[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sturdy old apple
In article <XixNc.21114$K16.20888@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
"Sean Fahey" <a2fan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> That all seems to boil down to "it's just wrong."
>
>Same vein as its socially inappropriate to refer to someone who is black, as
>"nigger" or Hispanic as "spic". You're asking why terms like these are
>innapropriate - this question would be better suited for a Sociology
>discussion but I'll attempt an answer, though I'm no expert on social norms.
>
>It has become socially unacceptable to use these terms casually because the
>majority of our culture (society) has a belief that they are hurtful,
>derogatory or misrepresent the persons the terms are frequently associated
>with. Most people recognize that words and labels can hurt other people -
>and some of these people can't defend themselves.
>
>"Mentally Retarded" ceased to be a simple medical diagnosis term when it
>became an intentional, derogatory label used to lower the status of one
>class of people below that of other classes. It made it easier to treat that
>lower class differently, to lock them away in institutions and deny them
>basic human rights and a quality of life. The MR were and sometimes still
>are treated as sub-humans.
Thank you! You did exactly what I wanted--gave a good, logical
explanation of your position. Not that I agree with it, but at least
you're reasonable.
I think you and I are still arguing two different things. I would
agree that always referring to retarded kids as 'tards would eventually
dehumanize them and could lead to abuse. But, I think that's only on a
society level, or in the general case. I believe there is enough about
this woman to show she does care for her kids that she isn't
dehumanizing them at all.
More likely it's just another way for her to vent her frustration
after a full day with them. Regardless of how polite or impolite it may
be to say so, working with those kids is often infuriating.
>> How does it degrade the kids?
>
>Simple, and you've answered your own question. Why aren't they just "kids"?
>The implication by extension is that these children are different, but
>lesser. They are apart and not normal - and obviously thats true to a
>degree, but the point is that it's not these kid's fault that they are MR,
>and as humans should they not be given the opportunity to have the best
>quality of life that they can aspire to (with or without assistance)?
>
>So whats wrong with calling the kids "Tards"? Because it's insensitive - and
>desensitivty leads to apathy, bigotry and hate.
I think that's too large a logical leap. Again, that's in the case
of this one teacher, not in the general sense.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net