Over accomodating for fat people
Once again, people with disabilities would be included in family, education and workplaces.
Thanks to such efforts, in the United States today people with disabilities often live within their own communities, although many of the problems introduced by institutional culture persist – albeit in different forms.
In truth, disability is an aspect of ordinary experience that touches all people and all families at some point in the cycle of life.
As disability studies scholar Rosemarie Garland Thomson notes, “The fact is, most of us will move in and out of disability in our lifetimes, whether we do so through illness, an injury or merely the process of aging.” Yet, fear of our own vulnerability and of the stigma that accompanies disability leads us to deny this basic truth.
Australian disability activist Carly Findlay wrote, “There was no hashtag. Not even prayers.” Disability rights journalist David Perry pointed out the irony that the attack came just one day before the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
This sad coincidence is evidence of an ongoing ambivalence toward people with disabilities.
A good citizen was one who had the ability to be productive and self-reliant.
And there are many signs of progress, such as recognition of their legal rights and more inclusive schools.
The history of disability has not been a path of steady progress toward tolerance and accommodation.
James Trent, a professor of sociology and social work at Gordon College, in his 1994 book, “Inventing the Feeble Mind,” describes shifting attitudes toward and treatment of people with disabilities in America since the Colonial era.
It became increasingly common to remove the feebleminded and other people with disabilities from their families and communities and place them in institutions.
Early institutions in the United States were inspired by French educator Edward Seguin, known as the “apostle for the idiots.” He believed that people with intellectual disabilities were capable of learning and development. They were intended as a temporary measure to build residents’ skills and moral character, releasing them as productive members of society.In the early 20th century, the eugenics movement contributed to prejudice against the feebleminded by proposing that they posed a threat to the purity and strength of the nation’s bloodlines.