I find myself strangely caught between Shirley's world and Havor's.
Early this week Tom and I had an exchange of words; my posting on the List
concerning his Ouch article was detailed and reasoned, I felt. On Ouch itself, I
admit I reacted from the gut and penned off a short, journalistic style
sound-bite response.
Tom characterised this as "personal abuse" and suggested I should've focused
on his "views"; my retort was that I believe a person's style of delivery is
as much a part of the debate as are the views the individual expresses. I,
therefore, stood by my decision to characterise Tom as behaving like a Victorian
Headmaster when he addresses the Disabled People's Movement.
The problem is where do you draw the line? I hear what Shirley is saying; but
am I being hypocritical by saying that I think she was unwise to voice it in
the manner that she has?
Today, the British newspaper, the Daily Mirror, ran the headline something
like:
Are 59,000 Americans that Dumb?
I believe this is no different; my thought processes went there, yet the
price of liberty requires us to accept the challenge of the unthinkable.
Personally, I have distanced myself from Tom's views because many
contradiction some of the core values I have; no doubt what I do and say outrage some
people also.
It's hard not to be outraged and to want to scrap with those who you feel
threaten or undermine what you hold dear. I'm not saint in this field and I've
been attacked several times for my outspoken bluntness during a counter-attack.
This said, I believe there's a great deal of validity in what Havor was
saying. Anger is a
poor companion in a battle for people's attention.
Bob Williams-Findlay
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|