Let's Talk About Words...

 Greetings,

Some will ask why this is not in my Olde Wordes blog, you will be given that answer in the not too distant future. In some ways it really should be in that blog as this has been forgotten and has been relegated to a part of our language's history. This all being said, I am likely to make myself unpopular with some of my readers, though this blog doesn't get particularly many of those. In any case, I hope that you will bear with me until the end...

I will state that political correctness as a concept is a good idea, we should be concerned with how we address people, and be concerned for other's feelings, but there is a point at which this becomes ridiculous. I have spoken about the difficulties of being a gentleman in this modern age. I am a humanist, which means I believe in the true equality of every human to live a happy life, doing what they enjoy so long as it does not impinge on the happiness of another human being. I believe that everyone can be better, and I strive to be so.

I do not want to turn back the system. No, I want people to be treated equally, as human beings. To be given what they need, as human beings. I do not care for divisions of race, nor religion, nor culture, nor ethnicity, nor sexuality, nor gender, nor ability; such differences are simply the definitions of human diversity, and we must appreciate them all. With that all said, let's talk about a word...

To be precise, let's talk about part of a word, a suffix no less, that being, "-man." (Yes, I know I have stepped into hot water already.) Some would have this removed entirely, some would have all instances changed to "-person" to make it genderless. 

I say that the word is already genderless, just like in the word "human", one of my favourite words.

The Latin root of "-man-" has nothing to do with gender, in fact it has nothing even to do with an individual. The Latin root meaning is "hand". This is where we get words like "manual", "manage" and "manufacture", among many other words. This Latin root then links to the suffix "-man" because it is the hand performs the operation, that performs tasks.

The suffix "-man" means "person who operates, performs, or does something" this means that the "-man" in all these words is already genderless, there is no reason to change it.

(For your reference: https://www.wordreference.com/definition/man)

In my opinion, the changing of "-man" to "-person" and other such changes is a "knee-jerk" reaction to the presence of the word "man" being present, which offends some people who are looking to be offended. These people will claim that the presence of such words perpetuates the patriarchy which has perpetuated through history. I think it is a result of people being over-zealous about the language without understanding the origins of the language, without understanding its history.

The same knee-jerk reactions can be seen across language where language has been softened to lessen its impact against groups. We could examine the progression of "shell-shock" to "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" as an example; I have already spoken about language regarding disabilities. Many of these changes have been done without consultation of the individuals who will be affected by these changes, then backed by "politically-astute" or "politically-conscious" individuals so they pass through community requirements so they become accepted.

The more we consciously divide humanity, and continue to do so, the more these rifts will appear. The more these rifts appear, the more people will use these rifts will be used against us to keep us separated. While we are all being kept separated, distracted by the spelling and pronunciation of words, or how they are used, real changes are being affected in our world. Some of these changes we cannot undo once they are done.

Who benefits from people being separated by religion? Who benefits from people being separated by race? Who benefits from being being separated by gender? Who benefits from people being separated by disability? These are the questions that need to be answered, not about the differences. The differences are what make us special, they create the diversity in humanity, and are our strength. They allow us to see the world from different perspectives; if we can only see how we can work together, we might be able to solve the important problems in the world, problems facing humanity. Not problems facing one division of humanity.

Cheers,

Henry.

"Privilege": Its Meaning and Application

 Greetings,

The subject of "privilege" is one that I am loathe to talk about because everyone has a certain amount of privilege depending on how you look at the terms and the definition which is applied to it. However in the context of the socio-cultural and socio-political context which has been placed upon the term, the definition is more specific, indeed it will have a definition which appears something like below:

"If you talk about privilege, you are talking about the power and advantage that only a small group of people have, usually because of their wealth or their high social class."

This definition is one which was taken from the Collins English Dictionary. This is one of those words which people have added special meaning, indeed it is not actually the word "privilege" they are talking about they are talking about "social privilege". It is likely that for convenience the first word "social" was dropped because it was understood in context, and then the new one was picked up and used so the definition of privilege was changed to have this new definition.

A privilege is simply something that another person or group does not possess, and this can vary over many different things. It was previously stated that everyone is privileged and this is true. Here are some simple statements: 

Everyone is privileged to have been born and survived that event, there are those who do not. So, People are privileged to be alive. 

People are privileged if they do not have a disability. 

People are privileged if they do not have some sort of illness, chronic or acute. 

