First Ever
Albermarle County recently passed a law prohibiting people from standing out on public roads and highway medians asking for money. The law upset me because I feel like there is nothing wrong with homeless persons reaching out to their fellow man/woman in this way. To me, asking strangers for money is a beautifully heart-breaking example of humility and yet dignity. I think the ability to ask for help is one of the most dignified acts we can do. That aside, I was unbelievably offended the other day when I was reading one of our weekly news papers and in their news briefs, the headline calling attention to this law stated "County drivers forced to look at poor people no more." I was so disgusted that I wrote my first ever letter to the editor and emailed it off tonight. Here's how it went:
July 20, 2005
Dear Editor:
I was deeply offended by a headline in your July12-18 issue of C-ville regarding the county’s new law that prohibits collecting money on public roads. The headline read “County drivers forced to look at poor people no more.” I was shocked and appalled at the callous and derogatory manner in which this topic was addressed. Firstly, the term “poor people” is wholly inappropriate for use by educated professionals. Secondly, the headline treated our county’s disadvantaged population as a spectacle that interrupts the middle-class comfort to which we are accustomed in Charlottesville. By referring to them as “panhandlers” and by treating them as eyesores, you succeeded in objectifying and dehumanizing the disadvantaged, who ought to be treated with the same respect and dignity as any other member of our community. I hope that this gaffe was simply the result of poor editing and does not reflect the views of the staff and writers at C-ville Weekly.
Just wanted to share. Thanks for reading, and sorry I've been such a bad poster these days. Honestly, nothing that exciting is really happening.
10 comments:
One, "nothing exciting is happening" is probably totally false, and two, way to stick it to the comfortable yuppies of Albemarle. Let me know if they print it.
Update - the editor called me to verify my letter and said "I apologize that our sense of irony offended yours." I'm not sure what that meant, but it was a nice thought I guess. Supposedly, they are going to print my letter.
Way to go! I might have bought his irony story, but for the continued usage of derogatory terminology throughout the article.
On a similar note, I had the opportunity to attend a film screening in DC last night for Emmanuel's Gift, a movie about a disabled Ghanaian man who decided to bike across Ghana to inspire other disabled citizens. The vast majority of the disabled population of Ghana simply line the streets and beg -- which is not so profitable when you consider that 10% of all Ghanaians are disabled.
Anyway, it was quite good. They also served a Kenyan beer called 'Tusker' that rocked three-quarters of my face off.
Inviolable - thanks for your comments. Two things: who are you? and the editor is a woman.
tobias: *sigh* She's playing a WOMAN.
Sorry, that's what your comment made me think of. More correctly, that's of what your comment made me think.
This is K, of filosofiayflores fame.
I thought that it might be you, K. I just wanted to know for sure! We'll miss you guys at the beach this weekend. Hope to see you soon, though.
Why is the term "poor people" wholly inappropriate for use by educated professionals? If I'm not mistaken, they are poor, yet they still are people. Also, according to Dictionary.com, a "panhandler" is simply "a beggar who approaches strangers asking for money." I'm not arguing that the rest of your post is without merit, but I'm sure that you will eventually find negative connotation in whatever term ends up being the politically correct euphemism. I'm not in any way saying I agree with the law (and I totally bought a homeless guy Taco Bell the other day- even though I am currently well below the poverty line) but as long as society concludes that poverty is undesirable, whatever term is substituted for the category of people who are "financially disadvantaged" will have to be continuously changed.
Jackscolon:
“Why is the term "poor people" wholly inappropriate for use by educated professionals?”
To answer you question it is because “poor” has historically entailed moral judgment. There are very few ways of talking about the economically disadvantaged that are morally neutral, but, in general, those terms that are strongly loaded should be avoided. An analogous example is, actually, the word “homeless.” Before the late 1970s, everyone called the homeless “bums” or “vagrants,” but because of the morality-claim inherent in those terms, we, as a society, decided to use more neutral language. The bottom line is that educated professionals don’t moralize and, usually, have a vocabulary sufficiently large to avoid that with their language.
“Also, according to Dictionary.com, a ‘panhandler’ is simply ‘a beggar who approaches strangers asking for money.’”
Nothing is “simply” anything. Panhandler is derogatory slang that has a moral connotation. It is not something one ought use, least of all in print.
“I'm sure that you will eventually find negative connotation in whatever term ends up being the politically correct euphemism.”
a) that’s not true, but if a term develops a negative connotation, then those of us who care about the financially disadvantaged ought to be the first to suggest a change in language. Not that a change in language necessarily “solves” problems, but it reflects attitudes towards them, if not influence the attitudes of others also.
b) you think “disadvantaged” is a euphemism but “panhandler” is okay?
“...whatever term is substituted for the category of people who are ‘financially disadvantaged’ will have to be continuously changed.”
That may be, but that is the nature of language anyway so I don’t see much of a problem. To combat that, however, those of us who are in a position to do so (e.g. educated professionals) should not disparage the group in question with either our language or our disposition toward them. In so doing, we prevent labels from acquiring negative implications.
I just want a distinction drawn between the financially disadvantaged and the completely irresponsible. I think the homeless encompass both groups, and while I feel that both groups are worthy of our compassion, the completely irresponsible deserve to be called panhandlers and be restricted by laws that prevent them from bothering others with their repeated and frequent stupidly bad life-decisions.
Post a Comment