Reflective Annotated Bibliography: “Reassigning Meaning”

CloverLeave a comment

Title and Author(s):

Simi Linton, “Reassigning Meaning”, second chapter of Claiming Disability.

Summary:

In this reading, Linton provides a theoretical framework that re-centers disability within the discussion on health and society, while considering other intersectional factors of race, gender, and sexual orientation as belonging on an axis with points of privilege. First, Linton introduces the audience to many of the terms typically used to discuss disability⁠—ableism, special, abnormality, overcome, person with disability⁠—going as far as to deconstruct that dis- into its “semantic consequences” (31) of diminutive separation. Through naming oppressive language (i.e. “dying of AIDS”), describing the conflict (the implication that those with AIDS are incapable of living active lives), and providing a helpful alternative (i.e. “living with AIDS”), Linton demystifies the myriad of options for describing disability, recommending the terms disabled and nondisabled among them (27). At the center of Linton’s framework is the idea that the nondisabled position is not the “universal, neutral position from which disabled people deviate” (32), but simply possible outcomes of human variation.

Quotations: 

“This new language conveys different meanings, and, significantly, the shifts serve as metacommunications about the social, political, intellectual, and ideological transformations that have taken place” (9).

“When disabled people are able to pass for nondisabled, and do, the emotional toll it takes is enormous” (20).

“Saying that someone is suffering from a condition implies that there is a perpetual state of suffering, uninterrupted by pleasurable moments or satisfactions. Afflicted carries similar presumptions” (26).

Reflections:

More than anything else from this text, I am grateful to have a layman’s-terms toolkit for discussing disability as the quarter draws on. There is so much power in language, and as Linton points out, language itself is a driver and a shaper of conversation. Knowing exactly why certain colloquial terms have been intentionally abandoned by disability advocates, and which alternatives are preferable, makes me more comfortable in charting the waters ahead.

However, I was pretty confused by some of the language in this reading, specifically about nondisabled perspectives. Linton wrote “The nondisabled stance, like the white stance, is veiled” on page fourteen. What exactly does this mean? That the “nondisabled stance” is an undertheorized stance? What is a “white stance”, anyhow? At first, some of Linton’s phrasing might seem inflammatory, but that in itself helped me to generate thought as I worked to dispute whatever I disagreed with at first. Another example: Linton described the nondisabled on page 32 as “a category of people whose power and cultural capital keep them at the center”. This ordering of words makes it seem as though the nondisabled could wield this “power” as a tool to force their way into higher positions in society. However, I believe what Linton means to say is that the absence of ableist oppression among the nondisabled—whether that may be incurred medical bills, workplace discrimination, an increased difficulty in accessing resources, or imposed stigma—allow the nondisabled to come to the “center” of the discussion on disability, through the osmotic pressures of privilege in society. 

It’s clear from this reading that Linton is as deeply critical of the linguistic structures enforcing ableism as our popular slang, which to me is refreshing, as it adds a layer of depth. Linton argues that only through the use of humanizing, accurate, and warranted language towards disability may academic discussions on ability and society be facilitated respectfully and appropriately. Personally, I couldn’t agree more.

