It seemed to be the 'cripple' word that sealed the death of his political career, and he resigned very shortly afterwards.
Emmanuel used a particular word to insult, degrade, and denigrate certain Democrats in Congress that he disdains. He chose that word because it was a word that expressed his disdain, he believes that to label somebody with that word is to marginalize them, to put them in the same category with other people he disrespects, the retarded. He wouldn't have called the Democrats 'retarded' if he had any regard for retarded people.
Or, as one Grandpaw wrote:
The purpose of accusing someone of being retarded is to shame them by acting as though being mentally handicapped is something to be ashamed of. The statement would not be denigrating if it did not assume that being mentally handicapped was something to be ashamed of.
David Harsanyi says it's just being thin-skinned to have a problem with this. While we are in agreement that it's not a firing offense, but it is worthy of a reprimand, he also takes issue with Sarah Palin (of course) because she points out:
"every day they suffer its dehumanizing effects — mockery, stigma, ridicule. This is a word that is incredibly damaging — not only to the seven million people with intellectual disabilities in the United States, but also their friends, family and to all of us."He claims she's dragging the disabled into a political fray and that's offensive. He further claims:
In truth, in nearly every way the lives of the mentally disabled have vastly improved, from the care they receive to the quality of their lives to the respect they are given.
Though I've heard the r-word thrown around plenty (often, I'm sure you'll be shocked to learn, directed at me) I can't recall anyone using it as a pejorative to describe a person who was actually disabled. Far from ridiculing the disabled, our culture has humanized them.
"Our culture has humanized them??" No, sir. In some areas our culture has recognized their humanity, but it's not capable of 'humanizing' human beings. They are already humans, thank-you very much. Yes, for those who survive, their standard of living is better than it once was. The respect they are given? Not so much.
As David Bissel says in the second comment to that article:
There is essentially a war going on in America against the disabled right now. Talk to veteran doctors that have never delivered a Down Syndrome baby. Their kind are marked for extinction as are many who are discovered to have a fetal anomaly in utereo. The disabled are the new "Invisible Man" and this bleating about humanizing them is just Hallmark Card hooey. The disabled in our culture are viewed as problems to be solved by any means rather than persons to be loved.
I would tell Mr. Harsani that as the mother of a 'retarded' child, yes, I am that 'thin-skinned.' Thanks for the additional gratuitous insult, Mr. Harsani.
Contrary to Mr. Harsani's boneheaded assertion (see, you don't need the word retarded as an insult), this culture wishes my daughter were dead, permits people like her to be starved and dehydrated to death even after they are out of the womb, and permits, nay, encourages their dismemberment in the womb. Whatever it takes to make people sit up and recognize that my daughter and others like her are human beings deserving of love and our protection and respect, not synonyms for insulting adjectives, is fine with me.
The retarded are mentally slow. When retarded is used as a pejorative term, it reinforces in people's minds the association between "retarded" and something to be feared, mocked, and disdained.
I think the President's nasty side swipe at the Special Olympics was worse, but yeah, I am pretty sick and tired of grown ups who ought to know better using 'retarded' as a school yard taunt- left and right- and I am sick of people defending it as well. Pin It
Actually I personally wasn't offering a "defense", merely pointing out
ReplyDeletesomething I considered an irony.
How do you quantify the "disgraceful attitude towards the mentally disabled"? How are the underlying and hidden prejudices manifesting themselves?
ReplyDeleteDo you consider your indignations more or less justifiable than those that claim it "unforgiveable" to use "Scottish" in a perjorative manner?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23636079-clarkson-sorry-over-one-eyed-insult-to-brown.do
In this Evening Standard article, both the handicap and nationality remarks were applied against someone who was indeed "one-eyed" and "Scottish".
Lucy, I am getting really tired of changing the subject. I am not going to follow whatever your Scottish story is, and I am not going to play the comparison game any more.
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously pretending that this culture cares for and respects the mentally disabled and does no discriminate against them? Are you *seriously* arguing that?
But there is no irony, because you compare kumquats to apples.
ReplyDeleteLOL -- eye of the beholder, I guess!
ReplyDeleteI thought this blog might be of interest to you. This woman had her second child, who has Down's syndrome, a few weeks ago. The diagnosis was npot made prenatally and she talks about her initial reaction and how over a short period of time she came to realize what a blessing this baby is.
