This week’s readings offer a more specific inspection of the progression we are now well familiar with, the movement from medicalized definitions of disability to gradual acceptance of the social model alongside more tangible developments in legislation that attempt to lend equal rights to disabled members of society. While we may be well informed in regard to the process or exchange that has occurred, Nielsen and Albrecht outline the exact interactions and events by which this movement was rendered, examining a period of time we have not yet discussed.
I’d like to begin my discussion with the Albrecht document as its brevity offers more widespread and immediate implications. From the outset, Albrecht discusses how rehabilitatory efforts in the past focused entirely on “disability as an individual characteristic…medically defined…[and] subject to therapeutic interventions,” while more current efforts intend to transform “the expectations and structures of the society and the community as a whole,” understanding “disability as a condition imposed by existing social and physical barriers” (148-149). This transition reaffirms our own understanding of the movement to usage of the social model and also offers a general lens to view the more specific progression Nielsen offers.
Alongside burgeoning changes in “legislation, architectural design, and social programs,” it is interesting to note that rather than being eliminated, medical rehabilitation has been qualified, “outcome-oriented” and using the “Functional Index measure, which measures basic activities of daily living such as eating, dressing, and locomotion” (149-150). While still interacting with disabled persons on a physical, surgical level, medical rehabilitation has deviated from attempts to enforce ostensible “normality,” instead aiming to lend increased agency and independence.
In regard to A Disability History of the United States, Nielsen offers a compelling chronological narration of this progression; however, I think it is most apt to formulate my discussion in terms of labor, intersectionality, and community to elucidate the most significant points of the Nielsen article.
In regard to labor, Nielsen offers that during the Great Depression disabled people were “automatically rejected…from work relief programs-[categorized]…as unemployable” (132). In many ways, this rejection perfectly crystallizes perceptions towards disabled people’s ability to work since the poverty brought on by the depression fully prevents the charity we have seen in past weeks, making perceptions of the disabled as inefficient and unproductive thoroughly clear. This outright refusal also reiterates the illogical, incongruent rulings of immigration committees we have discussed in prior weeks, further solidifying our understanding of these widespread notions.
During WWII, another time of unrest, Nielsen details how employment of disabled people “rose from 28,000 in 1940 to 300,000 in 1945…placements numbered almost 2 million” (148). Nielsen also references a concurrent article that claimed that disabled people “must be prepared to take the places of those called for active military service” (148). While the employment of so many disabled people is certainly a positive achievement, the requirement for able-bodied citizens to be absent only reaffirms the perception of disabled people as inferior. It is also important to note that considerations of the invalidity of the disabled spanned into the world of academia as well, with dreams of attending college often categorized as delusional (141-142).
Alongside the continuing difficulties in finding employment, hierarchies within the disabled community created by intersectionality with race and gender disadvantaged some groups further. Nielsen describes the particular disadvantage disabled african americans received from dilapidated, underfunded education systems, far less sophisticated medical treatment, often causing disability itself, and wholesale rejection from treatment programs such as Warm Springs (137, 138, 140). Nielsen also recounts how disabled women who were victims of rape struggled to effectively prosecute their assailant through laws that require proof of physical resistance (178). The increased difficulty for individuals who have a dual-identity within two oppressed groups reveals the necessity for the later widespread collaboration between movements supporting different but similarly subaltern individuals.
In regard to the communal interactions taking place during this time period, Nielsen reiterates points we have discussed in previous weeks when noting how schools for the deaf, polio wards, and Warm Springs allowed many disabled people to momentarily feel comfortable in their disability and acted as structures for social involvement (134, 138). However, the greater significance of this communal interaction is the formation of a multiplicity of associations advocating for different groups of disabled people preceding the amalgamation of these organizations into a more collaborative whole. Nielsen notes how after such organizations as the BVA recognized “embracing hierarchy based on another form of physical difference…made organizing less effective,” groups began to consider their cause as a “cross-disability” movement as in the case of the UHF which “brought together nineteen state organizations… for people with disabilities…, reflecting the broad differences and shared experience among people with disabilities (156, 174). Nielsen reveals that the universal quality of these organizations allowed people with disabilities to more strongly express themselves, take power, and effect the changes sought (179). Doubtless, many of the major improvements in the condition of disable people arise from centuries of advocacy and shifts in perceptions, but it is important to note how an organization unified by the shared experience of millions may specifically combat the labor and intersectional prejudices outlined previously by way of its universality and magnitude of advocacy.
