<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Language of Philanthropy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/05/the-language-of-philanthropy/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/05/the-language-of-philanthropy</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:12:30 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Peter Deitz</title>
		<link>http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/05/the-language-of-philanthropy#comment-3300</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Deitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 07:07:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/05/the-language-of-philanthropy#comment-3300</guid>
		<description>In my opinion, the idea that anyone with $25 can be a philanthropist is as radical as the notion that anyone with money to spare can be a consumer. The radicalness of this notion depends on time and place.

In pre-industrial North America, consumerism was a practice only for the merchant class and nobles. "Everyone a consumer" was a revolutionary idea in the 1840s.  

We are now so inured to the concept, that we tend to think it's completely natural for anyone with wants and needs to be a consumer.  

I would hope that at some point soon, it will seem completely natural that anyone with a desire to help others and discretionary income to do so, would be considered a philanthropist.  

Radical, yes, but also 100% necessary to realize the potential of philanthropy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In my opinion, the idea that anyone with $25 can be a philanthropist is as radical as the notion that anyone with money to spare can be a consumer. The radicalness of this notion depends on time and place.</p>
<p>In pre-industrial North America, consumerism was a practice only for the merchant class and nobles. &#8220;Everyone a consumer&#8221; was a revolutionary idea in the 1840s.  </p>
<p>We are now so inured to the concept, that we tend to think it&#8217;s completely natural for anyone with wants and needs to be a consumer.  </p>
<p>I would hope that at some point soon, it will seem completely natural that anyone with a desire to help others and discretionary income to do so, would be considered a philanthropist.  </p>
<p>Radical, yes, but also 100% necessary to realize the potential of philanthropy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.809 seconds -->
