Black People say philanthropy is 'what rich white people do'?

[SistahSpeak]

Last summer, when The Winston-Salem Foundation asked a group of 50 black people to define philanthropy, many of them said: "That's what rich white people do."

To counter that stereotype, the foundation's Black Philanthropy Initiative will hold a series of lectures that examine traditions and trends of giving in the black community.

The series will begin Friday with a lecture by Emmitt Carson, the president of the Minneapolis Foundation, one of the largest community foundations in the country. Carson's lecture is titled "The State of Black Philanthropy: Our Past, Present and Future." Additional lectures will be Nov. 8 and Nov. 11.

The initiative started in 2000 as an outgrowth of the organization's interest in social capital, said James Gore, a donor-services officer with the foundation. The foundation wanted to connect black people to its work.

If you look at the foundation's permanent assets, he said, black people did not set up most of those funds.

"Part of this initiative is attempting to demystify what philanthropy is," Gore said.

Black people have tended to direct their charitable impulses to churches, he said.

They also support such civic groups as the Masons, as well as garden clubs, fraternities and sororities, though they may not call those efforts philanthropy.

- excerpt -
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Sa...=1128767892362

----------------

SS: So what is your opinion? Do we give back enough? Do you think too much of our philanthropic dollars end up in the Church instead of organizations and foundations helping people, our people!?

[urfan2c]

I don't think it's wrong to give to the church, but there are other black organizations that could benefit as well. UNCF,Big Brother Big Sister, and any charity that benefits our ppl or children. As of now I give of my time to a lot of organizations, but as soon as i'm in the position to give of money I will. I am looking at sororities and I want to join the one who does the most in service and money. There are a lot of black ppl in these type of service orgs and they do give. But every person may not know where to begin. What I did was found a cause near and dear to my heart and worked my way around.

[saraphen]

I don't think it's wrong to give to the church, but I don't think we give enough otherwise. Many HBCU's are struggling to stay financially solvent, and their alumni who got to high-paying professions don't give consistent with what they make, and certainly not consistent with what they spend on material things.

My late husband was a graduate of Morehouse College, and we would attend the reunions where the brothers would return, driving the biggest cars that come out of Detroit. But when it came time for alumni giving, only a few of them would give more than $100, and only one or two would give more than $1000.

Some of these men are Wall St financiers, and CEO's of major corporations, but don't see fit to give back to the college that helped them get to where they are.

And don't let me start talking about the attendance at the CIAA basketball tournament!!! That week is like a national reunion of black college graduates. You should see the Escalades and Lexuses coming into the parking lot!! But when the scholarship donations are announced from alumni, it makes me ashamed to be there.

White colleges survive on the strength of their alumni and endowments going back for generations. Do you ever hear of black people leaving a major gift in their will to their school?

[Baba Ahmed]

There's a difference, a major difference, btween donating money to organizations, e.g., a church, sorority, social club etc and or to philanthropic organizations. Check out this excerpt:


http://archive.salon.com/jan97/philanthropy2970127.html
VIRTUAL PHILANTHROPY

To hear most high-tech companies tell it, they donate product for the same reason Andrew Carnegie gave away his money — pure altruism. Any benefits that flow back to the company are merely an unintended by-product of Doing the Right Thing.

"I suppose you can make the argument that if you're giving software away, that in the end you're increasing public acceptance of your product," says Microsoft's John Pinette. "But most of the people getting these products are very, very happy to get them. And the places we're giving away software are pretty small markets. So I think we can stand up and say that the motivation behind our giving is altruistic. We believe in our products and we want to give them to people who have a need for them. We're trying to help in any way we can."

But behind the scenes, Microsoft works hard to maximize the strategic impact of all of that love for their fellow man. Two years ago, the company hired an outside consultant, Craig Smith, to devise a strategic plan to direct Microsoft's corporate giving in ways that guarantee the greatest return to the company.

"There are a lot of profits to be made by computer companies in the schools," says Smith, president of Corporate Citizen, another non-profit organization that tracks philanthropy, and author of the book "Giving By Industry." "There's brand loyalty you're after with the kids. The schools are one of the last areas where there's a huge loyalty factor to Apple. Microsoft has a big education group to try to change that. The schools are also a way of reaching parents and getting into edutainment. The main reason parents buy home computers is to augment their children's education."

