Andrew Carnegie On Charity Analysis

Andrew Carnegie indicated, “In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves; to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; to give those who desire to use the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never to do all” (Carnegie). He did not believe that alms giving provided value. While I understand the intent that Carnegie had, I do not believe it fits every situation.
Alms are “money, clothes, food, and other things given to poor people” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Alms giving occurs with the Salvation Army, soup kitchens, food dispensaries, welfare, and a variety of other public assistance programs. Churches provide these items to those in need. I understand the premise that Carnegie presented. He was providing his beliefs that the philanthropist is not to waste money towards those who are not willing to help him
He was of Puerto-Rican descent. His racial ethnicity labeled him with a minority status. Additionally, he lived in an environment that labeled him the poverty status. Both of these qualified him to receive a free college education. This was an all-expense paid trip through the college system to become an architect. He ended up quitting before graduation and reverted to living generally, where he grew up and in similar circumstances. What I struggle with is my interpretation of squandered. Did this free education provide him with coping mechanisms to help his children cycle out of the system? Alternatively, did it just provide knowledge how to navigate and take advantage of the system? I watched my parents struggle with multiple jobs to raise five children. None of us qualified for any type of support even though my father worked three jobs and my mother in another. Each of my siblings worked hard for what they have