Response to Britt T's post

I agree with you, Brittany, about how the media portrays disabled people as "other." These people should simply NOT be considered a separate group from society. They are the same as you and me, just with a little something different. For example, I have a speech impediment and society doesn't see me as something "different." My friends and family know that I have this "disability" and they do not see me as something different...they still see me as the funny young adult I still am.

I believe that the media does want people to stick to this idea of "normalcy" but (as we have been discussing in class) what is normalcy? Why do we follow this stupid idea of who is "normal" and who is abnormal? Why can't we just not focus on either "side of the coin" and just continue with our life? I believe the answer is...there would be no news really. The new reporters thrive on something that is not normal or something that is interesting for a brief moment. Ex) The news would do a report on someone's house burning down for 2 minutes vs. a house that belonged to a disable child for 5 minutes. The media thrives on people's weaknesses and that is HOW they make their "cash flow!!!"

We focus too much on a person's disability and the stereotypes behind it too. There are many videos out their on YouTube that depict someone's disability as a good thing and as a bad thing too, depending on that user's belief system. Ex) I had a cousin who had Down Syndrome (God Rest Her Soul) and the media depicts them as an "other" or something different. I bet their are numerous videos on YouTube that mock people with this disability and that is just WRONG!! We should feel honored to have a person like that in our life~ they teach us how not to judge people in the "wrong light" but as someone who is fighting to work around their disability.

~Chad S.

War and Prosthetics

This week I wanted to focus on a topic that both Jeff and Chris brought up in their presentations. That topic deals with war and prosthetics. Both guys did a great job talking about 2 different situations where guys had to deal with some sort of disability.

According to asme.org, prosthetics were created during the Civil War Era; however, these artificial body parts were created during the 1500s but didn't see a "spike" until the bloody American Civil War. Surgeons during the Civil War would rather do amputations than use artificial limbs during surgery because many surgeons were not qualified with using this procedure. When the Civil War ended in 1865, the US government commissioned the creation of the "Great Civil War Benefaction, an organization to provide prosthetics to all disabled veterans." The first group that created prosthetics was Hanger Inc. This organization is very ironic because the founder, Edward Hanger, was the "first documented amputee of the Civil War."The company is still around today and is the main force behind prosthetics. "Business ads for prosthetics from the time Civil War were usually familiar and tried to depict the primitive technology." (according to unc.edu)

During WWI, with the creation of the telephone and the newspapers field rising, doctors advertised prosthetic ads to help veterans get "back into the routine of things" with these artificial limbs. Even today the field for prosthetics is growing. With numerous of servicemen/women coming back from the war in the Middle East, there are more amputees and people in need of artificial limbs. 

The people that have artificial limbs should NOT be judged or be subjected to harsh humiliation. These people have found bravely for our country and have scarified a part of their body to maintain our freedom and basic inalienable human rights!! These people should not be looked down upon; their deserve the utmost respect from us!! 

http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/articles/bioengineering/the-civil-war-and-the-birth-of-the-u-s--prosthetic
http://www.unc.edu/~mbritt/Prosthetics%20History%20Webpage%20-%20Phys24.html
http://www.unc.edu/~mbritt/Prosthetics%20History%20Webpage%20-%20Phys24.html http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/war-and-prosthetics/

Disability & the Media

In class, we explored disability portrayed in the media. I feel as though every film or TV show defines a disability as something that a person must 'overcome' or something that hinders them from succeeding at certain things. I often think that the media focuses so much on a person's disability that we forget they are a human being with feelings. I think that our society is molded to force people who are different to adapt in order to survive. We expect everyone to assimilate to what is convenient for those who fit into the category of normalcy, we created, and the media only sustains this idea. It is understandable that those who have a disability: physical, social, or learning, often need a little more assistance than those who do not have a disability; however, this does not mean that they aren't 'normal' and need to be shown as overcoming a struggle. Also, people's lack of education and experience, as well as their immense exposure to the media, make their view and ideas of disabled persons, extremely falsified. For example, when someone who does not know much about cerebral palsy, but has only seen a show with a character (who, generally, does not actually have the disability in real life) with that specific disability, they base their expectations on what they saw. They do not know that there are many levels of severity of cerebral palsy and what causes the disability. We also have a limited supply of educators and people willing to work with those who need assistance, which I feel, might be a cause of our stereotyping system and the lack of educated people about disabilities, all sustained through the media.

