A week ago, September 26, I went with a friend to the Illinois Holocaust Museum to hear a talk by Matt Roloff of Little People, Big World. From the day I first read the listing in a Skokie Illinois Newspaper, announcing Roloff's visit to the museum, I'd been looking forward to the lecture, mostly because of my curiosity about what Roloff might say. Whoever we are, the Holocaust holds a significant place in our individual conscience. I was fascinated to hear what connection Roloff would make between what he had to say and the place in which he was speaking.
Roloff spoke for about an hour. Kicking off the lecture, Roloff did make a connection to the Holocaust and people of short stature, alluding to a woman named Liebe Perla and her family, a group of musicians who were dwarfs. During World War II, Perla and her family survived Auschwitz because Mengele kept them alive in order to conduct experiments upon them. Roloff put that story in the context of his own life, explaining that as a young boy, he spent months and months in hospitals. Although he had many surgeries that were necessary, Roloff said he was often subject to poking, prodding and pictures at the whim of doctors. Examinations that made him feel less like a patient, and more like an experiment.
I don't doubt it. When Roloff's generation and my generation was young, not much was known about dwarfism. I have memories of standing naked up against a wall as a four or five year, with a team of doctors before me perplexed by the curvature of my back and legs. Today, I am grateful for the brace that straightened my back and the surgeries that straightened my legs. Without them, I probably wouldn't be able to do many of the activities I do today. But even a four year old tries to maintain some dignity. I'm not sure if such a public examination is necessary.
Roloff linked the prejudicial treatment of Liebe Perla and the objectifying treatment that he experienced as a young boy to contemporary decisions that reflect prejudice against people of short stature. He said he knew of a couple who wanted to have a child. Through either in vitro or preimplantation genetic diagnosis, they wanted a dwarf child. But their wish was refused. No one would implant them with an embryo that carried the gene for dwarfism. People with dwarfism certainly face challenges that are specific to dwarfism. But everyone faces challenges. To presume that the challenges of a dwarf compared to the challenges of another person are more significant, and justify decisions that suggest a dwarf's life is unworthy of living, is certainly reflective of prejudice against people of short stature.
To change attitudes, or systems (see schooled, September 29), that deny people with dwarfism a choice offered to typical statured people will not be easy. Even after the work of people like Billy Barty, the founder of Little People of America, and the Roloffs, who have opened up the minds of millions of people about dwarfism, we still face systemic barriers that deny us what others are offered. But even if it's one person at a time, if Matt and others continue to share their stories, like he did in Skokie at the Holocaust museum, minds will open up and understand that far more connects the lives of little people with others than separates it.
Common Ground: Commentary from the far side of Chicago
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Schooled
Yesterday, a couple of people I work with delivered a short presentation on "ableism" during Access Living's staff meeting. Ableism is systems, structures and attitudes that contribute to the marginalization, segregation or oppression of people with disabilities. One example of ableism could be hosting a public forum in a space that is not accessible to people who use wheelchairs. The two people who presented had delivered the same workshop a few months earlier at the United States Social Forum. During the discussion after the presentation, one person on the Access Living staff raised a point about attitudes. He said that attitudes are not the problem. Attitudes, he explained are created by systems. Therefore, attitudes are a manifestation of a system. If you want to change what a person thinks, don't try to change his or her attitude, change the system that influenced the attitude.
His statements triggered thoughts of my efforts with Little People of America. From an advocacy standpoint, a major goal of Little People of America is to change people's attitudes about people of short stature. On websites, youtube, and the streets, attitudes that view little people as nothing but a punchline or comic relief still exist. The statement of my co-worker at the staff meeting made me question the work of LPA, "is it the wrong approach to try and change the attitudes of people who think a little person walking down the street constitutes entertainment?"
I think the answer is no. The person who made the statement at the staff meeting has written a book, teaches high level courses at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and sounds a lot smarter than I do when he speaks. As a result, he made me question what I and others have been doing since 2006 with Little People of America.
But I think what the professor said, and what LPA does, are quite similar. Although I think of LPA as trying to change attitudes, we can't do that without changing systems. If we approached the webmaster of a site that demeaned people of short stature, he or she would probably either ignore us or laugh at us. We couldn't change that attitude because the webmaster lives in a world in which little people are nothing but dehumanized objects. In order to change the behavior of the webmaster, we'd have to change the world in which he or she lived, opening up his or her perception of little people to one of people with full personalities, characters and lives. That's not to say individuals within LPA never respond to offensive comments or actions of people or establishments. But in doing so, we are not only trying to change what the entity thinks or does (attitudes), we are trying to open up the world in which it exists (systems).
In terms of language, I think the professor made a good point. For example, use of the word midget. Is LPA better off attacking any entity that uses the word out of ignorance and malice? or influencing the creation of systems that don't use the word (getting the word phased out of style guides, identified as negative in dictionaries, etc..). But in both cases, in order to change an attitude, the world around the attitude must be changed first.
In the end, I don't think it matters if we refer to the work of Little People of America or other groups as changing attitudes or changing systems. What really matters is if we are doing our best to create an inclusive world that embraces diversity.
His statements triggered thoughts of my efforts with Little People of America. From an advocacy standpoint, a major goal of Little People of America is to change people's attitudes about people of short stature. On websites, youtube, and the streets, attitudes that view little people as nothing but a punchline or comic relief still exist. The statement of my co-worker at the staff meeting made me question the work of LPA, "is it the wrong approach to try and change the attitudes of people who think a little person walking down the street constitutes entertainment?"
I think the answer is no. The person who made the statement at the staff meeting has written a book, teaches high level courses at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and sounds a lot smarter than I do when he speaks. As a result, he made me question what I and others have been doing since 2006 with Little People of America.
But I think what the professor said, and what LPA does, are quite similar. Although I think of LPA as trying to change attitudes, we can't do that without changing systems. If we approached the webmaster of a site that demeaned people of short stature, he or she would probably either ignore us or laugh at us. We couldn't change that attitude because the webmaster lives in a world in which little people are nothing but dehumanized objects. In order to change the behavior of the webmaster, we'd have to change the world in which he or she lived, opening up his or her perception of little people to one of people with full personalities, characters and lives. That's not to say individuals within LPA never respond to offensive comments or actions of people or establishments. But in doing so, we are not only trying to change what the entity thinks or does (attitudes), we are trying to open up the world in which it exists (systems).
In terms of language, I think the professor made a good point. For example, use of the word midget. Is LPA better off attacking any entity that uses the word out of ignorance and malice? or influencing the creation of systems that don't use the word (getting the word phased out of style guides, identified as negative in dictionaries, etc..). But in both cases, in order to change an attitude, the world around the attitude must be changed first.
In the end, I don't think it matters if we refer to the work of Little People of America or other groups as changing attitudes or changing systems. What really matters is if we are doing our best to create an inclusive world that embraces diversity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)