Remember the very first time you were scolded for calling someone "stupid", "idiot" or "dumb(y)"? And as the years progressed you were scolded for calling those with mental handicaps "retarded"? I do.
It's hard to imagine a time when these words were commonly used to refer to those with mental handicaps. The use of these words was so common, that in at least eight state constitutions (New Jersey, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico and Ohio) the words "idiot" or "insane" appear to describe those with limited mental capacity--in order to keep them from voting.
In New Jersey's case, this was adopted into the Constitution in 1844--it is now 2007. It has taken more than a century and a half for New Jersey to finally decide to put the use of these words to the ballot. Advocates for the disabled contend the use of these words because it's inaccurate--not every disabled individual is mentally incapacitated--and have pushed to have these words replaced with those "lack[ing] the capacity to understand the act of voting".
New Jersey's story is a happy ending, but what about New Mexico. Their "...voters in 2002 rejected a plan to remove "idiots" and "insane persons" from that state's Constitution by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent"?
It just goes to show, how hard it is to strike certain words from our vocabulary, especially when we aren't the ones being insulted by it.
It's hard to imagine a time when these words were commonly used to refer to those with mental handicaps. The use of these words was so common, that in at least eight state constitutions (New Jersey, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico and Ohio) the words "idiot" or "insane" appear to describe those with limited mental capacity--in order to keep them from voting.
In New Jersey's case, this was adopted into the Constitution in 1844--it is now 2007. It has taken more than a century and a half for New Jersey to finally decide to put the use of these words to the ballot. Advocates for the disabled contend the use of these words because it's inaccurate--not every disabled individual is mentally incapacitated--and have pushed to have these words replaced with those "lack[ing] the capacity to understand the act of voting".
New Jersey's story is a happy ending, but what about New Mexico. Their "...voters in 2002 rejected a plan to remove "idiots" and "insane persons" from that state's Constitution by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent"?
It just goes to show, how hard it is to strike certain words from our vocabulary, especially when we aren't the ones being insulted by it.
~1~
.jpg)
3 comments:
In their original context, were these words as insulting? Or were they relative to the terminology of the day?
I can't believe there are still so many who haven't fixed this language.
I agree with Joe in wondering what the original context is for the words. I have to disagree with the idea of "banning" these words. I don't think it is feasible or practical, by any means. I believe we all know through personal experience that teenagers make up words with whatever meaning they want. If they really want to say something negative , they will. Other than that, how heavy of ramifications do you think there are because of these words? Do you think there could be some other source for the problems? Do you think identifying a word as a "bad word" causes it to be more memorable and make the impact more significant?
Interesting post and discussion. It would be nice to hear more about the history and context of these issues, and what other experts have to say about it! What are the potential consequences for leaving these terms in a state constitution?
Post a Comment