Here at Ask Erik, we feel like its our job, as massive absorbers of information, to help spread that knowledge to others. In this spirit, facts and truths take root, connecting making and destroying the barriers that separate individuals, groups, and indeed entire cultures because of ignorance, facetiousness, and misinformation. Whether it's "the truth about margarine" or simply "who would win if the Justice League faced the Avengers in a karaoke contest," this article gives the guidance for people to live happier, fuller lives.
For the record, Batman takes it for the Justice League, but only if he's voiced by Kevin Conroy and sings Am I Blue.
Something I did promise myself, when I first started this article, was that I would tackle difficult questions. Well, this one's tough.
More after the jump.
To Erik: Retarded. Your stance. Break it down.
I'm not going to change the world with this article. Heck, I doubt many of the people I know will even see this article. People probably expect me to do nothing more than make fun of bad movies and review episodes of a cartoon for kids. But, by posting this, I'll have on record my stance on an issue that's close to me.
A lot of people I know would never use the term "retarded" or "retard" to describe somebody who has a genuine disability. I know that, in many instances of humor, a person is simply referred to that way if they just don't make smart decisions. In fact, a very good friend of mine recently directed my attention to a YouTube video of Christopher Titus' stance on the word. I'll link to the video here so people can see it for themselves.
Now, if what Christopher Titus says is true, and he has never once in his life ever connected the word "retarded" to people with actual disabilities, well, then i must truly congratulate him, because that would be great. However, I have a somewhat jaded view because I find that hard to believe considering what I know of how people with disabilities were treated and "dealt with" during the time frame he's been alive. But that's not my point. Also, if the definition he gives is how he truly thinks of the term, then I applaud him for that. Also, I appreciate the fact that he would stand up for anyone with a genuine disability being treated that way. However, here's where my problem arises:
To many people in this country and around the world with disabilities, the term "retard" and "retarded" are still used negatively towards them, and most people, whether they admit it to me if I ask them or not, still connect the term that way as the root definition. So, for someone to say "oh, my definition is different, so I can use it" is not a fair statement, because that person can't control how others in the room define the word. In the case of a comedian, the joke you tell about a friend who gets drunk and hangs out of a car being "a retard" won't change how people's brains connect a word to a group just because you introduced a new meaning a minute before. That's not how brains work.
Do people mean to say something that another person could be extremely hurt by? In many cases, I don't think so. I don't think every person who uses the word in society is bad or means to use a term that could connect to pain people have felt since the term first became widely used as a negative in the 1960s (its first real recorded use was 1895). However, I think that society, as a whole, needs to recognize the fact that the term has such a negative connection and simply not use it.
Some people I know have said "well, times have changed." Sadly, they haven't. The state of Maine recently required convincing to remove language from older legislation that has since become offensive to people with disabilities. Medical coding for doctors just changed many of their "mental retardation" terminology in 2011 to not use phrases that have become used as slurs and other negative statements. Agencies, both non-profit and for profit, are reshaping and restructuring themselves to better recognize this issue facing people. But the place I hope will really wake up and recognize that using the terms, no matter the context, simply enforces that it's okay to use it elsewhere.
In Hollywood, the movie Tropic Thunder used the phrase "full retard." This sparked a sizable controversy, and I want to preface this by stating that I got the joke. I know what point the movie was trying to make about how Hollywood looks at movies featuring someone with a disability. Seriously, I get it. It's a good point, really. The problem isn't that the joke wasn't clear, it's that the language used reinforced that same negative connection to a character with clear disabilities. If the language had been different, you could have had a joke just as funny and would have made the same point without there being a thousand variations of the meme "you just went full retard."
After Napoleon Dynamite came out, I found a pen for sale in a store with a voice chip, allowing you to select phrases from the film to repeat out of a tiny speaker. One of those phrases was simply the main character saying "You guys are retarded." There's no context there. Regardless of how the line was used in the film, what was presented to fans of the film was a cheap toy that sets up the phrase as a general statement, usable in basic conversation.
Bob Marley, a Maine comedian, is someone I don't really listen to, and it all stems from one bit he did live on the radio where he repeatedly used the term "retarded" to describe how people get around sports or in bad weather. He provided no context for his "definition" of the word, he simply threw it out there on the radio during a time when, not long before, birthday wishes to children on their way to school were read out loud.
What doesn't help, of course, is today's modern Internet culture. Being anonymous and never having to face the person you're talking about means people can be meaner, crueler, and generally more hateful without any fear of consequences for their actions. Major groups like Xbox Live and a multitude of forums have strict rules regarding such language, but people keep trying to find ways around it and cheat the system.
For example, on the message board 4chan (which, I'll admit, is probably the last place anybody should go for any examples of human decency) has even taken to referring to hardcore fans of series as "autistic." When called out on it, they insist they don't mean "like someone who has autism." But when presented with the language for the first time, how is someone supposed to think they mean?
Honestly, if "autistic" becomes the new "retarded," I think my faith in humanity might just shrivel up and die.
Now, one more piece I want to address: People with disabilities using the word. Going back to Christopher Titus' example, he tells the story of a friend of his with cerebral palsy using the word to describe a waitress who, through her ignorance, insulted him at a restaurant. I actually take issue with this, and here's why:
In my life, I've done a lot of work with people with all sorts of disabilities. Some physical, some developmental, some emotional, I've seen a wide spectrum of issues that people live with and work with. However, cerebral palsy has never fallen under the category "mental retardation." That term has had a long-standing scientific definition, and it's one that I hear people with disabilities use negatively just as much as someone without a disability might. People with cerebral palsy, or who are Deaf have, around me, stated that their disability is purely physical, and they're not "a retard."
That's right, in the world of disabilities, some people look down at others with different or what they view as more severe disabilities. I can think of many cultural groups I've encountered that do things similar, from nerds hating on bigger nerds, people of a specific nationality insulting others of their culture for being "too stereotypical," to many other examples, and it just saddens me.
The English language is huge. It has a ridiculous number of words in it, many of which have long been forgotten by the general masses. So instead of pretending we can repurpose a word that, to this day, is still used in the same original negative context towards a group of people, why can't we just put it aside and find a new word? I like Christopher Titus' definition of "someone who is fully capable of making the smart choice but chooses not to," but I think we need to find a better word to represent it.
One that, if he repeated that same comedy routine in front of someone with a disability, wouldn't have a chance of hurting them simply be hearing the word be used.
No comments:
Post a Comment