Larry:
Wilberforce and John Stuart Mill--interesting examples. Now you are dealing with history and in that realm the anti-slavery struggle would have been much less effective without Wilberforce's contributions. John Stuart Mill made contributions to the feminist movement that feminists have acknowledged. What makes you think that the people that read Mill didn't read Wollstonecraft? What makes you think that the people who read Wilberforce didn't read Equiano? There is ample historical evidence that they read both. Furthermore, Equiano and Wilberforce considered themselves allies.
Do you want to rewrite history to exclude Wilberforce's role? In the United States, should we rewrite the history of the abolitionist movement to exclude William Lloyd Garrison and to include only black abolitionists, such as Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth. The latter two figures made it abundantly clear in their writings that they considered Garrison an important ally and a valued part of their movement. Garrison and Douglass both supported the women's movement and their contributions were valued. In fact, one of Douglass's famous speeches on this topic emphasized that women were capable of speaking for themselves. His audience agreed and still wanted him as ally and valued his contributions and ideas as articulated in his speeches and writings.
Jerry Hirsch
________________________________
From: The Disability-Research Discussion List on behalf of Larry Arnold
Sent: Sat 7/18/2009 11:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The question of being able-bodied and doing work in the field of disability studies
I will tell you why.
Because we live in a world where one has been historically disempowered by
others who claim the right to speak for us and who (certainly in the autism
world) deny you either legitimacy when you speak, or the mental capacity to
speak, and thus dismissing what you say.
Well that is why.
The question is not so much who should speak, but who should be setting the
agenda, and that goes for research also, when much of the research has been
colonised by people who would I doubt, give up there position of 'privilege'
to make way for those who could do with a metaphorical leg up.
..... and that goes especially for you Mitzi :)
No really whilst I can appreciate what has been said by those who are not
part of the particular communities they write about, there is still an
imbalance when the wider world is listening to them rather than the genuine
article, listening to Wilberforce instead of Equiano or whatever, reading JS
Mill (of his own free will) rather than Mary Wollstonecraft, you catch my
drift ......
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [mailto:DISABILITY-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Conway
> Sent: 18 July 2009 11:49
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The question of being able-bodied and doing work in the field
of disability
> studies
>
> I understand where these views are coming from, but doesn't it strike you
as a form of
> discrimination? Why should only one group of people be allowed to work on
any
> particular topic? And, perhaps far more importantly, why should you force
anyone with a
> disability to come "out" and declare it publicly - because if they don't,
since most
> disabilities are well hidden, they would be discriminated against for not
being disabled.
>
> think this one through a little more carefully!!!!!
>
> John
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List on behalf of Malacrida,
Claudia
> Sent: Sat 18/07/2009 01:43
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: The question of being able-bodied and doing work in the field of
disability studies
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> I subscribe to the digest version of this list, so rather than re-send
every exchange that's
> happened concerning this issue, first raised by Colin, I have cut and
pasted four excerpts
> that I'd like to address specifically, because I hope to be able to
clarify my own position on
> these points:
>
> First, Judith Stephenson wrote:
>
> > Call it 'essentialism'. Interesting term. Perhaps non-disabled people
sh=
> ould do a 'Bob Connell' and give themselves an impairment if they feel so
s=
> trongly about the systematic oppression that we face as Disabled people in
=
> our everyday lives. I jest, of course but the point is Men do speak on
beh=
> alf of women, white people do speak on behalf of Black and minority ethnic
=
> people and so forth. This is not to say that those individuals do not
iden=
> tify with groups of people who are seemingly oppressed by those that hold
t=
> he power but as Colin says - it should be disabled people first and
foremos=
> t that speak on their own behalf until we have some semblance of equality.
> End quote>
>
> My response:
>
> I actually agree that people with disabilities should be the core
knowledge producers and
> activists in disability scholarship and disability movements. However, I
also think that
> there are instances historically when people without disabilities have
been instrumental in
> changing things for people with disabilities (and I use the term FOR
consciously). I am
> thinking particularly about deinstitutionalization in Canada, which began
in the late 1960s.
> Originally, this movement did not begin with people with disabilities, but
came out of the
> activism and scholarship of people who had worked in such institutions
(e.g. the Alberta
> Association for Community Living), or who had lived with people with
disabilities in the
> community (Jean Vanier, e.g.), who were so moved by the deplorable
conditions in
> institutions that they worked toward their closure. I am aware of several
such people here
> in Alberta who, against strong government, institutional, and parental
pressures, fought to
> get people out and transitioned (with remarkable success for most) into
community living.
