Exactly
How does this sound instead, person with disenfranchisements, person with disempowment, person with other peoples attitudes dumped on them.
Do I have to be told I am a people first (or shouldn't that grammatically be we as in we the people) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gutY7NnNuyA&feature=related
Whatever happened to US justice and academic freedom in particular? It ain't just for the Yangs but the Corms as well :)
The problem is that disabled is still a dirty word in the US in the same way that "handicap" is over here, and what springs to mind is not the same association as the disabled peoples movement (not academia) has constructed in the UK.
I am not being King George III little Englander when I stand on my principles, I think our US activist cousins still have a lot to learn and should listen to this debate.
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [mailto:DISABILITY-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Judith Stephenson
> Sent: 10 March 2009 14:32
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Impairment/PWD/Disabled people
>
> No offence taken, whatsoever!
> What I can't understand is 'how come we appear to be going backwards rather than
> progressing', taking on the terminology that is commonly used by institutions that
> systematically oppress and categorise us rather than defining us in a way that does indicate
> clearly a social model use of language. That is that the impairment or condition is a just a
> fact, neither negative or positive but because we have those impairments or conditions we
> therefore face Disability. Those institutions/social structure are an agent of Disability.
> Disability is therefore the discrimination/oppression that we face. We are therefore
> Disabled people. Anyway that is my understanding. I have spent years and years
> attempting to explain that to other disabled people but now it seems that we are back to the
> old patronising attempts to make us and others notice that we are 'people first'.
> Is this not surely just an appropriation of the language of Disability which is then being fed
> back to us in a sanitised way?
> Anyway - suppose it won't much make much difference to the actual practicalities of day to
> day work but I do think it kind of confuses the understanding of the social model,
> whatever the US say.
>
> ________________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.
|