People are privileged to have regular meals each day, or even to eat once a day. 

People are privileged to have clothes to wear, more so if those clothes are clean. 

There are those who have homes and those who do not, those who do are privileged. The more privileged people own the homes that they live in.

Social Privilege is something else which goes on top of these privileges. These privileges focus on the  social differences between individuals and also highlight some of the differences between individuals which may differ in the privileges which have already been highlighted. The purpose of this concept is to show which group of people stands above or below, and more often than not below, another group of people. Most often this is so the people who are above can be denigrated for their lack of empathy for those below, however often there are circumstances that are unknown and this is used as a simple tool for some social advantage, for the purposes of virtue signalling more than showing some actual social injustice being present. Simply put, everyone has their story, and it is not completely known to everyone.

The concept is supposed to highlight social injustice for the purposes of correcting the injustice, bringing things so there is more equality. Instead the concept is now used as a convenient stick to beat any person who has a disagreement, or who has a different point of view. Most often it is used as a convenient stick when a social issue seems to have been being ignored, even if the individual has no opinion or is unaffected by it, and most often by individuals who do not reflect upon their "privilege".

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation monthly to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

A Statement About Words

 Greetings,

There is a subject that I have not broached before and I believe it is time, especially with all the talk about Inclusivity being thrown about. I am going to be specific about some words and how I feel about them. In regard to some words I am going to make a statement about how I would prefer to be addressed, in much the same way as a person of a different gender might, but we must discuss this so my intent here is clear.

First, I have no intention of belittling the importance of those of different gender expressing themselves. I believe that every human being has a right to a good and happy life, regardless of their situation. This is regardless of their gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic position, or any other way some interest group may decide to divide people. Part of this is expressing themselves and being known in the way that they prefer, appropriate to their situation. 

Second, those individuals who are not progressive enough to accept change in society, who are so dogged they would prefer to hold on to old ideals, old ways of doing things, there are many historical examples that could be cited which resulted in the fall of these societies due to them not changing with the times. We must move with the times and change as they change, accept what cannot be changed, change what can be changed, and be wise enough to know the difference.

Thirdly, in the pursuit of Inclusivity, as I have previously spoken, society has not done the fine job that it has thought it has, because there is a group of individuals who has been left behind. Maybe it is because they were recognised previously, in laws and so forth, but they are still marginalised. I speak of those with disabilities. To call a society "inclusive" means that consideration has been made for the disabled as well, which for the most part aside from some access changes and statements made, it has not. To achieve this the inherent ableism in the system must be removed.

Fourthly, changing the word does not change the situation, it does not soften the situation that the individual is in. Previously people were called "handicapped", then "disabled", now some call such individuals "differently abled", all in some measure to soften the words. To soften them so the people can be pushed aside, as though they have been dealt with, so people can feel better about themselves. No. The term is inaccurate and offensive.

Here is my statement: I do not accept the definition as "differently abled". I refuse to be called such and find such a term offensive in its nature. Has a person suddenly gained some different ability due to their disability? No. The term is inaccurate, the term is offensive. I am disabled, a part of my person does not function as well as it does in a "normal" human being, this is the accurate term.

Fifthly, I will continue to raise these points and complain in this fashion about the use of such words and their inaccuracies until they are fixed, or until the system truly is inclusive as it claims to be.

Lastly, in regards to "identification" I would most prefer to be referred to as a human being first, as it is the most important characteristic I possess. It is a term of unity. I am a #humanbeingfirst. The divisions weaken us, distract us from the unity which we could all have together. I know that I am one voice, mostly unread on this blog raging into the wind, but it is a cry that I will maintain. It is our only hope to survive. #humanbeingfirst

Regards,

Henry Walker

Identifying Feature

Greetings,

People are described to one another using their identifying features. We do not get to choose how we are described to a third party, that is up to the person doing the describing. This post discusses the different identifying features that we may be described by and looks at how they may, or may not, describe who we are. Some descriptions are accurate, some are not, some features used are appropriate, some are not. This question goes to who we are as human beings.

How do you think someone would describe you? What identifying features do you think a person would use to differentiate you from the next person in the crowd? Consider this and you begin to consider how you are perceived by other people. Just think according to this, you are a list of identifying features, at least until you meet and talk with the individual, and then that list may or may not grow.

