Nor am I saying that it does. i was providing one example, but this is the prevailing opinion I’ve heard from the community in general - from those actually using wheelchairs - that they do not like the term “wheelchair bound.”
Communities are not monolithic. I'm sick of "you can't say X, you have to say Y." Or "you have to say X, but only if you capitalize it." Or "you can't say Z Person, you have to say Person Experiencing Z-ness." Or "I know that five years ago we bullied you into saying X but we rethought it and X is offensive now."Nor am I saying that it does. i was providing one example, but this is the prevailing opinion I’ve heard from the community in general - from those actually using wheelchairs - that they do not like the term “wheelchair bound.”
You could listen to the community, or not. Up to you.
I wasn’t holding anyone to an impossible standard. I was asking someone to “please reconsider” the usage.
I haven’t seen one sign of bullying anywhere. @Angel Ariel has been respectful this entire time.
We have had our disagreements in this discussion, but you are right on this…as a disabled person, if something is said out of ignorance rather than maliciousness, I’m NEVER going to hold that against them. I’m never ashamed to discuss my disease…I have an MS sticker on the back of my scooter so when they see a thin, relatively healthy looking guy riding one, it kind of shuts up the skeptics. I’ve overheard snide comments years ago about that at WDW…needless to say, I gave them a NJ education. Buy you’re right…it’s not WHAT you say, it’s HOW you say it.
I wasn't trying to "educate you," I was summing up my perspective with the principle of how I approach these sorts of things.
And I would agree with all of this as well.
But that’s the point, the article complained about a particular terminology but didn’t offer alternatives that would be acceptable (unless I missed it in the article). That strikes me as a poor way to evoke change.
That’s on me - I had to leave shortly when I posted that and was picking an article quickly. A little googling shows many similar discussions, many of which do have alternatives. The wheelchair user terminology is what the site of the article I posted uses in their “about” description (as well as what I’ve heard from people directly in the advocacy work I do).
No, ABSOLUTELY NOT!! We are FINE!!
More specific to this topic, I think the term “wheelchair bound” is a medically derived one indicating someone who is dependent on a wheelchair for mobility. As opposed to a “wheelchair user” or such that would more likely mean someone who can walk (though perhaps with a cane or walker) but uses a wheelchair at times. Those kinds of clarifications can be important and the nuance might be lost when trying to find terms that are not viewed as offensive.
Do you think anyone thinks this?
Best bet is to not even respond to such comments.
I thought it was actually created for UNICEF, but Pepsi sponsored it...Judging by some of the comments here, yes I do.
It's a very cute boat ride at a theme park. It was designed to sell Pepsi. That it's cuteness endured for 60 years is a bonus.
Pepsi asked Disney to build them a World's Fair pavilion, and Pepsi paid for it and put their name all over it. Joan Crawford slapped UNICEF on the billing to make it all seem charitable. UNICEF didn't pay a dime for any of it and had no creative input, but the UN staff was happy to take some charity checks from Pepsi-Cola. The US Committee for UNICEF did set up a little display near the exit however, and they sold their UNICEF Christmas stamps there. But it was really all Pepsi, all the time.
Ms. Crawford was not a stupid woman.
At the World's Fair it actually had a title that was perhaps one of the longest in Disney attraction history, even outdoing today's young Imagineers who slap colons and marketing junk onto every title.
PEPSI-COLA presents Walt Disney's "it's a small world" a salute to UNICEF and all the world's children
Phew! But it's friends just call it Small World.
I remember in the early 60's trick or treating with a cardboard bank to collect pennies for UNICEF. Later I think it shifted to dimes but awareness and support was large in those days with ads of food deliveries in starving countries and public appearances by celebrities' with kids that had been helped.
