we are in elementary school?

Because the solution there isnt to try and tear down helen keller, it would be to educate people about those people. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

No. One. Made. This. Assertion. But. You.

It is in the first post. Dont waste our time with this baloney. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sigh. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This. That the first person with her disabilities wasn’t a girl in Nepal, or Burma, or Senegal, or Mongolia, or Indonesia, or Iran, or Ecuador, etc., and that it took until almost the twentieth century, defines that a ton of things had to converge at a point in time meeting socioeconomic conditions precisely.

I get the argument that people get triggered (and I use that word knowing it’s been appropriated) by terms like “white privilege.” But rather than putting the onus on “libs” who should know using such a term is “incendiary” and kills a dialogue, maybe we should encourage looking at the truth of a situation and not scuttling it because we refuse to engage around some politically defined concepts?

Are we really that fragile?

I say this not to criticize any posters here. But you see this play out places like Fox News (Ingraham and Tucker,) where we move instantly from reasonable interpretation of facts to the audacity and motives of the messenger. 

Maybe we should reject that tactic, rather than the semantics.

Okay, coming back to this.  I agree 100% that "white privilege" is a real thing that exists in the world.  I'm white.  That whiteness affects the way that other people interact with me whether I choose for it to be that way or not.  If I go shopping, nobody is going to follow me around to make sure I'm not shoplifting.  If I'm driving around town, I'm probably not going to get pulled over for some pretextual reason.  If I do get pulled over, I'm probably going to be treated nicely by the officer.*  I'll get good service when I go to a bar or restaurant, cab drivers are happy to pick me up, etc.  On a more immediate level, my students will assume that I know what I'm talking about and won't question my disciplinary knowledge.  I'll never be called upon to be a spokesperson for all white people.  If I get turned down for a promotion, or if somebody is a jerk to me, I never have to waste a second of thought on whether I was mistreated because of my race.  We can go on and on with other examples, but obviously you and I agree on this point.

I suppose it's technically accurate in some theoretical sense to say that Hellen Keller also enjoyed white privilege.  She also never got pulled over by a cop for no reason.  Nobody ever followed her around to make sure she wasn't stealing anything.  More seriously, she didn't have to worry about being lynched for looking at the wrong white person the wrong way.  That's all true.

Having said that, nobody is "just" white.  One thing that intersectionality gets right is that a person's identity typically isn't captured by just one thing.  In Keller's case, her disability was especially noteworthy which is the reason -- the only reason really -- why she shows up in history books.  Describing her as "just another privileged white person" grossly mis-describes her life experience, incorrectly paints all white people with the same racially reductive brush, and misses the point of why some people look at her as an inspirational figure.

Privilege isn't just a "white" thing.  Men also enjoy a privileged position in society.  But if somebody described Jackie Robinson as "just another privileged male" we would all assume that the speaker was either a troll, a tool, or both.  Not because Jackie Robinson wasn't male and not because he didn't enjoy a certain type of male privilege, but because it totally misses the point.  

There's also a separate issue here with the use of the word "privilege" to describe what we're talking about here.  To most people, "privilege" implies something that was given but not earned, and which can justifiably be taken away at any time.  That's wrong.  As a white guy, I get treated the way everybody should be treated.  It's not that I'm really privileged as much as it is that other people are unjustly disadvantaged.  My suspicion is that the messaging on this point would go a lot better if it were put that way instead.   

*My favorite example of this is the time I brought my new car home and decided to take my daughter along to try out the turbocharger on a nearby section road.  The sheriff who ended up pulling me over for 70-something in a 55 chuckled when I explained the situation and let me off with a warning.

 

[parasaurolophus]

It is in the first post. Dont waste our time with this baloney. 

Let me clarify. Yes, first post quotes a Black activist as saying just another white privileged person. No one here has repeated or agreed with that narrow argument, and the article itself does not in any way argue that position. It’s the outlier, and we’ve since moved in to discuss the nuanced truth, which is more complicated than she was (that’s not true in total,) and also more complicated than she was not (that’s also not true in total.)

The black activist saying what she said is literally the whole point of the thread. I thought I made that obvious with the title of the thread and then the OP. 