Disability and Equal Treatment

My post this week focuses on those with disabilities and how society views these people.  Now during class we discussed how it may be beneficial to recognize those with physical disabilities.  It is my feeling that we as a society recognize these people (subconsciously) as inferior. As unfortunate as that may be I know many handicapped members of society that are proud human beings.  Being handicapped or disabled in any manner has not diminished their pride and confidence in any way.  Through experience however, I do seem to feel that recognizing, or specifically pointing out these flaws in person can be considered quite offensive or demoralizing.  This leads me to my point.  We, as a society should do our best to treat those with these handicaps the same as any other human being.  I feel treating people differently because of their physical appearance is shallow.  With that, treating these people equally will not only boost their inner morale, but it will prevent any offensive societal notions to demoralize these people.  In reality, we shouldn't feel sorry for them.  Simply treat them like everybody else, like other human beings.  

Exploitation and Inspiration

During discussion this week, we brought up the idea of the "Super Crip" and how much media attention is given to the feats of disabled people who achieve things that their limitations do not usually allow. It was mentioned in class that this could be in order to inspire other disabled people, and show that they can pursue dreams of normalcy, however, I think that perhaps these stories are geared towards the 'able-bodied' public. These stories often send the message that if this "inferior" person was able to overcome their obstacles in order to do whatever feat they are being praised for, then as a 'normal' people we should be able to do the same. I find this to be exploitative towards the people whose stories are told. It seems that in the way their stories are told they are in a category somewhere in between inferior and normal. The stories are structured around their disabilities, so the main focus tells us that they are not normal, but they achieved something normal people can regardless. With the focus on the disability, they are still in a different category than able-bodied people, making it impossible to merely admire their accomplishments and not their handicap.

Super Crips

I liked the idea of "super crips" that was mentioned during lecture this week. It's often fascinating to hear stories of individuals with physical disabilities that can overcome their handicap and perform unexpected feats.  But, does our praise of these "super crips" put unfair expectations on all other individuals with physical disabilities?  We are raised to respect disabled people or to "not stare" as a thought that they are the same as everyone else. However, when we recognize some of the miraculous feats that some disabled people are capable of doing, doesn't it directly contradict the idea that they're just like any other "normal" person.  And in turn, doesn't that recognition drawn attention to the fact that they indeed have a disability?  It's all so confusing to me considering that all of us just wish to be morally sound people.  I liken this all to the notion of "color-blind" racism, which promotes the idea that people should disregard race and skin tone thus putting an end to all types of racism.  Denying the existence of different skin tones just confirms the fact that there due to the need to be "color-blind."  It's all so tiring just to think of how we can be better people.  What are your thoughts?

Gender and disablity

As the reading covered there is often a tangled up dance between women and disability. Often just being a woman being considered disabled.  For employers it’s often just the idea that any second you could become pregnant disabling you, along with several other issues with this. I feel like Alicia’s presentation went over it slightly how we expect more out of men. For instance, someone gaining a disability, if they were a women we would be surprised to see them conquer that disability and find a way to work in a normal way.  However with men we actually seem to just expect it from men. And this made me start thinking about how I've seen this relate to even children.  Personal example, I have several siblings, my two younger siblings both have mental disabilities. These disabilities are different, but either way they both work to make it difficult for them to participate in the classroom and often leave them awkward in most social situations. My mother worked hard with the school system to make sure that both of my siblings got the help they needed.  But you were more likely to hear that working with the school to help my sister was significantly harder than for my brother. As well, they would often try to tell my mother that it wasn't possible for my sister to graduate from high school. However, the words would have not been spoken about my brother. This makes me wonder if even in the school system and with parenting there are different gender considerations for learning disabled children.

Joan Welch

Relearning to be able & the outside view

I thought that our discussion about disability and whether an individual is actually "disabled" after losing a limb was very interesting.  Once we see that a limb is missing or that an individual is not physically matched up to what society deems normal, we assume they are less able or unable to do everything on a daily basis, like cook, clean, dress, write, exercise, among other daily practices.  We don't take into consideration that this individual, if they choose to use a prosthetic, has to relearn how to use that part of their body.  If they choose not to use a prosthetic, then they have to learn how to function without it.  But we don't always think that they will be able to.  What the outsider thinks is not important because in many cases, the individual will choose to function normally, unless circumstances do not allow for such.  Many athletes who take part in the Paralympics still manage to compete in the activities they love, even though they may not look like individuals usually do in their preferred sport.   The role of the outsider doesn't play a role in a person's ability to be able bodied unless the individual allows it to.