In 1995, Microsoft's contributions to "education," mostly in the form of free software to schools, amounted to $44.9 million, or about 61 percent of its total donations. Microsoft committed $1 million in software, hardware and online access to the national headquarters of the PTA to enable it to link with its state offices and to provide technological training to its members.
"Getting involved with the PTA can assist the marketing agenda of getting computers in the schools and helping to reach parents," says Smith.
Microsoft is also seizing a beachhead in the public libraries, Andrew Carnegie's old love. Microsoft is spending about $10.5 million on computers and software for rural and inner city libraries, and also funds the Libraries Online! program, which has provided technology to 68 branches from nine different public library systems. Unlike Carnegie, who didn't profit a dime from his support of libraries, Microsoft is expecting its investment to pay dividends in the future.
"Right now there's no company that 'owns' the libraries, so to speak," says Smith. "It's an uncluttered market. At this time, there isn't any direct marketing advantage to being in the libraries, but it's a great place to demonstrate some possibilities with computers."

Other Microsoft donations have a political purpose, rather than a marketing bent, such as its support of a variety of job training programs. "Supporting job training sends a message to Washington that the computer is a job creator, not just a job killer," says Smith. "Basically, it can help retain the deregulated status of the computing industry, keep the regulators at bay, and gain a marketing advantage."

Of course, it's Microsoft's money and software to give away, so it's hard to complain too much about the company's steely-eyed philanthropy.
"It's not philanthropy, it's marketing," corrects Smith. "It's all coming out of their marketing budget."

But you wouldn't think that if you read Microsoft's Annual Report of Giving, a heartwarming celebration of the company's own generosity. Laden with the sort of soft-focus photographs of jes' plain folks that HMOs feature in their brochures during open season enrollment, the report makes Microsoft sound more like a social service agency rather than the world's largest software company. "Everyone at Microsoft celebrates our connections with the people and organizations who make the world a better place," the report declares. Bill Gates, the man who would be Carnegie, closes the brochure with a stirring end note: "As a young growing company, Microsoft and its employees are not often recognized as having any traditions. But we do have one that reaches back well over a decade. We give."

Microsoft gives, but increasingly with an eye fixed on what it will get in return. Andrew Carnegie supported libraries, too, but unlike Microsoft, he didn't fill the shelves with Carnegie-compatible books designed to create a pool of future Carnegie customers, nor did he view philanthropy as a strategic tool in accumulating more wealth. Microsoft may have learned the value of giving, but not what it means to be truly generous."
===============================================

Baba note: what's not mentioned here is how one of the early Rockefellers was taught how to make "philanthropy" into a profit center. Altruism, as a concept, is high sounding subterfuge. I'm with saraphen on this in that Black Alumini do not financially support their colleges and universities as they should.

[DBlack]

I see nothing wrong with giving to a church or other pro-black entity; as long as they are using the money to help those for which it is intended.

I am skeptical of giving to churches because many of them (in Atlanta)lack the evidence of what they are doing with the money. I'm not interested in giving pastor x some bling.

I'm not so sure we should give in ways that whites do, but we all should challenge ourselves to give back in time and money. Over time, I do believe that collectively, as we continue to climb the economic ladder, we will learn to give more. Our obsession with materialism is a byproduct of poverty and oppression. But that, over time, will fully subside to our collective prosperity.

Giving is not just a virtue of the heart, but it's also a skill. If many of us had the heart to do so, we then must learn how to give the 'smart' way. Giving to worthy organizations, using the tax system to your advantage when giving, creative giving that returns dividends back to the giver; these are just a few ways that we can find ourselves better at giving.

[LadyDivine]

Do we ever really know what any institution including the government is really doing with our money? There is excess and pilferage in non-profits galore.

[DBlack]

True, we never really have abosulte accuracy. Being proactive, persistent and demanding of details and results would make a difference.

[jimihaze]

I am with saraphen on this as well. I also say that there is nothing wrong with making the organizations that the money is givning to make an accounting for it before and during and after they have the money. Let them know that in order to get this money that they will be audited on the regular. There is no crime against keeping track of the money that is given on a philanthropic bases. Only a person lacking knowledge gives blindly. Also in order to have a strong college or university you must have a strong and active alumi that put time as well as money back into the schools. By investing in your colleges and universities we are investing in ourselves.

[tiptop53]

Originally Posted by Baba Ahmed

There's a difference, a major difference, btween donating money to organizations, e.g., a church, sorority, social club etc and or to philanthropic organizations. Check out this excerpt:


http://archive.salon.com/jan97/philanthropy2970127.html
VIRTUAL PHILANTHROPY

To hear most high-tech companies tell it, they donate product for the same reason Andrew Carnegie gave away his money — pure altruism. Any benefits that flow back to the company are merely an unintended by-product of Doing the Right Thing.