>
> The people who were freed from those institutions were primarily people
with intellectual
> disabilities, they were without family allies because many of them had
been abandoned or
> had parents who thought they were doing 'what was best', and they were
without access to
> allies, information or power. If those people had had to organize an end
to their
> incarceration, they would probably not have succeeded because of their
isolation and
> limited resources. Now that these survivors are out, many of them have
become self-
> advocates and advocates for others. However, many non-disabled people
continue to work
> with these groups because they need some support to get their words to the
right places. I
> will also say that many of their concerns are still not centrally
addressed even by fellow
> people with disabilities. In a world of hierarchies, people with
intellectual disabilities still
> seem to fall lower on the ladder than, say, people with physical
disabilities. So, although
> ideally, disability lobbyists, scholars, activists, and services providers
will all be people
> with disabilities, in the meanwhile it would be a shame to discredit the
work of non-
> disabled advocates (charmingly referred to as AB's in some circles - as to
DB's were the
> only game in town - what about minds?) on a point of principle. It would
also be a mistake
> to assume that, just because someone has disabilities, that they will
necessarily be advocates
> for or allies to people with the 'wrong' kind of disabilities.
>
> So yes, this IS a problem of essentialism, if one assumes that having a
disability means
> that one will necessarily have a positive disability politics, or
conversely, that NOT having
> a disability disqualifies one from being a disability advocate. These just
are not reliable
> assumptions - biology is not destiny.
>
> Judith's comment:
>
> > 'Disability scholarship' is an interesting phrase as well. Yes, of
cour=
> se academia and the study of disability may further the social movement
but=
> it is disabled people themselves that should be challenging and
revolution=
> ising the social construct that notwithstanding disability scholarship,
leg=
> islation, direct payments is not suited to the human being and in
particula=
> r the human being with impairment.
>
> My response:
> Again, I agree that academia and the study 'of' disability is not enough
(I would actually
> say that the kind of research and study that I would see as useful is the
study 'for' disability
> - and therein lies the rub, I think). Truly, you're right, there is a need
for activism. But
> scholarship is what I do. I chose to refer to disability scholarship
specifically because this is
> a discussions list concerning disability research, which is generally a
scholarly pursuit.
>
> Judith Stephenson also wrote:
>
> Striving towards a society that actually listens to Disabled people and
changes itself to be
> flexible and embrace humanity as it is and human beings as they are would
be a good
> thing and a rational thing. There would be fewer alienated and angry
people in the world.
> I would also debate the concept or meaning of the word 'minority' and
would be interested
> on finding out who people think are the majority in this world.
>
> Absolutely, well stated. Just to clarify, from a sociological perspective,
the term 'minority'
> does not refer to a numerical value. Women are a minority, even though
they represent
> more than 50% of the world population. That being said, as a minority
group, they sit on
> the debit side of many ledgers, as do people with disabilities - in terms
of access to money,
> education, the necessities of life, freedom from abuse, access to decent
and affordable
> housing, the right to reproductive freedom, and on and on.
>
>
> One more, and then I'm done!
>
> Emma Rowlett wrote:
>
> I think that while it may be true that for example, non-disabled
> people writing about disability are seen as more credible than
> disabled people writing about their experiences, but I feel that this
> is a very sorry state of affairs. Obviously anyone writing solely
> about their own experiences can only provide a limited perspective,
> but I don't see why a person can't write about their experiences and
> similar experiences of others without having to have someone who
> hasn't shared these experiences speaking for them.
>
> My response:
> I really did not want to imply that the women's movement would have been
ineffective if
> Bob Connell, Michael Kimmel or the White Ribbon Campaign did not happen.
Nor do I
> want to say that these male advocates were any more
effective/convincing/authoritative
> than the many, many women who have been involved in breaking down gender
> discrimination. I just meant to say that an outsider can be a good ally
and can strengthen
> one's forces (as Colin suggests).
>
> Finally, I want to 'come out' as a woman without disabilities who is not
going to stop
> writing and thinking about disability discrimination just because of my
physical,
> intellectual and sensory capacities. I have other things that I think
allow me to think about
> these issues with grace and conscience. I have spent time in jail as a
very young woman
> because I was deemed by the courts to be sexually promiscuous and out of
control (it was
> the '60s - what can I say?), I am a fat older woman in a world that see
those attributes as
> disqualifying of my humanness, and I have a daughter with disabilities for
whom I have
> fought long and hard and continue to do so. None of these things is 'the
same' as living
> with disability oppression, I know. But I believe that these experiences
help me to keep
> humble enough that my vision and voice are clear in the scholarship that I
engage in,
> which focuses on gender & disability and on institutional history.
Finally, on the subject of
> scholarship, I do actually think that it is important for me to use the
privilege that I DO
> have - intellectual capacity, an education, a job that permits me the
luxury of thinking and
> writing, the physical energy to persist - to do some good in the world.
Otherwise, I am not
> sure why I'd get up in the morning - seriously.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Claudia Malacrida
>
> This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipients. Access to this
e-mail by anyone else
> is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution
> or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and unlawful. The
> recipient acknowledges that the Royal Agricultural College cannot control
the content of
> information received in transmissions made via the Internet.
>
> Royal Agricultural College (Registered in England No: 99168) & Royal
Agricultural
> College Enterprises Ltd (Registered in England No: 2752048) are the
trading names of the
> Royal Agricultural College
>
> Registered Office: Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester,
Gloucestershire, GL7 6JS
>
> ________________End of message________________
>
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
Disability Studies at
> the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to disability-research-
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at:
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web
page.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|
