In our last class, we discussed ideas relating to masculinity and disability. We found that people view physical disability as an infringement upon masculinity because it affects a man's ability to perform physical labor, a task often associated with masculinity. Chapters five and six highlight the nuances of this subject when it discusses how many soldiers became disabled after the Revolutionary War, therefore, their disability was seen as more "heroic" than those born with physical disabilities. Nevertheless, many physically disabled people struggled to find a job after the war because they were confined to their corporeal abilities. Losing their economic autonomy posed a threat for their masculine ideals, and it also posed a threat for national identity.

As discussed in class, it is known that one of the defining factors of a disabled body is the inability of its owner to perform labor. This creates a constantly changing definition, which depends on the form of labor required of a person to function in society. Last week I reflected on the disabled African people and their exploitation for slave labor. This week Nielsen begins to analyze the place of a disabled person in the American society that is moving towards industrialization. She explains that disabled people are increasingly left out of employment and discriminated against during the industrial revolution because the ability to perform labor is much more exclusive (74). People are required to be manually active and function in factory settings.

Christine Sun Kim in the NY Times:

"I Performed at the Super Bowl. You Might Have Missed Me"

*Many apologies, the I copied and pasted the wrong writing sample from a word document the first time. This is the same thought just more fleshed out

I found it really interesting that the book discussed disibility as a side effect of capitalism. I’d be interested to see how communist doctrines approach the subject of disability. Marx classified homeless populations as lumen however there are high disability rates in homeless communities. Does communism provide a more accesible economic model for individuals with disabilities? If not, what economic models do? Does socialism address disability at all?

I think something helpful to understanding disability in daily life that I've been doing as work for my other class is campus auditing for disability. Copying a project conducted at Vanderbuilt University by the disability studies professor there, we were assigned to look at a building and "audit" it for how approachable it is to disabled individuals. Guild Hall on Bryn Mawr's campus is the home of the dean offices and access services for anyone who needs them so it made sense to audit this building. To include historical context, Bryn Mawr was founded in 1885 for white wealthy women to attend a prestigous institution. From the beginning, buildings here were not built or made with disability in mind, let alone anyone outside of that original student description in mind.

While reading “A Disability History of the United States” by Kim E. Nielsen, I was struck by the idea of disability in the context of slavery. On page 45 Nielsen describes disability as an economic loss. Slaves were tagged “disabled” if they lost the ability to perform labor efficiently. This definition relies solely on economic opportunity. To further this, Nielsen explains that disabled slaves were even thrown to sea before reaching the Americas because the trade companies insured dead slaves but not those who were disabled and alive. This means that more money was made by killing the disabled than selling them for a lower price on the market. It is shocking to me that human beings were treated this way as purely resources for money-making.

In Kim Nielsen's A Disability History of the United States, Nielsen describes general indigenous beliefs about disability. One of the things Kim mentions is the idea that while "limitations shaped [a disabled indigenous person's] contributions" this same reality "was true of everyone else in the community as well" (Nielsen 3). I'm incredibly curious how this way of thinking, despite its colonial decline, fits into our previous in-class discussion on what qualifies someone as disabled. Particularly, I remember the class largely shying away from the language of "everyone is disabled in some way!", perhaps for its uncomfortable similarities to "color-blind" language in its erasure and invalidation of the genuine social isolation and oppression that comes with marginalization.

Post a question about or reflection on some aspect of the reading from either last week or this week. We won't be able to discuss everything in class, but your posts will give us some places to begin and Serendip can provide a space to discuss things we don't get to in class.