In the early 20th Century, several U.S. cities had laws that actually forbade people with disabilities from showing themselves in public.
These were the notorious “Ugly Laws.” For example, Chicago’s law forbade anyone who was “diseased, maimed, mutilated, or in any way deformed, so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object from being in the public view.”
Those laws are gone now, but there are still people who would prefer not to have to look at those of us with disabilities. And one of them appears to be our president.
Recently, President Trump met with several members of the U.S. Paralympic team, to congratulate them on games well played. But while he was honoring them and calling them “inspirational,” he also said he had only watched “as much as I could” of the games. This was because, “It was a little tough to watch.”
I have attached links below that show President Trump’s remarks, as well as the very eloquent response to him by the U. S. Paralympic organizers. I will let this information speak for itself.
But isn’t he really saying that he would rather not look at us unless he has to, and wasn’t it this kind of thinking that created the Ugly Laws in the first place?
I love including emojis in my emails. If somone is taking a trip, I’ll often insert a plane or train. If they have accomplished something, I’ll sometimes insert some people dancing and clapping.
Emojis do more than give clues about the writer’s state of mind – they provide a whole extra layer of communication to a very limited medium.
When one peruses the thousands of available emojis, they will find “people” of all different races and cultures, and a seemingly infinite amount of sports, dancing and other activities. But when I was recently looking for something symbolizing a person with a disability, I found only ONE: the above, very familiar (and dare I say boring?) symbol of someone in a wheelchair.
That’s why it was so encouraging to read the Huffington Post article below. It describes a number of new emojis that are being considered for distribution. And for the first time, they all feature people with disabilities.
Is this a big deal? Probably not. But anything that encourages inclusion (rather than stigmatization) deserves at least a smiley face🙂.
In the last week, I have read several articles (two of which are attached below) about both the Paralympics and the death of Steven Hawkings. Various viewpoints have been expressed, but the ones that got my attention were the ones who were critical about the emphasis by the press on disabilities.
The main objection seems to be about the press’s focus on Mr. Hawkings and the Paralympians “overcoming” their disabilities and being a source of “inspiration” for others. The critics refer to this as “ablest” discrimination, of putting people with disabilities in a separate human category and not thinking of them and their accomplishments in the same way as people without disabilities. In this way, the argument goes, they are trapping these people into a stereotype. And a natural consequence is that this “differentness” easily slips into a license to discriminate, consciously or unconsciously.
While this is a very understandable viewpoint, I wonder if we might be in danger of missing the bigger point here. I have definitely been a victim of disability discrimination, with people being both overly patronizing and overly judgmental. And while these attitudes have definitely had negative consequences, I don’t think it helps if I respond by trying to ignore my disability. It is part of who I am. And I have learned the hard way that if I try to minimize or ignore it, I run the risk of injuring myself, both physically and emotionally.
So when I read about people like Steven Hawkings, Helen Keller and Ed Roberts, I am inspired – not just by their accomplishments but by the way they have dealt with their disabilities. Dr Hawkings made no attempt to divorce himself from his disability when he suggested that we “look up at the stars and not down at our feet,” and that he had traveled the universe “from my wheelchair.”
Tonight is Oscar night, and much has been made about the fact that Hollywood is finally becoming more diversified. There is a lot of buzz over films like “Get Out” and “Black Panther,” as there should be.
But how is Hollywood treating peoplewith disabilities these days? One could easily point to heavily nominated films like “The Shape of Water” and “Three Billboards outside of Ebbing, Missouri” as evidence that people with disabilities are finally coming into their own.
But are they really? I have attached two articles written by people with disabilities, who have a decisively personal take on these movies. The first, by Elsa Sjunneson-Henry, discusses her reaction to the main character in “Shape of Water.” As a woman who uses a hearing aid and has vision difficulties, she could relate to much of what the heroine (who is mute) goes through. But it was gut-wrenching for her to hear the heroine say that she was “lesser” than other people, and she was glad that her love interest (a monster) did not realize this.
“At its core,” writes Sjunneson-Henry,”…the Shape of Water asks us to consider what a freak is. Is a monster a god? Is a disabled woman a freak? An outsider? Can she be loved or understood by her own kind, or are the monsters the only ones who can truly understand her?”
In “Three Billboards,” one of the main characters is a dwarf. To the movie’s credit, he is portrayed by Peter Dinkladge, an actor who is in fact a dwarf. But to Eva Squiers, a writer who herself has a form of dwarfism, there was still a whole lot wrong with the way the character was portrayed.
