|
How negative rhetoric toward disabled people has a harmful record
By Noelle Pacl (as originally published in Kitsap Sun) |
|
“I have a question. Is it possible to just put him in a home for retards?”
“He’s honestly a burden financially and to society…”
These are just two of many comments and DMs I’ve received on my social media platform about my child, who is profoundly disabled. These types of comments used to be rare, but since January they’ve become more frequent. More people seem to feel emboldened to use harmful language like this, especially as certain public figures and government leaders have started using similar rhetoric regularly.
In the United States, some political discussions have started framing disabled people as “burdens” on society or “too expensive” to support. These kinds of statements argue that the cost of providing services and benefits for disabled individuals is too high. This overlooks the immense value disabled people bring to society through their contributions in the workforce, advocacy, volunteering, and building stronger and more compassionate communities. It also ignores that many of the challenges disabled individuals face — like inaccessibility, discrimination, and lack of healthcare — are the result of societal failures, not their disabilities.
When public figures and politicians use harmful language, it influences how the rest of our society views disabled individuals. It sends the message that they are not as valuable as others and that it’s okay to exclude them or treat them as liabilities. This rhetoric can shape public policies in areas like healthcare, social security, special education, and employment protections, leading to a focus away from the needs of disabled people. This type of language not only harms disabled individuals in tangible ways, but it also reflects a deep moral concern. When adults use harmful language in the presence of children, it teaches disrespect and reinforces negative stereotypes. It normalizes stigma and discrimination, shaping children to view disabled people as objects of ridicule rather than respect. Adults, especially parents, play a pivotal role in shaping children's values, and using such language undermines the development of empathy and kindness. As adults, we should model respectful language.
The recent rhetoric echoes the harmful views of the past. It's important to understand the history behind the harmful language and attitudes towards disabled people that led to exclusion, mistreatment, and the violation of basic human rights, and why we have to stay alert to prevent these patterns from repeating.
The word "retard" is frowned upon today because it has been historically used in a derogatory and dehumanizing way toward people with intellectual disabilities. It was once used as a clinical term to describe certain cognitive impairments, but over time, it became associated with mocking, bullying, and stereotyping disabled individuals. When used in casual conversation, it's often meant as an insult or to belittle someone. It began to be recognized as unacceptable in the late 20th century as organizations and activists pushed for more respectful language. By the 2010s, it was widely recognized as derogatory, and using it casually was deemed inappropriate in most contexts. Even though it may not always be intended to be hurtful, it has a long history of being used in ways that are damaging and disrespectful.
In the 19th century and continued well into the 20th century, medical professionals often used dehumanizing language to marginalize disabled children, labeling them as "feebleminded," "unfit," or "burdens." Disabled children were often institutionalized, hidden away from society, and seen as incapable of making meaningful contributions to the world. After many years the U.S. found it to be more cost-effective and beneficial to keep disabled children in their families rather than institutionalizing them. This shift started gaining momentum in the 1960s and 1970s, as awareness grew about the negative effects of institutionalization, such as social isolation and lack of personal development. Studies showed that disabled children often thrived in family and community-based settings, with more opportunities for social interaction, education, and a higher quality of life. The move toward inclusion was seen as more cost-effective but most importantly it is more humane and supportive for children's overall development. Disability inclusion isn’t a cost — it’s an investment in creating a better, more equitable society for everyone.
Another painful example of how language can strip people of their humanity can be found in the events of Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 1940s. The Nazis used derogatory terms and harmful rhetoric to justify the mass murder of disabled individuals. The regime painted disabled people as a threat to the country’s health and well-being. They were called "useless eaters," "burdens," and "drains on society." The Nazis even coined the term "life unworthy of life" (“lebensunwertes Leben”) to describe people with disabilities, implying they had no value. In 1939, the T4 Program was launched — a state-approved plan to euthanize tens of thousands of disabled individuals, including both children and adults.
The language used by the Nazis dehumanized disabled people, making it easier for the public to ignore or even participate in their murder. It is a reminder of how words can be twisted to justify horrible actions. The similar harmful language historically used in the U.S. continues to pose a threat, reinforcing patterns of exclusion and discrimination. By continuing to see disabled people as burdens and less than, we’re heading down a dangerous path that could strip away their rights and protections.
This is not about policing language or being “woke.” The language we use shapes our attitudes and actions. We have to speak out against harmful rhetoric. By learning from the past and ensuring that we do not repeat its mistakes we can work toward a society where all people are valued and included.
