In my review of the film Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, I wanted to discuss one weakness and that was the role played by Peter Dinklage but I faced the quandary of how to describe him without being offensive. I was not sure if the word ‘dwarf’ was acceptable. I had read somewhere that the term ‘Little People’ was preferred by members of the community but it seemed a little awkward (to my ears at least) but I was not sure if it had become the exclusively preferred term.
I wrote my review using the label dwarf just once but later decided to look into this question and came across this helpful post by film critic Roger Ebert from 2005. Following his review of the film Death to Smoochy, actor Daniel Woodburn had written to him.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
I am an actor that you have reviewed neither favorably nor unfavorably in two different movies: one was “Death to Smoochy,” the other “Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her.” I have absolutely no objection to you trashing a film or lauding it. I do object to the use of the word “midgets” in your review of “Death to Smoochy.”
As a writer you are aware of the power of words. The use of the word midget is, for Little People, equated with any other hate word someone might use to describe a minority group. I simply ask you: if you were to see Little People children would you take away their humanity in the same way with the use of such a hate word? I can respect a yes answer but I cannot respect the person who answers yes.
Sincerely, Danny Woodburn
That started a correspondence between the two that Ebert later posted in its entirety. What becomes clear is that the m-word is highly offensive and should never be used, though there are some in the community who are trying to reclaim the word as a means of taking away its power to insult, like parallel attempts with the n-word. But there is no similar consensus on the label ‘dwarf’ and it has had its ups and downs.
Ebert’s post included an informative essay by Leonard Sawisch that traced the various ways that Little People have been described.
In the 1970’s, perhaps as a parallel with the civil rights movement and the women’s rights movement, some of the younger members of LPA [Little People of America] began using the term “dwarf” and “dwarf power” as a symbol of self and group pride. At first, the older little people (and their average sized families and friends) were horrified! They felt the midget/dwarf issue had been resolved and that “Little People” had won the day. To them, “dwarf” was as negative as “midget” seems to be today.
However, the intent of the people using the term was empowerment. The message was strength and unity. When the Dwarf Athletic Association of America was formed in the mid 1980’s, there was still quite a stir about the use of “that” word. But again, the intent was empowerment and pride; the opportunity for people like us to excel in athletic competition, to be America’s best at something. It was pretty hard to resist that kind of positive appeal. As a result, I can refer to us as the dwarf community today without raising too many eyebrows. I can also refer to us as the LPA community with a similar reaction.
I went to the website of the Little People of America to see if there had been any change in preferred usage since that 2005 blog post. They explicitly state that the m-word is seen by them as a derogatory slur. They recommend that because of its negative connotations, people avoid using it even in other contexts where it does not refer to people. The site does refer to dwarfism as a condition and promotes the World Dwarf Games, so that word seems to be acceptable.
One thing to note about the Ebert-Woodburn correspondence is how graciously Ebert responded when Woodburn criticized him. When told by Woodburn that the m-word was offensive, Ebert did not get defensive. He said that he had been unaware that it was so when he used it but after looking into the issue, he decided, “Well, I will retire the word “midget” right here and now. … Words that cause pain should be retired, although perhaps during the transitional period they can offer a certain homeopathic relief.”
In saying that “Words that cause pain should be retired”, Ebert expresses a simple truth that those who rail against ‘political correctness’ in speech do not seem to, or want to, understand
I found it hard to explicitly write the m-word in this post because it is derogatory, like the n-word, and people who are not members of the groups that these words are used against should never use it. I had no choice because it was said by others in the quotes and was necessary to make the post intelligible. Without it, many people may have been puzzled by what ‘m-word’ stood for because it is not referred to as commonly as the n-word. I will use the term ‘LPA community’ (or even ‘LP community’ to make it less parochial) in future and hope people will be as familiar with it as we are now with the term LGBT community and will know what I am talking about.
Though lacking any personal connection to the issue, I had thought the M-word and D-word referred to distinct physical phenotypes: an M being a person of small size but “normal” proportions, and a D someone of “normal” configuration except for very short legs.
How do the LPs address that distinction?
Forty years ago I was taught that a “midget” was small but in proportion, and a “dwarf” was normal in body and head but with abnormally short limbs. It always seemed to me, even as a child, a distinction that made little difference. I hadn’t consciously realised they were regarded as slurs, but I guess I’d somehow picked up the idea by osmosis, as it were, as I don’t think I write either without quotes or say them out loud. In speech, I think I’d default to “the short guy”, much as I might refer to “the ginger fella”, as I can’t see any harm in an accurate descriptor that doesn’t single them out.
It boggles my mind that I didn’t imagine this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Small_Problem -- a BBC sitcom about apartheid, except with short people instead of black people.
