Word choice

Word choice

- DiPaolo O'Brien Amanda の投稿
返信数: 17

I applaud Bradley's efforts in showing a) the internal struggles that exist for those on the spectrum, and b) the inhumane treatment of undocumented persons. However, on p. 121, Noah's mother, Summer, says Noah will never be "normal." Later in the book, undocumented persons are called illegals repeatedly. 

What do you make of the word choice? Can we forgive the use of "normal" because Summer's saying it aids in our understanding of her inability to care for the child? 

Is there a reason to use the word illegals other than a derogatory one?

DiPaolo O'Brien Amanda への返信

Re: Word choice

- Nyambuya Muchaneta の投稿
Words matter, no matter their intention and whether they are a protected form of speech.

We cannot forgive the use of the word 'normal' in relation to members of our community that are particularly vulnerable like Noah. It is rather not an inclusive or positive term as it feeds into the notion that Noah is less human, this is even when Summer meant it in a way that aimed to highlight how she struggles to take care of him. The usage of the term feeds into the idea that there is only one way to be ‘normal’ as a human being based on society standards, it thus suggests that Noah is ‘abnormal’. Although it is sometimes not meant in a malicious way, we should all be sensitive to how someone else might receive our words. It is important to use positive and inclusive language that does not define and label people by their disability. However, in saying this it is important to also note and recognize that a person that it not affected by the usage of such words should not be the one to determine what words are appropriate or not, it has to be the those on the spectrum that decide what is and isn’t positive and inclusive language. Furthermore, one needs to recognize that what one person on the spectrum prefers, might be different to what another person on the spectrum prefers as human beings are not the same. It is a matter of being kind, attentive and respectful to those around us with our words and actions. Most of our vocabulary is ableist and this is an example of it.

There is no reason to use the term illegals especially because it is inaccurate and factually incorrect to what it is intended to mean. The actions of getting into a country may be illegal, but it is not the human beings that are illegals, as the term would suggests. The term illegals implies that one is less of a human being because they lack the required documents to be in a specific country. 'Undocumented', ‘without status’ and ‘non-citizens’ are better, although not perfect, terms that can be used as they do not take away the fact that they are human beings who have the right to be treated with dignity. The term separates immigrants from civil society and deems them unworthy of all humane consideration and decent treatment. People cannot be 'illegal', only actions can be. The term inaccurately labels the individual, as opposed to the actions they’ve taken. It’s interesting because society does not attach the term 'illegal' when referring to other actions that are illegal. For example, someone who receives a parking ticket is not referred to as an illegal driver.
It is also a racial slur as it is only used when referring to those that look different or don't seem to belong in a specific area, the term is mostly used when referring to persons of colour. This term can be broadly extended to include non-immigrants alike of African, Asian, Central Americana and Mexican descents who often get asked ‘Where are you (really) from?’ as though people like them could not be from that area. As someone who gets this question often, it can bring about feelings of displacement and a sense of not belonging, not just in the country itself but the rest of the world too. It’s very rare to see the term used on a European descent in any part of the world, suggesting that they can never be illegals anywhere in the world and that they are above this classification. Although the use of such a word might be protected and considered a form of free speech under various human rights protections, it does not take away the fact that it is a demeaning and dehumanizing term that violates the right to dignity.

To quote Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, author, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, “You, who are so-called illegal aliens, must know that no human being is illegal. That is a contradiction in terms. Human beings can be beautiful or more beautiful, they can be fat or skinny, they can be right or wrong, but illegal? How can a human being be illegal?”
Nyambuya Muchaneta への返信

Re: Word choice

- Cross Jessie-Lynn の投稿
Ok, first of all, Love the reference to Elie Wiesel there Mucha! He is such an inspiration and his memoir, Night is so sad that it makes me wonder how survivors like him ever managed to make it through such dark times. In another Question Dr. D has for us in this module about children, I attempted to answer that exact question.

Regarding these questions, I find it insulting that people see Noah in this novel as abnormal. To use "not normal" is to say "abnormal", or "non-human", or "alien", or "outsider". People with autism are different in the same ways we all differ from one group or another. Some of us are social butterflies, while some of us are shy or reserved. Some of as are fat, while others are skinny (as Elie Wisel mentions). That doesn't make us abnormal. Some of us poor, rich, black, white, Jewish, Islamic, Christian, conservative, liberal, left-handed, right-handed, sick with a disease, or completely healthy, cisgender, transgender, non-binary, gay, straight, able to play sports or very uncoordinated, able to do mental or can't add to save their own life. I think that any person can be classified into a group if we choose to put them into one. Most people belong to more than one group and experience intersectionality. I do not think people with disabilities should be considered "abnormal" because there is no such thing as abnormal. There is no normal. Everyone has different attributes that complete the puzzle of who they are as a person and no one attribute should define them. To see people with autism as "less human" is exactly how the world goes into war and genocide. It is a dangerous thing to do. Speaking as the sister of a brother with autism, I get really offended by these comments (as well as the R-word). My brother has been bullied, has had rocks thrown at him in parks, has been taken advantage of, and has been doubted time and time again for his abilities to do simple things such as cook, or clean. To think of someone as abnormal because they are on the spectrum tells me that people need social skills to be considered normal and that isn't the case since half of us cannot get up and speak on a stage, talk to large crowds, interact with strangers at a party, etc. We get nervous too. Social skills are always something that we as humans need to work on, and same with communication. People in relationships and marriages have a hard time doing it, children have a hard time doing it with their parents and teachers, friends and coworkers have a hard time communicating with one another. That doesn't make us abnormal, because it is quite common. So Ellie saying that Noah is not normal because "she needs to take care of him" and he cant communicate well is insulting personally, and I would not forgive her. I have split away from a former best friend who used the R word commonly because they thought it was acceptable since their whole lives, they grew up hearing it used in conversation. Ellie is belittling all people on the spectrum, all people stuck in hospitals unable to take care of themselves, or in mental facilities who need workers to help them. That's all I will say on that because I could rant all day on that one.