As I don’t feel I have enough space to discuss the following points in full, I would like to briefly draw attention to the collaboration between the disability movement and other social movements as well as the disabled and non-disabled composition of the BLA (169, 160). Along these lines, a particularly interesting analysis of the interaction between the disability and feminist movements can be found here (especially on pages 36-38). I urge everyone to consider these interactions alongside any other points they wish to make in their own posts.
A rally protesting on behalf of the Rehabilitation Act. Notice the usage of language of "rights and discrimination" that Nielsen notes populated much of the discourse employed by disability rights organizations (133, 152, 160).
Questions to Consider:
-How are the alliances between disabled groups and other groups representing oppressed individuals expected (i.e. what similarities exist between the two)? Are there any interactions that seem surprising? How might these be resolved?
-Are there any segments of the Albrecht or Nielsen readings you would consider problematic?
-Are there any incongruities between the legislation FDR’s administration enacted and FDR’s own condition? How might these be resolved and accounted for?
-While the aggregation of many different disability organizations into a “cross-disability” whole certainly has granted the entire community more power, are there any identities that are not suitably represented as a result?
- Are there any interactions between the Nielsen and Albrecht readings and those of previous weeks that are important to our understanding of this time period or the disability movement as a whole?
-Nielsen discusses the recurrent inefficacy and blatant discrimination of government action as well as the continuing battle to preserve the potency of the ADA. What can this interaction elucidate about the disability rights movement and how well can it model the positions of the population as a whole?
-What qualities of black lung disease and the mining community in its entirety facilitated the unique composition of the BLA?
- Are there any interactions between the Nielsen and Albrecht readings and those of previous weeks that are important to our understanding of this time period or the disability movement as a whole?
-Nielsen discusses the recurrent inefficacy and blatant discrimination of government action as well as the continuing battle to preserve the potency of the ADA. What can this interaction elucidate about the disability rights movement and how well can it model the positions of the population as a whole?
-What qualities of black lung disease and the mining community in its entirety facilitated the unique composition of the BLA?
In regards to Patrick’s question about cross-disability organization, I believe that Nielsen and Albrecht address the benefits and drawbacks of these coalitional strategies, mostly focusing on the benefits. Albrecht comments on the assumptions behind the medical model of disability which identifies impairment on an individual level and seeks to fix it (148). He further discusses how a communal approach to rehabilitation that emphasizes interaction and community engagement serves to increase quality of life for disabled individuals (149). A shift away from a focus on the medical model towards a social understanding of disability makes communal integration more possible by avoiding pathologizing disability and rather focusing on how to make public spaces more accessible. Yet, a focus on disability from a broader and cross-disability perspective can run the risk of overly-generalizing the experience of disability and excluding certain individuals who do not have the economic resources to access some of these coalitional movements or found themselves excluded based on race (Nielsen 140). For example, many could see use this cross-disability perspective to shift from viewing disability as an embodied experience to rather viewing it as a “class and labor issue” which would wash over some of the social implications of disability (Nielsen 151). The Blind Veterans Administration provides a specific example of how solidarity amongst blind veterans specifically not only facilitated focus on specific demands for blind veterans but also led to a productive interaction between the connection of disability with race, proving that certain specific organizations are necessary (Nielsen 154). I do think that cross-disability organization mostly allows for a variety of disabled experiences by basing collective action around shared societal stigma and oppression.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of the potency of the ADA, one finds many of the troubles with reform similar to those in other activist stories such as for civil rights or feminism. Looking at single reforms such as Section 504, it would seem that single reforms often fail to create concrete progress. Yet, though Nielsen highlights the trouble with enforcement regarding many of these laws, he focuses on both the structural advances such as with accessibility that this legislation accomplishes as well as the process of advocating for social change based on disability coalitions. Nielsen explains that the ADA provided an opportunity for people with a range of disabilities to share their experiences of living in an inaccessible world (181). The constant battle by the courts and legislators who often attempt to undermine the efficacy of these reforms reveals the deeply ingrained nature of ableist assumptions in society and how the battle for inclusion remains constant. Yet, Nielsen and Albrecht both praise a social understanding of disability for how it can open up spaces for pride and agency where disabled individuals can transform community structures by shifting individual understandings of disability.