The wikipedia entry states: “many viewers appeared not to understand the satirical aspect of the show”. Even in 1987, I think people understood the “satirical aspect” of the show perfectly well, but found it offensive anyway. Example gag: a Japanese businessman and his wife, who apparently speak little to no English, are caught up in the ghetto for short people. Ho ho ho, Japanese people are short, amirite. It gets worse. They attempt to escape by having her sit on his shoulders and wear a long overcoat. One of other characters (a ghetto resident played, as I recall, by “Big” Mick Walter) spots them and coughs loudly. One of the ghetto guards asks him what’s wrong, and he replies “Nothing. There’s just a bit of a Nip in the air.” Satire, ladies and gentlemen. You just don’t understand it.
It occurs to me sometimes to wonder what, in thirty years time, we’ll look back on from today’s television with similar disbelief. “Transparent”, maybe? (As in, why did a cis sex pest get that part?)
From http://www.lpaonline.org/faq-
Q: What is a midget?
A: In some circles, a midget is the term used for a proportionate dwarf. However, the term has fallen into disfavor and is considered offensive by most people of short stature. The term dates back to 1865, the height of the “freak show” era, and was generally applied only to short-statured persons who were displayed for public amusement, which is why it is considered so unacceptable today.
Such terms as dwarf, little person, LP, and person of short stature are all acceptable, but most people would rather be referred to by their name than by a label.
“How do the LPs address that distinction?”
Outside of a medical context, is there a need to?
I wonder if the popularity of sci-fi and fantasy genres has helped remove a lot of the stigma from “dwarf”.
I find it odd that Little People would be the preferred moniker, because “little” just sounds obclscenely condescending. “Small” would seem more neutral.
Paralleling that thought, “colored” seems today like a rude way to refer to racial minorities. The NAACP came into existence during a time when biases and prudjudices were so much stronger that the sub-optimal form of reference was still vastly superior to what was common at the time. Depending on the exact context the current polite standard seems to be either “racial minority” (for group’s) or “person of color” (for individuals, if specific race not specified). I wonder if the story is similar regarding “Little People” vs. “dwarf”.
Some years ago, I read Armand Leroi’s Mutants: On Genetic Variety and the Human Body. The book has a chapter that discusses the various different conditions that can result in dwarfism (which appears to be the term in the medical/biological literature, going by the citations), including overall reduced amount of growth hormone (leading to overall proportionate smallness), and mutations in the genes that more specifically affect growth of the long limb bones (which leads to a more standard torso and skull but reduced legs and arms).
In my electronic search, the term “midget” was not found in the book at all.
I occasionally gently correct my mum (“we don’t say that any more”) who still considers it polite, presumably compared to the other stuff minorities got called when she was growing up in the 50s and 60s. I might try “that word’s been retired” if it comes up again.
And isn’t that political correctness, in a nutshell? When it’s brought to your attention, gracefully retiring words that cause pain to others out of consideration for them.
sonofrojblake:
Not really. To be properly applicable, the concept relies on those who are offended or marginalised (or pained, in your formulation) by the terminology and its connotations being in a minority/disadvantaged category (in the sociological sense), not just being anyone.
(Mind you, I’ve at times noted that opponents of political correctness who use a similar definition perforce practice political correctness by the very act of attempting to avoid political correctness — but that goes back to an older sense of the term)
Ah yes, that is the definition of political correctness as it’s currently used. Which is to say, it is concerned with the feelings only of minorities/the disadvantaged. Anyone else can go fuck themselves. Thanks for the correction.
Being concerned about proper words seems to be a popular sport in the USA, but what does the rest of the English-speaking world think about it?
I have sympathy for the idea that words that cause pain should be retired, my impression however is that it is futile and will just start a euphemistic treadmill. Chances are that before long the new word in use will become just as tainted as the former one and cause the same pain.
Unfortunately, it’s hard to correct the problem that people are just assholes. The least we can do as considerate people is to avoid using their slurs, however much those slurs evolve and shift to try and keep the bigoted flying under the radar.
Sure I have no problem with trying to be considerate. Unfortunately there can be disagreements within the group about which words are the slurs and which words are to be preferred. It is even possible that some within the group find trying to retire the old word, disrespectful since they see it as an attempt to hide the unpleasant truth, as an attempt to hide them or at least what their condition is.
So sure when you are in a conversation, be as considerate as possible to the person you are talking to and use the word the other prefers. But when writing a text, retiring the words that hurt, seems simplistic.
Just as in the USA, in the UK there are people who try to be considerate in their terminology, and people who sneer about those making such an effort -- like you (“seems to be a popular sport”).
On the specific terminology for those of short stature, “Little People” has not caught on in the UK. The Restricted Growth Association recommends “person with dwarfism” or “person of short stature”.