I get the argument that people get triggered (and I use that word knowing it’s been appropriated) by terms like “white privilege.” But rather than putting the onus on “libs” who should know using such a term is “incendiary” and kills a dialogue, maybe we should encourage looking at the truth of a situation and not scuttling it because we refuse to engage around some politically defined concepts?
 

You even acknowledge the phrase white privilege being used and say we should get past that and engage. 

Earlier in the thread you said 

But instead of taking an extreme and predictable position, might you try to first understand the merits of the perspective?

So I asked you about that engagement 

Whats the underlying positive message that we can find that isnt somehow being conveyed and outweighs the obvious positive message already conveyed when it comes to helen keller.

In order for me to move past the "incendiary" language from Cameron and engage on some merits of her comments that is what would be required. I would have to be able to see that Anita Cameron has a more nuanced point and reason for her comments. I dont believe such a point can be extracted from her comments as they seemed more out of spite and I don't see how they are ever applicable. 

If we shift it to some sort of other avenue and we want to say things like Helen Keller was really blessed to have been able to receive help and support to live a fulfilling life, the underlying important message would be to emphasize how important help and support can be. Not to emphasize Helen Keller being privileged. That word isn't used to describe other people in a complimentary sense or even really a neutral sense. And it certainly isn't a positive when arguing that she is just another history lesson being written about privileged white people. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Okay, read the article in depth. (Had skimmed.) Let’s look at the context of Cameron’s comments. It comes after description of Keller graduating Radcliffe (now Harvard,) becoming a radical activist, reading Marx and espousing socialist ideas, and then directly after Cameron’s comments they are attributed to Keller’s writings where she advocated for eugenics.* So the label of privilege had nothing to do with here deaf blindness at all, and had everything to do with her radical and racially tinted beliefs in her writings and activism.

*Selective breeding to remove undesirable human characteristics that tends to favor white racial qualities over others, and is widely cited as being used by Nazis to justify mistreatment of Jews.

That was not the context of Anita Cameron's comments.

I don’t have a perspective on Helen Keller. She’s just another, despite disabilities, privileged white person. I am a Black disabled Lesbian who happens to be poor. You know, you want to talk about intersectionalities and marginalizations. I’m looking up from the bottom and I’m just out here trying to not only fight for the rights of all disabled but wanting to highlight even among disabled, there are those of us whose stories don’t get told.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Exact text from the article you linked:

“Some of the reason schools don’t teach much about Keller’s adult life is because she was involved in groups that have been perceived as too radical throughout American history. She was a member of the Socialist Party, and corresponded with Eugene Debs, the party’s most prominent member and a five-time presidential candidate. She also read Marx, and her associations with all of these far-left groups landed her on the radar of the FBI, which monitored her for ties to the Communist Party.

However, to some Black disability rights activists, like Anita Cameron, Helen Keller is not radical at all, “just another, despite disabilities, privileged white person,” and yet another example of history telling the story of privileged white Americans. Critics of Helen Keller cite her writings that reflected the popularity of now-dated eugenics theories and her friendship with one of the movement’s supporters Alexander Graham Bell. The American Foundation for the Blind archivist Helen Selsdon says Keller “moved away from that position.”

_

In context, criticism is about Keller’s ideas and work, and specifically linked to eugenics.

Nope. 

The author took various soundbites and assembled an article. Cameron's comments were not about eugenics at all. They were about helen keller getting play and black disabled people not getting it. More specifically her own involvement in a march in 1990. 

 

[JAA]

Okay, read the article in depth. (Had skimmed.) Let’s look at the context of Cameron’s comments. It comes after description of Keller graduating Radcliffe (now Harvard,) becoming a radical activist, reading Marx and espousing socialist ideas, and then directly after Cameron’s comments they are attributed to Keller’s writings where she advocated for eugenics.* So the label of privilege had nothing to do with here deaf blindness at all, and had everything to do with her radical and racially tinted beliefs in her writings and activism.

*Selective breeding to remove undesirable human characteristics that tends to favor white racial qualities over others, and is widely cited as being used by Nazis to justify mistreatment of Jews.

That was not the context of Anita Cameron's comments.