Hello all. In this week’s readings, identity formation (both individually and communally) plays a large part in advancing the rights of the disabled. I will write a bit on how individual identity impacted both the formation of a general “disabled” alliance and a reclaiming of lost rights.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the superordinate goal of passing legislation and finding work for disabled people overcame the long-held quarrels between disabled people (for those of us in AP Psychology, you will recount how Diane talked about conflict resolution with regards to a superordinate goal). For example, we have examined the conflict between Deaf culture and traditional disability—the deaf historically have not considered themselves disabled, and have thus refused to take part in s pan-disability confederation. Nielson writes “Deaf leaders thus rejected alliances with disabled activists” (136).
However, in the face of unemployment and overall misery, deaf leaders agreed to partake in a general disabled definition. Nielsen writes “the growing cross-disability community both made possible and was a result of the increasingly confident disability-rights movement” (180). That a superordinate goal, the end of discrimination against disabled people, could forge a cross-disability coalition demonstrates the longing and cooperativeness necessary to create a real legislative change.
Likewise, the individual identity of those with disability became routed in solidarity. Nielsen dedicates an entire section (Disability Pride) to the fact that many people, when exposed to movement leaders’ activism, became political supporters. Nielsen notes that disability newspapers, athletic organizations, lobbying groups, and art associations all flourished in the years surrounding the passage of the ADA (179-180).
Gary Albrecht also notes that contemporary technological advances promote a unified, social approach to disability. Albrecht writes “such recent developments… all allow disabled people to participate more fully in society” (150). Here, the issue of agency becomes one that disabled people can shape themselves. By using or not using new technology, disabled people can exercise autonomy in their daily lives—for example, living in a smart house or using a newly designed wheelchair.
The communal identity of the disabled movement, and the individual one of rehabilitating people both provide interesting lenses through which this week’s reading can be viewed. Overall, Nielsen and Albrecht provide good explanations and analysis of the ADA and surrounding legislation’s passage, and the adaptability of individuals to regain agency in the wake of those pieces of law.
I would like to respond to Patrick’s second-to-last question (“Nielsen discusses the recurrent inefficacy and blatant discrimination of government action as well as the continuing battle to preserve the potency of the ADA. What can this interaction elucidate about the disability rights movement and how well can it model the positions of the population as a whole?). I think that Nielsen’s focus on government action is slightly more nuanced than just calling it inefficient. While it is certainly true that government bills did not achieve in reality what they suggested in writing, their utility certainly exists for the disability rights movement.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Nielsen continually makes references to language and how disability movements adopted the vocabulary of “rights” and “discrimination.” The adoption of certain vocabulary determined goals of disability movements. That adoption necessitates recognition by the state, for the law is fundamental to the idea of rights. Furthermore, engagement with the government has led to tangible changes in the past. With each of the four major bills he picked, Nielsen identified how government action was helpful.
In Nielsen’s opinion, The Architectural Barrier Act of 1968 (ABA) achieved little due to its lack of scope and enforcement. However, he does note that it “set the stage for future activism” by getting the ball rolling in terms of action and awareness (165). The 1973 Rehabilitation Act, however, carried much weight due to its language calling for anti-discrimination measures in Section 504. Likewise, Nielsen argues that the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was instrumental in achieving rights (IDEA guaranteed education, greatly impacting daily life for disabled people) (167). Maybe the ABA didn’t achieve a whole lot initially, but the incremental action paved the way for broader reform. While some may critique the bills individually, I think that ultimately Nielsen is addressing them in a broader context where they are connected to both one another and to other actions within the broader disability rights movement.
However, regardless of the effectiveness of past government action, I think Nielsen’s argument gains its strength in acknowledging the role of different actors in the disability rights movement. In giving one of the most comprehensive explanations of the rise of the social model that we have read in class, he explains just how diverse the disability rights movement was in its location. Nielsen points out and explains: federal action; state action (168-169); labor unions (151-153,159- 160, 165); individual actors like Helen Keller (137), Laura Blossfield (142), Pearl Buck (142-143), or Burton Blatt (145); NGOs like the Warm Springs Institute for Rehabilitation (139-140) or the Blind Veterans Association (152-154); and many other groups from grassroots organizations to politicians. Not only does he illustrate a multitude of actors, but also he strives to highlight how they worked together and how intersectionality with other rights movements played a pivotal role.