Linton and Terminology

turtle8 Comments
  • “Reassigning Meaning” By Simi Linton
  • In this excerpt, Linton lists the different terminology to refer to or speak of people with disabilities. She goes through all the terms and their different categories, explaining exactly why they are problematic, frowned upon, and used, “The present examination of disability has no need for the medical language of symptoms and diagnostic categories.”(2). They argue that almost all words and phrases can be oppressive or offensive. First, she opens up with the claim that disability and the medical significance is unnecessary. From there, Simi points out all the problems with different words such as ‘ableism’ or ‘overcoming a disability’ and why these need to be addressed, “To say that I am physically challenged is to state that the obstacles to my participation are physical, not social, and that the barrier is my own disability”(14). Finally, she concludes that with the spreading of knowledge and awareness there will be better and more accurate terminology for disabled people as well as the power abled people have over this, “Similarly, it is important to examine the non disabled position and its privilege and power” (32). Overall, this was a very informative and interesting excerpt.
  • I think what stuck with me the most was the fact that almost every phrase or term that I use is offensive in some way. I had not thought deeply about these terms, I just accepted them as they were and maybe that was due to the exposure I grew up with and what I learned from parents, family, and just people in my community. It made me mad realizing that not only have we put these people in a group but we have created terms that are inappropriate and no one seems to care to understand that. It makes me upset that this is not something that is taught in schools or studied closely. We learn about racism, sexism, yet this does not qualify for some reason? In a way, I feel as if the education system has failed me in this way. My lack of knowledge and the fact that I had not realize that my lack of knowledge was present on this topic, makes me upset. I make it a goal to be as informed and respectful about topics like these and I feel like I have failed here.
  • Language and labels are so important. In my personal opinion, words are the most powerful thing in the world. They cannot be taken back and people remember them for the rest of their lives. Words start wars and forms relationships. Something that can do such drastic things holds power. This reading really reminded me of that opinion. The way that words effect people and can change a generation, or a group. These terms influence how people view themselves in terms of self image as well as society. This is something that needs to be addressed, finding ways to respect people should be a priority and in this case, it feels like it is not.

Kerry Richardson’s “The Children Will Be Fine” – Wesley Hager

Djellibeybi1 Comment

I must confess that I did not enjoy watching the film “The Children Are Alright”, and that this might color how this review is perceived. I will try to be as kindly as possible during this review, but I ask for your forgiveness if I give any harsh opinions. They are mine alone, and just because I didn’t enjoy it, does not mean that you shouldn’t.

Our story starts back in the early nineties, with the certain venerations of one Jerry Lewis amongst the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) for writing a piece describing the plight of people inflicted with muscular dystrophy as “a steel imprisonment”. Jerry Lewis was the host of the telethon hosted by the MDA, and he would often bring young children with muscular dystrophy (MD) to generate sympathy on the telethon. The telethon is designed to assist people with MD and to fund cures for MD. However, the former poster-children of the MDA and Jerry Lewis, had grown up to develop a disdain for the Telethon, the MDA, and Jerry Lewis – calling themselves “Jerry’s Orphans”. The film follows Mike Ervin, one of “Jerry’s Orphans” who was on Telethon’s during the 60’s, who grew to resent the MDA’s manipulation of people with MD and their loved ones.

The MDA would tell people that the telethon was a necessary element of getting funding, but Mike Ervin and “Jerry’s Orphans” state that the telethon contributes little of the MDA’s funding and that the majority of the funds raised from the telethon go to organizing events, rather than to helping others with MD.

An interesting point is made by Mike Ervin during the film: the money raised from the telethon are supposed to be used to fund a cure for MD. But many of “Jerry’s Orphans”, after having grown up, have resigned themselves to the fact that they will never find a cure to their condition, and that they probably wouldn’t want one even if they had. “Jerry’s Orphans” don’t want to be pandered to or become the objects of pity from self-righteous philanthropists. This is perhaps the primary message of the documentary, and while they have my sympathies, I found they’re methods and rhetoric betrayed a violent need for retributive justice which I found displeasing. But I also understand their criticisms of the MDA, and that much of their anger is justified – having been manipulated by a corrupt organization that lacks transparency. I honestly have mixed feelings about this film, and I don’t fault anyone who does not know who they should support in this argument.

Rating 3.5 stars

Not bad, but didn’t enjoy it very much.