I don’t have a perspective on Helen Keller. She’s just another, despite disabilities, privileged white person. I am a Black disabled Lesbian who happens to be poor. You know, you want to talk about intersectionalities and marginalizations. I’m looking up from the bottom and I’m just out here trying to not only fight for the rights of all disabled but wanting to highlight even among disabled, there are those of us whose stories don’t get told.

id like to write the opposition to your comments just to be devils advocate ... cause you know ... its Friday and their isnt a Pullman blanket thread to grab my attention else where.

Perspective

From Cameron’s perspective HK is an equal to her in disability, but with respect to social and economic opportunity HK had a lot more privilege.  So if we put ourselves in Camerson's shoes, her statements about privilege are not that far off, comparatively.  From Camerson's perspective, from her vantage point now, "looking up" as she puts it, HK is just another privileged white person. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Inclined to agree with you. Terribly presented in the article. Conflating that concept with eugenics. And also think it’s a poor argument against Keller if the argument isn’t being made on top of the criticisms. Seems the article’s writer is building that argument, not Cameron.

To which I’d summarize that I disagree with Cameron’s dying in that kill, because why? 

Yeah, I dont really get the angle there, but mostly dismissed it because when she said this...

Critics of Helen Keller cite her writings that reflected the popularity of now-dated eugenics theories

"Writings" had a hyperlink that didnt work. I didnt feel like digging into it. The only real quote about it in the transcription was this

HELEN SELSDON:That’s absolutely true. She did write about eugenics
and she was concerned that children with disabilities with severe disabilities would not be able to function in society. I think it was part of that zeitgeist at the time. I think it’s very easy to take history out of context very early on she moved away from that position.
And I think she would herself be heartbroken to think that she did not value every life because she absolutely did.

 

[parasaurolophus]

id like to write the opposition to your comments just to be devils advocate ... cause you know ... its Friday and their isnt a Pullman blanket thread to grab my attention else where.

Perspective

From Cameron’s perspective HK is an equal to her in disability, but with respect to social and economic opportunity HK had a lot more privilege.  So if we put ourselves in Camerson's shoes, her statements about privilege are not that far off, comparatively.  From Camerson's perspective, from her vantage point now, "looking up" as she puts it, HK is just another privileged white person. 

I dont disagree that Cameron thinks Helen Keller is just another privileged white person and that she thinks aspbergers and being deaf and blind are completely the same and we should just move right to Helen Keller being a privileged white person. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

As it now seems we do with most anything, everyone loves to dive in to the ends of the spectrum and take their shots.

One one end, it's the position of "I don't have any privilege. I earned everything I have.

On the other end it's "You didn't do a single thing to get where you are, it is all given to you".

This is a perfect example of why our politics is broken.  The first example happens all the time when “privilege” is discussed, as many folks either do not recognize their own good fortune or they refuse to admit it.  The 2nd example has literally never happened.  I’ve read thousands of posts on several boards about this subject, as well as had tons of discussion with conservative friends and family about our privilege. Never have I encountered the argument that privileged folks “didn’t do a single thing to get where they are”. 

Both sidesism is killing our politics.  It gives bad actors a free pass and incentivizes continued bad faith actions since the bad actors know their behavior won’t be penalized as long as moderates bend over backwards to frame everything as being equally bad on both sides.   

 

[the rover]

This is a perfect example of why our politics is broken.  The first example happens all the time when “privilege” is discussed, as many folks either do not recognize their own good fortune or they refuse to admit it.  The 2nd example has literally never happened.  I’ve read thousands of posts on several boards about this subject, as well as had tons of discussion with conservative friends and family about our privilege. Never have I encountered the argument that privileged folks “didn’t do a single thing to get where they are”. 

Both sidesism is killing our politics.  It gives bad actors a free pass and incentivizes continued bad faith actions since the bad actors know their behavior won’t be penalized as long as moderates bend over backwards to frame everything as being equally bad on both sides.   

I have extremely wealthy friends that did nothing but get born to get their riches.  They voted for Trump so that they wouldn’t be hit by estate tax when their rich parents pass on.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I have extremely wealthy friends that did nothing but get born to get their riches.  They voted for Trump so that they wouldn’t be hit by estate tax when their rich parents pass on.