Consider a police description of an individual that they are seeking. Sex, racial profile, height, hair cut, hair colour, clothing; then there are any distinguishing marks or features, here they are talking about scars, tattoos, whether they were wearing glasses, difference in gait, method of speech, posture and so forth. Here is another list by which an individual can be defined, is this what defines them, is this who they are?

Each individual can be defined by a simple list of characteristics, a list of boxes that can be ticked or not ticked as the case may be. The same process is used for the medical profession to describe a patient and their symptoms, again they are looking for the identifying features of the malady which the individual is suffering from so they can help them, but first there are other details that are required. These details are personal details, more so than the police description. Anyone who has been to see a medical professional has a file about them listing physical characteristics, maybe this is who we are?

Then there are social characteristics and identifying features that can be identified to highlight one person from the other. Have a look at any survey and you will find a list of questions designed to put a person under a list of characteristics for classification. Gender, age, occupation, these are some very basic ones. If we go deeper then there are family questions, brother, sister, daughter, son, orphan. Even more there are cousin, grandchild, each is a defining characteristic. Friend, enemy, nationality, social class, expanding out into the wider world. Do these things define who we are?

How about titles and ranks? These are also identifying features. Doctor, captain, colonel, general, knight, each of these is a title which is linked to something in the wider world. Some of these titles are earned some of theme are bestowed, given by someone else's decree, because you were thought to be worthy. Worthy because something among your characteristics has reached their ears, and allowed them to make a determination that you deserve to be known, separated from others, separated from the "mere" Mr, Mrs, Ms, and Mx. Do these titles define who we are?  

Maybe we are defined by a combination of all these identifying features all coming together and other elements not mentioned. We are more than a person of a particular race, a person of a particular gender, a person of a particular educational level, a person of a particular occupational status, a person of a particular religious status. We are all human beings first and foremost, and this is what people forget the most easily. Beyond all of these "features" there is a core individual; a human being. Should this not be our first identifying feature and our first concern? Should we not be defined by what sort of human being we are to others?

Cheers,

Henry

When Inclusivity Isn't... (Part 2)

Greetings,

The following is some additional notes following from my previous post about "inclusivity". Many of the same themes are present in this post as in this previous article, hence this one has been named as a "Part 2". There is a closer examination of the concept of "inclusivity" and how it is treated and presented. Further there is a demonstration where there have been distinct failures in inclusivity, especially in its approach.

When the word "inclusivity" comes up, sexuality, race, are the two prime ones that are remembered. Disability rarely gets a thought. It is as though, this problem has been taken care of, and doesn't need any attention anymore, the others require more attention. Well, people with disabilities are not going away.

What is Inclusivity?

To begin with there is an examination of what "inclusivity" actually is, what it concerns, the definition of the term. From here there is a foundation to build on from a perspective of common understanding. To begin with here are some dictionary definitions:

From the Cambridge English Dictionary:

noun, "the fact of including all types of people, things or ideas and treating them all fairly and equally:" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inclusivity).

A simple definition which is intended to allow the inclusion of all people equally and fairly. A noble concept in its ideas, but not very specific. It is a simple idea that everyone should be treated fairly, regardless, a very human principle really and one which should be at the foundation of all ideas of interaction, but which is sadly lacking.

From the Collins English Dictionary:

noun, "the fact or policy of not excluding members or participants on the grounds of gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, etc" (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/inclusivity).

This definition brings up the idea of not excluding people on the grounds of various differences that people might have. Here the opposite idea, exclusion is deliberately negated in the definition of inclusion of people, an important point to make, which was missing from the previous. This one also highlights some of the grounds by which a person may be excluded.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

noun, "The practice or policy of providing equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those having physical or intellectual disabilities or belonging to other minority groups." (https://www.lexico.com/definition/inclusivity) 

Like the previous Collins, it specifies groups that might be discriminated against, but this definition imposes the requirement of people providing equal access and opportunity to the marginalised groups. Here, rather than it being a passive thing that should be done, it is an active process that needs to be followed.

The subtle differences in each definition are important as they show the focus of the definition and show a different focus of the group that wrote the definition. The Cambridge definition focuses on fair treatment for all; a very open definition with no discussion of who might be excluded, just that all should be treated fairly. The Collins definition brought the idea of exclusion, and groups of people who might be excluded; a reverse definition "not excluding" people. The Oxford was pro-active even more so than the Cambridge, not only fair treatment, but provision of services. In a way when a person uses the word inclusivity, it depends on which one they mean.

