From: Marilyn.Johnson@f1.n3608.z1.fidonet.org (Marilyn Johnson)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Language
Date: 20 Jan 93 17:21:40 GMT
Reply-To: Marilyn.Johnson@f1.n3608.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3608/1 - 221B Baker St, Panama City FL
X-Fidonet: Able News Conference
Originator: wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com

Index Number: 26304

[This is from the AbleNews Conference]

Hi Earl!

In the discussions between Mike and Earl and Tim on introducing people
with disabilities.
 EA>I've found the general discussion on languageinformative. While I'm
 EA>hardly one to be on the fence on most any matter, I've found that
 all EA>the contributors, particularly, Tim Maxwell and you have raised
 points EA>worth pondering.

EA>> But there's an essential mistake being made here in my opinion.
EA>> What has the disability got to do with the occupation in the first place?
EA>> Why couple the two together?

EA>Unless it bears some particular relevance to the matter at hand, I think
EA>you are quite right. Where it does not, "a disabled physician" is, at
EA>best, a akin to "a lady lawyer," at worst, to "an Irish drunk."

EA>Since the American Medical News article was discussing disability
EA>issues, the fact that Dr. Madorsky is a physician who has disabilities
EA>is not entirely irrelevant.  Since it is germane, however, would it not
EA>be more informative to give us some idea of the nature of her
EA>disability?

You are so right!  Many of the disabilities have negative connotations,
as in your example of the "Irish drunk."  Alcoholism, addiction, and
communicable diseases such as T.B.,& AIDS,  are currently granted
"disability" status.  And in some sections of the country, these
examples are far more visible than other "visible" disabilities such as
wheelchair users or  those connected to portable oxygen systems to allow
then freedom of movement.  There are many "invisible" disabilities that
most people have no awareness of (many cases of emphasema, urinary
incontinence, chronic fatique syndrome--to a passerby-not spouse!)  So
the overall *image* of disability is negative.  Would you believe the
image is so negative that the federal government called for new
terminology?  The winner? We are "Differently abled" now, not disabled.
But I fear it will gather the same connotations if those of us with
disabilities don't "come out of the closet" and let others see that we
are humans with value to give--we all have a strength if we will look
for it.  Sometimes we need encouragement from others to show it, but
often it is hidden if others refuse to believe it is possible.  They
will believe it is possible only when others start to show it!
And bigots will refuse to see the evidence.

EA>Indeed, a civilization dominated by bigots IS a jungle, however,
EA>sophisticated its tools. Ironically, while jungles are declining in
EA>eponomically underdeveloped nations, the jungle of social Darwinism
is EA>increasing in economically advanced (but morally underdeveloped)
EA>nations.

Some we may feel are bigots aren't really--they just haven't seen any
examples to change their opinion.  And in these hard economic times,
many are scared and protective of their territory in the only way they
can be.  While downgrading others makes them feel good, it usually makes
others feel less of them, (unless the group needs a scapegoat, which is
increasingly true today.)  You can "fight on your own block," but you
can't do much about about the government helping companies moving your
jobs overseas or to Mexico.  The citizens of the Euorpean nations are
being allowed to vote on Maastrickt, but we are not beeing allowed to
vote on "free trade" and/or a "value added tax" like Britain has.  If
you couple free trade with that value added tax, corporations will
surely move.  We cannot fight that.  We can just vent frustration and
hate on anyone different from us--race, immigrant, handicap, lifestyle.

We need to do two things: 1) Get out of the closet and admit our
differences while being competent in what we do (I'm one to talk--have
always worn long pants to cover up my braces!) and 2) figure out how we
can make our country--and its people--keep their sense of self-worth.
If ego depends on a job with good pay, then we must figure a way to
either make that possible (and not by gift!  Something not earned is
not appreciated by the recipient and is hated by those surrounding the
recipient!), or devise another way to measure and express self-worth.
It must be *self-worth*, a *personal* pride.  A bystander at the
games--football now and the areana in Rome--won't do.  When people feel
good about themselves, they can feel good about others.

EA>As you note so wisely, Mike:

  M> We're only a hair's breath from total chaos in the world we live
     in Earl. Society and civilization break down far more quickly
     than  we like to acknowledge when the circumstances are just
     right. That's why it's important to keep a watchful eye on
     issues such as this.  There are always going to be those who
     believe any human being  who is not perfect has nothing to
     offer, though those same folks would never recognize their own
     imperfections.

Well, Mike indicated society can turn savage rather rapidly.  All this
stuff about language is about acceptance.  If we can get others to feel
genuine pride and acceptance (not the phony stuff!) then we may prevent
the breakdown he just described.  It is scarey to see how the genocide
originated in Germany.

So how do we accomplish what we want instead of  _complaining_ about
the injustice that we see?  Any ideas, anyone?

EA>An old labor song asks, "Which side are you on?"  If language
EA>is perceived as a code word for values, and in such matters
EA>perception is often reality, I can only hope my language enhances
EA>the humanity of civilized men and women. For language is no more
EA>neutral than ideas.

   Right on!

   I don't see how someone can think without a language to think
with, so attention to language is an important first, and ongoing, step.
Language alone, however, will not solve the problem.  "Feeling good"
without a basis for it never works well either (look at the poor
performance of schooling when teachers don't want to correct poor work
for fear of "damaging self esteem."  It's like playing checkers with
your dad when you were a child.  If you knew he was letting you win, you
felt he thought you were no more than a little kid and felt worse about
it than if you had lost.  Adults _don't like to feel like they are being
treated as children_, so quotas in hiring are counter productive to self
esteem as well as generatating  scapegoats for those not able to
take advantage of them!  So what are the tools out there?

  Help, help, help---

  Marilyn, PPP (a progressingly paraplegic pharmacist)

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!3608!1!Marilyn.Johnson
Internet: Marilyn.Johnson@f1.n3608.z1.fidonet.org