I wrote recently both about the movie Tropic Thunder and about intersectionality.
(For those who don't know, the term "intersectionality" refers to the idea that one form of oppression cannot be considered separately from other forms of oppression. So, for example, we cannot consider "ableism" and "sexism" free-floating and disconnected, because there are women who have disabilities, and experience these things as related. So, for example, when I am seen as less of a person, that can take the specific form of people dehumanizing me by seeing me as a fainting Victorian invalid -- a specific stereotype of women with disabilities rather than of men with them.)
In the second post, I spoke of why I believe that as people with disabilities we should not see ourselves as enemies of migrant workers, competing with them for resources. Today I came across this post from Ms. Crip Chick, talking about how as white disability rights activists we should not focus on, say, the r-word without also being concerned about depictions of people of color as well (or of anyone else!):
Included in our activism against ableism and the use of the r-word
in Tropic Thunder have been statements from disability organizations
and disability activists along the lines of “People can’t say n*gger,
w*tback, or other racial oppressive words but they can still say
r*tard!”, “Disability is the last frontier!”, “When making Tropic
Thunder, Dreamworks brought in African American consultants to make
sure the movie wasn’t offensive—where were the disability consultants?”
Though I think I know what this feeling is based on—the frusteration
of ableism not being addressed as oppression in activist communities
and mainstream society—I believe this short-term strategy or sentiment
absolutely cannot be a part of our activism. Not only does this
strategy alienate disabled people who have multiple identities but it
does nothing to address oppression. When we say these kinds of things,
it says that we believe racism, heterosexism, sexism, etc are personal
conflicts that happens between people (and that we’ve overcome!), not
institutions in which our soicety is based upon. It ignores families
being ripped apart by ICE raids, trans women of color being killed everyday, and the ever-growing prison industrial complex.
One leader in the disability community rightfully pointed out the
need to stick with the issue of the r-word and not swamping it with 17
other disability issues. I agreed with him, afterall, our society and
movement have a history of silencing people with intellectual
disabilities. But still, why weren’t the other connections made? How come we chose not to talk about all of the other horrible imagery (particularly against Asian-Pacific Islander folks)? Some
responses I’ve seen to this question have been that it is more
strategic. Is it really strategic in the long run and if we decide that
it is— strategic for who?
I believe our activism has to be bigger than our own oppression but
if you want, let’s talk about strategies for our movement. I believe it
IS strategic to talk about other systems of oppressions—how else can we
expect to have the system of oppression we face as disabled people
recognized? How can we even go into social justice work uwilling to
talk about the privileges we have?
I do think there is a time and place for focusing on one issue at a time. Personally, although I have a disability and am female, I got very burnt out on certain forms of feminist theory and discussion precisely because people (mostly able-bodied women) paid so little attention to disability issues, or framed discussions in ways that dismissed concerns I have as a PWD.
Even without that, though, it's easy to get burnt out if you're trying too hard to fight too many fights. I can't personally devote all my time to race and class and disability and trans issues and all the other injustices in the world. I'm only one person. So I am deeply aware that sometimes we want to take these struggles one issue at a time.
On the other hand, Crip Chick is right. We do have to consider that we are not alone in the world. Yes, we want resources and access, but we don't want to get them by fighting other people who are similarly downtrodden, like chickens squabbling for feed. The argument should not be about why it is "okay" to say the r-word if it's not okay to say the n-word. In other words, it shouldn't be about how offensive it is that we happen to be "the last frontier". It should be about why any of this is generally considered funny in the first place.
