Liza Featherstone Manna From Hell Analysis

Bias against the Strong
After reading Liza Featherstones Essay, “Manna from Hell” I felt a strong sense of wonder strike me. The article focuses on the charitable giving and political influence of the Walton family, the heirs of Wal-Mart Stores founder Sam Walton. She brings a sense of social obligation to the reader, in which Wal-Mart is not meeting, according to her. She tells the reader of the evils of Wal-Mart’s philanthropy, privatized education, and of the anti-governmental practices found through the dispersion of the Walton’s Money. However, she never explains social obligation and justifies her scrutiny of the giving practices of the Walton heirs.
Liza Featherstone describes Wal-Mart as having a terrible public image. She cites
“The Waltons’ motives for supporting the privatization of education seem… to be ideological, even idealistic, rather than an elaborate backdrop to a new money-making scheme.” (Featherstone, 512). The idea behind the Waltons’ funding for this education is to give an opportunity to kids where there isn’t one. They use a lot of ‘regimented recitation rather than critical or creative thinking.’(Featherstone, 511) There is no reason to assume that this learning style is better or worse. In this country's early education repetition of certain phrases was the way to teach. Many people from that era remember what they learned and the educated literacy rate wasn’t plummeting as in today’s schools. So just from using a glimpse at the past I can tell you the Waltons’ may be onto something in a country that has to adapt tests of kids rather than kids for
Philanthropy provides an alternative to taxation. How can this come under scrutiny? Millions of Americans contribute to different organizations and causes, among the largest contributors are big business and the rich. Everyone is eligible for this alternative to taxation. But the author brings to the reader, “We are supposed to applaud philanthropy – The very word connotes altruism and ‘giving back’—but Walton and Wal-Mart giving serves as a reminder that philanthropy provides an alternative to taxation, a way for rich people and corporations to decide what to do with their extra money, as opposed to letting the rest of us decide through our elected governments.”(Featherstone, 510). But this statement is flawed in many ways’ she isolates rich people and corporations but all American’s can ‘benefit’ from this tax write off that our elected governments put in place. The concept that this is a terrible thing is too altruistic in the worst way. The way that people spend their money should remain ultimately upon them. Only in an utopia would it be great if we all shared but the idea of having others choose how to spend your money is ultimately selfish on the taking end, whether greed is involved or