Response to Erica's Post

In response to Erica’s post, I thought the video was a very good example that depicted a real life scenario of this individual’s experiences. Josh was just minding his own business and to have a stranger come and insult him on the street is rude and offensive, no matter what the person looks like-disabled or not. I agree that some people may not agree with a war and therefore disrespect those in the military. I find it very disturbing that people would assume things about someone they don’t even know and verbally insult them by saying they deserved to be disabled.

I remember watching a documentary on the History Channel about the Vietnam War. People were so opposed to the war that military men returning home were disrespected and spit on.  Vets returning home would sometimes be met in airports by protesters and I just find these actions by society horrible. Men and women are willing to sacrifice their lives for our country and for them to come home to negative treatment is just wrong.  

I think despite different beliefs, it does not make it to right to disregard someone’s actions, such as being in a war. Even if someone is not a supporter of a war, it doesn’t give anybody the right to automatically assume that an individual without an arm or leg deserved it. Especially in Josh’s case where he lost his leg to cancer not even war.

 

-emothersell

You DESERVE to Have One Leg

This week we were talking about how war amputees were being idolized as war heroes because they came back disabled. Well I remembered a while back seeing a video by an amputee, named Josh Sundquist, that I felt showed a totally different outlook on that situation. As you saw in the video he did not have a positive experience with being stereotyped as someone who lost there leg in the war. I feel like times have defiantly changed since, World War 2. Some people don't show that respect they once did for people in the military. Also that positive stereotype that amputees got from being labeled a "war veteran" seems to be losing its grip possibly.

Either way, no matter how someone gets disabled, I don't think it gives anyone the right to go up and tell them that "thats what you get...". Unless you are close to that person, you don't know there story or really anything about them, besides the fact that they are disabled or not "normal". Being normal though is something that we as a society made up in order to group people together. Also to be ranked within those groups is even more important to us. We know our worth by comparing ourselves to the people around us.

Artifact Presentation – Prosthetic

Jeff Schmidt

Artifact Presentation – Prosthetic

My Artifact: http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/314754/Best-Years-Of-Our-Lives-The-Movie-Clip-Among-My-Souvenirs.html

Description:

This is a clip from the movie The Best Years of Our Lives. This movie is about three servicemen from the same hometown that share a ride on the way back home from the war. They did not know each other before the war, but they become acquainted on the ride home. After returning home from the war, their lives become connected and intertwined as they try to go back to “normalcy” in the post war phase. Most of the movie deals with the personal struggles that each of the men face as they re-adjust to civilian life. One of the servicemen, named Homer, was a star quarterback before the war, but he was wounded and lost both of his arms during the war. The army trained him to use his prosthetic hooks and he is very skilled and adapted easily to his prosthetics. He is able to do many of the things that abled body men can do, and he prides himself on his determination to live a “normal” life again. However, when he returns home, his family is not quite sure how to handle Homer’s disability, and they approach it with awkwardness. Homer wants to be independent, but his family wants to care for Homer. It is obvious that they want to help him and care for him, but he views it as losing his independence and his wish to become normal. His girlfriend loves him deeply regardless of his disability, and they were planning on getting married after the war, but now Homer feels that he will burden to her and she deserves someone who is able bodied. One of the major plotlines of this movie deals with Homer’s view of himself as he returns to civilian life as a disabled veteran. The clip that I chose is from a scene where the three servicemen meet up again for a night on the town. It ends with them returning to a familiar bar, with Homer talking to an old friend who plays piano for the bar about his family’s awkwardness towards his disability. Homer expresses his desire to be normal and to be viewed as normal to his old friend in this scene.

Analysis:

One of the major points that the essay makes is that following the war; there was confusion about masculinity when the servicemen returned from the war. Because women were in the workforce now, there was limited job availability in industry. Economy was shifting to more of a service economy; now service jobs were being promoted as masculine. Many veterans struggled in returning to society, but those that struggled more were the veterans that returned home disabled. They felt that they lost some of their male identity because they were no longer able bodied. But as war technology developed new prosthetics, these disabled veterans became the iconic American hero because of their sacrifice to the cause. The media looked to these people has heroes and celebrated their ability to be “normal.” Through analysis, it is apparent that this was used as a part of post-war victory culture. The goal was to focus on being “normal” again by getting job and being apart of the new consumerism movement, instead of focusing on the horrors and the problems that the war caused. Homer is an example of this. He was a star quarterback before the war, but he was wounded and lost his arms. He was trained to use the new prosthetics and trained himself to be “able bodied” through the use of his hooks. Despite this, he still feels as if he has lost a part of his manhood and independence, because he family tries to act as constant caregivers. Because of this he feels as if he is a burden to them. The actor, who played Homer, Harold Russell, was in real life a military veteran who lost his hands, who became an actor after the war. He was praised for his role in the movie, and won an Academy Award for his performance. Although he was essentially playing a character like himself, his performance became an iconic one in Hollywood history for his portrayal of a disabled man return to normalcy. The plight of Homer in the Best Years of Our Lives mimics many of the major issues of masculinity and independence following the war, which is why this artifact is relevant to Serlin’s article.