This crossing-over leads directly to Patrick’s question about cross-disability organization. I agree with Emily and Max that the alliances were/are useful, and thus Nielsen does a good job explaining the history of the disability rights movement in the mid- to late- 20th century.
-Will
I would like to focus this blog post on Patrick’s interesting question regarding different “cross-disability” organizations. While Nielson and Albrecht both discuss the benefits associated with combining different oppressed groups – race, gender, ability status, and etc. – they both forget to mention the negative aspect with lumping all of these minorities together.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would like to talk about the benefits mass unification offer to minorities in the political world (183). As these minority groups solidified their voices into a condensed institution, they gained agency over their own political body. By using collective bargaining to demand change like the passage of the ADA and Architectural act, these organizations gave voice to those often overshadowed by the “normal” people in society. In the past, without these coalitions, those seen as “preferable” in society defined the “others” justifying social and political hierarchies, which made it difficult for minorities to be proud of their status (182); by doing so, those in power made “unemployment, poverty, substandard education” the expected future for minority groups, which resulted in our institutions, laws, and history build on these unequal ideological beliefs (183). Therefore, through collective work, people with perceived disabilities created communities and ideas in which they asserted their political influence to benefit their lives instead of deferring to others.
What I find interesting about the success of this movement is the paradigmatic shift away from focusing on the individual problems and towards the social environment barriers that prevent certain individuals from succeeding (Albrecht 151). Interestingly Nielson compares FDR’s New Deal Policy to the wartime work industry to demonstrate how the environment determines the success of a person. For example, during the Great Depression, even after FDR created the WPA to lower the unemployment rate, over 44% of deaf people continued to find themselves unemployed regardless of prior employment background (135). However, when the labor force diminished due to WWII, the need for workers on the home front “expanded the ranks of Americans with disabilities” (146). Therefore, we can see the difference between the two time periods; the disabled workers did not all of a sudden become more capable of working, but the social expectation for them did, and they preformed well at their jobs. The collective bargaining movement giving political power to minorities coincided with the industrial need for any worker giving disabled people “social power.”
Lastly, I would like to talk about the negative aspects of “cross-disability.” By grouping many minority groups into one single category, it often ignores the vast oppression some individuals experience. For example, a disabled African-America experience both the stigmatization for being disabled and a racial minority; however, by lumping him into one “cross-disability,” his intersectional status may not be completely represented by the goals of the mass organization. Therefore, he does not gain full agency over his complete minority status.
I want to begin by addressing Patrick’s question, “How are the alliances between disabled groups and other groups representing oppressed individuals expected (i.e. what similarities exist between the two)? Are there any interactions that seem surprising? How might these be resolved?”
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, it is important to draw attention to notions of citizenship that Nielsen artfully analyzes. Nielsen writes, “A cross-disability activist organization…pushed the argument that people with disabilities had civil rights that included access to employment, education, and all of society” (150). One of Nielsen’s effective strategies is the plethora of examples used to describe the shift in attitudes towards disability. Particularly, the World War II examples emphasize the similarities between disabled groups and other oppressed individuals that created alliances. Nielsen explains, “As men and women left private employment for government and military service during the war, and as wartime industrial needs expanded exponentially, government agencies began to encourage the employment of people with disabilities” (148). Nielsen describes how the military-industrial complex necessitated more productivity, and thus sought to integrate disabled people into industrialized society (which, given some of the previous readings, can be read as an instance of ableism by attempting to make disabled populations “productive”). Similarly, other minority populations, specifically marginalized races, became essential in the industrial society of WWII America. It comes as no surprise, then, that after the civil rights movement, disabled populations also relied on calls for employment rights and citizenship. Nielsen summarizes this argument by explaining, “Using terms such as “rights” and “discrimination,” and employing the protest methods of anti-war and racial freedom movements, people with disabilities increasingly, in the late twentieth century, demanded the opportunities and protections of full citizenship” (160).
