Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> The Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada (TVAC) is an
> organization representing approximately 125 Canadians born disabled
> as a consequence of the drug Thalidomide. TVAC provides non-monetary
> programs and services, education, and advocacy for its members.
> Members of the Association call themselves "Thalidomiders".
>
I don't think Gregor has any control over what an organization like
this obviously run by medical/charity type persons calls itself. The
MS Society is infamous for also promoting the image of MS with victim,
and so are many other charities. Disabled persons organizations,
however, do NOT do that.
>
> So, there appears to be a range of perceptions & political positions
> with regard to whether to be impaired & disabled by corporate &
> government negligence, etc. is to become victimized.
There are a range of opinions about everything.
>
> BTW, to think of oneself as a victim of oppression is not necessarily
> to present oneself as a miserable weakling only fit to be pitied by
> "the more fortunate," though it is true that according to the
> (especially libertarian) Right, to speak of being victimized is the
> same as to forfeit one's claim to equality with others by becoming
> beggars.
The Libertarian right you mention here would probably still speak of
Impairment and especially illness in terms of victimization by
disease. Impairment is often wrongly equated with disease. We
usually fall outside of the traditional applications on this one.
>
> I, in contrast to the Right, don't see anything wrong or pathetic in
> speaking of being a victim of corporate crime, police brutality,
> sexual harassment, etc., as long as we are not ideologically reduced
> to being *nothing but* victims of oppressions.
There are victims of crime, police brutality, etc. But to use impairment as a reason for eliminating these social ills is oppressive to us. To use impairment as a symbol of tragedy as a primary reason not to tolerate police brutality or war or any injustice is to devalue impaired persons.
We do not deny that incurring a disability means facing certain kinds
of losses, but we say our biggest losses are economic, political and
social freedom. by the world believing that the problems impaired
persons have are the result of the impairment and by using negative
images and representations such as Ron Kovic, as a victim, to promote
that belief, social justice movements often slap us in the face. They
don't, however, usually know it. They often use the image of the
"wheelchair bound" persons as a consequence of something they wish to
rid the world of. MADD has done this, the Peace Movement used Ron
Kovic this way.
>
> I don't agree with Peter Singer, and you know that, if you remember
> LBO discussions of his work. To attempt to prevent an impairment of
> oneself and/or others is not at all the same as thinking that
> "disabled people's lives are not worth living." Take an example of
> an HIV-negative gay man lovingly practicing safe sex with an
> HIV-positive gay man, both partners trying to keep the currently
> HIV-negative one from being infected. Does that mean that they think
> that the lives of HIV-positive & people with AIDS (& those of the
> disabled in general) are not worth living? No.
Yes I am so pleased that you do not agree with Peter Singer. Still we
are crossing in our communication... No impaired person wants to
become ill with HIV either. So perhaps some separation between
impairment and illness is in order. Generally when I speak of
impairment it means being deaf, blind, mobility or otherwise impaired,
or developmentally disabled. These are fixed impairments which we do
not consider "diseases." Of course people with AIDS do eventually
become impaired, they may need to use wheelchairs, may require an
attendant, etc. But there is a distinction in my thought process here
and I hope this helps to clarify.
>
> >Yoshie:
> >>That many people, soldiers as well as civilians, get killed, maimed,
> >>diseased, psychologically traumatized, etc. in & after any war is a
> >>good reason to work to bring about a socialist world in which war is
> >>unnecessary, if not the only reason. It's one thing to have an
> >>impairment because of aging, i.e., that which cannot be abolished;
> >>it's entirely another thing to be impaired due to acts of oppressions
> >>like imperialist war, racist brutality, gay bashing, rape, etc.!
See my explanation above about using impairment as a symbol for tragedy.
> To see some impairments as painful to the impaired themselves -- an
> opinion that some (though not all) of the impaired themselves hold
> sometimes --
Oh but many impaired people internalize their oppression just like many women do and many people of color do. They learn to play the cripple. Geez how could they not living in an ableist society that is always sending a message to them that they would be better off cured or dead? Can you imagine the confusion that brings into one's life? Then there is the behavior that comes from being under the screws of some professional all the time who one must submit to because society and work are not organized for you to participate fully and dependency is socially created.
Patronizing is very common. The trained professional's desire to dominate, tell disabled persons what and how to do this or that, the assumptions that are made by the "caring" professions is quite an obstacle to self-determination. There are daily obstacles. It takes a hell of a lot just to navigate a way to get to pee in a public restroom. I remember a young woman who is black and disabled reading her poem at a meeting I once attended. It was called "The Right to Pee." She shouted it in a raspy voice, it was marvelous to see the determination in her young face. You cannot know the depth of the obstacles unless you experience it or live amongst it first hand.
is not the same as to refuse to make "much effort to
> eliminate barriers or accept us [disabled] as equals," especially
> since impairment (physical) and disablement (social) are not the same
> thing.
>
> I think you are once again conflating physical impairments, disabling
> social relations, & the currently disabled.
Have I explained it more thoroughly here?
One may want to rid the
> world of known causes of some avoidable physical impairments (e.g.,
> environmental pollutions), as well as disabling social relations
> (e.g., absence of workplace accommodations that empower the impaired
> to work), without at the same time harboring a genocidal wish to
> purge the world of the currently disabled people.
Yes one can, but not by equating impairment with tragedy. The groups that do this -- Jerry Lewis of the MDA is a big offender, for instance -- are violating our space.
Marta