O’Toole, Corbett Joan. “Celebrating Crip Bodyminds”

TuesdayLeave a comment

Fading Scars: My Queer Disability History, 1st ed., Autonomous Press, June 9th, 2015, pp.13-53

Summary

In this reading, O’Toole explores the boundaries they faced while writing about other disabled people and their stories. O’Toole starts their exploration by explaining their beliefs about why disability should be talked about and how discourse if thoughtless can enable ableist rhetoric. The most significant aspect of O’Toole’s writing is their classification of people as “disabled”, “nondisabled”, or “unknown”. They explain their reasoning for including people’s disability status, is to combat erasure of disability, one of the forms of ableism. Early on, O’Toole establishes their belief of two distinct forms ableism, erasing disability and idolizing perceived struggles. The latter is mostly done by non-disabled individuals and focuses on assumed struggles without seeing the disabled person as a person. This leads naturally into a discussion of society’s relationship to the concept of “normal”. They make a point that the more normal an “abnormal” condition is made the more rights people with that condition will be able to enjoy. This is the main reason they purposefully mention disabilities but do not make it the focus of a person’s introduction in their book. The language used around disabilities varies widely depending on who is speaking. O’Toole voices a hesitance to use medical and “formal” terminology as often that vocabulary is rejected by disabled groups. However, they do express a need to use it as most people who do not consistently interact with disabled people only know the “formal” terminology. They also make a point that outside of the “formal” language used to discuss disability there is not a consistently agreed upon lexicon. So, for the sake of transparent communication they used a mix of the “formal” and the commonly used lexicons. They also acknowledge the potential labeling people has for harm. This is the reason they classify people as “unknown”, to avoid labeling people something they have not chosen to be known as. By using this method, O’Toole is respecting other’s identity while bring awareness and normalizing situations that would otherwise be portrayed as different or downplayed.

Quotations

“Refusing to explore language options for people’s relationship to disability harms the nondisabled people by ignoring the ways that ableism also impacts them as they go through life with disabled people.” (43)

“There is no standard grammatical structure in how people use their chosen disability-specific terms. People with hemophilia call themselves ‘hemophiliacs’. The deaf community has a convention of using ‘Deaf” to mean people that are affiliated with the cultural and linguistic community of people who use American Sign Language and ‘deaf’ to indicate that someone has a hearing disability but is not necessarily tied to the cultural and linguistic capital ‘D’ Deaf community.” (37)

“A significant problem in American culture, as in many Western cultures, is the presumption that preforming ‘normally’ is required for competence to be presumed.” (22)

“When deviations from “normal” occur, our society reacts as if all efforts should be made to bring the deviant back to as close to normal as possible, and if that is not possible, to eliminate the deviant.” (18)

Reflection

I enjoyed reading this excerpt quite a bit. O’Toole probably had the most understandable explanation of “normalizing disability”. To be completely honest, I have been struggling to understand what each of the examples we have seen so far in this class mean when they say they want disability to be normalized. Up until this point, I have just placed the concept to the side as much as I could. That is a very unfortunate way approach the conversation we have been having as normalization is reoccurring theme. I also feel as if O’Toole has given me some of the context that has been lacking in most of the material thus far. The discussion of language and O’Toole’s method was very thorough addressing all sides of the conversation. I think the biggest part of O’Toole’s writing I noticed was their honest attempts to reach all sides. They were purposely tailoring their writing so that it would be understandable to as many people as possible. They were not catering to one group of people but considering all potential audiences. I am interested to hear their perspective on some other intersectional topics. They clearly are very conscious of differences and struggles that relate to those differences. Terminology seemed to be the largest struggle they faced. This is understandable because if used improperly, someone could be offended and/or the original narrative can be completely lost. I found the way they approached labeling interesting. I am personally very conflicted about labels. I at this point pretty much refuse to apply a label to myself in any way. I have never felt comfortable with any label I have been assigned. And I say assigned, because even if it seems that I am the one choosing the label, I am not. Most labels, even chosen ones, are based on how others perceive us and how we relate to others’ perceptions. I do, however, understand that labels really help people feel comfortable. So, it was interesting to see someone make a case for labels and a case against label usage at the same time. Without the explanation they gave, I believe I would have probably taken some issue with them labeling people as disabled or not throughout their writing.

“Reassigning Meaning”: Redefining the Disability Community

DellFrog1 Comment

Linton, Simi. “Reassigning Meaning”. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. (New York: New York University Pressm 1998).

