This philosophy has long been heard in the African American community as a requirement for the so-called achievers, or anybody who is identified as earning any money, and certainly Latinos have the philanthropic attitude of "giving back to the community" and have many civic and nonprofit models for this philanthropic ideal--now it is perhaps a national philosophy and world philosophy, whoever invented this philosophy as phrased in this manner.
Anybody who is identified as having any wealth at all, any money beyond the community norm, even if it's imaginary wealth, is required to "give back to the community." When you go into any type of work that is associated as a "wealth-producing" work, then you're required to "give back to the community." It's a noble request and a noble requirement, but it can also be very oppressive to those who can not meet the impossible demands of this type of philosophy.
Certainly philanthropists have always had this ideal, although they have not necessarily phrased it in this grassroots manner. Every community, whether grassroots or elite have their "local heroes and heroines" involved in some form of philanthropy.
Nevertheless, in giving back to the community, whether local, national, or global there must be a method of doing this that is feasible and reasonable, not just giving freebies and donations to people.
The people just spend the money and then they continue the same old same old, looking for more freebies and more donations. Many people feel that this is the meaning of "giving back to the community." That it is an entitlement, and for freebies. It is not necessarily that.
There are many blacks for example who believe in reparations, and others certainly believe in reparations along with them. Other oppressed peoples have received various forms of reparations, countries and races, so reparations is a norm. Nevertheless, just giving freebies to people is not reparations, where everybody spends their "bit of money" and then continues the same old demands of entitlement. Reparations has to be connected to restoration and rebuilding including the people's communities and infrastructure. Business and economic development included. Like the so-called "war on poverty." War on poverty cannot be just free money for people, where they just spend their "bit of money" and continue in poverty. Many people along with the money have to be taught how to build and rebuild, how to set up companies and businesses. Many of the poor have the proper notion of "giving back to the community," but many of them only understand grabbing as much money as they can get, and bankrupting the people who have money for them. This has to be said.
This doesn't mean you shouldn't have money for the poor. Certainly you should. But there should also be workshops on how to make use of that money to help believe get out of poverty and learn how to fish along with the other fishermen and fisherwomen and fisherchildren.
The concept of teaching people to fish should and must go along with the freebies.
Let's use Oprah as an example. She gives many freebies to the people including her audience--some have even joked about her having these audience freebies, however, she also understands that she has to have companies and businesses--her production company, her radio station, her business investments, including her Africa initiatives, and she has to have a means beyond her personal self to generate the monies that the people need and are seeking.
The problem with Oprah and many of these having things centered in her name is that she must continue to maintain her good name and her good reputation. Or she must have business investments that are not necessarily associated with the Oprah name. This is the problem with many of these business people, who are public business professionals, and must maintain a public good name. And it's very easy for public people like private people to say and do the wrong thing--according to the publics notions of right and wrong. Maybe you disagree with the war or people decide they just don't like that celebrity, as happens with many celebrities. They don't necessarily do anything wrong. People just don't like that celebrity, or there are other celebrities that assume greater interest for them. This is the celebrity world. Most celebrities know this. Most fans know this also. Also, celebrities age and new, younger and brighter stars emerge.
For example, many of us remember Donahue as the gem of the talk show world, then young Oprah makes an appearance. Where's Donahue? This is the celebrity world. And this is any type of business. Perhaps a person shall come along whose a greater star of public business celebrity than Donald Trump. This is the celebrity world. Or we just get tired of Donald Trump's behavior. We're jaded. This is the celebrity. The Beatles come along and we forget Elvis. Except the true fans. We're jaded.
