Edge-centric

How about "TABs" or "Ablism"?

Context rules. Some of us don't think it should be important but won't for a minute claim it isn't. I have no idea if rappers' reclamation of "their" word is long-term hurtful, I guess for some it is, others not so much. Tupac Shakur chides someone for saying "nigger" saying that he says "niggah" (spelt out in both cases) and it's fairly clear that he had a deep understanding of the issues but chooses ridicule over outrage.

I try to think of how MaryFrances treated it and I don't think she hesitated to publicly utter things that the rest of us tread more lightly with on our feelings that someone might be rightfully offended.

I guess I take most umbrage with stuff like the piece "The Politics of Spoiled Brats" in which outrage is expressed over the chutzpah of PWD via ADA demanding that; e.g. a golf club be "forced" to provide appropriate swivel-seat golf carts.

Every time I think that perhaps it's a wasted effort to object to "wheelchair bound", I also think of several generations of Africcan-Americans who, like our DRM cohorts to be stung by the indignities of which labelling is clearly a significant part.

A classic conundrum and one that illustrates how far we have to go when the prevalent response to appeals to reporters to read the AP style book is: (paraphrased) "how can a retard by offended by being called a retard?"

In a classic satirical piece we used in The Committee (a long-running revue in San Francisco) an actor playing a boy scout who has just helped a blind man cross the street asks him "did anyone ever tell you you were a nigger?" There's a few layers there.

Love.

There was some hoo-ha about it on Wheelchairjunkie when John Box first posted there: Colours Wheelchair. Interestingly, the first person to protest the "spazz" label was a Brit.

But maybe a group of wheelchair users is not what you had in mind when you said "anyone in the U.S." :-).

Katja writes,

But maybe a group of wheelchair users is not what you had in mind when you said "anyone in the U.S." :-).

Ahem. I did NOT mean that (smile) -- I meant I didn't KNOW about it... Looks like I better start frequenting Wheelchair Junkie. Lots goes on over there, I think.

Scarlett's point is a juicy one. By focusing so much on wordplay - do we run the risk of spending so much time debating what we're called we miss addressing larger issues, such as employment, getting in and out of buildings, etc. or do debates over labels raise our issues in non-direct ways that enables a largely non-disabled public consider issues they may otherwise avoid?

Beats me.

As probably the only person who has screened "I'm Spazticus" in the U.S. and facilitated a talk back session afterwards, I was struck by the overwhelmingly positive response to the program.
Which was, it is probably worth mentioning, comprised of mostly disabled people -- or whatever term Mike Scarlett prefers this week.

At our screening, descriptive titles were not an issue. Most people seemed relieved the program was, without a doubt, genuinely funny without the least bit of condesention toward the disabled participants.

Fair enough. For a comedy program, the question "is it funny?" should be central whether disability is involved or not.

Perhaps the most striking thing about "I'm Spazticus" was that by putting a bullseye on interactions between disabled and non-disabled folks "Spazticus" seemed to highlight the common silliness and humanity shared by us all.

Inspiring? You bet. And for once it was for all the right reasons.