Ron.Rothenberg@f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org (Ron Rothenberg) (02/12/90)
Index Number: 6667
Hi,
Sorry to bring up the question of language and names and labels again,
but I came across this yesterday, and it seemed worth posting?
-rsr-
Watch Your Language
As minorities and women have worked for their rights, for equality and jobs,
it's understandable that language has become an issue. It's hard to be taken
seriously when people think and talk about you in derogatory and undignified
terms.
The result has been a gradual weeding out of such terms in our language, with
one major exception. This was blatantly exemplified by James Watt,
ex-secretary of the Interior, in his swan song about "blacks, women, Jews and
cripples." Although people were outraged and the incident cost Watt his job,
offensive language is still out there, and accepted, mainly because awareness
of the disability rights movement is still at a devastatingly low level, even
among those with disabilities.
Below are some of the terms that we have begun to think about, and would also
like you to think about before you use them. They may be more disabling than
our actual physical limitations because they reduce us to objects of pity,
making us appear undignified, incompetent and helpless.
How Not to Refer to Us
The disabled or handicapped - This makes a physical limitation the most
important part of a person. We are more interested in being seen as people,
as journalists, musicians, architects and lawyers. These things are more
important to us. Our disability is only a part of us. We'd generally
rather have a disability. That puts it into perspective with our
personhood.
Cripple - Just thinking about the way in which this word is normally used
makes many of us cringe. It often implies that a plane, or a government
policy has been incapacitated. If we have a disability, it usually limits
our mobility, our vision or our hearing. Unless people's attitudes toward
us prevent them from taking us seriously, we are not crippled or
incapacitated. We are still capable.
People with "special" needs - Ah, that word "special," usually said in the
same way that you'd say "interesting" or "unusual" when referring to a
terrible musician or an incomprehensible piece of artwork. It's a pat on
the head, belittling, something for which we should be grateful. Yes, we do
have specific needs. Every body does, but please, not "special."
Handicapped - Many us still use this word when referring to people with
disabilities, but in looking at some of the implications of the word, maybe
it's one that we should think carefully about. It is derived from "cap in
hand" meaning to beg. Its use in sports implies a disadvantage. Many of us
would rather not be disadvantaged beggars.
Physically Challenged - Maybe if someone asks us to run a marathon, we'd
accept this, but our disabling conditions aren't a challenge. They are a
day to day reality, usually not exhilarating, as we imagine a challenge to
be, and sometimes made more unpleasant by those who try to turn our
disabling condition into something "special" or heroic.
Invalid - Simply breaking this word down into in-valid says a great deal.
It is like an expired drivers licence, or an uncalled for remark. As human
beings we are all most certainly valid.
Bound or confined to a wheelchair - Most of us would say that we use a
wheelchair unless we are in a situation where someone isn't allowing us to
try other options. Otherwise, a chair is like a car is to people who rely
on a vehicle to get to and from work or shopping. Are we "bound" or
"confined" to our cars?
Victim - This one usually goes with "crippling disease," implying
contagion. Victim also tends to dredge up pity. Now we may be "victims" of
pity or prejudice, but unless people make life difficult for us, we are not
victims because of our physical conditions. (The same goes for
"afflicted.")
Overcoming his/her disability - We have never quite understood this one. We
have disabilities, and we live with them. We can't wrestle them to the
ground in one easy battle. We organize our lives around them and are always
trying to draw lines to let people know that we can't drive, but can edit a
newsletter, we can't read the phone book, but we have read Shakespeare (and
a lot of less inspiring material). It isn't a one shot deal. The obstacles
are still there, and the prejudice is still there, and they aren't going go
change because of one superhuman effort on our part.
Courageous and inspiring - If what we have done is inspiring or courageous
all on its own, thank you. If it is only inspiring or courageous because we
have "overcome our disability" then it makes us into super heroes, making it
seem fantastic that a person with a disability could make a normal success
of things. Courageous and inspiring also allude to a certain amount of
choice. We did not choose to become disabled.
Patient, sick, bedridden - There are a whole host of medical terms used in
talking about disability. This is odd, since most of our conditions are
stable. We are disabled, not ill. The medical model tends to hospitalize
us, hide us and dehumanize us. many of us haven't spent much time at all in
a hospital, but people talk as if we should be committed right away.
Clients - This term is used by a social service system that has an image of
us as people to be taken care of, people who take, and need, and have
nothing to offer.
This list could go on, but this give you an idea of what we have in mind. A
lot also has to do with the attitude behind the language. We are also in the
process of learning about language, how it can empower us or limit us. This
piece begins to give you an idea of our search for our own dignity, strength
and independence. If you have any questions about language or referring to
disability, please feel free to give us a call and talk about it. We certainly
don't have all the answers, but would be glad to share ideas.
