I can accept whgat you say - although I think there are
some signs people are beginning to let go of that element.
I sense that is about the desire to 'belong' to the goup
that is not oppressed. It seems to me that while I have
believed in the teaching of Normalisation and SRV because
of many of its fundamental ideas it has not really
addressed the issue of how oppressed groups establish a
respect for themselves in a hostile environment. In many
cultures I think the evidence might indicate that people
respect a willingness to 'fight' (or atleast state the case
in the strongest terms possible) for their rights. It seems
to get grudging respect and some movement in law. I
believe that very little has been really won without a
change in the law which appears to follow vociferous
opposition to the status quo. I think it is also true that
things change when it is in the interests of many in the
wider community.
I think the recent history of the self-advocacy movement
has shown (even if to a limited extent) that by getting
together some services eventually begin to listen to the
voice of people with learning disability. At such times I
expect 'non-disabled' (in identity terms) people to be
rejected even if they have supported change. Sometimes
people need to go it alone to develop self-respect for
their identity.
At the risk of an overlong reply I am interested in our use
of ordinary - I know that in normalisation the 'ordinary'
community values was a yardstick, however if we take a long
historical perspective of the incidence of most of humanity
there is long term evidence of the existence of most if not
all the variations in human form that now get classed under
the disabled identity. Looking at it this way has turned my
thinking round of what is ordinary and within the norm.
Being'disabled', being 'gay', being 'black' being .....etc
is being part of the norm, part of that ordinary range.
Sorry, I have gone on too much
Jim
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:42 +1000 Ria Strong
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> Original message from: Jim Wood <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >Ria,
> >I do not have access to most of my material but I seem to
> >remember using material about DPI (Ithink) which provided a
> >history from one of the founder's ideas.
> >Apart from that I remember discussing with a mature student (nearly
> >blind)in the mid-eighties that the disability movement
> >would probably only make real progress when it followed
> >what the black movement had done - ie coalesce around
> >identity and become radical in its approach. I think,
> >naively probably, there are parallels and lessons which the
> >disability movement has begun to put in practice. Inasmuch
> >as it is an issue of immense social oppression, there seem
> >to be many parallels with the history of such groups. But
> >no doubt you have been there already,
> >Best wishes in your hunt,
> >Jim
>
>
> I recently heard Ian Parsons talk about the gay rights movement. Gay
> men and lesbians first worked for acceptance by showing that they were
> "normal", "just like other people, apart from their sexuality". Then
> came the Stonewall riots, and the forging of gay pride-- "we're here,
> we're queer-- and we're OK just as we are". It was only then that the
> gay liberation movement really began to advance.
>
> The disability rights movement still largely says "we're just like
> you, apart from..." We "focus on ability", showing society that we
> really *are* OK, by *their* terms. Our Stonewall-- it's still in the
> future.
>
> - Ria
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> Ria Strong
> Melbourne, Australia
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> [log in to unmask]
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Get your free Australian email account at http://www.start.com.au
----------------------
Jim Wood
University of Exeter
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|