onedayonedeedchicago

Latest Post

Controversial Philanthropy

I have to admit, I snagged this photo from the internet. It was cool, so I used it.

Philanthropy certainly comes in all sizes and shapes. It’s spurred by just about any cause. Really… ANY cause. The need to do good arguably stems from a belief that there is a void needing to be filled. The most prominent form of philanthropy lies in corporations. It’s interesting that the face of philanthropy seems very familiar when talking about organizations such as Feeding America, Oprah’s Angel Network, ShelterBox, among many other enterprises. These corporations clearly embody the ethos of philanthropy because they give to those in need. But, would you consider a coporation that stands up to government or preserves institutional integrity philanthropic?

Before I delve into this, in my opinion, very rich topic, I want to offer up a caveat. I’m going to attempt, as veraciously as possible, to remain objective and write with intrigue rather than judgement. I don’t want to drench this with slant, mostly because it’s such an open-ended subject. I guess what I’m trying to say is don’t infer that the color and tone of this post mirror any sort of blanket opinion I may have of this subject. One blog can only scratch the surface.

Philanthropy itself is usually revered as good. However, as a general society there is no definite application of what is good and bad. Not only is there always a gray area, the degrees of both good and bad often promote agenda. So, naturally, it’s hard for a group of differently-minded people to determine what’s good and what’s bad.

Many people have heard of WikiLeaks. This non-profit, launched in 2007, is dedicated to the divulgence of corporate and government intelligence in order to encourage transparency and protect the world’s citizens from corruption. Since the launch of the corporation, its leaders and primarily Julian Assange (who has acted as the not-for-profit’s face) have come under fire majorly by numerous governments and corporations that rebuke the activities of the company as illegal, and in some instances, immoral.

Citizens United is a not-for-profit, established in 1988, that according to their website “…is…dedicated to restoring our government to citizens’ control… [they seek] to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise,…” You can read the rest from the website. This organization is constantly at odds with liberal and many moderate affiliated citizens who believe that this view is a detriment to society and government.

Religion is a long-lived, contentious institute boasting good and righteousness as its standard. I, assumedly, don’t have to walk you through the history of how religion and corruption share an acquaintance.

All of these things are motivated by a cause to better society and, under this category, have to be considered philanthropic. I grapple with the concept that philanthropic endeavors can possibly do harm. Admittedly, this is a hard pill to swallow.

I don’t have a conclusive point that brings this post home. I just think it is interesting to talk about the not-so-apparent side of philanthropy.