Before I sign off after a long day, Eliza Ross makes a valid point about the language I used in my coverage of today's London bomb attacks.
Within the space of a few sentences I'd described London's public transport system as "crippled" and the city as "paralysed."
Eliza is struck by my "rhetorical disability euphemisms."
Do I get special dispensation because I'm a crip?
Within the space of a few sentences I'd described London's public transport system as "crippled" and the city as "paralysed."
Eliza is struck by my "rhetorical disability euphemisms."
Do I get special dispensation because I'm a crip?
posted by Stuart at 22:25
5 Comments:
Funny, Stu, I distinctly remember you rejecting the disability label some time ago. Have you decided that you're a disabled person, now? We'd be pleased to have you in the club, y'know... and your blog would make an absolutely splendid addition to the BBC's Ouch! blogroll.
Incidentally, Eliza has a point. Try and keep words like paralysed for describing a state of human existence, rather than general, decidedly negative transport screw-ups, please.
Free Our People!
(your homework this evening is to work out whose campaigning phrase that is)
I hope it was clear that, really, I didn't find fault with it. Granted, I wanted to, but neither use seemed to have the negative connotations that I often see in euphemism. (Well, at least not "paralyzed": the traffic was, certainly, "unable to move." "Crippled," hmm. I guess it depends. Yeah, probably not great. But, hey, maybe it's THINGS that should be considered "crippled" and not PEOPLE (at least, not by non-crips) after all).
But, yes, you DEFINITELY get dispensation for being a crip (and, ditto, I remember your previously saying "I'm not disabled," so I'm glad I can call you that). In fact, when I first read it, because you used the two phrases so closely together, I couldn't figure out if you were making the point yourself and just being funny. But, it wasn't that I read it and thought it was A Bad Thing, by any means. Just an interesting one.
(You also get special dispensation because I love your writing and am just tickled to get a shout-out here).
Anyway, glad you are safe.
Don't consider yourselves, crips, paralysed or anything of the sort. There is no difference, as you'll already know, between those who have all limbs and those who, by various means, are minus some "normal" operating function. I can vouch for the fact that Stu is no different to anyone else and he can still run rings round me, as he proves every time he completes one of his athletic endeavours. There is no way on God's green earth I could follow suit, at least, not without a cigarette stop part way through!!!
These terms are ingrained in our speech and are used purely to describe a fact. Paralysis is an inability to move and can be attributed as much to traffic as to the human ability.
BTW, I'm sure it is meant in all humour, but Stu (or anyone else for that matter) does not need dispensation "for being a crip"!!!!
Keep up the good work Stu, and everyone else who adds to the blog.
Sorry, no. You don't get off that easy. Once a crip, always a crip. Glad you're finally one of us. It's about time you dropped the "I'm not disabled" tripe. Still, I'm sorry it took a disaster of this magnitude to bring you to your senses.
OOOPS!
"Sorry, no." comes from Bruce, your fellow RBK correspondent in the US.
P.S. Glad you're OK and congrats on the Olympics.
Post a Comment
<< Home