Few, if any, expressions in common use today are more vile than "giving back to the community". There is no logic to demand that people who have worked hard and made something of themselves be somehow compelled to give back to an amorphous group of people who have not done the same. There is, however, plenty of emotionalism and "feeling", and it makes me ill.
First of all, what is this community? The word necessarily means a pretty large group of people, doesn't it? If the giver is doing something for a narrow and identifiable group, like a church congregation, wouldn't it be appropriate to say that he is giving back to his church (or better yet, that he is sharing his good fortune with his church)? By using this nondescript word "community", the effect is diluted. Community could easily be replaced with society, so the implication of the expression is that the giver is giving back to society, because society made it possible for him or her to achieve success.
That's just garbage. Society, or the community, didn't do squat. The achiever achieved, and he or she may certainly have had assistance along the way. For the achiever to then thank those who gave him or her tangible or intangible support on the way up is noble and thoughtful. But to intimate the achiever owes a duty to repay a "community" or society is sickening. The ones who should repay society are those who take from it - the leeches.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment