Definitely not politically correct!

[bluespoke]

OK, I'm ready for the flames.

The noun cripple is defined as one who is disabled (either from birth or by accident or injury) from the use of his limbs: a lame person.

Why, given it's accuracy, do I find myself being lectured for using the word in it's correct context and meaning?

 

[mig]

Because it's not a kind or pretty word like disabled

Euphemisms,like *passed on* instead of *dead* seem to go down better.

 

[bluespoke]

Because it's not a kind or pretty word like disabled.

I don't think disabled is a pretty word.

Differently Abled sounds better but is clumsy.

Disabled implies deficiency, without ability.

Cripple merely says that someone has problems with their limbs it does not doubt their abilities.

 

[sexy-girl]

I don't think disabled is a pretty word.

Differently Abled sounds better but is clumsy.

Disabled implies deficiency, without ability.

Cripple merely says that someone has problems with their limbs it does not doubt their abilities.

i dont really know but i've never really thought of it that way before

 

[brokenbrainwave]

I smell smoke, call 911!!!!!

 

[PepperminTrish]

I don't think that there is a 'pretty word' to use in place of cripple. Why is there a need to define a person by the physical challenges that they deal with?

 

[bluespoke]

I don't think that there is a 'pretty word' to use in place of cripple. Why is there a need to define a person by the physical challenges that they deal with?

You have no need, I have no need, but society as a whole gets its panties in a bunch over terms to be used.

Do we need pretty words in place of accuracy?

 

[RhumbRunner13]

I don't think disabled is a pretty word.

Differently Abled sounds better but is clumsy.

Disabled implies deficiency, without ability.

Cripple merely says that someone has problems with their limbs it does not doubt their abilities.

I have to agree with you, Blue. My only guess as to why "polite" society tries to couch words is the historical use they had. Fifty to a hundred years ago the word crippled brought to mind the vision of some "poor soul" dragging himself along on crutches with huge braces on his legs. People didn't want to see that and the word took on a very negative, pejorative connotation. I think people also felt that anyone handicapped with physical disorders must be mentally deficient as well.

If people use the word cripple more completely to describe a condition, I see no problem with it. "His crippled foot slows him down some." is far different than "He's slow because he is a cripple".

I'm with you, I don't like the word "disabled", it means not able. Most with a physical problem find a way to work around it, and are able to do most things.

Rhumb

 

[bluespoke]

I have to agree with you, Blue. My only guess as to why "polite" society tries to couch words is the historical use they had. Fifty to a hundred years ago the word crippled brought to mind the vision of some "poor soul" dragging himself along on crutches with huge braces on his legs. People didn't want to see that and the word took on a very negative, pejorative connotation. I think people also felt that anyone handicapped with physical disorders must be mentally deficient as well.

If people use the word cripple more completely to describe a condition, I see no problem with it. "His crippled foot slows him down some." is far different than "He's slow because he is a cripple".

I'm with you, I don't like the word "disabled", it means not able. Most with a physical problem find away to work around it, and are able to do most things.

Rhumb

It makes such a change to have civilised debate on a subject such as this.

I agree with your historical vision and the effect that that may have had on people's psyche.

Where we disagree slightly is the usage of the word. I see no problem with the phrase 'He's slow because he is a cripple'. It's probably entirely accurate (mind you, did you know that the world record for a wheelchair marathon is about half an hour faster than for athletes on their feet!).

The word disabled is totally negative. People who have limited or no use of one or more limbs usually compensate in other ways and integrate themselves fully into society. The 'disabled' are those who find it difficult or are unable to accept those who are different.

 

[Wrong Element]

Words take on connotations apart from their official meaning over time, and there's little that one can do about it. For instance, there's nothing in the dictionary that tells you that "feisty" is a word that tends to be applied to small people. We learn that through experience. On the other hand, "cripple" as a noun is considered offensive and is recognized as such by the dictionary that I use.

My problem with euphemisms is when they become so convoluted that you no longer understand exactly what's being referred to. "Differently abled" and "special needs" fit that category. It's one thing to avoid giving offense and another thing to be so vague that you aren't getting the point across.

 

[bluespoke]

Words take on connotations apart from their official meaning over time, and there's little that one can do about it. For instance, there's nothing in the dictionary that tells you that "feisty" is a word that tends to be applied to small people. We learn that through experience. On the other hand, "cripple" as a noun is considered offensive and is recognized as such by the dictionary that I use.

My problem with euphemisms is when they become so convoluted that you no longer understand exactly what's being referred to. "Differently abled" and "special needs" fit that category. It's one thing to avoid giving offense and another thing to be so vague that you aren't getting the point across.

But why is it considered offensive? It's entirely accurate an, incidentally, not described as offensive by the Oxford English Dictionary.

Why would you consider differently abled as being not understandable? It is perfectly descriptive of someone who has different abilities.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by bluespoke
OK, I'm ready for the flames.

The noun cripple is defined as one who is disabled (either from birth or by accident or injury) from the use of his limbs: a lame person.

Why, given it's accuracy, do I find myself being lectured for using the word in it's correct context and meaning?

It seems to me that the PC speech and its other extensions are part of the armor of those who wish to insulate themselves from reality.