Summary

Linton begins by informing the reader of the disabled community’s efforts to reclaim what it means to be disabled and the terminology involved. She talks about the oppression of the disabled community, how the previous way of defining and identifying the community no longer serves purpose, accompanied by a brief discussion of how the medical definitions of disability form certain stigma in practice. Linton continues by looking at the term “disabled” as an identity marker and how the definition creates a separation between “disabled” and “non-disabled”, which should remain as a way to identify community but not to exclude others. She covers the concept of people without disabilities creating alternative language to boost the views of people with disabilities, including the term “special education” for children. Linton also discusses how “nasty words” have also been used for the disabled community and how the concept of overcoming denotes an inferiority compared to others without disabilities. In discussing the concept of “passing”, Linton covers how exhausting and minimizing that can be for someone with disabilities, and how the concept of normal vs. abnormal creates a dichotomy of self-worth and identity. She also talks about how people with disabilities are often seen as passive “victims” of their conditions, rather than in control of how they live their lives. Linton then discusses how some words have double meaning and can ascribe hurtful ideas to people with disabilities and how the connotations of the prefix “dis” come with the concept of “to be apart”. Linton concludes the writing by talking about the need to denote a socio-political axis category for which disability can be separated from its medical origins.

Direct Quotes:

The decision to assign medical meanings to disability has had many and varied consequences for disabled people (11).

Because it is physically impossible to overcome a disability, it seems that what is overcome is the social stigma of having a disability (17).

The message that I read in this action: You are like everyone else, but only as long as you hide or minimize your disability (21).

Reflection:

There is a certain desire for people to be able to put a name to something, whether to then identify with the name or to use it as a way to define and separate two entities. While this desire is natural, it certainly can create some problematic situations, as it has for the disabled community. As someone who understands science, I understand the need to create medical definitions of conditions that people have as a means to discover treatments or accommodations that can be created to give them greater access. However, I do understand that the point was lost along the way and it has instead devolved into a means of separating the abled from the disabled. I have never appreciated the exclusionary efforts of people to created spaces where people exist “within or without”, and efforts like this drive me up the wall. That people with disabilities are asked to “overcome” is a failure within itself. People with disabilities have been the other for so long that it is absolutely possible that the only time an abled child or teen has had interactions with someone who is disabled is through inspiration porn. All they know are the “overcoming” narratives instead of stories of the lives of people with disabilities or the stories they have to tell that are not specifically about their disability. And where is the humanity in that? Why do people with disabilities have to prove themselves “normal”? When growing up there is such an immense pressure to be “normal” or to “fit in” that parents have to tell a child, “It is okay to stand out!” Then when people do stand out, they are scrutinized until they feel the pressure to conform, or “pass”. As a society, we have created a mainstream understanding of how a person should look, act, think, and exist, and when someone doesn’t fit the mold, or God forbid they have a disability, they are “abnormal”. I appreciate the author’s emphasis on redefining these terms that have for so long been used as inherently ableist definitions for a faux state of being. Not only will this effort require a reshaping of the understanding of disabilities, but it will also require a redefinition of how we view normalcy. People deserve the choice to put a name to something they experience, but they also deserve the right to be seen as they are: whole.

**Note: I use the term “disabled community” because “community of people with disabilities feels disingenuous. However, I currently stand by using “people with disabilities” as opposed to “disabled people”.

Reversing the “Compassionate” Dystrophication of Personhood

Turnip Friend1 Comment

“The Kids Are Alright” is a short documentary exposing the incredible level of disrespect people with Muscular Dystrophy have faced from Jerry Lewis and the Labor Day Telethon put on by the Muscular Dystrophy Association. When the narrator first speaks, we see an image of him as a young poster child for the association, smiling from his wheelchair as Jerry Lewis hands him a piece of birthday cake. Flashing forward forty years later we see the narrator once again at an MDA event, one was he was not invited to. This time, him and other former poster children are protesting the event and all that it stands for as a group self-titled “Jerry’s Orphans”, passionately shouting, “Piss On Pity!”