Questions:

1. Put yourself in the shoes of a disabled vet. Given the option, which would you choice, living your life as an amputee, or becoming a part of the prosthesis movement? Note that prosthetics require a lot of training. At the same time you would constantly be aware of the stigma associated with each decision. Prosthetics at the time were advertised as an option for disabled to become independent (i.e. smoke a cigarette themselves.) Prosthetics seemingly promoted male competence and "self reliance" citizenship. Knowing this, which would you choose? Also, is it still possible to be "independent" without the use of prosthetics?

2. Similar to the question posed in the essay; do you think society has different views on disabilities? What I mean by this is does society think that there is a difference between disability from war or a disability as a result of genetic deformity, or illness. (Ex. President Roosevelt's disability was always kept out of the public eye, but many disabled vets were used as victory "propaganda")

3. In sort of an ironic situation, the war (which created more disabled citizens) resulted in a boost in technology for the disabled. Technology grew throughout the war, and new materials that were designated war supplies (like plastic, rubber, stainless steel, and etc.) became available to industry and mass commerce. An example of this would the highly advanced hooks that Homer uses as hands. Would it be correct to suggest the war, as grave and horrific, actually helped to make aware of the disabled plight? Prosthetics had existed before, but after the war, they were being made with the war technology. So ironically, the war caused more disabled citizens, made technology available to more citizens, and thus potentially benefited more disabled citizens. 

4. How does prosthetics play into the post-war consumerism? Prosthetic companies competed to have the best design, or the best "feel," or the best fit for the amputee whether they were a blue-collar worker or a white-collar worker. How does this relate to the aspects of modern consumerism? Consumerism in the 1950s attempted to promote the importance of a service-based economy. While many women were still entered in the workforce, there were increasing concerns about the role of males and masculinity. Post-war consumerism pushed more for a different idea of manhood, a white-collar manhood. So prosthetic companies also pushed for this white-collar model, making prosthetics ergonomically designed for the "white-collar" male. Prosthetics was designed to promote a "normal, manly life," but in the process they also shape a new idea of masculinity.  Is this further proof of how consumerism and society tend to influence gender roles? 

Thinking more about disability...

          I first wanted to address a comment that was made in class comparing color-blind racism to saying to people with disabilities, "I don't see you as disabled". I feel that these situations are almost the same and that in both cases someone's experience and identity is being invalidated by another person. To consider color-blind racism or this comparison with disability, I think comments made of this nature are not ill-intentioned but it is difficult position to consider from an outside perspective how someone wants to be treated regarding their disability. I always think, do they want me to address it or ignore it? And I think most of the time it depends on the person and you probably have to get to know them to understand how they feel about themselves and how they identify with their disability. Just as any identity characteristic, disability should never define a person. The "normate" that Garland-Thompson refers to as the superior person may actually be the minority of the population. So why is it that everyone has to be compared to this "normate" as the epitome of perfection?

          I would also like to touch on today's discussion of prosthetics, specifically when Serlin talks about being born with a congenital dysfunction as opposed to going though a traumatic experience of losing a limb or becoming paralyzed. Drawing from personal experience, my cousin was in a motorcycle accident when he was about 20 years old, and as a result he is paralyzed from the waist down. Just recently, he had to have one of his legs amputated due to severe bed sores resulting in an infection from sitting in his wheelchair. At one time my cousin was able-bodied and did not have to deal with these difficulties but now he does and I feel that these experiences have shaped the person that he is. At the age of 36, he has been extremely successful in running his own business as well as running a restaurant business with his twin brother. Sometimes I think about if he hadn't become paralyzed, and I'm sure my family does too,  how much more he could have accomplished in addition to all that he's done even with a disability. I consider this because at one time he was able and he was the "normate".
          On the other hand, my brother was born with a mental disability that has never been fully diagnosed, but he functions at a lower reading and comprehension level and therefore has always struggled. Specialists told my parents he probably wouldn't be able to do most of the things that people with a "normal" mental capacity could do when he was younger. But now at the age of 25, he proved these individuals wrong. Some of them said he would never be able to drive (because he can't read) but he has been driving now for 7 years and has never been pulled over or had any problems. Others said he would have difficulty finding a job or being successful in one. Today he has a full-time job that as a custodial worker in a high school and he loves it. My family and I understand that this may be as much of a potential that he can reach but we are so proud of what he has done to prove so many people wrong.
          Comparing these two situations, I think when one person is born with an issue that they can't control (in my brothers case) people praise what they have accomplished and find any success beyond the ordinary as something to be commended. While for my cousin, it is easy to imagine what his life would have been like if he had never been in an accident because we knew his as an able-bodied individual. Whereas, we have never known my brother as able-minded or intellectual, so any success is a great success.