ReplyDeletehttp://enjoyingthesmallthings.blogspot.com/2010/01/nella-cordelia-birth-story.html
I think that it's important to remember that some people genuinely are not trying to compare people to the handicapped when they say "you are retarded". The word "retarded" has fallen into disuse to describe the mentally handicapped, so many people use it simply to mean "stupid". I'm not condoning its usage, because it still does technically mean the handicapped, and I realize this isn't really what you're talking about in this post, but some people use it without knowing what it really means. (It's like the time my brother called my sister a welsher. He was not trying to insult the Welsh. He didn't recognize the connection (if indeed he even know what Wales is). He had read it defined in a book as "someone who goes back on a deal", so that's the way he used it. ) And let's be honest, the connection between "retarded" and "mentally disabled" or whatever the current popular phrase is is extremely remote. It's not something people would think of unless they knew it already.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "When retarded is used as a pejorative term, it reinforces in people's minds the association between "retarded" and something to be feared, mocked, and disdained." I wonder if a better way to fix this problem would be to try to phase out "retarded" as a word for the mentally handicapped. (Or is this just a symptomatic fix--would our culture's underlying problem just make people start saying "you're mentally handicapped" instead?)
I don't agree at all. When people say, "That's so retarded" or "You're a bunch of retards," - comparing the group they are decrying to the mentally disabled, the 'special' class in school is *exactly* what they are doing,
ReplyDeleteI suppose. But I still don't get how there can be a reasonable comparison about the supposed discrepancy in reaction between a small group made up exclusively of those who read Anne Coulter regularly and without criticism, and a larger group made up, I would guess, mostly of people who are not members of that group.
ReplyDeleteIt's like saying that pacifists have a double standard because the Green Berets aren't pacifists and isn't that ironic.
Catching up on a couple of bits:
ReplyDeleteAndrew Sullivan pointed out the Coulter piece.
I thought your original point was extreme distaste for the pejorative use of the word. I'm puzzled why the income source of the speaker affects its offensiveness, especially since RE's use of it was in a private meeting, not thrust out in deliberate expectation of a public audience as in AC's and RL's "in your face" usage (whether or not they call it satire, entertainment or whatever).
And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your pacifists and Green Berets analogy -- not a matter of disagreeing, but genuine noncomprehension. Could you reword it for me?
I hope wherever you are you aren't in the storm path. We escaped the weekend blizzard in NYC but I fear Wednesday will be rather less merciful!
I don't like the word used as a pejorative term at all, by Emmanuel or Coulter or my best friend (happened. She looked at me, and instantly apologized).
ReplyDeleteBut yes, those who hold public office simply ARE more accountable to citizens than those who don't. That seems an obvious point to me. There are no private meetings in politics. A politician's time is taxpayer's time, and they are answerable to the public for what they say and do while working for us.
My point with my analogy is its very incomprehensive nature. There's nothing ironic about pacifists and Green Berets approaching an issue differently, because they are different groups. LIkewise, there's no irony that there are different reactions to Coulter and Emmanuel because by and large you are comparing the narrow group of Coulter's regular reading audience to the broader, wider, and by nature more inclusive group of those reacting in dismay to Emmanuel's comments about F-ing Retards. Among those who were not impressed, after all, are the folks who are on the board for the Special Olympics, including Tim Shriver. I doubt they are in Coulter's reading audience. I am not one of Coulter's regular readers, either- I read a piece of hers when somebody links to her and there is enough context that makes the link seem interesting. So how is it ironic that people who do not read Coulter think a man who holds a public office and gets paid for with citizen's taxes should, you know, not indulge in bigoted language and pejorative comparisons with an innocent group of fellow citizens?
We are expecting more snow. Friday we couldn't get the van out of the driveway until the snow plows came, and there were long, long drifts over three feet deep blocking Granny Tea's garage. She shoveled it herself instead of waiting for my husband because she's 69 years of rock hard stubborn-ness.=)
Hmm. Maybe we know different groups of people. I know people who say "retarded" to mean mentally handicapped. I know people who say "retarded" to mean stupid. I've been thinking about this since yesterday and I honestly cannot think of a single person who is in both of those categories. I don't think I know *anyone* who says "you're retarded" and means "you're like that girl with Downs in my homeroom". Etymologically, yes, that is what it means, but I don't think that it is a conscious comparison on many people's part.