They find things in reality objectionable and unpleasant. Rather than face reality and accept that not everything is, in fact, beautiful or pleasant, they choose to ignore and hide from the reality that the Utopian existence about which they fantasize is a myth.

They are so committed to their mythological fantasy that they wish to force on those of us who accept and deal with reality their limitations.

Originally posted by PepperminTrish
I don't think that there is a 'pretty word' to use in place of cripple. Why is there a need to define a person by the physical challenges that they deal with?

What is the good or the benefit in ignoring or attemptng to deny the reality?

 

[RhumbRunner13]

"Where we disagree slightly is the usage of the word. I see no problem with the phrase 'He's slow because he is a cripple'. It's probably entirely accurate (mind you, did you know that the world record for a wheelchair marathon is about half an hour faster than for athletes on their feet!)."


I don't really disagree with you at all. I would only avoid the "...because he is a cripple" wording to be clearer in "my" meaning, not my description of "him". I know it's a fine point and maybe just peculiar to me.

I was riding a Century ride one time up in central Florida when a guy on a "Hand cycle" passed the bunch of us riding together. Our reaction was, "Hey cool!", so we caught up with him and rode and talked for several miles. I think the only thing a person with a handicap wants is a fair chance to perform and to not be excluded based on someone else’s perceptions.

Rhumb

 

[Wrong Element]

But why is it considered offensive? It's entirely accurate an, incidentally, not described as offensive by the Oxford English Dictionary.

There may be national differences at work regarding the OED. As to why it's considered offensive, that's my point--it's up to us to work within generally accepted usage.


Why would you consider differently abled as being not understandable? It is perfectly descriptive of someone who has different abilities.

Everyone has different abilities. The term doesn't do as good a descriptive job as the old, out-of-favor term, "mentally retarded". But that's just my opinion.

 

[bluespoke]

Re: Re: Definitely not politically correct!

It seems to me that the PC speech and its other extensions are part of the armor of those who wish to insulate themselves from reality.

They find things in reality objectionable and unpleasant. Rather than face reality and accept that not everything is, in fact, beautiful or pleasant, they choose to ignore and hide from the reality that the Utopian existence about which they fantasize is a myth.

They are so committed to their mythological fantasy that they wish to force on those of us who accept and deal with reality their limitations.What is the good or the benefit in ignoring or attemptng to deny the reality?

Exactly! Hit the nail perfectly on the head. Words are there to enable us to express ourselves but they can also be used to hide that which we find embarassing.

If 'cripple' sounds unpleasant let's make a new phrase that doesn't say what we really mean.

 

[bluespoke]

There may be national differences at work regarding the OED. As to why it's considered offensive, that's my point--it's up to us to work within generally accepted usage.


Why would you consider differently abled as being not understandable? It is perfectly descriptive of someone who has different abilities.

Everyone has different abilities. The term doesn't do as good a descriptive job as the old, out-of-favor term, "mentally retarded". But that's just my opinion.

I have to disagree, it's up to us to banish politically correct nonsense and use words as they were meant and not as some socially inadequate dictates they should be used.

Differently Abled doesn't just cover those with mental health problems it also includes those with physical impairments. Special needs is the currently favoured term for those you describe as mentally retarded.

Rhumbrunner - a fair chance to perform and not to be excluded on someone else's perceptions - that's a cry I have heard before.

Sadly, much of life is about perceptions. We need to change those perceptions to make people realise they are dealing with individuals, all of whom are different and who's abilities are not totally governed by a physical limitation.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

"Why would you consider differently abled as being not understandable? It is perfectly descriptive of someone who has different abilities."

"Differently abled", to me, would be a great example of PC at its worst! From my previous post, the guy on the hand cycle was able to ride the Century in a different way but when he got to the end of the ride he did not step off his bike and walk away. He was a paraplegic and could not walk; is "unable" to walk! The use of a chair or hand cycle is not a "different way" of walking, it is a way of coping with his crippled legs.

Rhumb

 

[bluespoke]

"Differently abled", to me, would be a great example of PC at its worst! From my previous post, the guy on the hand cycle was able to ride the Century in a different way but when he got to the end of the ride he did not step off his bike and walk away. He was a paraplegic and could not walk; is "unable" to walk! The use of a chair or hand cycle is not a "different way" of walking, it is a way of coping with his crippled legs.

Rhumb

It is a pefect example of PC and I have to admit I was rather playing devil's advocate with it.

I call paraplegics, tetraplegics, quadriplegics what they are (usually shortened to paras, tetras and quads). All three are cripples and all three would probably hate to be referred to as differently abled.

 

[tigerjen]

You have no need, I have no need, but society as a whole
gets its panties in a bunch over terms to be used.

Do we need pretty words in place of accuracy?

I work with adults that have mental retardation..........now the
PC terms for that are: "mentally challenged", "mentally
disabled"........in these type of human service professions
these days more "empowering" terms are used, such as
"a person w/ special needs"; "person w/ CP" (CP=Cerebral
Palsy), etc. etc. I could go on and on, but these days its
more empowering to put the PERSON before the disability
or any other condition they have.