“Dinklage plays James, who introduces himself as the ‘town midget’and whose primary function in the film is as the butt of many jokes,” she writes. “In the cinema where I saw Three Billboards, the audience cackled whenever James spoke. This was painful enough as a response to the script’s cheap shots at short-person jokes – for example when James excuses himself to use the “little boys’ room” or is asked if he can juggle.
“But I was more baffled when the people around me laughed at distinctly unfunny scenes of James playing pool, holding a ladder or asking Mildred (Frances McDormand, whose performance has put her in the running for a best actress Oscar) out to dinner. The source of this hilarity seemed to reside in the mere fact that James existed and that he was short; how funny that he, with his non-conforming body, should have the audacity to present as a desiring subject! What a laugh! This clunky reliance on ableist tropes as a form of humour was disappointing coming from a film lauded for its “moments of sharp, cinder black comedy.”
There are a variety of opinions about both of these movies, and the two writers here do not necessarily have more of a “vote” than anyone else. But because their disabilities continue after the movie is over, they have a particulary knowledgeable perspective that should be heard.
The term, “politically correct” has taken quite a beating in recent years.
The phrase can mean a lot of things, but these days it seems to be used in an insulting manner – poking fun at people who are trying to be attentive to diversity in our society.
Granted, there are situations where “political correctness” is overdone. (Examples might be describing a janitor as a “sanitation engineer” or a bald person as “folically challenged.”) But for every situation where the wording seems a bit overstrained, there are several where in fact, an individual is consistently defined not by who they are, but by what they have. (Examples here would be calling someone in a wheelchair “a cripple” or labeling someone with mental illness “a psycho.”}
Words matter, and the attached article does an excellent job of providing alternatives to some of the labels traditionaly used to describe people with disabilities. If there is a common theme, it is the recommendation to use “people first” language, where the fact that someone has a disability is not the first thing you learn about her. Because quite often, it ends up being the only thing that is remembered.
Because Franklin D. Roosevelt had contracted polio, he was unable to use his legs. But he was counseled to hide this fact as much as possible, to keep him from appearing “weak.”
In the book, “Roosevelt’s Splendid Deception,” Hugh Gallagher chronicles the extraordinary lengths that Roosevelt took to hide his disability from the world. He believed that this would cause him to be perceived as “weak” in his ability to lead the country through very troubling times. Therefore, he asked the press not to photograph him in a wheelchair. And for the most part, the press complied.
Mr. Roosevelt also did other things to hide the fact that he was a wheelchair user. Although he had virtually no strength from the waist down, he built up his upper body and arm muscles so that he could literally hold himself up from whatever podium he was speaking from, disguising the fact that his legs were effectively useless. And in getting to the podium, he would enlist the help of someone (often his son) to walk with him. Grasping his escort’s arm, he would use that leverage and his upper body strength to propel his legs forward – one at a time – until he could reach the podium.
Was this the best way to handle his disability? It is hard to say – those were different times in a different world. But there are some myths and stereotypes that seem to have stubbornly persisted through the years – chief among them that people with disabilities are not quite “complete” and should not be treated as if they are. Perhaps that is why a doctor who is a wheelchair user recently wrote in the New York Times that her competence has often come into question – both from patients and colleagues. She also suggests that much of this anxiety might be mitigated if there were more physicians with disabilities on the scene.
As those with disabilities know, a common reaction to us is discomfort and anxiety. That can turn into fear, because people are reminded that at any time, they could join the ranks of the disabled population. And although Roosevelt did not mention his disability during his inauguration, surely he spoke from experience when he said, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
Note: The photographs below reflect a change in attitude that Roosevelt would have been very happy to see: The first one represents a perpetuation of the “splendid deception,” portraying him as standing tall and proud. Largely because of pressure brought by disability advocates, a new statue was added in the late 90’s. This one shows him as he really was – every bit as proud and presidential.
For more information about these statue changes, see the article below:
This photo is pretty self-explanatory – it’s a begger with his cap in his hand. But a lot of people don’t know that this is where the term, “handicap” came from. This is a big part of the reason why that term is now disfavored.
In addition, when you talk about a Black or Hispanic individual, you don’t usually mention their race first, if at all. This is why people with disabilities advocate for “people first” language. Rather than say, ”That’s a wheelchair-bound person,” why not say, “That’s a person in a wheelchair.” That way, you are identifying their humanity before mentioning their disability.
These may seem like unimportant issues, but it is our common discourse that helps mold the self-image of the people we are talking about. And for most of the people with disabilities that I know, they would like to be thought of first as who they are, not what they have. And that goes for me, too.