"I suppose you can make the argument that if you're giving software away, that in the end you're increasing public acceptance of your product," says Microsoft's John Pinette. "But most of the people getting these products are very, very happy to get them. And the places we're giving away software are pretty small markets. So I think we can stand up and say that the motivation behind our giving is altruistic. We believe in our products and we want to give them to people who have a need for them. We're trying to help in any way we can."

But behind the scenes, Microsoft works hard to maximize the strategic impact of all of that love for their fellow man. Two years ago, the company hired an outside consultant, Craig Smith, to devise a strategic plan to direct Microsoft's corporate giving in ways that guarantee the greatest return to the company.

"There are a lot of profits to be made by computer companies in the schools," says Smith, president of Corporate Citizen, another non-profit organization that tracks philanthropy, and author of the book "Giving By Industry." "There's brand loyalty you're after with the kids. The schools are one of the last areas where there's a huge loyalty factor to Apple. Microsoft has a big education group to try to change that. The schools are also a way of reaching parents and getting into edutainment. The main reason parents buy home computers is to augment their children's education."

In 1995, Microsoft's contributions to "education," mostly in the form of free software to schools, amounted to $44.9 million, or about 61 percent of its total donations. Microsoft committed $1 million in software, hardware and online access to the national headquarters of the PTA to enable it to link with its state offices and to provide technological training to its members.
"Getting involved with the PTA can assist the marketing agenda of getting computers in the schools and helping to reach parents," says Smith.
Microsoft is also seizing a beachhead in the public libraries, Andrew Carnegie's old love. Microsoft is spending about $10.5 million on computers and software for rural and inner city libraries, and also funds the Libraries Online! program, which has provided technology to 68 branches from nine different public library systems. Unlike Carnegie, who didn't profit a dime from his support of libraries, Microsoft is expecting its investment to pay dividends in the future.
"Right now there's no company that 'owns' the libraries, so to speak," says Smith. "It's an uncluttered market. At this time, there isn't any direct marketing advantage to being in the libraries, but it's a great place to demonstrate some possibilities with computers."

Other Microsoft donations have a political purpose, rather than a marketing bent, such as its support of a variety of job training programs. "Supporting job training sends a message to Washington that the computer is a job creator, not just a job killer," says Smith. "Basically, it can help retain the deregulated status of the computing industry, keep the regulators at bay, and gain a marketing advantage."

Of course, it's Microsoft's money and software to give away, so it's hard to complain too much about the company's steely-eyed philanthropy.
"It's not philanthropy, it's marketing," corrects Smith. "It's all coming out of their marketing budget."

But you wouldn't think that if you read Microsoft's Annual Report of Giving, a heartwarming celebration of the company's own generosity. Laden with the sort of soft-focus photographs of jes' plain folks that HMOs feature in their brochures during open season enrollment, the report makes Microsoft sound more like a social service agency rather than the world's largest software company. "Everyone at Microsoft celebrates our connections with the people and organizations who make the world a better place," the report declares. Bill Gates, the man who would be Carnegie, closes the brochure with a stirring end note: "As a young growing company, Microsoft and its employees are not often recognized as having any traditions. But we do have one that reaches back well over a decade. We give."

Microsoft gives, but increasingly with an eye fixed on what it will get in return. Andrew Carnegie supported libraries, too, but unlike Microsoft, he didn't fill the shelves with Carnegie-compatible books designed to create a pool of future Carnegie customers, nor did he view philanthropy as a strategic tool in accumulating more wealth. Microsoft may have learned the value of giving, but not what it means to be truly generous."
===============================================

Baba note: what's not mentioned here is how one of the early Rockefellers was taught how to make "philanthropy" into a profit center. Altruism, as a concept, is high sounding subterfuge. I'm with saraphen on this in that Black Alumini do not financially support their colleges and universities as they should.

They give because its a tax write off. By doing this they pay less tax and look good in the long run.As long as companies contuine this they will benfit.

Some of the money does go to help those less fortunate. But it also pays those who run these philanthropic/non-profit organizations bigg bucks. As farsa us asking where the money goes we don't give enough to find out.

Every major Black organization and mega church gets money from them. Once you recieve this money you are now behold to them to push their company to your members.
When ever we have an awards show look at who gave the money to help put that show on. Then check out the commercials. Who's product do you see running. So in realtiy they will get that money back because we will buy that product. They know we spent enough money to feed most of Africa. So why not get some of it and give back a 1/3 of it and tell us we are there for you and will back you in your effort to succeed. Its all about the money!

[Gorilla]

I dont intend to support the college I gradute from but I will definately try to find ways to give to people who are less fortunate. I dont really have a particular preference of where/who/what cause people should give to. I'm just happy that some people out there try to do something.