![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Sep. 21st, 2015 07:39 pmVisited a previously unknown mansion in DC
http://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/
that was 1 of 4 or more main homes for an heiress to the post cereal fortune (and married yet more money). It was curious - the grounds and place were gorgeous, and the owner created it with the intention of making it a gift to the public to appreciate art.
But my god the aggrandizing narcissism! Much of what is on display are dresses this woman wore and pictures of her in them. The narratives were hysterical, talking about how she repeatedly ordered custom outfits from the top designers of the day, how much expense was not spared, as if this taste in material goods was reflective of the person. It was quite easy to read through the flattering descriptions of her actions just to find another narrative about a spoiled girl born to wealth who only lived to act like she was an actual fairy princess.
Further permeating the veneer is the simple fact the fortune came from from selling cereal to people who had to rush through a cheap breakfast, to how the fortune really ballooned when the private company went public and then ate up all its competition. To this day the huge company is essentially a concentration of wealth based on millions of poor people eating cereal.
On the other hand she was, if I believe the written narrative of her endowment maintainers, then she was also advocating for the poor and a leader in women's rights. Perhaps she was. Then she may share a sin that I'm more capable of - feeling good about the good you do when it takes little effort from you. I can afford to give $500 in charity - but it isn't the same action as if I made $10,000 a year. She was reportedly, in her museum, good to her staff. Does that make her a good person?
Does inheriting a fortune made from the poor make her a bad person?
http://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/
that was 1 of 4 or more main homes for an heiress to the post cereal fortune (and married yet more money). It was curious - the grounds and place were gorgeous, and the owner created it with the intention of making it a gift to the public to appreciate art.
But my god the aggrandizing narcissism! Much of what is on display are dresses this woman wore and pictures of her in them. The narratives were hysterical, talking about how she repeatedly ordered custom outfits from the top designers of the day, how much expense was not spared, as if this taste in material goods was reflective of the person. It was quite easy to read through the flattering descriptions of her actions just to find another narrative about a spoiled girl born to wealth who only lived to act like she was an actual fairy princess.
Further permeating the veneer is the simple fact the fortune came from from selling cereal to people who had to rush through a cheap breakfast, to how the fortune really ballooned when the private company went public and then ate up all its competition. To this day the huge company is essentially a concentration of wealth based on millions of poor people eating cereal.
On the other hand she was, if I believe the written narrative of her endowment maintainers, then she was also advocating for the poor and a leader in women's rights. Perhaps she was. Then she may share a sin that I'm more capable of - feeling good about the good you do when it takes little effort from you. I can afford to give $500 in charity - but it isn't the same action as if I made $10,000 a year. She was reportedly, in her museum, good to her staff. Does that make her a good person?
Does inheriting a fortune made from the poor make her a bad person?
