Down with the R-word
(Ed. note: We posted this under Editors, but it's just Caleb and Joel that wrote it. Carry on. And leave Trig out of this.)
As a society, we have made a habit out of hiding people with developmental disabilities. We have institutionalized them, we have sterilized them, we have shown them that they are not important to the fabric of our society. Our collective choice to recognize those with developmental disabilities as human beings with unique and genuine value is relatively recent — and arguably incomplete.
Incomplete because, on a rhetorical level, it's still commonly accepted to marginalize those with developmental disabilities by using the word "retard" or "retarded" as a way of referring to people or to the actions of people with whom we disagree, don't like or generally hold in low esteem.
When these words are used to connote stupidity or worthlessness, they ultimately confirm the notion that people with developmental disabilities are less valuable than people who are not disabled. When we do this, we are creating rhetorical space between "us" and "them" — even when these words aren't used to directly insult a person with a developmental disability, they create a situation wherein the developmentally disabled exist as homogeneous trope for stupidity. By rhetorically marginalizing a specific group of people, we lay the ground work for their second-class citizenship. This is something we've seen time and time again throughout the course of human history: the language that accompanies oppression serves as a de facto justification for its presence in our culture.
The greatest example of this is the "N-Word," which, in our culture, carries a great deal of power for the mere fact that it suggests the rhetorical separation that whites used to justify their sense of superiority. The fact that this word is anathema in our modern cultural discourse tells us that we, as a country, have chosen not to value the oppression of African Americans — at least on a rhetorical level. And I would argue that this is significant, that even if we as a country still choose to be racist, our choice to not openly embrace racism is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, this implies that we are generally ambivalent towards people with developmental disabilities. This shouldn't be too surprising. Truth be told, people with developmental disabilities are one of the most isolated and marginalized segments of our population.
This isn't an issue of political correctness; it's an issue of recognition. The recent conversation that has come up surrounding this word has less to do with political correctness and more to do with the ramifications this word has on real people. People with developmental disabilities are the most oppressed, abused and criminally perpetrated groups of people in our country. The language we use plays a role in this disproportionate state of affairs.
When you use the word "retard" to refer to something you don't like, you are using the negative cultural cache that continues to surround people with developmental disabilities, just like those who continue to use the word "nigger" rely upon that word's disgusting and all-too-real history. — CALEB CURTISS
————
As you may have noticed, the "r-word" is gaining cultural currency over the last few years. From the Black Eyed Peas' hit "Let's Get Retarded" (neé "Let's Get it Started"), Ben Stiller's character making the artistic choice to avoid going full "full retard" in Tropic Thunder, Zach Galifinaikis' groundbreaking second-syllable emphasis (reTARD) in The Hangover, and heck, even C-U's own Buzz got in on the act awhile ago, there's the makings of a real trend here.
And now there's some silly debate where Rahm Emanuel used the r-word to describe some of his fellow D-words, and Rush Limbaugh called him a retard for doing it, and explained that it's ok to call retards retards because they're retards, you know? Which is ok — because it's satire, right? And now Sarah Palin is involved, as our official national r-word arbiter. So it goes.
But with every cultural action, there's an (equal and?) opposite reaction, and that's where the "Spread the Word to End the Word" campaign comes in (visit r-word.org to check it out). March 3 is their Day of Awareness. Hey, they even got Dr. Cox from Scrubs to speak out, so you know it's a big deal:
Full disclosure: my little sister — who just turned 30 — has cerebral palsy, and she uses an electric wheelchair to get around and a touch talker to communicate. She used to do the tennis ball throw in Special Olympics. She lives with three other women in a specially-equipped house at a place called Opportunities Unlimited in northwest Iowa. She gets along pretty well, all things considered.
So, yeah, I'll admit that I take it personally when someone says "retarded" when they mean stupid or wrong-headed or uncool. Because she's a person, too, and it irks me when someone uses a word derogatorially that could be used to describe her. Most of us were fortunate enough to have been born without undue mental and physical challenges, and it's pretty thoughtless to toss around words that deride those who weren't.
