Dear Sarah,

You are fortunate to have a platform from which you can advocate and educate our society about Down syndrome (and all intellectual and physical disabilities). As you well know, when you post something on Facebook, the whole world hears about it.

That is why we—a group of parents of children just like your youngest child—are asking you to strengthen your position on the pejorative use of the word "retarded". It is important that you understand the connection we see between the insult and Trig so that you are better able to articulate our position on this issue.

Everybody knows and agrees that the word "retarded" used in a clinical setting defines a group of individuals as having limited cognitive abilities. In this respect, the term carries similar effects as racial or sexual orientation categorizations, in that it invokes a specific class of individuals with immutable characteristics.

But what not everybody seems to realize is that the current, common definitions of the word "retarded" as stupid, wrong, ineffective... the catch-all for anything that is annoyingly deficient, are steeped in our cultural view of people with mental retardation.

So whether one is using the term as an insult or to raise laughs through satire, the speaker is tapping into our common cultural understanding and belief that people with mental retardation are characterized by those negative definitions listed above. The speaker references a group of individuals defined solely by their cognitive limitations, denying them their individual personalities, and by extension their essential humanity. He agrees that this group is inferior and worthy of our scorn. This use of the word "retarded" has become so deeply ingrained in our society that the user probably doesn’t even realize that he has done this.

Many people, when called out on their use of the word, insist that they meant no harm to the mentally retarded community, that their use of the word had nothing to do with this minority group. These people must be made aware that there is no separating the insult/joke from its basis for understanding it.

No one believes that Rahm Emanuel or Rush Limbaugh thought that they were insulting those with true mental retardation when they called people whose ideas they objected to "retarded." But we do believe that both men were making the point that their targets' ideas were of so little merit that they deserve to be grouped with an undesirable category of people. Both the direct target of the insult, and the class of people it refers to, are indisputably demeaned by such a slur. You cannot have one without the other.

Put a simpler way, if people with mental retardation were generally well-respected and thought highly of, the insult "retarded" would not exist.

Having the government remove the term retarded from the books, and having the medical community change the diagnosis terminology to "a person with intellectual disabilities," is not enough to eradicate the insult. The public must be made aware of how the insult relates to and hurts an entire group of people. This is not a word police PC thing, rather it is a matter of common decency.

Some argue that the insult "retarded" will simply be replaced by another word that is just as hurtful to the intellectually disabled community. But just because some group of the population will always turn clinical or descriptive terms into epithets does not mean that we should condone it. Such a standard would condone the use of virtually any racial, ethnic, or sexual orientation slur.

Sarah, we are asking you to take advantage of teachable moments by calling people out on using terms that systematically demean specific groups. If you are going to fight for what you believe in, and you believe in Trig and all those like him, then you cannot give anybody a pass on this issue. Whether used as an insult or a joke, coming from a Republican or Democrat, it cannot be tolerated.

If you stand up on this issue and speak clearly about the relationship between the word and our children, real change can happen. It will become less and less acceptable to use this entire group of innocent people as the butt of jokes and insults.

We thank you for taking the time to read this letter and look forward to your continued support on this issue.

Oz Squad November
Oz Squad Alpha

Please view the comments to see the rest of our signatures

Fallout

Fallout from the Rahm Emanuel slur continues to percolate across the Web. Here's a few more related articles that were recently brought to my attention. Comment away:

Sarah Palin Embraces 'Retarded' Political Correctness

The Morning News: Oscar Nominees, Other Peacocks, 520, and DADT

Black Book

It is not often you come across a writer for an arts and culture style magazine who gets all excited about using the term, “fucking retarded.” But Foster Kamer in his article titled, In Defense of Retarded, does just that.

In fact he ends his ridiculous diatribe with this paragraph, “I hereby advocate for Rahm Emmanuel, his rhetorical skills and the designation “fucking retarded.” We will do our best to carry this advocacy out in our usage henceforth. Anybody who has anything to argue to the contrary is, by definition, a fucking retard.”

Foster’s logic is faulty and his presentation is mean and extremely rude. Here's a guy who thinks that calling things he doesn't like "fucking retarded" is a joke that mentally retarded people should be able to "take" in order to be considered equal in our culture.

Let’s stop by and let him (and BlackBook) know he’s out of line, way out.

Impact

Hi everyone,

I know it may look like nothing much is happening with Oz Squad lately, but that's not exactly the case. And what IS happening is really interesting.

What's happening is that Oz Squad members are emailing me suggestions for missions. The past few suggested targets have been small fish - just random bloggers - but their posts have been extremely offensive. So offensive, in fact, that I haven't really even wanted to subject Oz Squad members to the pain of reading them. It's sometimes hard to determine if a target like that is really worth it. Are we just fanning the flames by posting comments on a small blog? Can we make a difference? Are we elevating a person of no real consequence by reading/targeting his blog?

So, here's what has happened the past few times I have been directed to a site like that. November and I have visited the site, done a little background research on the author, and posted a few initial comments. We've really just been feeling out the target, seeing if an official CTA would be helpful. But with those initial emails, we have had some amazing results.

