Groups
This week I was listening to a radio discussion precipitated by an American decision not to use the word “elderly” but to call people “older adults”. Apart from the mind-boggling stupidity of discussing the matter at all as, sooner or later, any description becomes politically incorrect however accurate technically, I was amused by the English charity representative interviewed. In no way do I wish to denigrate her or her work but she was arguing against a lot of other adjectives that categorise old people. What I found funny was that she worked for “Help the Aged” and when tackled by the interviewer about the ambiguity said this was different as it was an historical name for the charity and was not seen as derogatory to the clients. She did admit however that they were considering changing the name. As no-one objects to children’s charities concerning themselves with a particular age group why is the other extreme a problem?
At some point everyone belongs to a group, whether they are boy scouts, bald or train spotters. I think the difference is whether it is something you choose to be or whether it is beyond any human control. Obviously there are many occasions when lumping a disparate group of people under one heading is wrong and this causes injustices. I read recently of a family of Germans living in Britain before the war. They had always been law abiding and respected locally, but were shunned and interned once war broke out, just because of their nationality. No one checked whether or not they actually supported Hitler. Many similar instances can be found when reading about apartheid in South Africa. There they became so convoluted in their reasoning that some able or wealthy black people were made honorary whites as the country bent its own laws in order to utilise their resources. Their skin remained pigmented and their genes still passed this on to their descendants, however.
At other times terms, now considered derogatory, are used correctly for a reason. If someone cannot see a certain amount on the chart they are technically blind and registered as such, not visually disadvantaged. No one is saying they are any worse or better as a person because of their disability, it is just a word to describe a condition as is diabetic. When I worked at Queen Mary’s Hospital, the Limb-fitting Unit patients’ football team wanted to call themselves the “Roehampton Raspberry Ripples”, rhyming slang for cripples. They were made to change this by the powers-that-be as it was considered bad form. Surely if they were the ones who were likely to be offended and they chose it, no one else should interfere or be upset.
The group we are put in can affect our lives and the public perception of that group can also affect our behaviour. One of my friends has a twelve-year-old son who borders on autism; he is clumsy, has problems with daily life and fails at schoolwork involving reading. He is brilliant at mathematics however. On discussing his poor results with his mother he said he would like more help with reading, she pointed out there were classes at the school, which he declined to attend. His answer was that he did not go to those classes because they were “special needs” and he did not see himself as “one of those”. Despite the fact he was acknowledging that he needed the special help he would not put himself in line for more derision and bullying from his classmates. The term “special needs” superseded “educationally subnormal” because it was upbeat, less pejorative and depressing but like using older instead of elderly it means what it means and the pc cycle is repeating itself.
As Christians we too are in a group. There are many perceptions, true and false, about what being a Christian means, there are many people trying to define it, but what matters is how we see ourselves and how Gods see us. We need to examine ours lives and behaviour closely and, if necessary, take remedial action.