Similarly, the discussion regarding dependency and disability mirrors the calls to end the conception of women as dependent upon men (163). With response to the second half of Patrick’s question, none of these interactions are particularly surprising given the similarities that existed between these groups of people. However, what deserves attention is the fact that disability-activism relied heavily upon previous social justice issues, such as when Nielsen writes, “disability rights movement intersected with and borrowed from the free speech, antiwar, feminist, and racial freedom movements. Many of its activists had first become activists elsewhere and then learned of the ways in which disability discrimination and oppression paralleled that of others” (168). Thus, any surprising interactions can be resolved by the newfound interest in activism that captured the spirit of the population. This activism activated agency of disabled and non-disabled populations alike, creating alliances where goals were similar, such as employment rights.
(1/2)
The last thing I want to call attention to is the fact that alliances also existed internally within disability activism movements, which was a prerequisite to the creation of cross-identity alliances in the first place. For example, Nielsen references how children with polio “became a community of necessity that was determined by place” (139). Nielsen continues, “Slowly and haltingly, activists began to argue that people with disabilities shared common experiences of stigma and discrimination, across a wide spectrum of disability” (155). The creation of solidarity and a shared sense of “disabled-identity” created the necessary criticism of status quo attitudes towards disabled people that galvanized activism in the first place. Furthermore, this internal solidarity created the foundations of alliances that grew between identity groups. For example, the discussion of the BVA elucidates how solidarity between blind veterans cultivated alliances between “both black and Jewish veterans and spoke against racism and anti-Semitism” (154). The fact that these people found a shared experience in their disability allowed them to bridge other gaps, such as race or religion, which began the foundations of alliances that grew in later years. This analysis models Albrecht’s discussion of the social model of disability. When Albrecht writs, “This conforms to the new understanding of disability as a result of the interaction between individuals and their environments,” he explains that disability as a social construction allows us to analyze the interactions between these individuals and their surroundings, which were incredibly complex and include a series of interactions among different identity groups. However, the understanding of a “shared experience of disability” only arose out of the social model of disability because that understanding emphasized the stigma that society produced rather than the simple medical aspects to disability. Thus, the shift from medical to social understandings of disability created activism that created many of the changes listed at the end of Nielsen’s essay.
ReplyDelete(2/2)
I would like to respond to Patrick’s question regarding the alliances between disabled groups and other oppressed individuals. I found these alliances very interesting considering our past discussions of how civil rights activists as well as women’s rights activists frequently based their calls for equality on the fact that they were not disabled.
ReplyDeleteNielsen discusses instances of different activist groups attempting to distance themselves from disability rights organizations, particularly the Deaf community. Nielsen notes, “Most Deaf organizations and workers … insisted that deaf people were not disabled people” (136). The attempt to distance one’s group from the disabled “emphasized their separateness as a linguistic community, their normality, and their full citizenship potential” (136). This further connects with the discussion of cross disability alliances as even groups that are generally considered disabled rejected the notion of disability in order to further their agendas. Nielsen cites Susan Burch (one of the authors we read a couple weeks ago) and that Deaf leaders “’thought they could reject the stigma of disability’ by ‘rejecting overtures from disabled activists’” (136). Coupled with our past discussions of citizenship, Nielsen further shows that advocacy groups would distance themselves from “the truly disabled” (136) to advance their own political agendas.
In a different instance Nielsen notes that groups such as the Black Panthers allied to help disability rights activists. She notes these altruistic actions such as when “The Black Panthers provided one hot meal a day” and that “The steadfastness of the Black Panthers … was moving and profound” (169). This assistance is surprising as a large amount of racial equality activists distanced themselves from disability rights groups. This assistance is also surprising considering how a Black Nationalist group was assisting a “mostly white group of people” (169). Nielsen does not fully address why the Black Panthers provided this assistance but it still proves interesting, as there was a large amount of unexpected assistance. Nielsen mentions a few people who were disabled and part of the Black Panthers, but unfortunately does not provide further analysis for why the Black Panthers assisted the almost entirely white disability activists.
These alliances are partially expected as disability rights movements drew from similar ideologies to those of racial rights and women’s rights activists. Nielsen notes this particularly in her discussion of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Noting that sit-ins “borrowed from the free speech, antiwar, feminist, and racial freedom movements” (168), Nielsen recognizes that disability rights activists relied heavily on previous attempts to gain equality for various marginalized groups. Thus coalitions and assistance between disability rights activists and groups such as the Black Panthers are not too surprising as they used similar rhetoric and frequently had the same goals of promoting equality. This most likely contributed to some of the assistance discussed above, but it is impossible to draw a definitive conclusion on this matter due to a lack of evidence that directly shows how rhetoric reminiscent of the civil rights activism led to assistance in the Section 504 protests.
