 |
 |
What do you mean? Perhaps the disability movement, and its 'intelligentsia' could learn from the civil rights movement in the US (again). How do you overcome the modern version of apartheid? How did they counter- attacked a system that categorised them as separated citizens? Isn't the same when they ask you whether you want it pink (person first) or blue (person second)? They are placing you as a second class citizens (person first or not) and entrapping you into a linguistic hurricane. They are playing at your post-modern nihilism. The system is adjusting its legitimacy to ignore your views in a civilised manner. We are doing our bit, here you go your disabled toilet. In the US they did entered the classrooms, they did not removed from their seats, they did not accepted the 'tolerating society'. It is not the same, one may say (there are not KKK in the UK). Lets not accept the label what ever it is. That is what disabled people are telling you researcher. Best, Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Arnold" <[log in to unmask]> To: "'A Velarde'" <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:38 AM Subject: RE: Impairment/PWD/Disabled People You swore, you used a double D word and the S word :) Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [mailto:DISABILITY- > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A Velarde > Sent: 10 March 2009 14:30 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Impairment/PWD/Disabled People > > I guess the issue is closely related to identity. Human societies tend to > establish identities in relation to the position of the person in the > production process. For example John Smith is a milkman or doctor, his > ggg > father was a smith and so forth. People with differentiations called > impairment/disabilities are defined in relation with their 'condition'. No > other human is subject to such categorisation without some type of > embarrassment. Relatively recently women managed to get their > categorisation > as housewives removed, not without fighting in two world wars. It is my > guess but it may be related (categorisation) to the fact that for 300 > years > disabled people were excluded from proletarisation (due to the > standardisation of the work place). > > Having said that, I believe that DP or PWDs is a bit like a chicken and > egg > situation. Whatever you come up with reinforces the dichotomic locker such > categorisation place nearly one billion individuals in the planet. Hence > the > issue is not about h what type of hat the monkey wears but why it has to > wear it. Tom Shakespeare 20002 has made a remarkable contribution, > following > strategically postmodernism (Derrida deconstruction) to suggest that > perhaps > we should turn the table around and ask why people have to categorise his > inabiolities. In othewords, the idea is to dismantle the system (the > binary > code+the lock) and ask who is normal? > Perhaps the United Nations could help organising banquets and conferences > to provide the standardised concept of the normal person. At that moment > we > will realise that the monkey doesn't have to wear hats. > > best, Andy > > ________________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.