Much ado lately has been made about the dreaded "r-word". Now, in terms of automotive use, the term "retarded" is perfectly suitable to describe what the mechanic did to adjust the timing. No problem there. You can't use the term, however, to describe a human being, you see. That would be wrong.
Of course, earlier terms weren't much better. They included "moron", "half-wit", "idiot", "imbecile", and "cretin". Well, of course we all understood that those aren't nice terms, so we substituted "retarded", a description of the fact that a certain group of people were slower mentally than others. After all, that's all the word means. Something that is retarded is simply something that is slower than other things. Retard the timing on an engine and you've slowed it down. No big deal. Unless, of course, you're speaking about people. Then it is a term of disparagement.
Or is it? According to Answers.com, there are substitutes for that term: "learning disabled, developmentally delayed, special needs, learning delayed, or simply disabled." And we have a term for those terms. The word is "euphemism". A euphemism is the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive. There you go; all fixed.
Frankly, I'm stunned at the naïveté. The idea is that if we just don't use that term, no one will notice that there are people, for instance, who aren't as mentally agile as others. And by using a term like "developmentally challenged", they won't know that they're different from others in something other than a good way. Never mind the fact that truth is jettisoned here. I mean, seriously, is development not a challenge for a lot of people? Don't we all have difficulty learning some things? Isn't it a fact that each and every person has some special needs? So why are we stripping these phrases of their clear meaning to make them mean something else? But moving on from that, is it reasonable to assume that "special needs" people won't figure out that "special needs" is another way of saying "retarded"? And I'm not talking about "retarded" in an unkind sense. I'm simply referencing a way of speaking about people who aren't as quick to learn as others. So when they figure out that "special needs" means the same thing, the response will be the same. They will feel insulted. And we'll need to figure out another way to point out the problem without hurting their feelings. In other words, it is simply a problem delayed.
You see, any term that identifies someone as something other than equal to or better than the norm will be taken as insulting. None of us want to be identified that way, even euphemistically. None of us. So we have to decide. Are we going to go out of our way to try to avoid hurting someone's feelings, or are we going to tell the truth with love? You see, if we can help them see the truth, then they have a way to go and a method of dealing with it. Telling a kid who's not so good at math "You can do anything you want" won't help him learn to deal with math. Telling him "You aren't so good at math, so we'll work at it together", on the other hand, tells the truth in love with the intention of making his life better.
Look, no one likes to hear that they have shortcomings. And I'm not suggesting we be insulting. But I would much rather speak the truth in love than lie to spare the feelings of someone. Let me illustrate. I made a stupid choice in life. (I've made a lot of them, so the particulars aren't important.) Before I made it, I asked people I trusted for input. They all told me, "We're with you all the way." When the truth came out that my choice was a foolish one, several told me, "Yeah, well, we saw that coming. We just didn't know what to say." Really? How about, "We see this coming"? I mean, I may or may not have made the same foolish choice, but at least I would have had a friend who cared enough to tell me the truth. So now I have a foolish choice to deal with and the sad awareness that I don't have people who will tell me the truth when I ask for it. Much better off, don't you think?
I don't much care about the event that spawned this "r-word" discussion. Nor am I just referencing the whole "special needs" terminology or folks. When we choose to lie to people for the sake of sparing their feelings, it is still a lie. Wouldn't it be better if we learned to speak the truth in love ... you know ... like the Bible says?
7 comments:
I totally agree. At the same time, the receiver needs to understand that they passer did not mean harm in using the word. If I tell my daughter that her actions are stupid, it would likely be for reasons surrounding the damage her actions caused. So, she would later be told that rage contributed to the choice of words and that I don't consider her stupid, despite her stupid choice of action that caused the damage. As you say, we all do stupid things and to say "That wasn't very bright." is really the same thing.
This is harder for people who have never received a kind word. I treat my daughter well and if she ever doubts my love for her, it's not for lack of showing it on my part (indeed, that would be stupid---for her doubting it or for me not showing it enough).
This issue of which words to use or which words offends us is really a matter of pride and/or conceit, I believe. I don't get too hurt when called a name because I know who I am, and if I did something stupid, I'm honest enough to understand that it might provoke such a response. In other words, I had it coming.
I remember a time when a "friend" called me stupid routinely. At first, I never really took much notice. Eventually I realized that he didn't use the word as often with other people. The problem was that usually the word was applied when we simply had differences of opinions, not so much because I was constantly doing stupid things.
Anyway, we were moving a refrigerator up a flight of stairs and we differed on the right way to do so. He couldn't see from his perspective what I was seeing but worse, he didn't care and eventually called me "stupid". So I dropped my half, climbed over the top and as I was leaving I said, "What's stupid is insulting the guy who's helping you move a refrigerator up a flight of stairs. Good luck doing it yourself. Stupid."
Sometimes such words are just appropriate.
"Sometimes such words are just appropriate."
You know, actually, I think that was my primary point. Only you said it more succinctly.
I have to disagree. I think some words are just inappropriate.
What is the difference in using the word black, or nigger, instead of African American? Or calling someone a Nazi because they have very strong views on something?
The word retard does certainly describe someone with an intellectual disability in terms of the retardation of something, but it is used colloquially as an insult. So when you use the word retard to someone who DOES have an intellectual disability, it is degrading them. It is an insult to them as well.
And yes, I think we SHOULD go out of our way to avoid hurting peoples feelings. There ARE ways you can say the same thing without harm. Why would you intentionally say something you know can hurt simply because you believe it doesn't hurt YOU???
Epiphany,
Here's the problem. The word "retarded" was used originally as a substitute for words that were perceived as more insulting. It was originally used to avoid insulting people. But because it described a condition that hurt people's feelings by itself, that word became hurtful.
My point was that whatever term you use, if the condition is negative, it will become an insult. It will be perceived as an insult. "Mentally challenged" will be just as insulting as "retarded" is or "moron" was. The problem isn't the word; it's the condition ... and human pride.
Indeed. I know someone who referred to a supervisor as a "Special Olympian" long before Obama used it on TV. Think of the worst thing that YOU could be called. What hurts worse, the word or the nasty feelings behind it? Yeah, some words are inapropriate more for the fact that those offended by them won't relent in being offended. If the word "nigger" is so harmful and inappropriate, why do so many black people call each other by that? It's not the word, but the racist who yells it, as well as the person who receives it and gives it its power. (BTW, "African-America" is offensive to me. One is either American or one isn't. I will refer to the black race, but I will call a black man...a man)
My eight grade daughter was part of a class discussion. They were discussing the statement "Some words are so bad they should never be said or written." My daughter disagreed with the statement for a few decent spur of the moment reasons. The teacher, who seemed to be baiting them now that I think back on it, said that using such words is a first step towards genocide. A little over-the-top I thought.
Isn't it interesting that the "n" word from a white guy is offensively racist but from a black guy is friendly banter. Ah, well ...
(BTW, "African-America" is offensive to me. One is either American or one isn't. I will refer to the black race, but I will call a black man...a man)
Actually, African American is probably not even correct a good percentage of the time. And it certainly does not reflect skin color. I know a family who is originally from Africa and they are white. I'll bet the term "African American" isn't what they would choose to describe themselves.
And yes, if you were born here you are an American. Otherwise, aside from American Indians (yeah... I said it, INDIANS!) we are all hyphenated Americans. I know my family came to this country at around the same time as most black people's families did. Where's my hyphen? And my special programs...
I was born here and my mother and father were both born here and their parents were all born here. I'm pretty sure that technically that makes me a Native American.
Post a Comment