There are so many other excellent insults available in the English language, that it's unnecessary to use the r-word. In fact, someone compiled 20 that aren't even vulgar. So, the next time you need a go-to insult, don't use retard or retarded. Try asinine, inane or vacuous. You might give others the impression that you have a decent-sized vocabulary, and that you think about what you're going to say before you speak. Or, if you don't want to take that risk — call them ignorant fuckers instead. — JOEL GILLESPIE
24 comments
coda916
“Tard” is kind of becoming the norm now with people adding different prefixes and suffixes(F***-tard, tard-a$$ for example). Just type in ‘tard’ on urbandictionary.com and you’ll see what I mean. So perhaps all “tard” references should be done away with also. IMHO, tard = retard.
kimberly leifker
what an extremely well written article. i took rehab330 last semester and it has really sparked my interest in disability rights and the implications that go along with the treatment of people with disabilities. my cousin has an extremely rare muscle disease and experiences i have had in public with her are heartbreaking. abolishing the r-word or any other sort of derogatory or demeaning word would be excellent in my book.
JP
Great article, gentlemen! Some might think that this isn’t a crucial issue, but it’s not just about the “r-word”. As our language goes, so goes our perceptions. Words matter - they way we talk about people matters. There has been some who have advocated that people with developmental disabilities “reclaim” the r-word, as some people of size have attempted to do with “fat” and others who are homosexual have done with “queer”. I can just see the day when a bunch of proud, militant, strong self-advocates stand on the steps of the Lincoln Monument, chanting about their pride in their differences.
Elizabeth
GREAT editorial! Kudos to smilepolitely.
Great opinion piece. This is an important issue that more people need to start thinking about—man, something I certainly didn’t start thinking about for too long. People seem pretty open to this sort of thing; it doesn’t take much effort to consciously eliminate one word from a personal vocabulary.
Proliferation of the suffix “-tard” is pretty lousy, I must say. Reminds me how you can see “fag” often used casually, but add on the rest of the word and, man, people are gonna think you’re actually saying what you say.
Can a conscious, well-made campaign like this actually stop people from using a specific word in casual parlance? Maybe. Seems like it might be a first. Although certain popular performers’ public stands on usage of certain words definitely has had an impact before.
Kudos
After a few summers at Camp Forever I learned that ‘Individual with special needs’ is more fitting than ‘developmentally disabled’ for a few reasons.
The latin root dis denotes UTTER separation (great usage of anathema, by the way).
Individuals with special needs aren’t cut off from the “ability” to develop. Instead, they develop (and are able) in ways that do not conform with our expectations or experiences. Therefore, we incorrectly prescribe a word for this separation: dis-ability.
Which is light years ahead of the R-word…but still doesn’t suffice.
Cosigned. Great piece!
Stuart Tarr
As a perp who recently got editorially zapped (and rightly so) for using the r-word, albeit in a satirical manner, I’m impressed by Caleb’s and Joel’s comments.
The episode got me thinking about how words change meaning or inflection over time.
I’m not sure, but I’m guessing that at some point “retard,” a perfectly value-free word meaning to slow, hinder, or to impede development, was first used as a “PC” alternative to “idiot.” The r-word then eventually becomes a slur by which one can consign one’s opponent to the outcast realm (which as Caleb so well describes, reinforces devaluation of the people who are, wrongly, outcast).
So if it’s true that “retarded” was originally used as a kinder term than “idiot,” there is a certain irony in how “idiot” has become decoupled from it’s former meaning and is flung about with impunity, even though there is a trace of the r-word in its use.
“Idiot” itself is a somewhat unhinged signifier. A classic case is in the Communist Manifesto, where Marx writes: “The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life,” which led several generations of Marxists to believe he meant it was hopelessly backward and stupid and the action was only in the cities.
But this is not what he meant at all, as recent scholarship shows, and the misunderstanding was due to a complicated mistranslation of the German “Idiotismus” into the English “Idiocy.”
The German word today means idiom. But in the 19th century the German still had the sense of the original Greek meanings of “idiotes” a private person withdrawn from public or community concerns—apolitical in the greek sense of that word—or isolation from the community. So, Marx was talking about rescuing the rural population from its isolation and apartness due to the separation of town and county, which needed to be overcome.
But I digress.
