Untangling Race And Disability In Discourse Intersectionality Summary

In “Untangling Race and Disability in Discourses Intersectionality,” Nirmala Erevelles discusses the intersectionality between race, class, gender, and disability based upon the critical race theory. Between Critical Race Theory scholars and Disability studies scholars, the “critical assumption [of] race and disability are social constructs.” Erevelles believes that Critical Race Theory scholars are wrong for “mistakenly [conceiving] disability as a biological category,” whereas disability studies scholars analyze “disability as a socially constructed category that derives meaning and social (in)significance… that frame social life.” Race can be seen as a social construct as to contrast and compete against one another. Disability holds another

category to oppression as to show how one race is superior to another and the construction of the norm. Disability oppression intersects with racial and gender oppression with the case of Junius Wilson. Wilson was considered a threat under the Jim Crow laws and as a social control, castration, made him “‘a submissive black man… [with] eyes downcast, silent and reserved… a gentle childlike patient.’” Disability is linked with term, “feebleminded,” and in order to oppress people of color with disability, castration can be seen as an attempt to reduce their population.

Under an “incipient capitalist society,” individuals with disabilities are seen as “a threat to the normative society order.” Instead of integrating disabled individuals into society, they are placed into segregated communities such as special education schools. The special education bureaucracy can be seen as similar to “Jim Crow and eugenic ideologies” as to use “complex machinery of pseudo-medical evaluations, confusing legal discourses, and overwhelming paperwork administered by a body of intimidating professionals.” Disabled individuals are considered to be a problem and “disrupt the ‘normal’ functioning of schools.” Disability is considered as a hindrance to a “productive” and “normal” society and must be kept separate. Disability increases vulnerability to violence because labeling individuals give them the associations with

criminality. CRF scholar Patricia Williams argues that “assaults on an individual’s personhood is ‘spirit murder.’” Society is structured to oppress those that are different from the norms and though it may not be physical violence, it is mentally violent to degrade people with disabilities
In “An Introduction to Anti-Black Sanism,” Meerai, Abdillahi, and Poole analyzes Anti-Black Sanism through its individual categories of Anti-Black racism and sanism and provides historical background to its growth as a subject of issue.

Anti-Black Sanism is the the intersection of racism and sanism particularly against people “who identify as Black, African, or of African descent.” Anti-black sanism can be rooted back to anti-black racism. Based upon Canadian society and statistics, anti-black racism functions as a way to “preserve systems of whiteness and power and dominance based on a false perception of white superiority.” However, the problem is highlighted in regards to the health system because “Black/African people ‘do not go to hospitals for fear of misdiagnosis or for fear of being misunderstood due to lack of English proficiency.’” This problems lies within the root of racialized institutions. Black people experience discrimination in the education system which impacts their proficiency in English and later causes them to fear the health system. Anti-Black racism compares the norms of whiteness to those that are not. Sanism, like anti-black racism, compares those who are sane to those who are disabled or “insane” with the idea of oppression in mind. Anti-Black Sanism can be traced back to the 1850’s during the times of slavery. Slaves were diagnosed with “drapetomania” which caused them to flee from their owners. However, this brought about dehumanizing treatments

to “cure” them, such as to keep them “in a submissive state and treated like children, with ‘care, kindness, attention and humanity, to prevent them from running away.’” This historical phenomenon continues to affect individuals who identified as Black/African in the mental health system. The authors, Meerai, Abdillahi, and Poole, believe that the intersection between racism and sanism lies within the roots of health systems, not only in the United States, but also Britain. Black people have been historically been considered “dangerous” in the eyes of white supremacy and anti-Black racism, but with sanism in context, it adds to the “double standards” of the norms in society.
In the article, “Is Donald Trump OK,” Daniel Dale argues that Donald Trump has a mental illness which can be supported by the concerned citizens of the United States. Opposing this belief, in the article, “Stop calling Trump crazy,” David Perry argues that labeling Donald Trump as a “product of mental illness” will send a “terrible message to the millions of people with diagnosed psychiatric disabilities.” And furthermore, the article, “It’s not about mental illness,” supports the issue brought by David Perry. I agree with the issues of labeling people as mentally ill to be wrong. Though many people dislike and disagree with Trump’s ideas and being, it is incorrect to label him as mentally ill without proper and professional diagnoses. Also with recent mass shootings by white males, characterizing them to have mental illness is a “cop-out.” In both cases, it hurts the judgment of people who actually have disabilities. With Trump’s case, it leads to stigmatizing mental illness with incompetence and bigotry. With the mass shootings, it characterizes people “who suffer from mental illness as scary, dangerous potential murderers” and this affects their future and well-being because it is untrue. Mental illness should not be a term used lightly, or as a solution to explain the qualities of a person without proper facts or diagnoses.