Just a random post, a random thought.
Was chit chatting with one of my closest aunts, and we were talking about everything under the sky.. family, work, religion, etc.. The conversation came to a point where my aunt mentioned how a friend of hers was telling her about her contribution to charities, to the building of temples and schools, and that of course mean huge donations and this friend of hers was clearly very proud and quick in informing everyone around her of her deed. I observed the same thing too, that people who are in the position to contribute more generally do tend to broadcast their generous act. So much so that the act of giving in the end seems more like an act of publicity for the donor. Although it is applaudable to know that there are many generous people around, especially the better off middle-upper-class people and wealthy philanthropists who are able to contribute more and doing great deeds for charity. On the other hand, sometimes we wonder if they do it just for fame as well.
Was chit chatting with one of my closest aunts, and we were talking about everything under the sky.. family, work, religion, etc.. The conversation came to a point where my aunt mentioned how a friend of hers was telling her about her contribution to charities, to the building of temples and schools, and that of course mean huge donations and this friend of hers was clearly very proud and quick in informing everyone around her of her deed. I observed the same thing too, that people who are in the position to contribute more generally do tend to broadcast their generous act. So much so that the act of giving in the end seems more like an act of publicity for the donor. Although it is applaudable to know that there are many generous people around, especially the better off middle-upper-class people and wealthy philanthropists who are able to contribute more and doing great deeds for charity. On the other hand, sometimes we wonder if they do it just for fame as well.
Does the act of donation simply means giving money, or it should rightfully be coupled with recognition as well? The bigger the donation, the more likely donors like to publicise to the whole world that they are contributing to this and that. Is this really necessary if your sole intention and motivation is just to benefit others? Is it important that your name must be mentioned or acknowledged by others, that you have contributed to so-and-so charitable organisations. I salute those people who send in cheques to a charity or church or temple without leaving their names. These are the anonymous truly kind-hearted Samaritans who gave from their hearts, without expecting anything in return. You know their act is genuinely philanthropic.
However, that said, my aunt and I conclude, even if the intention of the donor is solely for recognition, so be it. If their act makes them happy, and it also makes the recipient happy as well, so be it. May the happy donors give more and more. May everyone, the rich and the not-so-rich, continue to do their part for the needy, be it a donation of $2 or $200,000.
However, that said, my aunt and I conclude, even if the intention of the donor is solely for recognition, so be it. If their act makes them happy, and it also makes the recipient happy as well, so be it. May the happy donors give more and more. May everyone, the rich and the not-so-rich, continue to do their part for the needy, be it a donation of $2 or $200,000.
“Real generosity is doing something nice for someone who will never find out” ~ Frank A Clark
To end this post, for the fun of it, I ripped the below chart off www.punny.org. Go read the article on the simple steps how to make sure you are helping the people who need it most. Are these figures true? (I don't think so).
No comments:
Post a Comment