The term "Illegals" is completely derogatory and rude and belittling to all refugees needing to escape bad situations or people from their homes, or for people who have worked hard all their lives and still couldn't meet the requirements to move to a new State. A human being cannot be illegal. We treat our own prisoners better than we do undocumented citizens because we acknowledge that prisoners broke the law and their actions were illegal, not them as a person. (As touched on by Mucha's explanation of illegal driving versus calling someone an illegal driver.) Also as Mucha mentioned, there are better words to use rather than "illegals" because in my opinion, I think calling a person illegal, as mentioned previously with the word abnormal, places them as sub citizen of a particular State, and therefore, they are seen as non-human because humans follow the rules of society and "belong" to their society. It is dangerous, and leads to racism, brings harm, and even death to people who are not documented.
Cross Jessie-Lynn への返信

Re: Word choice

- Nyambuya Muchaneta の投稿
Hi Jessie-Lynn, thank you for your response and for echoing some of the points I raised. I agree with you that to use the term 'not normal' suggests that someone is 'abnormal', in this case Noah. I appreciate your highlight that although we might be different from each other, we are all human beings and that these differences do not make us 'less human'. That is correct because for a society to flourish and be for everyone, it has to be inclusive and cannot be selective as to who is or isn't 'normal'.
I agree with you on the points you've raised about the usages of the term 'illegals', especially that such a small word leads to racism and brings harm.
Nyambuya Muchaneta への返信

Re: Word choice

- Leary Nicole の投稿
Hi Muchaneta,
I agree with you that we should be using more inclusive language when talking about any person or group, which includes Noah. That said, I think that by using "normal" as an antonym to describe Noah is a way that he is othered in this novel. It separates him from others, like Summer, Adam, and Noah's classmates. That said, I think that Summer's use of this language reflects a deeper societal problem within the society of this novel. Specifically, Noah recalls how there were no supports available for children with autism or their parents (265). In this way, I wonder the extent to which inclusive language was discussed in the societies of this novel. How would Summer learn how to refer to her child's conditions if there were no supports available to her? Accordingly, I also wonder the extent to which this terminology and lack of supports represent a societal failure for autistic individuals in general.
Leary Nicole への返信

Re: Word choice

- Cross Jessie-Lynn の投稿
Nicole,
I agree that there are no supports for the parents either which makes raising someone with autism harder. I think that using autism as a condition, rather than an adjective is a more appropriate way to discuss autism. We need to change the language used. So, instead of saying "that person is autistic" or "autistic individuals", it is better to say "someone living with autism", or "someone who has autism". Instead of singling out that person based on one attribute of the puzzle that is their story, we should normalize saying that someone has something rather than IS something. Nobody IS illegal, but some are undocumented. Nobody IS an addict, but some are living with additions. People with mental health issues also have this problem, where we say they are depressed or anxious, or bipolar, etc. but really, we need to normalize "living with depression/anxiety/bipolar disorder." It is all in how we phrase it because our words impact our thoughts and our actions.
Leary Nicole への返信

Re: Word choice

- Nyambuya Muchaneta の投稿
Hi Nicole,
I agree with you that the use of that word othered Noah and separated him from everyone else, I recognize this may be what Summer was trying to do to highlight her inability to care for him. However, even when not meant in a malicious way the impact is still malicious. I also agree with you that the problem is deeply rooted in society. Even in the real world, our language is so exclusive that we sometimes don't even realize it.
To your question, I agree that Summer would not have known to use inclusive language as there was no support available to her or Noah to begin with.
Nyambuya Muchaneta への返信

Re: Word choice

- Fatima Minahil の投稿
Jessie and Mucha, you two make some amazing points!