Inclusion

To add to these definitions is the idea of inclusion. According to the Diversity Council of Australia (DCA), inclusion, the result of inclusivity, is defined as follows:

"Inclusion occurs when a diversity of people (e.g. of different ages, cultural backgrounds, genders) feel valued and respected, have access to opportunities and resources, and can contribute their perspectives and talents to improve their organisation." (https://www.dca.org.au/topics/inclusion)

So this idea of inclusion is the goal of inclusivity it would seem, the inclusion of "a diversity of people" into a group and when they feel that they are "valued and respected, have access to opportunities and resources, and can contribute their perspectives and talents to improve their organisation." This is the  goal of inclusivity at least according to the DCA. 

I would say that according to this definition of inclusion we are quite a way off yet in society in general because there are still barriers for those with disabilities to engage, access, and be valued as individuals with worth. People with disabilities are still viewed as their disability first, then as people second. A problem, rather than a potential asset. How far does the inclusivity extend to those with disabilities? Not just physical, but mental disabilities. Not just the visible, but the invisible as well. 

Who is to be included, and how much?

There is often discussions about racial and sexual issues, but very little when it comes to disabilities. People stand proud about being associated with a person with sexual issues, they stand proud when there is some race related issue, even in another country. When it comes to an issue related to disabilities people shrug their shoulders, they think it is all too hard for them.

"Pride Month" happened this year in June, and there were notes of support about being free to express your sexuality and flags waved all over the place. "Disability Pride Month" occurred the month later, nothing.

There have been improvements: ramps, Braille notifications, some improvements in Public Health, but as far as representation goes, the disabled population is lagging behind. In Australia, the NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) has helped some, and left a lot behind, because of the endless paperwork and the seeming policy of instantly rejecting the first claim, regardless of the evidence. Just to get rid of those who are not willing to push their claims through, to go the extra steps to be heard. The NDIS doesn't spend its budget, because the claims get denied.

The Paralympics have helped the profile of disabled people, but they are forgotten, and forgotten in a big way in some instances. Here are two articles to show you how: "David Weir: Disability sports being 'forgotten' between Paralympics" and "Rio 2016: 'A lot of Paralympians are forgotten about'". If you're really interested in this particular topic, I recommend watching "Rising Phoenix" on Netflix about some of the history of the Paralympics and some of the issues that it has been through along with some of the amazing stories of the Paralympians.

Social Group Policies

There are many social and sporting groups which now claim that they are inclusive, that they have "Inclusivity Policies" as a part of the organisational documents of their organisation. So far there has been a lot done for people in regard to accepting people with different sexuality, race, religion, even politics in some instances. When it comes to disabilities, this is the breaking point. So long as the government regulations are followed, they believe that they are covered. But is this really enough, is this really the inclusivity that they claim?

Here's a simple question if you're in a social or sporting group, if a person with a disability approaches your group and wants to join, and fully participate, what is your first response? Is it to consider all the problems, or is it to consider the possible solutions?

If your answer is to instantly claim that there are too many issues for the person with disabilities to engage in the social or sporting group, then I would claim that your claim of inclusivity is "convenient inclusivity" because it does not require any expenditure of energy on your part.

If on the other hand, you are willing to do your best, see exactly what the individual can and cannot do, see if it is possible for them to engage safely with the group, then you are being inclusive. Then it is not inclusivity of convenience. There are activities which people with certain disabilities cannot participate, but you will not find out what they can participate in if you do not try, and that is all people with disabilities want. They want to have a go, they want people to try and help them fit in.

What can you do?

For true inclusivity all the groups must be included in equal measure. Examine the definition of "Inclusion" as defined by the DCA and you will find that in many instances people with disabilities are lagging behind in a big way. This is primarily due to archaic approaches to disabilities, with the approach of seeing what the disabled cannot, rather than what they can do. 

A simple examination of blind sport will show that people with that disability are involved in many different sports including, fencing, archery, cricket, golf, judo and shooting. A simple examination of the wide variety of sports participated in at the Paralympics will show the many different sports individuals with disabilities can play and to what capacity they can involve themselves. 

When it comes to people with disabilities it should not be a question of what they cannot do but what they can do. This is the only way that we will ever get near the lofty ideals of the idea of "inclusivity" and "inclusion" as they are defined. Start looking at the person as a human being, not as their disability, or their sexuality, or their race or any other feature. See what they have in common with you, this is the way forward.

Cheers,

Henry.