Here’s how one perceptive Seattle blogger challenges his community and all of us.
“Seattle has an enormous number of Creative
Class members as well as a ridiculous amount of creative potential…Microsoft, Adobe, Starbucks, Tully’s, REI, The North Face,
Nordstrom, Washington Mutual, Amazon.com, Safeco, Jones Soda, Taco Del
Mar, Getty Images, Real Networks, Sur La Table, Red Robin, The Little
Gym, Nintendo…All of these companies are pioneers for
there industry … People in Seattle are constantly using their
individuality to invent, rediscover, and engineer … As
reported a number of months ago, Seattle, a very affluent city, was
found to be the least philanthropic … Seattle was found to be the least generous city in
the country … So
here is where I am left…can a city that is highly creative change their
lens? Can we begin to use our creativity for positive influence? Can we
stop relying on Bill Gates and Paul Allen to carry the load of
influence? How do we move high creatives to have positive influence on
the world? Can Seattle stop waiting for their arts to leak to the main
stream and begin to see ALL creativity as a movement that can inspire
hope to those who are in desperate need? Can we stop looking to use our
creativity to make money and gain popularity and see it as a gift that
we possess that can move other’s to a common good?”
Those are the right questions. Do you have any answers.
December 30th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Don’t confuse creativity with a sense of community, for it is the latter that gives rise to the philanthropic urge. Interestingly, both Allen and Gates have done little on the local scene philanthropically on the local scene, relative to their wealth. Gates is an international player, and his impact will be in Africa, and across the country on education. Beyond his personal interests in sports and rock music, Allen’s philanthropy has a wandering eye. It really takes a sense of local connection to get people to care about their place, and the Seattle geography of dividing waterways works against this. So does the long term history of a relatively few dominant employers, such as Weyerhauser, Boeing and now Microsoft (whose absorption of office space is as great as the rest of the East Side put together). People have to feel connected to care, and that does not come in a place of so many different communities, so many of which are now bedroom communities.
December 30th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
See the recently released book “Who Really Cares” by Arthur Brooks, with the sad truth that liberals give far less to charity than conservatives, and Seattle is a strongly liberal bastion.
From Amazon: “In Who Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give.”
December 31st, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Rod and Tory – I think this is what Seattle blogger was getting at in the first place. I heard that Brooks actually expected to find the opposite. He kept analyzing and reanalyzing his data until finally he gradually became convinced. I very much admire that kind of candor and openness. R
January 4th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I wonder if liberals are more likely to give of their time while conservatives are more likely to give through financial means. A study on volunteer hours may be a little much…but I can’t imagine conservatives to be as generous with their time.
Liberals do the work…while conservatives fund it. That sounds right, doesn’t it?
November 29th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Cool blog would love to read more