          Thinking about being thrown into a disability and born into one really brings about a lot of thoughts for me and I'm not sure how much this relates to the reading or diverges from it. But, I wish that any individual facing a disability or handicap could be regarded as a capable and normal human being because they can go beyond what you expect of them. All individuals should not be stereotyped and put into the same category because everyone has different experiences, no matter the disability or even if they don't have one.

Prosthesis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg412YGkv7I

Description

For my artifact I chose a scene from the movie Men of Honor. This is based on the true story of Carl Brashear. Who lost his leg while on active duty. In the movie there is a scene where Carl played by Cuba Gooding Jr. was recovering in a Navy hospital he came across articles about WWII pilots that had lost limbs and were able to return to active duty with the aid of a prosthesis. He then tells the doctor to cut off his leg. The Scene that I am using is after he has his leg cut off he has to participate in a hearing on whether or not he is able to return to active duty. What is not show in the clips is some of the moments leading up to the scene that I have chosen. While in the court the officer in charge of the hearing makes several attempts to discourage Cuba Gooding Jr. from returning to active duty. Including citing that the weight of the prosthetic leg would affect what would happen if he were to die while undersea. He does his best to make a joke about it saying that if he were to die he will do his best to die like a navy man. What is show is the “12 steps” which all men must be able to do in the new diving rig in order to become a Navy Diver. Carl Brashear would accomplish the “12 steps” and be reinstated to full active duty. He would go on to become the first African American to become a Navy Master Diver in 1970.

Analysis

In the reading Serlin talks about how the loss of a limb can lead to being emasculated. He does however go on to say that these men should be encouraged to go about their lives in as normal of a manner as possible. Within the essay he takes a paragraph from the physical therapist Donald Kerr and Singe Brunnstrom which states “[T]he family [should learn] to ignore the amputation and to expect and even require the amputee to take care of himself, to share in household duties, and to participate in social activities.” I don’t have any problem with this. I feel that expecting an amputee to still perform some day to day task would have allowed him to regain some sense of “normalcy”. I see it as a way to allow these men to get their lives back as much as they possibly can. General Motors would take a step in allowing the wounded G.I.’s get back to a sense of normality. They created a car for amputees that could be completely controlled from the steering wheel. Giving these men the ability to drive and get around on their own would go a long way to allowing these men the ability to feel normal. The fact that they wouldn’t have to rely on other to help them get from place to place would prevent them from feeling helpless. In the comic strips that are in the reading it is seen that the person applying for the job looks completely normal to the naked eye. But it is later revealed that he has a prosthetic limb. Serlin states that it shows two expressions of “American” expressions of masculine competence. The character in the comic is a symbol of many of the returning veterans; all they wanted to do was prove that they were as good as anyone else. I agree with this, why should it matter if you have a fake leg in the office place. It doesn’t put you at any kind of a disadvantage to someone with two legs made of flesh, blood, and bones.  In Serlins essay he says that disabled men often turned in better work than those not handicapped. I see this as these handicapped men trying to prove their self worth and that just because they may be at a physical disadvantage that they were in no mean at a disadvantage when it came to the work place.

 

Questions

 Do you think that one of the reasons that this was such a big story was because Carl Brashear was the first black Navy diver? How would this have been different if he was a white Navy officer? What if he didn’t want to continue his career as a navy diver?

Why do you think Serlin focused so much on the loss of limbs and the relation to a loss of masculinity?

On page 59 Serlin states that “wartime experience showed that disabled men often turned in better work that those not handicapped.” Do you think the reasoning behind this is because they felt that they weren’t as “masculine“ as the me that were defined as able bodied so they felt like they had to make up for it by working harder?

On page 67 it states that Dreyfuss made his photographs “civilized” the otherwise painful and traumatic representations of amputees and prosthesis. Why was it necessary to civilize these things if they were already meant to return a sense of normalcy to those that were wearing them?