I gave this a like because it's always funny when one poster says "Nobody actually believes so-and-so" and then the next poster comes along in the very next post earnestly saying so-and-so.  Well played.

 

[parasaurolophus]

have extremely wealthy friends that did nothing but get born to get their riches.  They voted for Trump so that they wouldn’t be hit by estate tax when their rich parents pass on.

I gave this a like because it's always funny when one poster says "Nobody actually believes so-and-so" and then the next poster comes along in the very next post earnestly saying so-and-so.  Well played.

In before But that isnt the exact same words and punctuation used as "didn’t do a single thing to get where they are" so i am still right!

 

[tommyGunZ]

I have extremely wealthy friends that did nothing but get born to get their riches.  They voted for Trump so that they wouldn’t be hit by estate tax when their rich parents pass on.

I know several folks who are millionaires due to inheritance as well. None of the would claim/admit they did nothing to get where they are. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

In before But that isnt the exact same words and punctuation used as "didn’t do a single thing to get where they are" so i am still right!

It’s a different argument.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

It’s a different argument.  

"did nothing but get born to get their riches."

And 

"didn’t do a single thing to get where they are"

Are not different. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

This is a perfect example of why our politics is broken.  The first example happens all the time when “privilege” is discussed, as many folks either do not recognize their own good fortune or they refuse to admit it.  The 2nd example has literally never happened.  I’ve read thousands of posts on several boards about this subject, as well as had tons of discussion with conservative friends and family about our privilege. Never have I encountered the argument that privileged folks “didn’t do a single thing to get where they are”. 

Both sidesism is killing our politics.  It gives bad actors a free pass and incentivizes continued bad faith actions since the bad actors know their behavior won’t be penalized as long as moderates bend over backwards to frame everything as being equally bad on both sides.   

I'm sorry but I disagree. I think it's a perfect example (again) of me not being a good communicator. 

I edited my post. Of course, no reasonable person would say it an absolute "didn't do a single thing". That's my error and was a dumb thing to say as nobody would say that. 

I edited. Personally, I think it's a worthwhile topic. And one worth working through without the whataboutisms. 

My point is there's a wide spectrum of beliefs on how much people think they've had to do with their success. That's not "both sides". That's a spectrum. 

In my opinion, once the word "privilege" is introduced, real discussion is difficult.

Every single one of us reading this has privilege just by the fact we're able to see and read and have access to a screen of some sort. That puts us way up the scale.

As it now seems we do with most anything, everyone loves to dive in to the ends of the spectrum and take their shots.

One one end, it's the position of "I don't have any privilege. I earned most everything I have". Translated: "I did this mostly all on my own."

On the other end it's "You were handed all this and your success has more to do with your parents than any work you've done".  Translated: "You mostly didn't have much to do with your success".

Both are wrong in my opinion. 

And the way it's usually discussed is someone more on the "you didn't earn anything" end takes their shot at the guy on the end with the "You didn't earn anything" or "You were born with a silver spoon".

Invariably it seems the discussion goes to belittle the other side and we get exactly what we get. 

I think a much better way to talk about it is "Advantages". 

To suggest I as a white male born with no physical/mental issues into a middle class family with two parents who loved me didn't have massive advantages compared to many people is absurd. And insulting to other people.

To suggest I didn't do anything to get to where I have is also absurd. And kind of insulting to me and the work I've done. 

I think we all get that. But we seem to have a hard time discussing it. 

Helen Keller absolutely had advantages with her economic situation and skin color.

Helen Keller absolutely had massive disadvantages with her physical issues and being a woman in that time. 

Instead of a hot take that Keller was privileged, I wish we could have more honest discussion.

 

[djmich]

I know several folks who are millionaires due to inheritance as well. None of the would claim/admit they did nothing to get where they are. 

What do they say?

 

[Joe Bryant]

What do they say?

I think it depends entirely on how you ask them.

If you ask a person something like, "Being born into a family where money was never an issue and you had loving parents who cared for you and you had all the resources needed to help you develop is a plus. How do you think your "starting spot" and situation compared to others affected the path of your life?", I find I always get a reasonable discussion. Most people that had great situations are thankful for the direct situation and then the conversation often goes into public resources like good schools and other things.

