as
^ 'i
JJE.W IS H
NEWS
AND
V I EWS
AN IMPARTIAL MEDIUM FQR THE DISSEMINATION OF
Rabbi B. R. Brickner,' Contributing Editor. G. W. Cohen, Managing Editor. S. A, Freedlander, Advertising Manager.
'/Jr^b^Jied Weekly by the Canadian Jewish Reriew, 119 Bay Street, Toronto, Ont. Subecription Price, $3.00 Per Year. United States, $3.50
^ ----- �t to th� J*wUh p�odU, but dU____________,_________
o� must b* tlgxxmd with th* full nam* of th� writer.
\*hf G***a<tUn Uwiah R�*i*w inritM oorr*spot>d�a<� on Wib|^^o^^^r��t to th� J�wUh p^p^but dUdalmi r�ipontiblllty for an IndorMmcnt of the yIow. exprMMd by tb* wriUr*
uitie I.
TORONTO, ONT., DECEMBER 16, 1921
Number 7
EDITORIAL
WHY DON'T PEOPLE GIVE CHARITY ?
UPPOSE nobody cared" is a popular motto for many charitable ^drives. The thought underlying this motto is humanly inconceivable. Man is socially dependent on his fellowmen for his NVery existence. He is not sufficient unto himself. Robinson Criisoe �is a. -figment of the imagination. Man has from time immemorial .,:4iyed in social groups. The very word charity illustrates the truism ; that man is a social animal. Etymologicaliy it is derived from the Xiatin word caritas, implying a display of love and sympathy by man \ towards man. Charity is a trait unique only to the human race. J^his idea is-also' suggested in the Greek word philanthropic,. The /.ftiitory of mankind is characteristically the story of human benevo-^J^j^nce. In the animal world we do not find the trait of compassion #0&.--^fsxfending beyond the limit of maternal care. The brute is con-'^^^ce^ned for its young only during the very early period. After that %.K%ihe^ are deserted and must shift for themselves. The sight of ^si^Siclaiess and suffering in their species evokes not their care or sym-c^^vpathy, but their disgust and antipathy. Whereas man is drawn fetCSfe-^his.. ailing, helpless, grieving brother by emotions of love and ^Jl^tenderness.
^^'v;v ^Charity, is therefore the distinguishing mark of the civilized �'$?;'';?jqjH* social zed mam It is an index to social progress. Charity V,.3v^>^Jts-rnoxierTi guise of social service is constructive. It is a challenge vbp/'the biblical statement, "the poor ye have always with ye," because it aims to reduce if not to eradicate poverty. ; \ Charity is a paying back into the common fund of the capital .which has made us what we are, plus a reasonable interest, which ;^\^''3.^'3y-'be used to swell the common fund for the benefit of others, -' '<vand incidentally of ourselves, for "it blesseth him who gives and him .that takes M
/-�The giving 0f charity indicates that the giver realizes his social responsibility to those whose opportunities for development are not equal to jiis. Modern social science emphasizes the fact that an Ounce of prevention is better than tons of cure. It is generally too ]ajt& to cure the social ills, because at the opportune time preventative �-social measures were not applied.
It has been maintained that it is the province of the 3tate to give charity. The State .is a conservative institution. It never leads; it;always, follows the lead set by private initiative. Public opinion ,\.must first, be aroused before the State will legislate social reforms. . The latter are usually-the result of many years of experimentation in one or ther other-fields of philanthropy, privately initiated and �>f sttpportekT. It is only after an experiment has proved successful .;.'rbeyond the shadow of a doubt in relieving human need that the .State will undertake to finance it and make it part of governmental obligations.
� The public schools were at one time privately supported. The �i^ s' same is true of health work among infants and school children and many other branches of work that are now part of the State's budget. When this-happens, Charity becomes.collectable in the form of taxes.
Social progress through social service will for generations depend on private charity collected from individuals in the community.
In spite of these realizations, it is a sadly acknowledged fact that since the cessation of the war people do not give as liberally as they were wont to. They seem frankly to be tiredof charity drives. The war\had a tendency to make us liberal in our donations a tbropk-causes'. V-Drives ca^lght the popular fancy at a time
� IT-
when profits were enormous and incomes were big. Many people in the realization that everything was at stake learned to give with a> liberality that had never characterized their charitable donations'' before the war.
The' pouring into the charity coffers of increased funds had a tendency to make those engaged in social service bolder. New philanthropic ventures were undertaken to fill social needs, which would never have been ventured or initiated in less prosperous times.
With the cessation of the war a reaction set in. Charity drives are continually falling short of their goal. The failure of the Federation of Community Service in Toronto to raise the $450,000 which was its objective is an example of this condition. The sum set was calculated as the minimum budget required to operate the 51 charitable institutions comprising the Federation. In fact, double that sum could have "been used advantageously. Only $380,000 was subscribed. The same situation exists in the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies. Its subscription list falls far short of the demands made upon it, by the Jewish poor of Toronto. Coupled with this is the added difficulty of extracting from subesribers the amounts solemnly pledged, on the basis of which expenditures are incurred. Similar conditions are reported from all communities throughout Canada and the United States. ,
The implication of this reaction is that philanthropic institutions and societies are being placed on a "rations" basis. It mean-> that those dependent on charity for their maintenance are being deprived of many of the bare necessities that were formerly supplied them.
What is the reason for this change of heart on the parr/of the "well-to-do" towards the "ill-to-do?" "Hard times" is the answer. "We have lost money since the war and are not making any now," is the reply of the average business man, who is solicited for charitable subscriptions. Yet one does not notice any decline in the style and standard of living ol the better-to-do classes in our communities.
The "fat years" of the war spoiled many people. They became accustomed to earning enormous profits, which they used in raising their standard of living and increasing their business investments. The "lean years" that followed the war reduced these enormous profits, with the result that the rich are economizing at the expense of the poor.
Most people cannot conceive the fact that the workers are worse off to-day than they were before the war. High wages also gave them an opportunity to raise their standard of living. Increased incomes made it possible for them to gratify desires and satisfy wants which they had carried in their breasts for years but could not realize. They moved from hovels into dwellings with modern appurtenances, running water, baths, electric lights, telephones, etc. They kept their children in school longer than they had formerly because they did not require their children's financial assistance. Some saved a little money and put it away for the lean years. Then came this unemployment period, which consumed their savings. Industry has compelled labor to accept a lowered wage scale, or what isequalto it, part time work at part time pay, which forces the worker to' return to the lower living level of pre-war days. This lower standard has been the cause of much social misery in the past; and the present return to it is bringing back much of the older conditions. .