Chris Murray

Experiencing and Fearing Disability

As mentioned in class discussion, disability is fact that we will all have confront sooner or later, if some of us haven't already. Two points have come to my mind while thinking about disability. First off is my own experience with a disability, albeit a non-permanent one. The second is the knowledge of family medical history and the fear we have knowing we may someday inherit these disabilities.

In high school I was an avid, if not average, track and cross country runner. I enjoyed long training runs and short sprints alike and I made most of my friends through running. Unfortunately, during my sophomore year I started experiencing painful sensations in my thighs and had to stop running. During this period I was afraid that I would never be able to run or exercise again. In addition it was difficult to go up and down stairs, making it likely I would, in fact, be disabled to a certain extent. I wouldn't be able to pursue in one of my favorite activities during the prime of my youth, not to mention exercising and spending valuable time practicing and socializing with my friends. To be sure it wouldn't be as bad as many disabilities, but the fear of this confronted me with the fact that life could be a lot more difficult than I though it was.

Luckily, to make a long story short it was determined I would need to get hip arthroscopies on both of my hips. I was faced with the prospect of six weeks on crutches for both hips, plus rehab. Here again I experienced briefly the life of a disabled person. I had my first surgery during the summer but my second one was done during the school year. My school had no elevators, so unless my classes were on the first floor of a building I was unable to go to class and thus stuck in the library. While it was cool at first to skip class soon I had trouble keeping up with work and class content. In addition I eventually became sick of people asking what was wrong with me and why I was on crutches. Again, this was certainly not as serious and permanent like many disabilities but it still allowed me to experience a little bit what it is like to be disabled and restricted in what one does. To make another long story short, I eventually recovered and have gone back to running, in case anybody wanted closure.

As mentioned in class we will all be disabled at some point in our lives. Whether that be through an accident or old age makes no difference. If it is through old age, it is easy to see what type of problems one may face based on family medical history and even the experiences of still living parents and grandparents. I know personally, if I should live long enough, that I will face certain conditions and illnesses that run in the family. It's one thing to try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who has a disability, it's another to confront the fact that you will almost inevitably be disabled by a disease you already know about. Hopefully it will serve as inspiration for people to live healthily and treasure life, as it is indeed precious and fleeting. It's our job, as fortunate people who are able, to live life as best we can until the point where we are disabled .

I really enjoyed today's class discussion.  I think that everyone has been faced with someone with a disability or have been disabled themselves.  I don't think that we can lump everyone with disabilities into one type.  Yes, there are examples of people like Bethany Hamilton that will struggle for a bit, but then continue life like not much happened, but there are some people with disabilities that 'want' the pity party.  This can go for anyone though, there are some people that will take what life throws at them and keep chugging along, while there are others that will shirk back in society and succumb to life's hardships.  I agree with what Darren said, disable people are people.  There was also a mention today of giving disabled people a false sense of hope when others with disabilities are hailed hero's and they might not have the same potential.  I believe all kids grow up having dreams of athletic or musical greatness.  Taking away a part of a kids childhood by telling them straight up that they won't ever achieve that sort of greatness would be worse in my opinion than giving them a false hope.  At least with that hope they will work at something they want to achieve, and who knows, maybe they have what it will take to achieve greatness.  People with disabilities don't have any less potential than able bodied people, they just need to stop being told that they can't do what normal people can do.   

What Is a Disability?

Today’s class discussion focused on disabilities and how society views them. Why is everyone so focused on pleasing people with disabilities? I touched up on the topic briefly in class but I would like to further expand on the topic on here. A disability is just a brand given by an institutionalized society. We fear these confrontations with those with disabilities every day. In reality, these people can still perform everyday tasks that in our minds we do not see them performing. These disabilities do not have to be restrained to physical ailments but also cognitive obstructions. We do not know what the correct terminology to call someone with down-syndrome or ADD. They should just be called people/peers. I’ve socialized with those that society views as mentally challenged and their ambitions are no different than mine. Society has to realize that the people that look different from the rest of the population are just like those that live a “normal” lifestyle. These people may have to overcome more obstacles to achieve their goals, but we shouldn’t look away and leave them there.  Hypothetically speaking, if we have problems in our life, we reach out to our peers for assistance. This is the same with those people that face challenges; they can reach out to us and shouldn’t face any hostility from society. Rosemarie Garland Thompson and Andrea Avery have the problem of addressing their issue because they feel society would take their obstacle and be unable to help. Going back to my question why is everyone so focused on pleasing people with disabilities? There is a distinction I want to make before people jump on me for my opinion. There is a difference of pleasing someone to make them fit with their disability and there is pleasing someone that is a friend, making sure they are a part of society and viewed as able. My question focuses on the first part, pleasing to fit the disability.