I can’t find it again, but there was a delightful interview somewhere on the web yesterday with the young woman with Down’s Syndrome who did the voice for the Family Guy character that’s got Sara Palin upset. The actress was quite charming.
Here you go, Stuart.
And I believe that apomonis is correct. I read in a Sociology book recently that terms like “mentally handicapped,” or “visually impaired,” or “deaf,” or “developmentally disabled” are dated, and that their focus is more on the impairment than the person. Thus, the term should always lead with the individual (People First Language): “People with disabilities” or “people with learning disabilities.” A year from now there will be new “rules,” I have no doubt.
Oh, and Stuart? I’ve used the “r-word” too (in the context of Caleb’s second paragraph). As someone who bristles at the phrase “that’s so gay,” I’ve been a fucking hypocrite.
As usual, Stuart’s point is an important one. The purpose has to be to engender respect for people with disabilities, not to cleanse the language (a futile task). One extra “g” and a short vowel sound separate “nigger” from the Latin for the color black or the African nation, which is only to say that the morpheme, at its core, means “black” — itself an acceptable designation of those of African descent. Obviously, history and context is everything.
If people with disabilities do not wish to be called “retards” or “retarded,” that makes perfect sense considering this history and context. But I question the plausibility or wisdom of eliminating the word retarded as it means “hindered” (not to imply that anyone above has suggested such a course). There is a perjorative connotation, even outside the context of mental or physical disabilities. After all, most obstacles are not viewed as positives. And, if people with disabilities are not “retarded,” then is there really a problem with the word having some perjorative meaning?
Further, if this is simply about bleaching the language, then there is nothing to prevent people from taking new designations and weilding them in the same old manner. That’s special. Or, that’s disabled. Sounds stupid, yeah, but then so do most neologisms. And if you can’t see that coming down the pike, then you’re . . . shortsighted.
Damn, you guys are right. I wish I had got out there and used the term “Bushtard” more often, now that it is so totally uncool to say anymore. Its like returning a leased Honda Civic without ever having taken it off-roading.
Any suggestions for a substitute term for someone with a conservative bent who is profoundly and maliciously wrongheaded due in no small part to their own arrogance and seemingly puposeful ignorance?
The Dude
A well-meaning, yet wrong, editorial.
The problem is not that people use the word “retard(ed),” it is that the word is seen by some PC folks as being synonymous with special needs individuals. It should not be. Why must special needs individuals be automatically associated with the perjorative “retard?” That link no longer exists. Most people who use the word “retarded” as an insult do so to point out the wilfull ignorance of someone else, not to indicate that the other person is disabled, impaired, or handicapped. Just because some PC people automatically think of a special needs person when they hear the word “retard” doesn’t mean everyone else does too.
For example, Sarah Palin is retarded. Her son Trig, is not (at least not yet… although he may grow up to be if he follows his mother’s footsteps). Rush Limbaugh is clearly retarded. Chris Burke (the actor who played Corky on Life Goes On) is not. Not even close. Chris Burke and Trig Palin may have special needs, but they are not village idiots spouting nonsense that nobody in their right mind could ever believe.
The solution is not to stop using the word (cause it ain’t gonna happen, no matter how hard you try). The solution is to stop associating the word with special needs people. It shouldn’t be associated with them, it’s rarely ever meant to mean them, and it’s a linguistic link that should be permanently severed.
JP
But, it’s the person with the intellectual differences who feels the pain / discouragement when they hear the word bandied about. If I call someone “retarded”, but there are only neuro-typical people within hearing distance, does it really matter? I suppose it does only if I care about how people perceive me. We have an obsession with labels - we seem to be more comfortable with people when we can put them in some sort of preconceived category. I’ve known many, many people with all sorts of mental, emotional and physical challenges. Through these relationships, I’ve come to realize that people are people. Some of us just wear our “disabilities” more obviously than others.
you can argue about the word culturally and linguistically if you want to…
but given that its use causes so much hurt and dissapointment in others, isn’t that reason enough not to use it and to ask people to think twice about what comes out of their mouths?
Nice point, Gillian. Actually, nice points all around (for the most part).
