Last post Fri, May 02 2008 8:02 PM by Liesl. 26 replies.
For those of us who use the words disabled, disABLED, and so on to refer to our various "conditions," it might be helpful to know that the older term "handicapped" is no longer well regarded by many advocates, as the ADA, The National Council of Support for Disability Issues, and others.
The reason? One is that it has been said to stem from an older era, and refer to "Cap In Hand," when a person with a disability had to literally beg to make ends meet. This interpretation stems from the era of the British King Henry VIII. The understanding, while perhaps untrue, is widely accepted and met with disfavor by those who are trying to promote the advance of disabled individuals in society.
Later etemologists trace the term to a sign of respect, whereby a person removed their cap in the presence of a senior official such as a judge, hence "cap in hand." This later devolved, it is said, to be understood to importune for a favor. Hence, one is said to go 'cap in hand' to ask one's boss for a raise.
Others, however, see the phrase as coming from the gaming world, where 'hand-in-cap' referred to a lottery style game component that then extended to the sporting world in general, where it was used to impose an impediment to equalize the playing field. Thus, handicapping entered the world of sports, and then the more general mainstream to refer to an impediment.
These two phrases, have come to be somewhat interlinked in the public mind, unfortunately. And the problem here is the use the concept that the term IMPEDIMENT has had in reference to disability. In the late 19th century, I understand the term began to be used for "crippled children," for whom favors were being asked. The HANDICAPPED CHILDREN.
We are all familiar with the charitable drives that date from an earlier era, like the Jerry Lewis Telethons, and extend through to the present, where we are presented with these IMPEDIMENTS AS OBJECTS OF PITY.
"Be wary. Kahlil Gibran said “the gifts which derive from Justice are greater than those which spring from Charity.” There is power in this statement. If you want to make a difference and, at the same time, help put an end to the pattern of pity and paternalization, find an organization that is promoting self-control and Independent living; one whose mission is that of building confidence and ability, awareness and community. Try your local Center for Independent Living. It'll be money or time well spent." Dan Wilkins
The general public is certainly not aware of this, but amongst ourselves, at least, I would like to see the word phased out. Then we can move on to a greater public awareness. Also, after all, most of us would prefer not to be regarded as "handicapped" or unable in some way to live life on our own terms. I am not "handicapped," simply because I am disabled. I am not an object of pity.
Some may be able to provide corrections to the history of this term, but the point remains that from my point of view it is demeaning.
bonniethesurvivor:I don't want anyone to call me "handicapped!"
How's Gimp fit ya?
Handicapped refers to a political context that has an impact in the "real world." "Gimp" does not bother me because I consider it a joke, and few people are likely to actually refer to a disabled individual as a gimp. Certainly we have no national charities raising money with terms like the National Foundation of MS GIMP Individuals! Your remark avoids the issue of Pity completely. It also avoids the concepts of paternalism, self control and independence completely.
TriDog: bonniethesurvivor:I don't want anyone to call me "handicapped!" How's Gimp fit ya?
*ROTFLMAO!*
Personally, I think it's better to focus on the issues rather than the semantics. It's up to each person to decide what they are comfortable with. While I don't generally use "crip" or "gimp" (simply because I am not) if my son chose to use those words to describe himself (he's the one in the w/c) then fine. (Then again, if my back and arthritis problems progress to a point where I am, I might then consider it since I'd be in "the club." *LOL*)
It's far too easy to get distracted on side issues that, frankly, aren't important. What a disabled person, person with disability, gimp, crip, handicapped, hadicapable person is called is secondary to the fact that if they can't get in a friggin building that should, by law, be accessible, their rights are being violated. If we spend valuable time and energy fighting for a term to be used rather than for laws about access/enforcing access laws, it's a waste and, frankly, a joke. And what one PWD might want to be called might be totally offensive to someone else with a PWD. I say let everyone pick their own "label."
Add to that there are people who might "technically" be disabled, but who don't choose to label themselves as such because they don't see themselves as "disabled." And you know what? That's fine too. My grandmother has severe arthritis (and now heart problems, diabetes, etc.) and has to use a cane to walk, but she doesn't consider herself disabled, even though by all current "standards," she is.
Semantics are meaningless to someone stuck out in the rain because there isn't a ramp or elevator available for them to get into a building.
Just my .02
You raise some good points. What we each call ourselves, however, is different than what we call ourselves institutionally. Issues are more important than semantics, but semantics can also help define issues. I would never say fight the issue of language over actual legal rights, but securing those rights may be influenced by how we are perceived in the community. The ADA laws are being revised now because of many technical issues, and on this site there has been a thread about inaccessible curb cut-outs, for example. If this were seen as a justice vs. "charity" issue it might not be an issue.
If we are given Justice, not Pity, then our rights may follow more easily.
Here's a bit of a different take on the discussion. Here is the original meaning of the word "handicap:"
Yes, in my original post I referred to one etomological origin, which actually predates horse racing, as coming from the gaming world. It then moved to horse racing, where, to even the field, an IMPEDIMENT was placed on some horses. From there, the concept of IMPEDIMENT moved into general usage, descended to pitiful impediment in children in the 19th century, and then on to charity.
My point was not what we call ourselves, as such, as individuals, but as a group that is advocating for justice in many area--access, jobs, sexuality, etc. We are not advocating for "pretty please, a little more charity," but for JUSTICE which we deserve. I constantly read here that folks can't get jobs, SS, access. These issues are linked.
The phrase may no longer be "in vogue" but I see it used daily on this site. Additionally, it is in the name of numerous national charities which collect substantial funding based on the PITIFUL nature of the charity's base illness. This goes to the point made regarding supporting those organizations which work toward independence and self-sufficiency.
