Certainly, but black people are disproportionately less wealthy than white people, so are far less likely to be in that position.
> A poor white person cannot use their whiteness to pay the bills.
This is also true, but they will not face the structural racial discrimination that a black person of their socio-economic standing would.
The trouble with reducing issues of inequality to class alone is that it obscures the systemic biases that make it easier for white dudes to become rich in the first place.
That's the problem - you're talking in theory (obviously there are rich black people and they have resources) while ignoring practical reality, which is that race and socioeconomic status are highly correlated to the point where you can't just magically ignore the latter and somehow equitably deal with the former.
Why do you think that race and gender = diverse? They just have different races and gender, but might think the same way = not diverse.
They can’t stop working their shifty job to participate in YC if they lowered their investment. A wealthy black founder very obviously could. Clearly the deciding factor is socioeconomic and not race.
So you’re just wrong to talk about racial diversity when the issue is clearly socioeconomic diversity.
The absolute proof is that increased economic diversity necessarily results in increased racial diversity. Contrarily, increased racial diversity does not necessarily result in socioeconomic diversity.
Because one is the root cause of the other.
Your thinking is what leads to “diverse” organizations where many racial and gender groups are represented but they’re all rich people that attended Ivy League schools. And that is not diversity by any meaningful definition. It does nothing to alleviate systemic unfairness.