Mothers and their babies abducted by laughing gunmen and used as hostages. Beheaded bodies left bloating in the sun. Crowds searching for family in rubble-strewn bomb craters. Neanderthals chanting "Gas the Jews" on the steps of the Sydney Opera House. Politicians and prophets spouting their endless cliches about war and retribution.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It's been an ugly week, even for a species like ours with such a unique knack for plumbing new depths in cruelty and pain.
Numbed by the sickening savagery of the latest war in the Middle East and appalled by that demented mob of pro-Palestinian supporters in Sydney celebrating this latest round of bloodshed, the moment arrived when, probably just like you, I had to look away.
I stopped scrolling through the internet's tsunami of war porn and went searching for a glimmer of human generosity and selflessness.
And that's how I stumbled across Chuck Feeney. I'd never heard of him until I read about his death earlier this week at the age of 92. But after a week of barbarism in the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Feeney's achievements might just help restore some of your faith in the human condition.
A little, anyway.
Feeney was a working-class Irish-American entrepreneur who made a fortune building a global empire of duty-free stores when international travel began booming after World War II.
By the early 1980s he was worth more than $8 billion. Yet he remained unsatisfied. His globe-trotting lifestyle, resplendent with opulent mansions in New York, London and the French Riviera, gnawed at him.
"How much is rich?" he once said. "Beyond all expectations. Beyond all deserving ... I just reached the conclusion with myself that money, buying boats and all the trimmings didn't appeal to me."
So Feeney decided he would give everything away apart from a small percentage set aside for his family. He also chose to dispose of his $8 billion fortune anonymously. Unlike many of his peers, his name would not appear on the brass plaques of the estimated 1000 new buildings he funded.
Try imagining our present-day class of uber rich like Elon Musk or Amazon's Jeff Bezos forgoing the opportunity to etch their names into the furniture to remind future generations of their generosity.
Feeney, resolutely determined to avoid the spotlight, set up a philanthropic organisation in Bermuda to bypass the disclosure requirements of the US government, despite forgoing sizeable tax deductions on his charitable donations.
It wasn't until the late 1990s that Chuck Feeney's identity as one of the world's greatest givers was first disclosed. By then he had given his palatial homes on several continents to his ex-wife and moved into a small, rented apartment in San Francisco. The chauffeur-driven limousines disappeared, too. Feeney took public transport and, when forced to fly, bought economy class tickets. He wore a wristwatch worth $10.
"I had one idea that never changed in my mind - that you should use your wealth to help people," he said. Feeney shut down his philanthropic organisation three years ago because its coffers were empty. His fortune had long been distributed around the world, from funding earthquake relief efforts in Haiti to providing surgery free of charge across the world for children born with cleft lips.
Hundreds of millions of dollars went toward AIDS clinics in Africa, health facilities in Asia and new university campuses, including Ireland where many of his donations are credited with helping the peace process.
Who knows how many lives Feeney improved and how much hope he gave. Yet his death this week, and the details of his extraordinary decades-long generosity, came at a time when the percentage of Australian taxpayers donating to charities continues falling.
The Productivity Commission will report to the federal government next month identifying new opportunities, including tax breaks, to encourage Australians to give more. Good luck with that. With cost of living pressures biting hard - oil prices are already spiking because of the latest Hamas-Israel conflict - the task of turning us into a more charitable nation promises to be a difficult one.
Still, in times when the worst of humanity is on display, when you're in front of the television set fed up with the petty self-righteousness of human beings and yelling at idiots cheering Hamas' murderous attacks on civilians, it's worth celebrating people like Chuck Feeney.
If the carnage in the Middle East over the past week has exposed some of the darkest recesses of the human soul, the story of Feeney's generosity reminds us that maybe we're not quite the savages it's easy to believe we've become.
HAVE YOUR SAY: How can Australia create a better philanthropic culture? Have you stopped making charitable donations because of cost of living issues? And have your opinions about the long-running Israel-Palestine conflict changed after the events of this week? Email us: echidna@theechidna.com.au
SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up too.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
- The new head of PwC Australia has issued a public apology for the embattled firm's role in a tax advice scandal. Chief executive Kevin Burrowes appeared before a parliamentary inquiry into consultancy firms on Thursday, where senators grilled him after partners at PwC passed on confidential Treasury information to boost its private sector business.
- US President Joe Biden has warned Iran against getting involved in Israel's conflict with Hamas amid fears of a wider regional conflict, while Israeli leaders formed an emergency war cabinet to present a united front.
- The federal government has been urged to take a fresh look at Australia's long-standing one China policy. Australia follows the United States' strategic ambiguity policy when it comes to Taiwan, not saying what it could do if Beijing tries to forcefully reintegrate the island under its control by force.
THEY SAID IT: "If you're in the luckiest one percent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent." - Warren Buffet.
YOU SAID IT: Jenna asked you to call friends and persuade them to vote "yes". Some of you were not pleased. Yes, you found many advisory bodies with Indigenous in the title but Jenna argued they don't do anything like what the Voice proposes.
Bob admonishes the Echidna: "A bit of even-handedness wouldn't go astray", he says.
"But then it's just another vehicle for opinions (like mine). I'm a fairly recent 'local' in a regional area on the South Coast. The demographics show a relatively high proportion of older people and retirees, and quite a few are ex-farmers ... having canvassed my friends, colleagues and acquaintances, haven't found one who is intending to vote 'yes'. The results for this electorate will be very interesting."
Malcolm agrees we need to change the way we administer the welfare and needs of Aboriginals in this country and "set up a true bipartisan (dare I say it) working body to gather information from a fresh lot of leaders (not the Noel Pearsons) ... Albo has treated us like mushrooms and only given us what he wants us to see, with respect the everyday Aussie is not going to search for the detail, it should have been explained in detail. Treat us like MUGS and watch the end result."
Mark says people vote "yes" or "no" for a variety of reasons. "If the Voice was short, sharp and to the point, I am sure it would have been supported by most high class politicians of all sides. I keep asking (and get no answers), that this could all have been legislated by parliament - yet it wasn't - why? And then the money spent on this stupidity could have been spent in the areas that we all know are of major concern. But no? The Uluru Statement has not been implemented in full; and the Aboriginal people themselves cannot agree ... and we think (again) that we know better? I must be missing something..."
Belinda says: "Whether we need an advisory board or not isn't the question. None of the advisory boards are part of the constitution so why does this one need to be?"
Tim is a "yes" voter (and so is his spouse) but has a theory about "no" voters: "A possible motivation for voting 'no' is that people who don't have much may resent it when someone who has less receive something not granted to them. Wealthier electorates (such as those with teal MPs) seem more likely to vote 'yes' for this reason. I suggest that many voters perceive they are not adequately represented in our political system, and this disenchantment feeds into the 'no' vote."
But Lee admires Jenna's passion for the Voice: "If only more of us over 55s would stop thinking only about ourselves. I have used many of the arguments that you have raised. The one where we talk about advisory bodies, I was told that none of them are in the constitution by several people and if Albo wanted to he could have legislated it to happen ... It is a hard fight. I too wish we had waited till the older and less progressive generation had passed on. But there will always be many people who will be sucked in by their own FOMO [fear of missing out]."
Garry Linnell
Garry Linnell is one of Australia’s most experienced journalists. He has won several awards for his writing, including a Walkley for best feature writing. He writes a weekly column for ACM and the Echidna.
Garry Linnell is one of Australia’s most experienced journalists. He has won several awards for his writing, including a Walkley for best feature writing. He writes a weekly column for ACM and the Echidna.
