Henry wrote:
When you speak truth to power, the
> powerful get befuddled>>>>>>>> I agree with that statement, however
the truth
for
> me (to use Pascals' phrase} was in the "truth" in the article. I want
to take
> some time to read the article more carefully and to point out what I
see as
> truths for me in the Canadian context of disability.
Henry:
Just to make a point disabilities studies in Manitoba are not the basis
of disabilities studies in Canada as a whole. True you do have the
cooperate financial support that other groups do not and can never have
elsewhere in Canada, and it is a beginning, for this you should be
congratulated.
As far as I can tell, the 'Manitoba disability study' seems to me
closer to what L. Davis, defined as disabilities studies of 20 years
ago. In other words, the facts that the disciplines included
joinrehabilitation, medical and traditional social work together and
ignore the more progressive disciplines such as philosophy, community
work, politics, feminist and queer studies among others makes the
Manitoba disability study "different" than that which is defined by the
SDS people.
Re: Ms, Vincent article, she has many inaccurate points, taking vitamin
to avoid 'birth defect', she writes about it as if it were facts for all
'birth defects' this is simply not true. She writes, as if
disability-based discrimination is no longer a fact, that is not true!
She alludes to the fact that disabilities studies is only up in ivory
tower somewhere, and that, most disabled people at the grass roots do
not get the sideline after-effect. This is not entirely true. The fact
that disabilities studies has promoted the notion that the locus of the
problem exists outside of the person has permitted
environmental changes that in turn allowed for better opportunities in
education, employment etc.
This is a grass root non-academic opinion
Maria
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|