I posted the following comment on Banion King’s blog at SCSU Scholars:
I used to hear that kind of talk a lot back in the 1960s about how private charity was demeaning. But now that we have govt entitlements, note what happens when recipients show something less than fulsome gratitude toward the government. See Clarence Thomas, for example. Or the townhall protestors who accept Medicare but who speak ill of government involvement in health care. The left treats them as a pimp treats a prostitute who tries to get free of his control.
It was in response to an article that included the following passage:
What caught my eye was this passage:
Bachmann’s assumption that the poor should be happy in their hearts to rely on religious charity is simply laughable.
It ignores the fact that, to many people, charity is ingratiating — and it is always undependable and inconsistent.
Is it really such a beautiful thing that a family trying to treat a member’s terminal illness is ingratiated to begging money off “the generous public” at car washes and charity suppers?
Now a woman who’s studied “feminist rhetoric”, whatever that is, didn’t use the same word “ingratiate” twice without a reason. What would be her reason? The word “ingratiate” simply means to bring someone into the good graces of another, most often yourself. Its etymology contains the Latin word “gratia” for “favor, grace.” So shall I understand that this woman believes you should be able to get something from another without exchanging anything in return? What does she want in lieu of gratitude?