In my last post, I responded to the news article discussing the use of "idiot" and "insane" in several state constitutions. Notably, I did not discuss the context of the time period in which the words were used because I assumed (unfortunately) that it would be understood that those words were acceptable in reference to 1844. However, it is 2007. To use the words "idiot" and "insane" to describe someone with mental handicaps is a.) not politically correct and b.) not correct at all in most instances. Not all mentally handicapped individuals have the mental capabilities of a two year old (as defined by the word idiot) and not all are insane--as defined by having a serious mental disorder that leaves them selective perceptive.
The problem with these words is the overarching way it is used to deem a minority of Americans. This minority includes those that only have physical disabilities such as quadriplegia--quadriplegics are fully capable of voting, they might not have the mobility to do so. And if we're going to discuss insanity--why are those deemed criminal insane, still allowed to vote?
This is not just a problem of “teenagers’ mak[ing] up words with whatever meaning they want”, especially in this case; adults are the ones finding offense with this word. The ramifications of using words like this in the 21st century are reflective upon American ideals and what we deem appropriate. We, whether or not we believe it or like to be defined as such, are the world's role model--a role model who must constantly improve itself and fix its faults.
Furthermore by using these words, we disenfranchise a larger group than originally meant in 1844. It's not just about these two words being "bad" words; it's about the fact that these words offend in the context of the 21st century. Originally, it obviously wasn't meant to cause injury, but now that it does cause injury--let's not be afraid of change. That's all it really comes down to. We must never be afraid to change, especially in ways that make us better.
The problem with these words is the overarching way it is used to deem a minority of Americans. This minority includes those that only have physical disabilities such as quadriplegia--quadriplegics are fully capable of voting, they might not have the mobility to do so. And if we're going to discuss insanity--why are those deemed criminal insane, still allowed to vote?
This is not just a problem of “teenagers’ mak[ing] up words with whatever meaning they want”, especially in this case; adults are the ones finding offense with this word. The ramifications of using words like this in the 21st century are reflective upon American ideals and what we deem appropriate. We, whether or not we believe it or like to be defined as such, are the world's role model--a role model who must constantly improve itself and fix its faults.
Furthermore by using these words, we disenfranchise a larger group than originally meant in 1844. It's not just about these two words being "bad" words; it's about the fact that these words offend in the context of the 21st century. Originally, it obviously wasn't meant to cause injury, but now that it does cause injury--let's not be afraid of change. That's all it really comes down to. We must never be afraid to change, especially in ways that make us better.
~1~
.jpg)
1 comment:
Nice addendum to your previous post. It is clear that the words "idiot" and "insane" have very different meanings than they did 150 years ago. Can you think of any other instances of words that have really changed their connotations over time? How can we account for this type of linguistic change?
Post a Comment