If you ask the same person, "You do realize you were handed most everything and the reason you're successful is because of your privilege, right?", then that will go exactly as you expect. 

 

[AAABatteries]

Sorry for the dumb joke @Joe Bryant

 

[djmich]

I think it depends entirely on how you ask them.

If you ask a person something like, "Being born into a family where money was never an issue and you had loving parents who cared for you and you had all the resources needed to help you develop is a plus. How do you think your "starting spot" and situation compared to others affected the path of your life?", I find I always get a reasonable discussion. Most people that had great situations are thankful for the direct situation and then the conversation often goes into public resources like good schools and other things.

If you ask the same person, "You do realize you were handed most everything and the reason you're successful is because of your privilege, right?", then that will go exactly as you expect. 

Haha, yes I think how you ask will greatly influence the response.  Probably a key lesson/message there for a lot of people.

I was more going down the path though that these millionaires that tommy knows, I assume they are friends or at least acquaintances that he wouldn't act like a ### towards and ask in a sincere way...but they still deny any association with or benefit of being born into a multi-million dollar inheritance. 

Seems odd, I know a few such people, they are pretty aware of their good fortune.  I guess everyone is not the same though...tommy maybe you need to find some better millionaire friends?

 

[Joe Bryant]

A good article on some of the basics of how we've all had help. Virtually none of us have success without help.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/361157

The "self-made" title is a badge many entrepreneurs wear proudly. It's seen as the gold standard for success. You've done the undoable and beaten the odds stacked against you to create something that separates you from countless others. So now you get to claim all the glory — or do you?

The idea of being self-made — although a massive self-pat on the back — is in reality a myth. Entrepreneurial success relies on the insights, guidance, experiences, observations and interactions of others. The following are five reasons the self-made entrepreneur is a myth. 

Opportunity

Entrepreneurs will either fall into the category of providing a product or a service. Assuming you came up with the idea for said product or service without the insight and feedback of others, you would still need an opportunity or platform to share that product or service with paying customers. That opportunity might be as subtle as having someone mention your name in a room of decision-makers or as straightforward as you participating in an episode of Shark Tank. Whether that opportunity was paid for or organic, someone has taken a chance on or believed in you enough to support you on your journey. 

Related: The One Investing Tip From Billionaire Mark Cuban That's Perfect For Entrepreneurs

Education

We don’t know what we don’t know. Sometimes even we don’t even know what we do know! That is why successful entrepreneurs turn to mentors, coaches, and advisors at different points in their journeys to cover their blind spots. Education can take different forms, from traditional classroom learning to one-on-one mentoring with an experienced leader. Whatever path to learning you take, you will be dependent on someone else’s shared knowledge and experience to teach you what to do and how to do it on your path to success. 

Relationships

The difference between success and failure as an entrepreneur might be a third-degree connection. Earlier I suggested that someone might mention your name in a room full of decision-makers, but the thing that would make that person feel inclined to mention your name is the relationship you’ve cultivated with them. Relationships are important to entrepreneurial success, whether they are with customers or clients, with investors or stakeholders or are the relationships with friends and family that keep you encouraged, motivated and fulfilled. The relationships you build can also help determine where you get your first round of investment capital. 

Investors

Your investors are either going to help you bring your product or service to market or help you scale. One of the biggest obstacles facing small businesses is funding. Without investors, you might be left footing the bill for all marketing tasks, research and development, the creation of systems, distribution and all other operating expenses. Unless you are going into your business independently wealthy, you are going to rely on the capital of others to help get you where you want to be. 

Customers and clients

You can’t have a business if you aren’t making money. If nothing else, customers and clients are going to be the primary reason for your existence as an entrepreneur. Even if you somehow manage to navigate past all previous obstacles on your own, you will need the rallying of customers and clients to your specific aim or goal in order to reach some version of success. Your success is a direct correlation of the people who buy into and trust your product or service, therefore it can never be attained by yourself.  Self-made is a myth, because success simply doesn’t exist in a vacuum.