Remember, the PERSON comes first before the
CONDITION.


tigerjen

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Re: Re: Re: Definitely not politically correct!

Exactly! Hit the nail perfectly on the head. Words are there to enable us to express ourselves but they can also be used to hide that which we find embarassing.

If 'cripple' sounds unpleasant let's make a new phrase that doesn't say what we really mean.

Boy, do I agree with UncleB and you on this one!

I think most of the PC group looks at a person with a handicap and sees themselves in that "terrible, pathetic" situation. Denial often comes from fear and that fear refuses to see and accept things for what they are. Having spent some small time in a wheelchair, I've learned to "look in the eye" of those I pass in theirs, nod, or say "hey". I do the same with someone who walks past me.

Rhumb

 

[bluespoke]

I work with adults that have mental retardation..........now the
PC terms for that are: "mentally challenged", "mentally
disabled"........in these type of human service professions
these days more "empowering" terms are used, such as
"a person w/ special needs"; "person w/ CP" (CP=Cerebral
Palsy), etc. etc. I could go on and on, but these days its
more empowering to put the PERSON before the disability
or any other condition they have.

Remember, the PERSON comes first before the
CONDITION.


tigerjen

In the UK we appear to be using the term Adults (or juveniles) with Mental Health problems at the moment.

I couldn't agree more, indiviuals are more important than classifications.

It is sometimes easier, for some people, to put the person before the condition when the person has a physical disability.

Mental Health problems make a lot of people very uncomfortable possibly because they feel unable to communicate. The general populace need greater education and greater exposure to people with mental health issues. The old ideas of locking them away in institutions is in a large part responsible for much of the reaction of the general public today.

 

[tigerjen]

In the UK we appear to be using the term Adults (or juveniles) with
Mental Health problems at the moment.
I couldn't agree more, indiviuals are more important than
classifications.
It is sometimes easier, for some people, to put the person before
the condition when the person has a physical disability.
Mental Health problems make a lot of people very uncomfortable
possibly because they feel unable to communicate. The general
populace need greater education and greater exposure to people
with mental health issues. The old ideas of locking them away in
institutions is in a large part responsible for much of the reaction
of the general public today.

I hear you on the institutionalization aspect.......4 of the residents that
i work with came from Southbury Training School (in Southbury,
Connecticut), which for many years, was a hellhole in how they
treated the residents there. There were residents there who were
even the most highest functioning and still, their parents put them
there because there was no where else to go. Back then, there were
no services provided for that type of population. Then beginning in
the 1950s-1960s there became more awareness.....more parents that
had children w/ MR demanding services, and for their children to be
in a normal society of sorts.......which led to laws here in the States
such as the Rehabilation Act of 1973, IDEA, and ADA (American
Disabilities Act). Today the type of population I work with have more
opportunities than ever before........and more CHOICES.........

May I also add that the 4 residents who came from Southbury (who I
work with) have come very very far in 5 years since they moved into
the group home? What a difference from being in a dormitory setting
at the training school to be in a community-based setting (i.e.
group home......which can have 3-6 residents)........


tigerjen

 

[bluespoke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Definitely not politically correct!

Boy, do I agree with UncleB and you on this one!

I think most of the PC group looks at a person with a handicap and sees themselves in that "terrible, pathetic" situation. Denial often comes from fear and that fear refuses to see and accept things for what they are. Having spent some small time in a wheelchair, I've learned to "look in the eye" of those I pass in theirs, nod, or say "hey". I do the same with someone who walks past me.

Rhumb

And when the PC group are looking sadly at them the person in the chair is looking back thinking 'I wonder how easily their ankles will break'!

Eye contact is important. We need to eliminate the 'does he take sugar' mentality.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

I work with adults that have mental retardation..........now the
PC terms for that are: "mentally challenged", "mentally
disabled"........in these type of human service professions
these days more "empowering" terms are used, such as
"a person w/ special needs"; "person w/ CP" (CP=Cerebral
Palsy), etc. etc. I could go on and on, but these days its
more empowering to put the PERSON before the disability
or any other condition they have.

Remember, the PERSON comes first before the
CONDITION.


tigerjen

We may have hit on a slightly different area here, TJ. The word "Retard" has been used so pejoratively in the past that it has no benificial use to me, unless I'm using it about a fully functional "nimrod", as in "P-P, you retard...."

I'm not sure about using the term "retarded" or "mentally retarded". As long as the underlying cause is kept in context, "CP has caused him some mental retardation" seems fair and descriptive of the truth, and should be acceptable. I guess it's in the attitude and thoughts of the user.

Rhumb

 

[bluespoke]

I hear you on the institutionalization aspect.......4 of the residents that
i work with came from Southbury Training School (in Southbury,
Connecticut), which for many years, was a hellhole in how they
treated the residents there.
tigerjen

We had the same issues here. It's only within the last few years that people are being taken from large institutions and long stay hospitals and rehabilitated into the community.

The results in many cases are very encouraging and in some cases positively spectacular! People who have not spoken for years are conversing with their neighbours.

If you treat a human being as a human being then the chances are that's what you will find. Lock then up like a cage animal and what do you expect?