Social problems; United States -- Social conditions -- 1865-1918
To play Lord or Lady Bountiful is such a self-gratifying part. It is
the traditional, the conventional part of the very rich toward the
very poor. Beggars are so voluble in thanks. It sounds so well to
talk of “my worthy poor,” of what “I am doing for charity.” So many
hours that would otherwise be boresome can be filled with receiving
and patronizing cringing, slathering paupers or with nosing about
tenements, receiving on every floor noisy showers of blessings in
exchange for less than the price of a supper after the theatre.
The whole business lessens the vanity-disturbing doubts that
sometimes will arise even among the very rich as to the validity of
the distinctions in this Democracy between “upper class” and “lower
classes.” In some cases the motive is higher. In many cases there is an
admixture of the higher motive. But the persistence of the very rich
in face of the plain showings of the harm they do makes it impossible
entirely to acquit large numbers of them.
The pauperization plants of plutocracy fall into three classes--the
public, the semi-public and the private.
The politicians have expanded, where they have not out and out
established, the public plants. Instead of making the people realize
the truth--that these plants are their property, paid for out of
their wages and giving service to them not as charity, but as
their hard-earned, paid-for right, the politicians turn them into
favor-distributing centres, centres for the distribution of alms
in exchange for political power. The semi-public plants for the
manufacture of paupers are the gifts of very rich men, usually men
who made their own money; after the first generation the very rich do
not as a rule go in for large public gifts. It is never profitable or
just to examine deep into motives; sufficient to say that, with a few
exceptions, these semi-public philanthropic institutions for giving
something in exchange for nothing are avoided by all but such of the
poor as don’t mind thinking themselves paupers or being looked on and
treated as paupers.
Finally, there are the private pauperization plants. From them might be
excepted those of the rich men and the rich women who have gone into
the relief business in a systematic way and operate through thoroughly
organized, carefully and competently conducted bureaus. Their theory
of helping is not exactly consistent with the old American idea of
“root hog or die,” but neither is it wholly exploitation of their own
personal vanity without any regard to the merits of applicants. They
give relief, but they try to make sure that relief is, according to
their very liberal notion of necessity, needed.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account