Intersectional instances of oppression and marginalization also point to reasons for why these alliances may have emerged. Nielsen notes that “rape support services were generally inaccessible to women with disabilities” and that stereotypes and cultural conceptions of disability made “it hard for the average person to accept the fact or even imagine that handicapped people are raped and beaten” (177,178). Sexual and physical abuse of disabled women gave rise to “coalition[s] of police, feminist activists, disability activists, county attorneys, and social workers” (178). Noting intersectional issues of oppression fostered coalitions between groups and made great strides to improve the lives of disabled people, as feminist movements began to recognize the suffering of disabled women and worked to help resolve these instances of oppression. These alliances also could have possibly overcome the previous instances of women’s rights activists distancing themselves from disability rights as they could now have an analysis of disability that did not only focus on men. The coalitions were successful and eventually helped change the laws regarding sexual assault in 1982 (178).
DeleteI think the question about FDR’s actions and his outward responses to disability and his administration's responses to disability is very interesting. Nielsen very prominently makes the point that while FDR actively hid his disability from the public eye while he was in office and when he was not in office his administration enacted policies that raised funds for polio prevention and treatment (140). Nielsen uses the treatment facility of warm springs as an example of when disability, racism, and elitism intersect. While FDR felt comfortable openly acknowledging his disability at warm springs it was a place only accessible to the elite. The charity that FDR advocated for and the march of dimes was also heavily entrenched in racial prejudice against african american citizens and did not provide them with treatment from polio while providing treatment for white, particularly upper class, citizens. This is a good example of why FDR’s and his administration’s relationship to disability is quite complicated.
ReplyDelete(Mr. Kogan always references Kyle’s project when he talks about FDR and I decided to use the source in this because I think it provides an interesting analysis of FDR’s relationship to rehabilitation) In another book about American Disability history by Paul K. Longmore and David Goldberger they talk more in depth about FDR’s relationship to disability and rehabilitation. The Longmore and Goldberger book talks about how FDR endorsed a policy within his new deal act that classified handicapped people as unable to be productive and could be legitimately denied from access to work (916). He reinforced a system in which physical rehabilitation was a central tenant in reintegrating disabled people into society. It was one of the forms of rehabilitation that Albrecht highlights as being very problematic. That idea of rehabilitation, which is deeply integrated into the medical model of conceptualizing disability relies on the idea that the goal of treating someone who is defined as disabled is to make them “normal” again (149). FDR himself actively participated in strenuous physical therapy and a dogged effort to conceal his disability from the american people (917).
Then there is the problematic concept of assuming that because FDR is disabled his policies would have been inclusive to disability at all. I think that an analysis of FDR’s identity as one solely based upon his disability is quite problematic. It oversimplifies his identity in a way that is also ableist.
I too would like to address Patrick's question regarding FDR. I would also like to discuss the points made by several of my peers. I do agree that FDR's identity and relationship to disability is very complicated. However, I don't think Patrick's question is about whether or not FDR "betrayed" his identity. Rather, I think we ought to view it in the context of why these incongruities occurred in the first place. I think that both Albrecht and Nielsen discuss these.
ReplyDeleteFDR's attendance at the Warm Springs center ought to be viewed less as a house of privilege and more as an example of a community based rehabilitation center. Nielsen outlines the litany of benefits provided by Warm Springs: "architectural accessibility... thermal hot springs eased bodies... the rich community... no one stared. At Warm Springs, wheelchairs and assistive devices were the routine" (140). Albrecht describes nearly identical features in his analysis of CBRs when he describes amenities such as access to scooters, communal support, and independent lifestyles (149). I would argues that the Warm Springs facility exemplifies the CBR, for it provided a space in which disabled individuals could join together and find strength in their disability. It is hard to argue that FDR only felt comfortable acknowledging his disability at Warm Springs because it was a place of privilege, for, if that were the case, it seems that he would have been willing to do so outside of the center. Thus, one ought to understand FDR's willingness to be open about his disability in Warm Springs as an example of the benefits and comfort provided by these community based methods of rehabilitation.