In response to Tony, Stuart and Robert, I’d like to say that personally I’m far more concerned with the signified rather than the signifier as they pertain to the r-word. I don’t see any inherent virtue in one word over another, instead I’m concerned with the way this specific word means in our society. Robert’s right: when someone replaces the phrase “that’s retarded” with “that’s disabled” or “that’s slow” they’re still choosing to be disrespectful. This has more to do with thinking than it does with specific words or phrases. Or, more specifically, this has more to do with how we choose to use language to express ourselves and our relationships with one another. The goal is not to replace the r-word, the goal is to change the way we think about people who don’t fit into our mainstream culture, because on some level, nobody does.
Great article.
Something that isn’t mentioned here is how to go about discouraging the use of “retarded” in this way aside from removing it from our own vocabulary. Over the years hearing “fag” “queer” and “that’s gay” thrown around as insults, I became quite competent in addressing the use of those words when I would hear them. Something about calling people on the use of “retarded,” though, really gets them riled up. About 99% of those I encountered using the homophobic terms were quick to realize their errors and understand the importance of changing their language. It’s been very difficult to even bring up the use of “retarded” when someone throws it into casual conversation (“I don’t know why he talked to me like that, it’s not like I’m RETARDED”) because it is so ingrained and assumed innocuous. A simple “oh, you mean stupid, or silly, or uninformed?” is almost guaranteed to really piss someone off and lead to a ridiculous argument where they end up defending their use of calling others retards and I cry a little on the inside that I’m friends with this person.
Call me overly-PC, I’m not insulted—but fag, queer, no homo, retarded, jipped, jewed, etc., all sound like fingernails down a chalkboard to me. Even if I have the nerve and tact to correct someone, I can’t help but consider them a bit ignorant in my book. I just wish I could find better ways to engage them in a dialogue—maybe I’ll start sending them this link!
Thanks for this!
Well, Emma, I’m not ignorant, but I was being hypocritical. Like you, if/when I hear someone say crap like, “that’s gay” or “I jewed him down,” I immediately consider this person not worth knowing.
But I’ve used the word “retarded” on occassion. Not often. But in one specific case, I’d use it. I think one reason why it never occurred to me to think about what I was really saying, is that two people for whom I have enormous respect also use it. And, like others have said here, I didn’t associate the word with those who have disabilities. This is not to excuse myself. I’m just trying to put it into context. I’m not an ignorant person (quite the opposite); I was just thoughtless.
About a week ago, I was hit on the head with a cluestick regarding the word. Then I read this article. Now I know better. I should have known better long before now, it’s true. What’s so disappointing about this is that I’ve taken personal offense to “that’s gay” and “no homo.” So, yeah, hypocrisy.
This has been humbling, and I’m embarrassed to admit it, but I guess I have to own it.
PsychoBoy
I think we might be going a little nuts here in keeping people safely away from a word long out of use for various disabilities in the past.
It seems crazy to me for some of the same reasons pointed out in the comments above.
Mainly I think we might be deluded to think the problem is with the pejorative use of a word that can quite comfortably depend on its original meaning before it was assigned to such conditions.
It could be insane to even attempt to remove a word so ingrained in our culture with meanings outside of its temporary meaning as applied by those idiot medical professionals.
I’m not fruitloops enough to be totally against the words gay, fag, and queer either as long as they are not used with hate. Indeed they are often used in pride rallies and among friends without any issue whatsoever without causing anybody to go bonkers.
Perhaps I’m a bit eccentric on these matters given my own personal experience with disability.
You see, I have a severe mental illness, which could easily be used to dismiss my opinion entirely, since of course there’s a common perception in our society that such a disability means I’m incapable of having rational thoughts worth considering.
I have no problem with people being sensitive about the special circumstances of cultural taboos and historical context of words and their meaning, and not being deliberately insulting to the people around them.
But if my time in and out of the funny farm has taught me anything about the world, there’s only so much you can realistically deal with. So let’s not lose our marbles here trying to stop every offense imaginable. Even a wingnut like Palin can have a point, even if selectively applied or maintained, about more cultural sensitivity to the issue. But just imagine the slippery slope we may be walking onto. I might be mentally ill, but I’m not prepared to go totally psycho for political correctness.
Don’t go postal on me. It’s just my opinion.
