![]() Not really, because if you don't understand the issue, and what is actually going on and the impact of it, or the impact of how you talk about it, compassion and empathy very quickly just become pity. (Twitter )īut isn't that also a demonstration of compassion? We heard Streep referencing compassion in her speech, isn't she showing compassion by calling out Trump's disrespect of Kovaleski? He called out Donald Trump after Trump appeared to cite a story Kovaleski wrote for the Washington Post after 9/11, as the source of Trump's claims that Muslims celebrated after the terrorist attacks. Serge Kovaleski is an investigative reporter with the New York Times. And, just focusing on the bullying, isn't actually going to do that. These are the things that disabled people need others to be focused on helping them to fight for support for. He is taking their health care, he'll cut, services, there's issues of access to education, accessibility, the ADA. That Trump is seriously dangerous to disabled people. That it's easier to empathize, or to pity, disabled people, than it is to look at the fact that Trump had already said that there should be a registry for Muslims, which is what he was defending, when he mocked Serge Kovaleski. when he said that Mexicans were rapists, that disabled people is a more palatable group to rally around and protect, as long as you don't actually have to know what the issues that affect them are. Now a lot of people, when they were polled during the election, pointed to that moment, of Trump mocking Kovaleski, and said that was the most disturbing thing about the entire campaign. It never specified who was celebrating, how many people were celebrating, or whether those allegations had actually proven to be true.ĭonald Trump mocked reporter Serge Kovaleski because Kovaleski disproved Trump's statement that Muslims celebrated after the 9/11 attacks. That's the part of the story that everybody forgets to talk about, the fact that Kovaleski was fact-checking Trump's claims that Muslims were celebrating as the towers were coming down in 9/11.Įxactly, because Trump used Kovaleski's piece, which literally just says that police interviewed some people about allegations that people were celebrating in 9/11. "So, clearly he was speaking to power already, and then people got so angry at that moment, that they've been silencing him right along with Trump, ever since." - Kim Sauder So, clearly he was speaking to power already, and then people got so angry at that moment, that they've been silencing him right along with Trump, ever since. ![]() So, Serge Kovaleski lost his name, and became "that disabled reporter" that Streep very clearly said had no privilege, power, or ability to fight back, even though the whole reason that the mocking took place at all is because Serge Kovaleski fact-checked Trump. And she's been playing on what has become a very iconic moment, and a very iconic narrative, that was created by outsiders of that moment. Well Streep didn't do that, the media's been doing that since the incident happened. So Trump mocked him, but in a sense Streep just sort of labelled him "the disabled reporter"? It doesn't look at what really happened in that instant when Donald Trump was mocking Serge Kovaleski, it doesn't look at the actual impact of what that means for disabled people, it just uses it as a way to further a separate political agenda. ![]() The problem with Meryl Streep's speech is that it reduces Serge Kovaleski, and by extension, other disabled people, to an object for the purpose of furthering a separate political agenda. What was the problem with Meryl Streep's speech? Kim Sauder blogs and tweets as "Crippled Scholar." She's also completing a PhD in Critical Disability Studies at York University.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |