 |
 |
David, do you mean my remark about continuing to use certain terms or about language debates getting in the way of action? In either case, I wasn't directing it at you, but trying to clarify my position: first, that I will try to use the most accurate, least objectionable terms, and second that what we do is usually more important than the terminology we use. Sorry if it was redundant, unclear, or sounded personal. I tend to do this late at night. -Dick Jacobs -----Original Message----- From: David Pfeiffer [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 4:18 PM To: Richard Jacobs Cc: Disability-Research Subject: RE: disability language Again, what part of my succinct message provokes Richard Jacobs to offer his last paragraph? On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Richard Jacobs wrote: > David, as responses to your post suggest, opinions in the disabled community > seem to vary. [snip] I completely agree with you. > It seems unlikely that there will be generally agreed-upon neutral terms, so > until I hear something better, I'll probably continue to use > "developmentally disabled people" or "persons with disabilities" when that > level of clarification is needed. I hope it won't offend too many people, > but I'm mindful of the fact that language debates can get in the way of > action. Again, I agree with you and think your strategy is fine. David +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ David Pfeiffer, Ph.D. Resident Scholar Center on Disability Studies University of Hawai`i at Manoa [log in to unmask] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Center on Disability Studies....maximizing individual potential by encouraging independence, self-determination, and full participation in the community. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%