J.P.
This article was retardedly good.
Battling_Newt
So it is acceptable to call Barak Obama’s “Just War” speech at the Nobel Peace prize ceremony in Oslo asinine? Or to call his recent disingenuous effort to support nuclear power while closing down the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste facility in Nevada inane? I’m glad Barak Obama has finally reached that mountaintop—he has achieved the intellectual stature of George W Bush & Dan Quayle. It’s a brand new day.
Thanks for the thoughtful discourse, folks. I’ll second Caleb’s thoughts in #16: just trying to raise awareness here, not trying to ban any words.
@PsychoBoy: You talk a lot of sense for a nutcase :-). That’s a similar situation that I hadn’t even considered. Thanks for bringing it up.
@J.P. (#20): That got a giggle out of me. Somebody was going to make that joke sooner or later. Ha ha.
@Battling_Newt: Sure, I don’t see why not. Still waiting for someone to make the “how can you talk about such trivial matters when there’s a war (wars) on” comment, but this is close enough.
Beth Rempe
Thanks for this commentary. I think that regardless of their other potential meanings, the words ‘retard’ and ‘retarded’ came to have their negative connotations because of their association with people with special needs, and the negative view of people with special needs in society. Using these words pejoratively helps to perpetuate this negative view, even if it is not the speaker’s intention, even if the link to special needs is out-of-date (which I think is debatable.)
The bottom line is, these words hurt people. They hurt people who already have a lot of challenges to face. As the mother of a beautiful toddler with Down Syndrome, these words hurt me because I worry about how my daughter will be accepted by a society where an aspect of her condition is a term of abuse and mockery. On a gut level, I really don’t understand why a person would be so attached to using these words that they are willing to hurt someone like my daughter.
The ‘Spread the Word to End the Word’ campaign is simply asking that people voluntarily refrain from using these words that hurt. This is not political correctness, this is civility and respect.
JerseyGirl
I 100% disagree with this article and feel that it’s claims perpetuates ignorance and illiteracy. “Retard” means a heck of a lot more then a slur and the slur came 100s of years after the original usage of the word.
To be Rahm’s testicles, he called further kowtowing and delays of the Health Care Reform “f-ing retarded” and he was 100% correct. Because to retard means to slow and/or delay. And that is exactly what “progressive” democrats and all republicans are doing to this process. For Rahm to not stand up for literacy is shameful and typical of the bully-or-be-bullied politics and culture that we have.
Clearly the writer just like Sarah Palin confused a noun with a verb, which begs the question: are they illiterate or overly sensitive or have an ax to grind?
To equate retard with n-word is disgusting and dishonest on all levels. The n-word does not have any uses that are not as a slur. Where the word retard is primarily a verb, that is its longest use and most common (at least in written language).
A more effective approach than word-censorship would be to advocate treating everyone with respect and dignity. Can you imagine that world? One where bullies are marginalized instead of being called “leaders”? An American where people aren’t n-words, fatties, larda$$es, dweebs, etc. etc. etc.
Add A Comment
A note about our commenting policy.
Commenting has been disabled on this post. We only allow comments for 30 days.
Most Recent Opinion Comments
Thanks for that, Louis CK.
Your call to stay pissed is precisely why global warming fanatics will fail. Emotion has no place in hard science. The problem with the issue of global warming is that is has been pumped full of emotion and politics, and the science is becoming a by-product. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?KEYWORDS=global+warming
Clearly the Postal Officials in favor of this cannot make an economic argument, as this saves the post office $0. What is their rationale?
