I write in response to John Moore’s letter “Philanthropy or giving — the wealth of difference” (January 13).
I think it’s unfair to include Andrew Carnegie in the same company as horrific characters such as Jeffrey Epstein and the Sackler family. Carnegie also had a much more positive influence on civilisation during his working life than did Cecil Rhodes or Alfred Nobel, whom the letter writer also mentions.
Indeed, the driving force behind Carnegie’s philanthropy was his view that inherited wealth was not good for society and his family. He did not seek acclamation for his philanthropy as much of it went under the radar.
In Dunfermline, the city where he was born, his wealth paid for a library, a theatre, swimming baths, a woman’s institute, rehabilitation services for injured soldiers and a technical college. He gifted golf courses and parks to the “toiling masses of Dunfermline” and created a trust which to this day annually pays out hundreds of thousands of pounds to clubs, societies and those in need from the Dunfermline area. Of course this generated social prestige but that was a byproduct of his desire to gift his fortune away and ensure his family forged their own paths in life.
Iain Bryson
Dunfermline, Fife, UK