Prepared by the Vermont Center for Independent Living, 174 River Street,
Montpelier, VT 05602, Phone: 229-0501 or 1-800-622-4555 (Voice or TDD)
... Most Improved BBSer (1989) American Sighted BSers' Association.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!101!460!Ron.Rothenberg
Internet: Ron.Rothenberg@f460.n101.z1.fidonet.orgMichael.Merrow@hnews.fidonet.org (Michael Merrow) (02/12/90)
Index Number: 6683
Hi. I am pretty much new to this conference. I have been reading messages
for a few weeks now, but this is the first time I've felt compelled to
write...
Re:
RR> Watch Your Language
While I agree with most of the points raised, I have a problem with one
in particular:
RR> How Not to Refer to Us
RR>
RR> The disabled or handicapped - This makes a physical limitation
It is not important to me whether I am refered to as a "disabled person"
or a "person with a disability." Calling someone "disabled" is a
convention of Modern American English, and was never intended, as far as
I can tell, to mean anything of a deragatory or demeaning nature. It just
fits better when spoken or written. This discussion reminds me of the
ongoing debate over whether one should use "he/she" to replace "he" when
refering to someone of no particular gender. Since William Strunk Jr. and
E.B. White address the "he" vs. "he/she" question so well in - The
Elements of Style - I'll quote part of the paragraph they write on the
subject:
"The use of 'he' as pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a simple,
practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language.
'He' has lost all suggestion of maleness in these circumstances. The word
was unquestionably biased to begin with (the dominant male), but after
hundreds of years it has become seemingly indispensible. It has no
pejorative connotation; it is never incorrect. Substituting "he or she"
in its place is the logical thing to do if it works. But it often doesn't
work, if only because repetition makes it sound boring or silly."
I think this argument can be applied just as well to the "disabled
person" vs. "person with a disability" debate and we can all move on
beyond semantics to what's really important - the person behind the
label.
-----------------
I hope this doesn't all sound too negative. Since becoming a "wheelchair
user" a little over a year ago, I've hoped to find a place to meet and
talk with others in a similar situation. I think I've found it. You folks
are all so caring and supportive here. I hope I can contribute in a
positive way to future discussions.
Michael
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!Michael.Merrow
Internet: Michael.Merrow@hnews.fidonet.orgChita.Cazares@f114.n202.z1.fidonet.org (Chita Cazares) (02/13/90)
Index Number: 6724
Okay, I read the list you quoted from the Vermont Center for
Independent Living. I've seen - and glided past - most conversations on
three different echoes referring to "what to CALL the disAbled" because
I don't really think it's a dead horse - it's a dead RED HERRING. By
the time one gets through with this latest list, which is extensive
indeed, one would like to know what, EXACTLY, is one to call the people
for whom this echo was presumably intended?
Building a conversational mine field in this area is an ironic twist
for a group trying to help a population they seem unwilling to name.
Is it so disgusting to be blind that we must call it something else? Is
it so humiliating to be mobility impaired that we must sanitize
the very mention of wheelchairs? Is having special needs so gruesome
that we must avoid asking - in fact, DEMANDING - that access should be
part of every architecture school's curriculum?
Invisibility is one of the foundational problems of the disAbled
community. Why spend time creating conversation impairment?
Like every other aspect of ANY decent human interaction, the people
involved should lay down their own rules. A blind person who wants to
be called a blink should be called a blink. A wheelchair user who wants
to be called mobility impaired should be called mobility impaired. If
they identify themselves as "a quad" then that's what polite people
should use. It's up to the PERSON.
I also object heartily to the idea that people who must make special
efforts to do X should not be singled out and admired. EVERY
extraordinary effort by anyone else is admired, why should this
community have its achievements ignored?
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!202!114!Chita.Cazares
Internet: Chita.Cazares@f114.n202.z1.fidonet.orgFred.Myers@p35.f1.n360.z1.fidonet.org (Fred Myers) (02/13/90)
Index Number: 6766
In a message to All <02 Feb 90 21:19:00> Ron Rothenberg wrote:
RR> Sorry to bring up the question of language and names and labels again,
Ron, just one question comes to mind. Do you find the term
"Special Olympics" offensive? If so, what would you suggest as an
alternative?