I am not personally in love with "disabled" as a term either, and think "mobility impaired" is very good, except that not all disabled people are mobility impaired, and have different forms of disability. I don't know of a better word.
Most national disability advocacy organizations are working to eliminate this usage.
The word I most dislike is INVALID.... Not valid; without force, deficient in substance, weak , void. all laughable. That is the word I don't like.
When combined, the varied definitions of the word GIMP create quite the flavorful linguistic stew: Interwoven fabric (nice metaphor for community), one who limps or hobbles (fair enough), fighting spirit or vigor (there's a descriptive I can get behind) all serve the word well, and when consciously used and described can go a long way in defining not only who we are, but who we strive to be.
This constant hassle over words is weird.
As I said before: it only serves to put every AB ill at ease when dealing with us.
Everybody keeps wondering why nobody talks to a handicap when there is an AB to talk to. Folks are just plain scared stiff to drop a brick, and that in front of an audience.
This hassle doesn't help a bit.
Daisies
Daisies: There is a big difference between arguing over the use of the "N" word, and discussing how to characterize the community, if such a general characterization can be used at all. We DO use disabled and handicapped all the time,and words do count. I fail to see why clarifying to an AB that we are not objects of pity should be an issue for you. I also do not really care if an AB person is uncomfortable with this. This site is not for the AB community, and if you don't want to read the discussion, then don't.
***********************
Lawrence: I think your very literate post is quite funny, but I don't know where you got the definition, or how it applies to the issue I am raising regarding the presentation of this "community" regarding legal and financial issues for the general public (ref: the ADA revisions). As (I see from your Profile) an artist, advocate and commentator, I would think the difference between using Gimp among ourselves and for public awareness raising through the arts, vs. legal presentation, would make sense.
Charcarr: I too heartfully dislike invalid, or being invalidated, and would certainly put that word at the top of my most disliked. I have certainly been invalidated, as well as being called an invalid. That is a crummy word. Luckily, it is not usually used to characterize our group.
bonniethesurvivor: Daisies: There is a big difference between arguing over the use of the "N" word, and discussing how to characterize the community, if such a general characterization can be used at all. We DO use disabled and handicapped all the time,and words do count. I fail to see why clarifying to an AB that we are not objects of pity should be an issue for you. This site is not for the AB community, and if you don't want to read the discussion, then don't.
Daisies: There is a big difference between arguing over the use of the "N" word, and discussing how to characterize the community, if such a general characterization can be used at all. We DO use disabled and handicapped all the time,and words do count. I fail to see why clarifying to an AB that we are not objects of pity should be an issue for you. This site is not for the AB community, and if you don't want to read the discussion, then don't.
Uh... Huh?
Are you sure we are talking about the same thing here?
Where are You getting that n word from now?
I simply made the general observation that that constant hassle over words, meaning disabled and handicapped, mobility impaired and whatnot, is not going to help our case in public.
I can state for me that I don't want people to be afraid of talking to me, out of fear to use the wrong word. As long as they don't call me cripple. (Cultural difference! The word is out of use here.)
Daisies: my apology. We seemed to disconnect there. I have been a member since March, and have not seen these discussions previously. The only "word" discussions I have seen were about what was happening in the chat rooms, and I thought that was what you meant.
I can see that you had a different topic in mind, and I now understand your point of view, although I do not agree. I do understand your concern that you do not want people to be even more afraid to speak with you than they might otherwise be. Thanks goodness we aren't dealing with "cripple!"
ALSO, IF THIS TOPIC HAS ALREADY BEEN THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED BY THIS COMMUNITY I HAVE NO PROBLEM LETTING THE SUBJECT REST.
bonniethesurvivor: ALSO, IF THIS TOPIC HAS ALREADY BEEN THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED BY THIS COMMUNITY I HAVE NO PROBLEM LETTING THE SUBJECT REST.
I'm thinking this is a discussion board. Discussing things the raison d'être for this forum. And seeing that there are already so many replies already I'd say there still is need for discussion, despite the fact that we already did so in some other places.
It's only my personal view that I would like to see an outcome where we stop confusing and scaring everybody as to how to refer to us.
I'm thinking disability is more or less a bad thing. It won't turn into anything better with a pretty word.
Personally I prefer "handicapped" to "disability" because I'd rather think of myself as having extra difficulties (like in horse racing) than as un ABLE to do things. However I have decided that as "disability" has been agreed upon by the US government (the Americans with Disabilities Act), the greater disability community, and is not too insulting, I'd rather just use it and move on to fighting for civil rights.
Rehab specialists actually use both disability and handicap to mean different things. The disability is the problem the person has and the handicap is the problem the disability causes in society. So I have a mobility impairment which causes a disability in climbing stairs. But I am only handicapped if the building doesn't have a ramp or elevator. I like this distinction but it's too sophisticated to expect most people to remember.
My real problem with "handicap" is that is is almost never used gramatically. I have a handicap. But I am not a handicap. Furthermore, parking is not handicapped, it is accessible. There is no functional limitation that the parking spot has. The bathroom is also accessible, not handicap or handicapped. So "handicap bathroom" just makes my skin crawl because the grammar is all wrong.
I do hear the word "cripple" used by the medical community so it's not dead yet. I hear a lot of derogatory words used about disability by the medical community of course. So I'd rather teach them People First terminology and the idea of Disability because it's simple to explain to the ignorant non-disabled. When they stop saying "idiot savant," "wheelchair-bound" "funny looking kid" and telling a family to call the "society for crippled children" - well if I live that long I'll be a very happy person.