Throughout this documentary the narrator dives into the specific actions and processes involved with the telethon that directly contradict the needs of those with Muscular Dystrophy. When he was a child, the narrator was featured on these televised events as a way for the foundation to pull at the heartstrings of those watching from home. They describe these children as trapped in their wheelchairs; a collection of poor little angels that may only be cured if people donate enough money to the foundation. However, as the story develops it becomes clear from the narrator’s account as well as those of the other former poster children that by focusing the telethon’s message on the goal to find a cure and make money for those involved in the association, the actual individuals who need accommodations such as wheelchairs, care-givers, ramps, etc., are often left out of the conversation, and therefore their needs are continuously unmet by the people who claim to care the most.

The issue of accommodations being provided to those who need them isn’t the only issue though. The narrator also makes the point multiple times that one of the most important things people can do to support those with disabilities is to refuse to pity them. Humans deserve to be treated with humanity. The narrator reads to the audience a quote from a piece written by Jerry Lewis that was featured on the cover of the 1990 Edition of Parade Magazine, where Lewis imagines what it would be like to suffer from Muscular Dystrophy and describes the people affected as only existing as “half a person,” who can only experience “half a life” because of the disability. The narrator points out that this level of disrespect towards the community Lewis attempts to represent is the most “unbelievably outrageous and patronizing piece about disability” that he had ever read in his life. He also goes on to express that this mindset affects the interactions disabled people have with the general public with a story about getting coffee one morning and a man on the streets assumed that the narrator was begging for money, simply because he was disabled and holding a cup on a street corner as he waited for the light to change.

As a documentary, “The Kids Are Alright” encapsulates the often invisible and purposeful disconnect between activists and the people they supposedly represent. Every year the narrator and the other members of “Jerry’s Orphans” attempted to protest the Telethon after the first, not only were attempts made to bar their entry, but the police were called to remove them each time, as the members tried to explain to the event attendees and supporters that their actions were detrimental to the Muscular Dystrophy community. When the narrator chose to name the documentary “The Kids Are Alright,” not only was he commenting on how the poster children deserve to exist as children without the condescending experience of being pitied for their existence, but he was also commenting on how Lewis and the Muscular Dystrophy Association chose to forget about the child once they grew up. Only the children are seen as good enough for viewers of the telethon to fight for with their pocketbooks, despite the number of adults who still need and deserve to receive accommodations without their personhood coming under attack.

This documentary highlights the problem of “compassionate” people who refuse to unplug their ears to the voices of the people have the human right to speak about their experiences. I found that the main message the narrator wanted to impress upon the viewers in “The Kids Are Alright,” is that despite the dehumanization, disabled people will never stop being fully human, and will not stop their important self-advocacy until the world understands that truth and acts in accordance. I would like to rate the documentary a full 5 out of 5, however I’m going to give it a 4, only because I wish it had been far longer and included the stories of the other poster children that made up “Jerry’s Orphans” explored in depth just as the main narrator’s experience was.

“Stop the Telethon!”: Picketing with Jerry’s Orphans in “The Kids are Alright”

Clover2 Comments

Jerry Springer’s Labor Day Telethon (in partnership with the Muscular Dystrophy Association) aired on television in America for over 48 years, collecting donations intended to increase accessibility to wheelchairs and medication—as well as fund research towards a cure, or eradication, of the disease. Always a lavish affair, the telethon kept a keen spotlight on “Jerry’s Kids”, a rotating set of poster children living with dystrophy, often brought out for PR events and photoshoots, as well as for stage performances during the annual fundraiser. 

Springer’s televised affection for the kids was intensely marketable for the charity, but as the years went by, growing numbers of “Jerry’s Kids” felt more abandoned, alienated, and pitied than supported by Springer and the MDA. That, in combination with an obvious misappropriation of funding by the parent charity, was impetus enough for former poster child Mike Ervin to establish his activist group, “Jerry’s Orphans”, in honor of those exploited by the fundraiser—and with the goal of ending Springer’s telethon for good. 

Shot in the mid-to-late 1990s, the documentary The Kids are Alright follows Ervin, and Jerry’s Orphans, as they attempt to infiltrate an MDA charity event in Chicago, bring awareness to those present of the exploitation they support, and encourage the public not to endorse such dehumanization of the disabled by the MDA. 