Fred
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!360!1.35!Fred.Myers
Internet: Fred.Myers@p35.f1.n360.z1.fidonet.orgFred.Myers@p35.f1.n360.z1.fidonet.org (Fred Myers) (02/22/90)
Index Number: 6893 In a message to Fred Myers <10 Feb 90 21:22:00> Anthony Casey wrote: >> Ron, just one question comes to mind. Do you find the term "Special >>Olympics" offensive? If so, what would you suggest as an alternative? AC> (I know this question wasn't addressed AC> at me, but that's never stopped me AC> before...) Why do you say, "offensive"? AC> At the most, I could see the name as AC> being nothing more than twee. As an alternative, I would suggest: "The AC> Disabled People's Games", or variations. What prompted the question was the mention of "special" as being inappropriate when used in reference to the disabled according to the article that Ron quoted (if my memory serves me correctly.) For me personally, "Special Olympics" has a *good* connotation. I also liked Vixen's comment. (See previous message.) Anyone else out there feel strongly about this? Fred -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!360!1.35!Fred.Myers Internet: Fred.Myers@p35.f1.n360.z1.fidonet.org
Fred.Myers@p35.f1.n360.z1.fidonet.org (Fred Myers) (02/22/90)
Index Number: 6894
In a message to Fred Myers <11 Feb 90 20:05:00> Ron Rothenberg wrote:
RR> I have no objection to the term 'Special Olympics.' I'm not crazy
RR> about the concept -- it's sort of society's quick fix for otherwise
RR> ignoring and discriminating against disabled kids. Reminds me too much
RR> of the "Jerry's Kids" image of someone who is different and doesn't fit
RR> in with the rest of society.
I don't see Everyone's A Winner as a quick fix cop-out. The local
events that I have seen have been tremendously positive, highly
educational, and indicative of a caring and understanding group of
professionals and volunteers dedicated to overcoming ignorance and
discrimination. Perhaps this is not universally the case.
Fred
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!360!1.35!Fred.Myers
Internet: Fred.Myers@p35.f1.n360.z1.fidonet.orgPat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Pat Goltz) (02/22/90)
Index Number: 6898
In your recent message, you handed out a fair round of criticism about
being too critical of terms. I couldn't agree with you more! While I
don't advocate being proud of a disability, at the same time, I think a
bit of pride in oneself is perfectly in order, and should be required.
I have noticed that quite frequently people who find me disturbing will
be highly critical, and if I am proud of the way I live my life, I
regard it as a backhanded compliment.
On the other hand, it would put an even bigger crimp in conversation
if each disabled person decided what he wanted to be called. Then I'd
never know when I was offending someone. I'd rather have one term for
everybody. This is a big problem with Spanish-surnamed persons in this
part of the country, you know. In New Mexico, as I understand it, you
can get your block knocked off for calling such a person "Mexican".
But that isn't a problem here. So you see, I wouldn't encourage that
kind of individuality!
Maybe in the final analysis, we need to take a lesson from the girl
who waited eagerly for a call from her boyfriend, and who said, "I don't
care WHAT you call me, just so you call me."
Pat
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!3!Pat.Goltz
Internet: Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.orgDan.Payne@f5.n290.z1.fidonet.org (Dan Payne) (02/23/90)
Index Number: 6915
RR>I've often wondered at the amount of net bandwidth, time and
RR>energy
RR>that goes into debates over whether someone with a physical or
RR>other
RR>problem ought to be referred to as "handicapped", "disabled",
RR>"disABLED", or "dIsBlEd". None of these terms (nor most of the
RR>others
RR>commonly used under similar circumstances) is in any way pejorative.
RR>They are essentially a neutral way (and no worse than any of
RR>alternatives I've seen proposed by some in the dIsAbLeD community)
RR>to
RR>refer to the fact that someone has a physical (or perhaps educational
RR>or emotional) problem.
I tend to lean more towards using the term "Unique"...because no matter what
the state your body happens to be in....you are..this comes out more though
it seems in individuals that have "disabilities"....
later
dan
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!290!5!Dan.Payne
Internet: Dan.Payne@f5.n290.z1.fidonet.orgRobert.Norstrand@f8.n10.z1.fidonet.org (Robert Norstrand) (02/23/90)
Index Number: 6918
Ron, if I'm not mistaken, "Special Olympics" is used to indicate that
the handicapped individuals participating are SPECIAL, not to imply
that they're handicapped. The "Jerry's Kids" concept came about due to
Jerry Lewis' telethon origionally for MD but which now covers all
disabilities. I never heard it used in a derogotory way until I was
invovled in an argument on a board with another user and he tried to
implicate me with the term (it doesn't apply as I am disabled due to an
accident). I told him where to get off with his views and haven't
heard (seen) the words again. But then, there are always BIGOTS
(mentally handicapped) out there.
Keepin' the faith
# Origin: The Magic RBBS, Lakeland, FL (813) 688-8151 (1:137/600) (8:925/10)
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!10!8!Robert.Norstrand
Internet: Robert.Norstrand@f8.n10.z1.fidonet.orgLinda.Harris@f260.n271.z1.fidonet.org (Linda Harris) (02/24/90)
Index Number: 6928
I once heard that handicapped people should not be called "disabled."
They are just "differently abled." I like this term much better.
People with physical/mental limitations make up for what they don't
have by using all of what they do have. That indeed makes them very
"Special."
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!271!260!Linda.Harris
Internet: Linda.Harris@f260.n271.z1.fidonet.org