What do you think?

Darren Pope

Artifact Presentation: Disability

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktEYIBdPFII

Description:

            For my artifact I chose an interview with professional surfer Bethany Hamilton and AnnaSophia Robb who played Bethany Hamilton in the movie Soul Surfer, on the Travis Smiley Show. Soul Surfer, released in 2011, is based on the true story of surfer Bethany Hamilton who suffered a severe shark attack at the age of thirteen resulting in the amputation of her left arm. The movie portrays Bethany Hamilton’s life after the attack and how she grew and coped with her disability becoming a successful professional surfer and not letting her dreams go. I chose this artifact because I thought it related well with the articles chosen for class and their relation of feminism and disability together.

Analysis:

            In the first reading “Integrity Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory” by Rosemarie Garland – Thomas I feel as if Thomas imposed a negative outlook on disability. Although I believe this wasn’t her purpose, her purpose was to discourage the negative outlook on people with disability especially women, yet she portrayed many different outlooks on why disability is seen as bad and how it fits into the list of feminism, racism, and so on. After reading her story I got a sense that the disabled, especially women, should accept being disabled and be happy with it, and although I see no problem with this I see it as sort of improbable. A disabled person is already in most cases limited to what they can do, so I would imagine that they want to be able to do the most that they can disregarding their disability. For this reason if a person with a disability had the opportunity to overcome it even the slightest bit they would most likely strive for that, because they are probably not pleased and comfortable with being handicapped and needing assistance or special treatment. This is ideal because it is a characteristic of being a human, to be independent, and with a disability this is limited. For this reason I chose the story of Bethany Hamilton because I feel as if she takes a whole different outlook on her disability, she doesn’t hide her disability, she almost flaunts it, and she has achieved great success from it. She has shown that although she lacks an arm, she has overcome adversity and still achieved her dream by adapting to her new conditions. She portrayed a message that it isn’t a bad thing to be disabled. The fact that Bethany is a female also added to the situation as Thomson connected feminism and disability, it shows that a young disabled girl can overcome this tragic thing in her life and put a positive light on it, showing others that they don’t need to dwell over their disabilities. I think the story sort of disproves Thomson’s ideas, not that hers aren’t true because in many situations Thomson’s points are valid, but Bethany’s story sheds a light on the positive outlook that can be taken by disability. I also related the soul surfer story in more of a similarity to the short story by Andrea Avery because I feel that Andrea took her disability and tried to cope with it as positive as possible. Although Andrea didn’t necessarily do anything special she learned to accept her condition and live happily with it and eventually was granted her wish of having a child. With a different outlook she could have just accepted that it would be painful and exhausting to raise a child and let her life waste away in sorrows, but she didn’t. I feel as if both these stories show that disability doesn’t need to be a negative thing, and those who are not disabled should be accepting of the disabled especially if they are happy and accomplished. Being disabled shouldn’t be a connection of thoughts that disabled people aren’t like others, that they need pity and sympathy, that they cant achieve what others do without disabilities, because they can. Disability should be seen as individuality not limitation, because a lot of disabled individuals do what any other person does, but do it with a disability.  Those with disability should be seen as a motivation to everyone else, and just because they may want to improve, dose not necessarily mean that they want to improve because they want to be “normal”. If they have the opportunity to improve their disability they shouldn’t be judged on doing so, because it’s not necessarily about being like everyone else, or not being disabled anymore, or “normal”, it’s about getting the most out of their life that they want, which is what most humans aspire to achieve.

Discussion Questions:

1.     If the case of Bethany Hamilton happened to be a male, what do you think would have been different about the situation; would there even have been a story to be told, a book written, or a movie produced?

2.     On page 27of Thomson’s article she mentions how there is no positive advertisement about being satisfied with life in a wheel chair. I feel like in this portion of Thomson’s article she shed negative light on people wanting to overcome their disability, suggesting that it is perfectly fine being disabled. During the interview with Bethany Hamilton it was clear that Bethany was in no way accepting of being limited after her accident, and insisted on continuing on with her dreams and surfing. Do you think in most cases that those who have the ability to overcome their disability would take the chance in doing so or would they just give up and accept it? Do you think with the choice of overcoming a disability that it portrays that being disabled is a bad thing? What would you do?

