Yes, Russell Crowe,the term "retarded" can be hurtful, however, please note that my use of it with reference to the people the commedian was stereotyping as the typical clientele of the low-rent supermarket was actually applied in the satirical manner as people might refer to the people who habitually watch, let alone appear, on TV shows such as
Jerry Springer and
Ricky Lake. My usage of the term "retarded", as Poko understands, was therefore ironic and not actually referring to people with learning difficulties, but to a perception of stereotypical
attitudes that might be regarded as "retarded" and limited due to lack of meaningful experience and/or education. Clearly you didn't get the ironic usage of the term and felt the need to wag your PC finger while adding further qualification as to your own impeccable conduct in this area. I'm not impressed. I rarely am when people set themselves up as morally superior to me, because I regard the compulsion to behave in that way fatally undermines the claim for the moral highground.
But this is an interesting topic for discussion, so I'll bite even if it means going futher off-topic:
When I was growing up, use of terms such as "mentally retarded" and "educationally subnormal" were common currency and used all the time. The secondary school I attended had a block set aside for the education of children with learning difficulties called "The Unit" and my parents, who were both teachers, used these terms all the time because they were the terms used in the books they read. Today, we might want to use the less harsh term of "a person with learning difficulties", which also covers the situation. I don't like the term "special needs" because it's too unspecific, although, I am obliged to use it all the time in my work because that's the official term. The problem is that "special needs" merely indicates that somebody has needs that go beyond what a "normal" person needs, but then "normal" is an unfocussed term too. In fact, "special needs" can refer to an extremely intelligent person who needs a far more stimulation and academic stretching than a person of average intelligence, and I don't think these people appreciate being dubbed "special needs" because, whichever way you cut it, there's no getting away from the fact that "special needs" is usually thought of us pertaining to somebody of sub-normal intelligence. The old terminology may not have been "kind" but it was at least descriptive.
Back in the 1980's there was a move towards removing the term "disabled" from common currency in favour of the - frankly - ridiculous term of "differently abled". Now, not only is that extremely patronising to the people who have to contend with ohysical difficulties and who are as bright as you or I, it is also a completely inaccurate way to describe a physical condition that is challenging. Fortunately, that one never caught on.
There are many such terms that have been imposed on the general public to use, most of which are frankly mealy-mouthed and unhelpful and, always, require qualification. At one time "spastic" was deemed a perfectly acceptable term for people born with cerebral palsy, for very good reasons this had to change when it became a joke term and was bandied about by kids in the playground, but at least "cerebral palsy" describes a specific related spectrum of disabilities that most people can understand and it's not an insult, whereas, the use of "special needs" must always prompt the response "yes, but what
kind of special needs?".
As to whether certain words "should" or "shouldn't" be part of anyone's vocabulary is down to the individual conerned. Smart people know that to use certain terms - especially in front of someone to whom it might apply - is not the thing to do, but very often, with the relentless march of the political correctness Police, even ordinary people like you and I are going to get caught out using a term that somebody somewhere has suddenly decided is offensive and has consigned it to the linguistic equivalent of a Bunnie incinerator. I once got caught out referring to somebody as "of mixed race" by a community healthworker and sharply told that the new official term is now "of mixed heritage". I recently had a very interesting argument with a white, middle-aged woman who refused to accept that her persistent use of the term "half-caste" was no longer acceptable, although it had been common currency when we were both growing up. Apparently the "N word" (which I had to type out many times for my dissertation because I was doing it on black writer James Baldwin who freqently used the term himself) is unusable by anyone who is not black, but is frequently currency amongst some black people who use it about themselves as a way of flipping something intensely negative by making it their own. In the same way, my gay sister often refers to herself as a "dyke".
I have a high-functioning friend who has Asperger Syndrome. She refers to herself as having "autism" because she sees, quite correctly, that her condition is actually a spectrum or related disorders and is happy that people know her for what she is and what she can do because of an inspite of that. Because she is such an incredibly artistic, intelligent, and articulate person she basically redefines what many might regard as a disability and use to judge her. In fact, because I know her via the internet, I had no idea that she was on the autistic spectrum. I just knew her as an incredibly vibrant lady who made me laugh.
She chose to make me and the community aware of her Asperger Syndrome. She has two autistic children for whom she has had to tirelessly campaign for better understanding and help. So this idea that we always meet people and appreciate them as "persons" before we reognise disability is often a load of BS, and sometimes contrary to the needs and rights of that individual who want the world to see that they have challenging conditions but are able to overcome them.
While I hate the way in which political correctness has massively overstepped it's original useful and well-meaning boundaries to become a kind of tyranny effectively neuters our language, there are some words that I myself would like to see consigned to history, most of them vile terms used against a person just because she happens to be female. I'd dearly love to see the C-word, the word that refers to a sex act with one's own mother, and various derogatory terms used to describe female sex workers, and, while I'm on a roll here, I'd dearly love to see any slang that likens a woman to anything that isn't human, completely outlawed.
I'm unlikely to get my own way here, of course, but the words "should" of "should not" ought to be used with a little more discretion too.
This post has been edited by JulesLuvsShinzon: 03 May 2010 - 10:07 AM
Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
Add Reply
MultiQuote