Much of the film is carried out interview-style, as Ervin details the history of his own activism and experiences of discrimination as a wheelchair-bound individual⁠—but a large part still is devoted to recording the late-night meetings of Jerry’s Orphans as they do telephonic outreach and event coordinating towards the big day. Arriving on site in Chicago bearing slogans such as “Piss on pity!”, the protesters dodge past guards to try to invade the event. Partially successful, the group engage in discussions with several of the event’s attendees and staff, establishing their presence and dispelling the white lies of the “charity mentality”, which promotes blanket pity as helpful. Pity, to Jerry’s Orphans, is but a detrimental pigeonhole for those on the receiving end. And with the money pity collects, the MDA’s proposed ‘cures’ for dystrophy (mainly of prenatal detection and abortion), just stands as another flagrant offense to Ervin’s growing community. Of course, in protesting the charity event, Jerry’s Orphans were quickly requested to leave the premises by its administrators.

Something major to take away from this film? The blatant irony of an event designed specifically for the livelihoods of its poster children turning its back on the many, desperate voices of those same children, grown up. Though no official statement was given by Jerry Springer (or the MDA) in the film, Springer reportedly spoke of Ervin’s activism as such: “Pity? You don’t want to be pitied because you’re a cripple in a wheelchair? Stay in your house!”. Ervin spoke of Springer’s contempt coolly, stating: “I pity those who pity me”.

Worthy of four stars, The Kids are Alright is a low-polish, yet intimate showcase of grassroots activism, moving only as quickly as events unfold from the foyers, basements, and local pizza parlors of real Americans with real grievances, working together to bring justice to their cause.

If I Had Endless Miseducation: Jerry Lewis and His Orphans

Limbo1 Comment

The short film “The Kids Are Alright” provides us a look into the lives of folks with muscular dystrophy. Specifically, we are following former kids who were used by Jerry Lewis in the infamous telethon to raise money for a cure. Now, not all members were associated with being one of “Jerry’s Orphans.” That is because this group of activists had a larger goal to spread visibility about disability. While not everyone had the honor to be ignorantly cussed out by bitter Lewis in a Vanity Fair interview, everyone had felt the pain of being disregarded as “other,” or “not enough” in their everyday lives. The telethon was formatted to rack up pity-points from the audience through shameless manipulation and lies. It is not wrong to raise money for helpful organizations, but these donors are unaware of where this money is going or how it is being used. That is where we set the scene as our activists speak out against the shady organization and Lewis’ failure to listen (as well as the rest of our nation). 

Mike Ervin, leader of the movement “Jerry’s Orphans,” guides us through every protest and what it all really means to him. Ervin’s frustration partially comes from the narratives surrounding the disabled community. One major issue, disabled folks’ voices are typically put on mute or never broadcasted in any form. Secondly, able-bodied people paint pictures of misery, pain, and suffering when speaking on behalf of the disabled community. Take for example the goal of finding a cure. Ervin himself never felt the need for a cure. He describes his life as a fulfilled one and wishes to distance himself from dialogue that enables the idea of fixing him. Ervin also organized protests alongside peers to be peaceful and educational. Sit-ins started occurring during the telethon with powerful messages like, “Piss on pity,” encouraging pride in the disabled community for a change. Education about muscular dystrophy and the Muscular Dystrophy Association was readily available through helpful pamphlets handed out by the activists. This chosen mode of protest and resources should have been enough to push people to realize we need to do better. Ervin and his peers had done most of the work through serious research, sharing their experiences, and being kind but firm in the face of ignorance. All the audience had to do was put in effort past that point, like read or listen.  

Overall, this film receives a gleaming 4 out of 5 stars. Given his major role in activism, the film chose to center around Ervin, but it would have been nice to hear more voices. I think one of the many vital lessons to learn from this film is how activism works. The telethon audience donating money to an organization they have not read up on can sum up many American activists today. It is much easier to do no research, read nothing, listen to no one and forget the next day. Ervin’s team did activism the correct way and needed others to step up to do the exact same. Nothing gets done without proper action. The pacing in this film felt a little off or rushed for the sake of time and storytelling. I wish they had a better timeline of events, or extended it.