I would just like to add a quote from The Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Immigrants that has an initiative titled #WordsMatter. They explain that “language shapes people’s perceptions. Discriminatory language in reference to undocumented migrants leads to perceptions and actions which negatively impact the daily realities of undocumented migrants, [and] leads to perceptions and actions which negatively impact the daily realities of undocumented migrants.” (1)

Moreover, they suggest that American media and politicians who heavily use words such as illegal and alien make changes to their vocabulary to be more considerate and appropriate. Their suggested terminology includes: “newest Americans, newcomers, undocumented citizens, unauthorized immigrants, families who have moved from one place to another, and people who weren’t born in the United States.”(2)

1. The Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Immigrants, “Words Matter,” available at https://picum.org/words-matter/.
2. Define American, “Words Matter,” available at https://defineamerican.com/campaigns/wordsmatter/.
Fatima Minahil への返信

Re: Word choice

- Hetherington Sarah の投稿
Thank you for sharing this link and initiative Minahil! I think, as everyone, that words and language definitely matter and shape perceptions, so this is a very important cause.
Nyambuya Muchaneta への返信

Re: Word choice

- Sirois Anna の投稿
I like your points here around using the term "illegal." Even using the term "alien" in addition to "illegal" is equally as harmful. Although the term "alien" refers to something more accurate, it is still harmful. The official definition of alien is "belonging to a foreign country or nation," however, people who immigrate to the U.S. or other countries who do not intend to return back to their own countries are then given this label as people who ONLY 'belong' to where they came from. This makes people repeat the rhetoric for "illegal aliens," or any "aliens," to go back home from where they came from. I think they go hand-in-hand, and the term non-citizen would be more respectful in labeling people who immigrate, whether or not they are undocumented. This term would encompass refugees, immigrants, migrants, temporary workers or residents, etc.
Sirois Anna への返信

Re: Word choice

- Wedderburn Kryssonia の投稿
I agree wholeheartedly, the use of the words makes people repeat the rhetoric that is being presented on social media and other platforms. Using less derogatory terms would go a long way in reducing prejudice against them
DiPaolo O'Brien Amanda への返信

Re: Word choice

- Lamk Saavedra Sara の投稿
I believe words are powerful, language is powerful. The way someone is addressed can affect their psyche and soul, it could be used to detriment their mental health. When the term "illegal" is used for undocumented people it steals their humanity and right to exist in a place. It is also important to highlight the racist bias towards the term illegals. Most of the time this term is used to BIPOC populations. Even the word immigrant is barely used to white migrants, rather you see people using newcomers or maintaining the subject as the person and just adding the verb of moving. In the book again we see the illegals being represented by BIPOC people and although realistic, the author missed an opportunity to tackle a stereotype. This discussion reminds me of the tv sitcom One Day at a Time and the character of Schneider. He was an undocumented Canadian white man. Through the series, we see a lot of discussion and exposure to how his white privilege makes his situation not as serious contrast to the constant fear Lydia experiences as a Latinx undocumented person (highly rec this show by the way).
Lamk Saavedra Sara への返信

Re: Word choice

- Rampersaud Tristan の投稿
Great points Sara. I also think that word choice and language can convey emotion better than their basic synonyms. I like your point that the author missed an opportunity to address a stereotype in the novel.
Rampersaud Tristan への返信

Re: Word choice

- DiPaolo O'Brien Amanda の投稿
This has been a great discussion. I appreciate that most of you offered substantive remarks and very thought out analysis. I don't really have anything to add. Words do matter and I just encourage you to look at how you speak and see if you are doing harm to others in ways you may not realize.
Lamk Saavedra Sara への返信

Re: Word choice

- Bourgeois Brianna の投稿
Hi Sara,
I really enjoyed your analysis and agree with your points. As you mention, the term "illegals" is often used against BIPOC populations whereas white migrants are rarely even referred to as immigrants rather, as you pointed out, it is often said that these people "moved" or "relocated". Undocumented individuals continue to face discrimination and by labelling them as "illegal" only perpetuates the issue by casting a negative light on them. In order to truly change this problem, it is imperative that individuals become more conscious of their word choice. No person is illegal, and it is time to stop referring to undocumented individuals as such.
Bourgeois Brianna への返信

Re: Word choice

- Lamk Saavedra Sara の投稿
Hi Brianna,

Thank you for your response. I wanted to say how I really appreciate the reference to the fact that no person can be illegal. It reminds me of last year in Activism class, we had a guest from No One Is Illegal Fredericton, I learned so much that day.
DiPaolo O'Brien Amanda への返信

Re: Word choice

- Wedderburn Kryssonia の投稿
I second Muchaneta's sentiments words do matter. To forgive the use of the word would normalize its use and we cannot allow that to happen. Terms like "illegals" are often used to stereotype and victimize persons and do not have any positive connotations. The use of the term makes defined assumptions about a person or a group of person that aren't true and biases one's perception, thoughts ,decisions and actions relating to them. If we continue to ignore the derogatory nature of the term we normalize it and we will never see the issues that lie behind it. We will continue to ignore that there is a problem that needs to be addressed and people that need defense. To tackle these issues terms like illegal need to become taboo and not normal