November and I have found that those bloggers were willing to pull their posts once they realized how offensive they were. Some have even sent apologies. It has happened more than once. So, before we even had a chance to launch a mission, the mission was over.

Thanks for the suggestions, and please keep sending them whenever possible. And remember that Oz Squad is having a real impact, even though it's not always obvious.

Our Fragile Emissary

With modern screening and such
they wonder why
you're here, on this earth
in our home
and in our arms,
after all, anyone
with any sense would have resolved
this problem of you
pre-birth, pre pain.

Blonde Beauty,
tiny as you are,
you catch their stares,
strangers' second glances
into tender baby blues.
And your young
sweet ears hear whisperings
("Down's," "defects")
words dropped loosely
at extra-chromosomed girls.

With such stinging receptions
how we long to shelter you,
surround you; keep your
gentle smiles to ourselves.
Instead, we hold you
up, for others to see;
let you, our fragile emissary
speak to an imperfect world.

Written by Nancy Tupper Ling

Mission 6: The Tard Supper

Dan Savage just published a blog post about a painting by Russian artist Raoef Mamedov. This painting recreates the Last Supper, replacing Christ and his disciples with people who have Down syndrome. I'm not sure what the artist has in mind with this particular piece. It's beautifully rendered, and it's obviously open to interpretation. From my perspective, it's everything good art should be. I think it shows people with Down syndrome in a very beautiful light. I dunno, maybe other people just look at it and laugh at the "retards." Or maybe it's a hit piece on Christians. Like I said - it's open to interpretation.

Anyway, my problem is not with the artwork, it's with the headline Dan Savage chose for it. The Tard Supper. Ah Dan, so eloquent. For those of you who don't know, Dan is a nationally syndicated, openly-gay sex columnist. I happen to be a big fan of his column, because he is incredibly smart, interesting and witty. But surely Dan, of all people, should know what it feels like to be dismissed by hateful and hurtful labels. So I won't give him a pass as he mocks the mentally challenged.

Oz Squad members - please visit this link to see the post for yourself. Dan could benefit from hearing our comments. He should change the headline and write an apology, and that's what we all need to ask him to do.

For more information on the artist, here's an excerpt I pulled from a press packet. It explains some of his technique/motivation.

Moscow-based Mamedov utilizes the process of film direction by collaborating with a painter, photographer, computer technician, and actors to produce extrasensory photographs. Though the scenes viewed in the final works are complex with multiple players, each actor is separately photographed with Mamedov directing the actors’ emotions and providing the vision for the subsequent digitization and computer placement. Adding a strange conceptual twist, his “actors” range from institutionalized mental patients to individuals with Down Syndrome enabling him to utilize the true abilities of the actors’ minds as an art medium that heighten the pieces’ cultural connections and meanings.

Mamedov tackles the Bible and foundations of Christianity with straight adaptations of historical masterpieces by Nicolai Ge, Leonardo da Vinci, and Jan van Eyck. The featured works depict scenes from the New Testament played by actors with Down Syndrome. In portraying biblical characters, elements of the actors’ real-time fragmented state of mind and their tendency to think in quotations highlights the humanism of those portrayed personalities. Mamedov relates the state of his actors’ minds to Satori, a Zen Buddhist notion meaning sudden enlightenment or a flash of sudden awareness. This notion of a flash of consciousness elevates the visual impact of the art as an essentially pure communication of the acted message.

Want more? Find the full packet here.


Thanks to Oz Squad member Melissa for the alert!

What’s In a Number?

Some people, like a certain washed-up, no-longer-licensed-to-practice OB, like to throw around a big number, THE big number... 92%. That’s right 92% of women with a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome abort their babies. That’s some majority.

Only 8% of women who know they are carrying a baby with Down syndrome choose not to terminate.

But that number, 8%, really isn’t an accurate representation of the percentage of women who are open to the idea of giving birth to a baby with Down syndrome. You see there are a whole bunch of women that decline various types of testing because test results indicating Ds will not alter their plans to have their baby.

I was one of them and I know of many others.

We can assume that if by some fluke they had been prenatally diagnosed, the majority of them would have chosen to continue their pregnancies. These women should be counted as knowingly, willingly, perhaps even welcomingly (made that one up) choosing to give birth to a child with Ds rather than abort it.

If these women were counted what would that do to the 92% number? Would it drop to 90, 85, 80, or even lower? There’s only one way to find out... Ladies, stand up and be counted.

Take the Poll
Over in the right column is a poll question that asks...If (and only if) you had an after delivery diagnosis of Down syndrome, please indicate the level of prenatal testing you received during your pregnancy. (If you had non-invasive testing and followed up with the CVS or an amnio that returned incorrect results, please select the CVS/amnio option). Also, an ultrasound, while a nice view of the baby, only counts as a test if you did the 20-week 3D check-for-Ds ultrasound or any other 3D ultrasound that was specifically performed to look for Ds markers.

Written by ds.mama