I was just reading Mickey Mouse History and I came across a passage where Wallace mentions that he argued earlier about how the superwealthy have done things like historic preservation merely to get their name on something and to show how wealthy they've become. He's probably trying to get a rise out of people for it, but can't people with money just do something for something that they think is a good cause? Must they always have an underlying reason for spending their money publicly?
I always think back to Rome during many of our class discussions and our readings. A similar argument can be made that men, politicians mostly, just did things to make themselves look better so they could get more votes and a bigger, stronger power base. I still believe that there are wealthy people out there that spend their money for good causes. Perhaps it's the American mentality that if someone with money is spending it on something other than their business then it must be for selfish or self-preserving reasons. I don't know. What do you think?
Good example: Bill and Melinda Gates. They donate(literally) millions of dollars to really good causes and don't expect anything in return -- they are pretty private about it.
ReplyDeleteI understand Wallace's point, but his tone throughout his book is extremely cynical, so I agree with taking his comments with a grain of salt. I am beginning to think he is a frustrated writer, or just a bit of a miser.
I agree with both of you to a point. If people have the means, why should they not be allowed to donate to causes they deem fit? While tax write-offs are an incentive, I personally have no problem with people who might use that money to send it to more charitable causes (if they do, that is.).
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of what Wallace was getting at in this week's reading was how the wealthy, businesses, etc. are "fair weather friends" of preservation. The test of whether they truly believe in the "meaning" of these historic sites depends on whether they abandon them the moment they become inconvenient.
ReplyDeleteThat is a really good point.
DeleteMike is sounding more and more like a bitter communist "fellow traveler". He lauds the Soviet Union for their support of history (gasp... they rewrote history anually)and attacks supply / demand capitalism as being anti-preservation and needing to be replaced. Sure....
ReplyDeleteNot that I really mind this. Communists are a lot of fun as long as they don't get serious political power or a lot of weapons. I consider them the Tabasco sauce in the American melting pot. If Mike is a communist, don't expect him to ever say anything nice about the rich. Or the bougoise. Or even capitalism in general. It won't happen. But he can be a lot of fun to listen to once you get past that!