The former special adviser on international disability rights calls for a societal shift towards valuing diverse experiences and fostering environments so people with and without disabilities thrive.
Sarah Minkara said “Too often, disabled individuals are perceived as vulnerable and burdensome”
I would argue there is a crucial difference between describing someone as having a disability and being disable, and it saddens me both are used interchangeably.
I don’t think people’s identity and being should be defined by disability or lack of. The world is just made of people who are not the same, right?
Let’s try another way: “Too often individuals with a disability are perceived as vulnerable and burdensome”.
This article has got me thinking about how we define life and living to the fullest. If a blind person says they lived a fulfilling life without sigh then do we assume sight is not necessary for a full life or do we assume that the person is merely expressing their personal truth?
Because if it is the former, then I cannot imagine how we turn the daily lives and systems of our world into one that can accommodate any and ALL abilities. By that I mean a world where a blind person can drive, a deaf person can attend a concert, a person with multiple sclerosis can become a surgeon and other such examples.
It just seems like we're having trouble admitting that some of us are just unfortunate. This is my point. We can acknowledge a person's ability or lack thereof without questioning their character or actions but to suggest that we ignore it and instead believe and practice a life where the person doesn't actually have a disability and is merely different in the same way a tall and a short person are different.... is just insisting that the world adhere to the individual needs of people. It's playing an endless game.
If a blind person refuses eye surgery and also insists on being able to drive and also refuse assisted driving services because that would mean accepting that they need assistance when they just want independence then?......... where do we go from there?
Mind you, this isn't to say she's wrong or that she doesn't deserve every bit of support we can offer her. It just raises the question of whether we revolve around the world or does the world revolve around us? Is there a line to be drawn? Who and where?
Very good point. I am a civil rights attorney, and it’s ingrained in us to use the latter and not the former.
Sarah Minkara said “Too often, disabled individuals are perceived as vulnerable and burdensome”
I would argue there is a crucial difference between describing someone as having a disability and being disable, and it saddens me both are used interchangeably.
I don’t think people’s identity and being should be defined by disability or lack of. The world is just made of people who are not the same, right?
Let’s try another way: “Too often individuals with a disability are perceived as vulnerable and burdensome”.
What do you think?
This article has got me thinking about how we define life and living to the fullest. If a blind person says they lived a fulfilling life without sigh then do we assume sight is not necessary for a full life or do we assume that the person is merely expressing their personal truth?
Because if it is the former, then I cannot imagine how we turn the daily lives and systems of our world into one that can accommodate any and ALL abilities. By that I mean a world where a blind person can drive, a deaf person can attend a concert, a person with multiple sclerosis can become a surgeon and other such examples.
It just seems like we're having trouble admitting that some of us are just unfortunate. This is my point. We can acknowledge a person's ability or lack thereof without questioning their character or actions but to suggest that we ignore it and instead believe and practice a life where the person doesn't actually have a disability and is merely different in the same way a tall and a short person are different.... is just insisting that the world adhere to the individual needs of people. It's playing an endless game.
If a blind person refuses eye surgery and also insists on being able to drive and also refuse assisted driving services because that would mean accepting that they need assistance when they just want independence then?......... where do we go from there?
Mind you, this isn't to say she's wrong or that she doesn't deserve every bit of support we can offer her. It just raises the question of whether we revolve around the world or does the world revolve around us? Is there a line to be drawn? Who and where?