Submitted by Janet Lehr, Nov 2, 2006 10:39

Andrew Carnegie was not the typical picture of America's men or great wealth, or was he? In todays academies capitalism is immoral. Immorality is ascribed to almost all whose success is the result of intense work. Is the converse for the 'new' author so, that it is logical to claim that the achiever of great wealth, rarely spent a full day at work? It is the blood and guts of Carnegie, this aspect of Rollyson's review of David Nasaw's biography of one of America's great capitalists, that both find uninteresting? Was it missing from the text by David Nasaw or the review by Carl Rollyson? Was Carnegie just ‘lucky'? It is hard to believe that so much business and philanthropy was undertaken, by a figure who devoted himself to the 'love off travel, reading, attending the theater, and generally absorbing culture.' Somewhere I feel we are missing the man. In can't help but wonder whether Andrew Carnegie had strong religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are scoffed at by many of the second half of the 20th century's intellectual elite; but might they might offer the proper balance for the out of control money machine can-do, will-do attitude with his/hers lack of respect for man or beast, the person able to involve himself in cultural pursuits and the persons whose most lasting gifts were charitable?

Janet Lehr, IsraelLives

janetlehr@veredart.com

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.