re: #1 wrenchwench

re: #2 researchok

I’m not going to shoot the messenger because this is an interesting case of how PR folks think about life—just take the money.

However, this method of giving is one method of erasing history. Here’s an example that I’ve used before. In the south, even after emancipation, there was unspeakable crimes against Black folks, essentially illegally impressing them into slavery. That isn’t the worst part. Because of this widespread web of deceit, even murder, that extended into the highest echelons of government, law enforcement, and the judiciary—all of this was done in secret, and did not officially end until the 1940s. What’s more, when the kidnapped victims died, or were killed, the question among the murderers and accomplices was how to secretly dispose of the bodies. One of the companies guilty of this made bricks. And so the answer to that problem was simple for them. Some of the older houses and walkways in the south may still show evidence of these horrible crimes.

But what of the families of the perpetrators, what of their children? The answer was charity, having buildings, schools, whatever, named after the murdering pater familias. The charity effectively covered the crimes, and it would take a skilled genealogist to get past the hagiographies and monuments to find the evidence of the murders.

I don’t know who Tucker Max is, but I do know of the technique of changing history through charity. It is not simply some scared bureaucrat behind the decision to turn down the gift—it is possible that someone keenly aware of ethics also had some input. PR folks tend not to understand that concept.