3.     As AnnaSophia mentioned in the interview that Bethany used her disability as a catalyst, and to inspire others. Why do you think it’s so hard for others to accept disability as individuals and as an outside community especially if the disabled person themselves have overcome and accepted it?

4.     Why do you think Thomas so strongly related disability to feminism, as there are many males who have experienced disability in similar ways?

Rheumatoid Arthritis and other pains which we must all face.

Based on the short reading of Andrea Avery's Rip Tide I have come to a conclusion that we as a society must face. This conclusion is that try as we may, none of us are immune to the ravages of life even when we are at our peak of wellness and youthfulness. For Andrea she had to spend most of her early life as if she were in the same physical condition as an elderly women. I can't even imagine the negative body image she had of herself before she rose above her condition and decided to live a normal life no matter what the situation. I have learned from her experience that at any moment I to could face the challenges that any type of Arthritis can bring. I know I have past injuries which will put continuous pain on my joint in my future. I have learned from her story that even though I am only 22 years old I will not live forever in my current physical condition. It is surprising to think about this possible future I have. I have gained more respect for my elders and their troubles. Most of all I respect anyone who has had any type of Arthritis take them over before most people would normally develop it. It makes we wonder as well about all the things I enjoy now might be taken away from me if I develop an early development of arthritis. What are somethings you could not do if you developed early arthritis. Do you think you could still function the way you do now or do imagine that your lifestyle would have to change?  I guess next time I will think twice before I complain about strained muscles when I now that their are people out their the same age as me who have no choice but to live for joint and muscle pain everyday of their lives. To further enhance my understanding about this subject I found a good video on the matter. I have provided the link below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XThcZcXfSok

-William Webster

Artifact Description The artifacts that I have chosen are two posters from the 1920’s Kansas Free Fair show. Both are promoting the use of Eugenics to create a better society without stresses on society such as alcoholism and criminality. Eugenics did not just come in the form of selective breeding but also as sterilization for undesirables of society. Such as the case of Buck v. Bell, sterilization was forced upon a second generation epileptic with promiscuous tendencies. It is important to note and remember that Eugenics and sterilization occurred with both white and black Americans. The first photograph is listing what society could rid itself of in three generations if two ideal parents where to have children. The second photograph is a chart of the different combinations of parents and their outcomes. They also pose the question of why people are so worried about their animal’s pedigree, but when it comes to humans it does not matter.

Artifact Analysis

From previous studies I have learned that Eugenics were proposed and implemented to be a good thing for society. From these two examples they seem to be trying to ‘help’ society by eliminating potential members of society that require public assistance. This brings up the issue of what is society’s responsibility when caring for its members? Washington states in Medical Apartheid that “preventing a child’s birth is a draconian method of protecting it from abuse”(211). In the welfare case rather than child abuse; it would be society paying for that child. These two posters are not promoting sterilization but rather selective breeding which Washington fails to discuss specifically in her chapter.

Washington decides to look into darker dystopian part of Eugenics, which is also important in studying the topic. She equates the sterilization of specifically black women to genocide. Washington quotes United Nations Resolution 260 (III) A from 1948, “Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, . . . to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part . . .” (199). Although the forced sterilization of black women could be considered an attempt at exterminating the race, white women also were victims of forced sterilization such as Carrie Buck. Even prominent, educated blacks agreed in the benefits of Eugenics. W.E.B. Du Bois wrote, “The mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly . . . if from that population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly” (197). It makes it difficult for me to agree with Washington in saying that it was genocide when prominent members of the race supported the practice and held to today’s standards, racist opinions.

Discussion Questions:

1. If eugenics was successful and undesirable traits were taken out of the gene pool, welfare would not exist because everyone would be hardworking and there wouldn’t be “pauperism.” Because eugenics did not workout we as a society have these issues, how responsible is a society in caring for its less fortunate members?
2. Margaret Sanger often would ask black leaders such as W.E.B. Du Bois to write in support of eugenics, do you think that she put pressure on them to write in defense of eugenics or do you think that they genuinely believed in their benefits?
3. On Page 199, Washington quotes part of Resolution 260 (III) in her discussion of genocide. Because eugenics effected more than just a “national, racial, or religious group” could it still be considered an attempted genocide? Or was that rhetoric used as shock value while protesting?
4. Although forced sterilization seems barbaric are there situations where sterilization could actually benefit an individual or society in general? Or is all forced sterilization unethical and why?
   
   
   
   
   Link to the Artifact:    http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2011/06/01/136849387/found-in-the-archives-americas-unsettling-early-eugenics-movement
   
   
   -Lindsay Rynders