While the segregated nature of Warm Springs, march of dimes, and other policies FDR enforced are clear examples of the need for intersection, one cannot place the blame upon FDR himself. As Nielsen indicates, it was not until movements such as the BVA and the later disability rights movement emerged, did disabled individuals truly analyze the intersections between disability, sexism and racism (156). FDR was not a participant in the disability rights movement, and thus he did not have the strong support seen in the later half of the 20th century. Instead, disability movements assumed a hierarchy of disability and failed to accept a unified experience that all disabled individuals encountered. As Nielsen notes, it was not until the emergence of cross-disability communities and movements did disabled individuals think "of themselves as having a shared experience and common goals- regardless of variations in their... disabilities, and regardless of their race, class, sexual, and gender differences" (180). Therefore, FDR's incongruities emerged from a lack of communal support and a lack of "disability pride." Roosevelt lived in a time in which disability was still framed as a hinderance. It was only when the cross-disability civil rights movement emerged that people found strength in their disability on a mass level.
Today I would like to answer Patrick’s question: “What qualities of black lung disease and the mining community in its entirety facilitated the unique composition of the BLA?” I felt that the qualities that created the consequences of black lung disease were the most important factor in the distinctive structure of the BLA was the inevitable nature of black lung disease and other disabilities caused by the “hazardous” (Nielsen, 158) conditions of coal mining. Rather than seeking original employment like many other of the disability right groups many of the men and widows who made up the BLA were or had husbands who were formerly employed as miners. Despite the “mining companies’ long medical coverup” (Nielsen, 159) of black lung disease, these men had discovered that coal mining caused black lung disease and wanted benefits and health care for being put in harm’s way by coal companies. This contrasts with other groups because other disability rights groups opposed the idea of receiving support or welfare they just wanted equal opportunity. Coal miners had originally obtained equal opportunity; however, were no longer able to work in their chosen profession leading them to form a different structure to other disabled rights groups. Another difference was that unlike other groups the BLA had no reason to fight for social equality die to the fact that there was an established community for disabled coal miners formed by bonds in an employment where “the rate of serious injury among miners was at least eight times higher than the death rate” (Nielsen, 158). THis high chance of becoming disabled created a community where being disabled was the “norm” similar to the communities before the industrial revolution. Also the BLA had some intersectionality with race because when benefits were cut back the group of activists who protested this action were “predominantly African American and female”(Nielsen, 159). This indicates that the reasoning behind the choices of whose benefits got cut might have targeted groups that not only had an ignored collective voice but also had less rights and were seen as having less power.
ReplyDeleteI would like to speak to Patrick's question how are the alliances between disabled groups and other groups representing oppressed individuals expected (i.e. what similarities exist between the two)? Are there any interactions that seem surprising? How might these be resolved?
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between disabled groups and other groups representing oppressed individuals is tricky, because often times both civil rights activist groups excluded members of its allied groups. This was initially true of disabled groups that were highly based on white and economic privilege and excluded people of color. Nielsen shows how this exclusion occurred in the National Fraternal Society of the Deaf and the National Association of the Deaf, “both organizations were initially predominantly white exclusionary” (134). He explains how from deaf African Americans’ perspective, deaf leaders choice to reject alliances with disabled activists was thought to be a privileged folly (136). Groups of people who were largely oppressed were often not welcomed by disabled groups because it weakened their chances for political and social success. This phenomenon has occurred numerous times throughout history, for example the Women’s Suffrage movement was almost exclusively white women, so it is surprising that the collaborations of opposing groups (disability and race) became allies. However, it is not surprising that the alliance between different groups strengthened each group individually, because each group was fighting against a different form of oppression so all those forms of oppression became less stigmatized; therefore, opening the doors of each civil rights group and expanding their power in numbers.
Nielsen uses the Section 504 sit-in to show the success of intersectionality among different movements. Nielsen explains, "The Section 504 sit-in exemplifies the ways in which the disability rights movement intersected with and borrowed from the free speech, antiwar, feminist, and racial freedom movements. Many of its activists had first become activists elsewhere, and then learned of the ways in which disability discrimination and oppression paralleled that of others" (168). Although this quote is long, it perfectly reveals how different movements worked together and supported each other, which benefited all groups. Additionally, the success of the alliances among groups is due to the intersectionality within all of these issues; in other words it was likely large portions of groups were affected by multiple forms of oppression, not just one.
Delete