Piss on Pity

unsureunderwaterobot2 Comments

The Kids are Alright is a short documentary breaking down the inappropriate and dehumanizing nature of Jerry Lewis’ Labor Day Telethon for folks with Muscular Dystrophy. Mike Ervin, an ex-poster child for Jerry’s fundraiser, speaks up about being exploited as a source of pity to raise money. The conflict of this film is the mistreatment of disabled folks and the saviorism that exasperates this mistreatment. The rhetor of this film, Ervin, explains his first hand experience in the field of disability activism – as a disabled person. Ervin tries to amplify the voices of folks living with MD in hopes of abolishing pitiful fundraisers like those held by Jerry Lewis and the MDA. Throughout the film Ervin uses storytelling as a means to get his point across. He addresses his own ethos, as a man living with muscular dystrophy. He uses pathos, by expressing his human reaction to being pitied. Ironically, the fundraisers he fights against use a false pathos (pity) in order to sell charity. Ervin’s logos show up through statistics of poorly used MDA funds and the wrong “cure”. What I mean is, the telethon only supplies 30% of the MDA’s annual funds and of that so much is allocated to fancy scientist conferences and advertising campaigns. Ervin questions the viewer what “a cure” for MD even looks like and how do we get there. Is it funneling money into politically charged conferences? Or is it providing disabled folks with chairs, ramps, autonomy, and resources? This film really had me questioning where “charity” funds are going and from whom they are requested. I couldn’t help but think, if this is how a white, seemingly financially stable, man is treated in the world, how are QTPOC disabled folks feeling. As mentioned in the film, disability is not a monolith, every disabled person is a human with individual complexities, and I’d love to continue to learn more from different facets moving forward.

Overall the film was 4/5 due to only focusing in on one man, rather than getting a few perspectives. Although, it almost feels backwards for me, as someone without MD, to be rating how MD is portrayed in a film. Hmph.

Unintended Orphans

turtle1 Comment

The film The Kids Aren’t Alright gives us an inside look at what it is like to suffer from a disability and get unwanted and unhelpful assistance. The film centers the story of a telethon created by Jerry Lewis and the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) that is meant to raise money and donations to help look for a cure to this condition. The film highlights that this telethon is counterproductive. The telethon is created to get people to pity and feel bad for people with Muscular Dystrophy, to guilt them into donating. Jerry Lewis and the MDA paint this unrealistic picture that people with this condition are suffering, that they are not able to live life to the fullest. That these people desire a cure for their condition, as if it is a requirement to live a full life. Jerry’s Orphans challenge this perception that Jerry Lewis and the MDA has created. They bring to light the fact that they can live happy lives full of love, happiness, and fulfillment and they are not looking for anyone’s pity.

The rhetor in this documentary is the creator, Mike Ervin, and his goal with this film is to bring to light the misconceptions and truths of living with Muscular Dystrophy. Ervin establishes his personal authority by speaking about his personal experience as someone with Muscular Dystrophy, he gets people to empathize with him by sharing personal stories of discrimination and hardships he has faced while bringing to light a corrupt system and organization. Him, and the rest of Jerry’s Orphans, go about trying to accomplish this by leading non violent protests during these telethons, handing out pamphlets, making phone calls to people in power, and simply educating people on what it is to be a person with this disability and what we can do to actually help them.

I give this film a four out of five stars. I think the film did a great job highlighting the voices of those with Muscle Dystrophy and explaining what is offensive, disrespectful, and ignorant about Jerry Lewis’s yearly telethon. It did a wonderful job depicting the actions and success but also the obstacles that Jerry’s Orphans have experienced and taken. The one thing I wish the film did was tell the viewer how to be of assistance. By watching the film I am know educated and enlightened on these people’s struggle and experience but the film does not tell me how to take action or in what way they would like us to help them with their cause.