Let me be the first to spoil Maria's hope that we not start another debate
on language.
I have one serious concern about how we express our objections to particular
terms. It is _not_ necessary to prove that an expression has evil origins in
order to show that the expression is objectionable. A word can have
perfectly noble origins, but nevertheless be objectionable because of the
connotations that it has picked up along the way.
The very worst case of this is the disability rights myth about the
"cap-in-hand begging" origins of the term "handicapped." IT'S NOT TRUE!!!!!
I just got my very own CD version of the Oxford English Dictionary and I can
post the real etymology if anyone wants it. It was used for hundreds of
years with no reference to disability at all, and when the reference got
carried over it was not in a particularly demeaning way (at least that's how
I see it -- the sporting angle may seem objectionable to some).
Besides which, someone posted a newspaper column where an activist had
quoted the cap-in-hand myth to a newspaper reporter, who had promptly looked
it up in the dictionary and publicly made a fool of the activist in print in
a large circulation newspaper. Let's try to not do that any more.
This doesn't mean that the term "handicapped" is ok just because its origins
are not oppressive. It is not ok, because it is associated with the
oldfashioned and oppressive social attitude towards disability. The same
point can be made about "colored" with reference to, um, African Americans,
people of African descent, etc. No one has to prove an evil origin of a term
in order to point out that it is no longer acceptable usage. (And just as
some elderly American black people have no objection to "colored," I have no
personal objection to "handicapped." But I realize that most activists do.)
My personal reaction to "physically challenged" is that it's euphemistic and
cutesy, it assumes (like all euphemisms) that the word disabled is so
horrible that it cannot be spoken , and it is clearly dishonest in that it
gives an "upbeat" label to a concept that the speaker obviously believes is
too horrible to be spoken.
Maybe the sporting angle is where "challenged" came from, and maybe not.
Frankly I don't think it matters to whether the word is objectionable or
not.
Ron
Ron Amundson
University of Hawaii at Hilo
Hilo, HI 96720
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Maria Barile" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:23 AM
Subject: origin of term
Hello everyone
It is not my intention to begin another debate on language, but I would like
to know the origin of the term "physically challenged." Did it begin North
American or a European as a terminology? I remember seeing it for the 1st
time in the 1980s. In my linguistically naive days I thought that it made
reference to sport, at least sport and disability. I would like to be able
to explain to a local media personality why this euphemism is not an okay
term to use however I need to know where it comes from, and that it did not
began within our community somewhere either than Canada.
Maria
________________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.
________________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.
|