“He’s honestly a burden financially and to society…”
These are just two of many comments and DMs I’ve received on my social media platform about my child, who is profoundly disabled. These types of comments used to be rare, but since January they’ve become more frequent. More people seem to feel emboldened to use harmful language like this, especially as certain public figures and government leaders have started using similar rhetoric regularly.
In the United States, some political discussions have started framing disabled people as “burdens” on society or “too expensive” to support. These kinds of statements argue that the cost of providing services and benefits for disabled individuals is too high. This overlooks the immense value disabled people bring to society through their contributions in the workforce, advocacy, volunteering, and building stronger and more compassionate communities. It also ignores that many of the challenges disabled individuals face — like inaccessibility, discrimination, and lack of healthcare — are the result of societal failures, not their disabilities.
When public figures and politicians use harmful language, it influences how the rest of our society views disabled individuals. It sends the message that they are not as valuable as others and that it’s okay to exclude them or treat them as liabilities. This rhetoric can shape public policies in areas like healthcare, social security, special education, and employment protections, leading to a focus away from the needs of disabled people. This type of language not only harms disabled individuals in tangible ways, but it also reflects a deep moral concern. When adults use harmful language in the presence of children, it teaches disrespect and reinforces negative stereotypes. It normalizes stigma and discrimination, shaping children to view disabled people as objects of ridicule rather than respect. Adults, especially parents, play a pivotal role in shaping children's values, and using such language undermines the development of empathy and kindness. As adults, we should model respectful language.
The recent rhetoric echoes the harmful views of the past. It's important to understand the history behind the harmful language and attitudes towards disabled people that led to exclusion, mistreatment, and the violation of basic human rights, and why we have to stay alert to prevent these patterns from repeating.
The word "retard" is frowned upon today because it has been historically used in a derogatory and dehumanizing way toward people with intellectual disabilities. It was once used as a clinical term to describe certain cognitive impairments, but over time, it became associated with mocking, bullying, and stereotyping disabled individuals. When used in casual conversation, it's often meant as an insult or to belittle someone. It began to be recognized as unacceptable in the late 20th century as organizations and activists pushed for more respectful language. By the 2010s, it was widely recognized as derogatory, and using it casually was deemed inappropriate in most contexts. Even though it may not always be intended to be hurtful, it has a long history of being used in ways that are damaging and disrespectful.
In the 19th century and continued well into the 20th century, medical professionals often used dehumanizing language to marginalize disabled children, labeling them as "feebleminded," "unfit," or "burdens." Disabled children were often institutionalized, hidden away from society, and seen as incapable of making meaningful contributions to the world. After many years the U.S. found it to be more cost-effective and beneficial to keep disabled children in their families rather than institutionalizing them. This shift started gaining momentum in the 1960s and 1970s, as awareness grew about the negative effects of institutionalization, such as social isolation and lack of personal development. Studies showed that disabled children often thrived in family and community-based settings, with more opportunities for social interaction, education, and a higher quality of life. The move toward inclusion was seen as more cost-effective but most importantly it is more humane and supportive for children's overall development. Disability inclusion isn’t a cost — it’s an investment in creating a better, more equitable society for everyone.
Another painful example of how language can strip people of their humanity can be found in the events of Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 1940s. The Nazis used derogatory terms and harmful rhetoric to justify the mass murder of disabled individuals. The regime painted disabled people as a threat to the country’s health and well-being. They were called "useless eaters," "burdens," and "drains on society." The Nazis even coined the term "life unworthy of life" (“lebensunwertes Leben”) to describe people with disabilities, implying they had no value. In 1939, the T4 Program was launched — a state-approved plan to euthanize tens of thousands of disabled individuals, including both children and adults.
The language used by the Nazis dehumanized disabled people, making it easier for the public to ignore or even participate in their murder. It is a reminder of how words can be twisted to justify horrible actions. The similar harmful language historically used in the U.S. continues to pose a threat, reinforcing patterns of exclusion and discrimination. By continuing to see disabled people as burdens and less than, we’re heading down a dangerous path that could strip away their rights and protections.
This is not about policing language or being “woke.” The language we use shapes our attitudes and actions. We have to speak out against harmful rhetoric. By learning from the past and ensuring that we do not repeat its mistakes we can work toward a society where all people are valued and included.
Noelle Pacl is a mother, Navy spouse, and advocate dedicated to raising awareness about Sanfilippo Syndrome. Through her social media and nonprofit work, she supports caregivers, disabled individuals, and military families.