Earlier today I received this response from the President’s office (via e-mail) - Dear Jason: Thank you for taking the time to write and share your thoughts. I deeply regret the embarrassment that the anonymous email incident has brought to our great University, and the personal hardship…
This posting expresses frustration—where is the investigative reporting about the current situation at the university? There are news reports, but basically no investigation? Why? None of the potential news outlets seem to be digging, unless doing so in the quiet of the night—not CU Access, the DI,…
Thank you Childrss for the correction. I actually only know a very small bit about Miscanthus specifically (and not much, obviously). My support for cellulosic has more to do with all the various upsides. The stalks and husks of feed corn, for instance, could provide a secondary…
More on Miscanthus can be found at http://miscanthus.illinois.edu Depending on market demand, miscanthus CAN impact food costs if it becomes more profitable to grow Miscanthus on land rather than foodstuff crops. While Jason didn’t explicitly state it (so I don’t want to imply that he was wrong)—it…
“Doing so would leave the entire university community without a way to send mail.” Ever heard of a mailbox? I can tell you where some are. “The Green Street office is always busy ...” Wrong. In fact, back in the day, I would go there during the…
I still have a very strong belief in bio-fuels as a sensible alternative, so long as it’s done sensibly. The one that makes the most sense, in my opinion, is producing ethanol from cellulose instead of grain. It’s essentially turning a waste product into a usable fuel…
Most Recent Comments
FACT: Silverfish feed only on carbohydrates, such as starches and sugars. They will not consume proteins or fats (the main materials from which human beings are constructed). THUS: That was not actually a human waiter we were conversing with, but rather a lifelike simulacrum created from semi-digested Fruit Loops.
nice fishnets you’ve got there, dan!
is that illini auto on main?
The geniuses at the News-Gazette site have it all figured out. This happened because we don’t have the Chief!
Pamela - Are the roasteries in Seattle as clean as CSR? It always disturbs me a little that it is so clean in there.
Now you will be able to munch on pizza and shrimp cocktails in downtown Urbana (whilst a DJ spins?) after your dissolution of marriage http://www.news-gazette.com/news/business/features/its-your-business/2012-02-05/its-your-business-new-pizza-place-downtown-urban Is this a franchise of a Reno pizza joint, or just a coincidence of name? http://www.blackrockpizza.com
Signs someone is “fishing” for a factual anchor: 1. Starts call to radio with: “I’ve been an Illini fan for (XX) years” or “I’m a diehard fan,” as if somehow that unverifiable claim will justify the 5 minutes of B.S. that follows. 2. Makes reference to KenPom…
That’s what she said.
Black dog and Siam terrace is where I always go after my divorces.
Love CSR. Apart from making my way through the regular roasts in 1/2 pound increments, I also like to pick up some of the little sample packets of the flavored stuff for when the lady and I feel like getting crazy. Sticky Bun is pretty nice.
If you happen to be getting a divorce, or fighting a DUI prosecution, downtown Urbana is a great place to eat.
HUUUUUUGE fan of their Black Velvet roast…It makes up about 75% of my coffee intake. LOL CSR is definitely one of those Champaign institutions that I brag about to people not from here. :-)
We like CSR too! We french press at home and I leave the lid off while it steeps—letting the ground beans bloom. Then, like in your tasting, I scoop off the top layer before pressing. We really need to invest in a burr grinder though, as I…
Confidential? In this state? Hahahahahahahhahahaha
just confirmed: there will be white russians served. the art abides.
big lebowski at the art. mark it, dude.
There’s a great video promo out for “Company” too: http://vimeo.com/36077847
Wow, His Majesty took the time to answer your polite plea. It’s been a while since I spoke fluent arrogance, but allow this attempt at a translation: “I deeply regret the embarrassment…” = I wish we hadn’t got caught and it wasn’t a big deal really. “...and…
I love the Guitars
I had their tea at the Urbana Farmer’s Market when they first started out and it was great! Their tins recently caught my eye at Walnut Street Tea Company and my guests used it all up before I could even try it! Way to go Tiesta, stay…
Most Popular Articles (14 days)
- An open letter to University of Illinois President Michael Hogan
- Meatheads Burgers and Fries: A carnivorous delight
- Please don’t close the campus post offices
- Spotlight: Drag shows in Champaign-Urbana, Part III
- The Artist is Oscar gold
- Columbia Street Roastery blends with the best
- The Overture: January 31–February 6
- One word: biofuels
- SP Radio Podcast: New Champaign restuarants in focus
- Stereotypes and missed opportunities
Facebook
Twitter
Full Site
Wow, His Majesty took the time to answer your polite plea. It’s been a while since I spoke fluent arrogance, but allow this attempt at a translation: “I deeply regret the embarrassment…” = I wish we hadn’t got caught and it wasn’t a big deal really. “...and…