ReplyDeleteYes, they use retarded as a synonym for stupid. But I really doubt that anybody is unaware that retarded refers to mentally handicapped, and I just do not believe that the people you know truly don't know the reason retarded has become a synonym for stupid is because of its associations with the mentally handicapped.
ReplyDeleteThey may use it without really *thinking* about it- but that's not the same thing at all, and that very thoughtlessness is itself a problem.
But the next time somebody you know says 'that's so retarded,' why don't you ask them what it means? I can tell you this- I have never liked the use of the word as a pejorative, so I have never used it. But several of my friends and acquaintances have, and I am quite sure that they believed they were not comparing 'stupid' to the mentally handicapped. But when we adopted our daughter, without our saying a *word* they stopped using 'retarded' in that fashion, at least in front of us. Because when they said "That's so retarded" in front of me with my daughter in my room, with reality confronting their subconscious prejudices, suddenly the light shone on what they were doing and they were embarrassed. I bet the same thing would happen to your friends.
And by the same token you would probably avoid flippantly using terms like "insane" or "crazy" in the presence of people who have suffered from severe emotional breakdowns, bi-polar disorders, suicidal depression, etc., and certainly mental illness has a serious stigma in our society... but that does not prevent you from using those terms on your blog to describe things that are stupid or irrational (like CPSIA testing requirements), nor does such use indicate some sort of contempt for those who really do suffer from mental problems.
ReplyDeleteI remain flabbergasted at the lengths people will go to defend the indefensible.
ReplyDeleteHmm. I wonder. The people I'm thinking of are very clued-out!
ReplyDeleteI could call them on it, yes.
It is not the responsibility of our culture to "care for" the mentally handicapped. It is their parents. Are you suggesting that the general failure of society to pick up where a natural caregiver leaves off is a symptom of hidden prejudice against the unfortunate? I'm not sure that you are, that is why I asked you to quantify (or even qualify) what you define as "disgraceful attitude" and "underlying or hidden prejudice".
ReplyDeleteI suggest you read the post Birth Stories.
ReplyDeleteI have read your post “Birth Stories”. It displayed the same logic as this post – “people are prejudiced and discriminatory because I say they are.” Wit these two paragraphs:
ReplyDeleteEmmanuel used a particular word to insult, degrade, and denigrate certain Democrats in Congress that he disdains. He chose that word because it was a word that expressed his disdain, he believes that to label somebody with that word is to marginalize them, to put them in the same category with other people he disrespects, the retarded. He wouldn't have called the Democrats 'retarded' if he had any regard for retarded people.
Or, as one Grandpaw wrote:
The purpose of accusing someone of being retarded is to shame them by acting as though being mentally handicapped is something to be ashamed of. The statement would not be denigrating if it did not assume that being mentally handicapped was something to be ashamed of.
This logic fails because it is not sound.
Jack is not retarded.
Jack is pretending to be retarded.
Jack should be ashamed of himself.
Therefore, being retarded is something to be ashamed of.
Silly, no?
Look at it this way:
Jack is not retarded.
Jack is pretending to be retarded.
Jack should be ashamed of himself.
Therefore, pretending to be something you are not is something to be ashamed of.
This time the assumption does not extend beyond the parameters of the argument.
See how it has no bearing at all on the “shamers’” view of the mentally handicapped?
But when you assume it does…perhaps that is where the prejudice lies. It is unfortunate that our government rewards people for finding prejudice under every rock, and you can see where it leads – the comments on this thread cry “hatemongers” and claims of being ill when a particular word is heard.
The reactions you wrote about in your ‘Birth Stories’ post are a basic animalistic trait – not wanting to be unduly burdened. Mother Theresa was not a great woman because we are all hatemongers. She was a great woman because she followed the example of Christ when he said “whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren you do unto me” (even Christ categorized people). It is only Christ that raises us out of our basic animalistic nature and it is only through Christ that any of us can find comfort and respite. Not through flawed logic, but the examination of your own heart.
Your post falls down with the second sentence, which falsely characterizes what I have said as "people are prejudiced and discriminatory because I say they are." And there's really no answer to that other than "wrong."
ReplyDeleteNor does it follow that because many claims of prejudice are false, all of them are, which seems to be your own premise.
I am really finished with this discussion. You are welcome to the last word.