Identifying and naming of groups of people...

If you're wondering about how to properly refer to a group of people, a good rule of thumb is to find out how they like to refer to themselves.

In terms of the groups whose issues you are exploring for your blogs, here are some guidelines for how to refer to them:

Avoid "elderly". Instead, use "older adults" or "seniors". I suggest also avoiding the term "elders" to refer to older people, because it has a very specific meaning among Indigenous people and not all of their older people are elders. The reason we avoid "elderly" (even though lots of researchers, especially in the medical professions still use it) is because it gives a picture of people who are frail and sick. The APA manual says it's considered pejorative and says not to use it.

Use "people with disabilities" instead of "the disabled" or "physically disabled people". The reason is that the "person" should come first. A person with a disability is not mainly a disability; they are mainly a person who also happens to have a disability.

"Indigenous" is the preferred term in our Faculty of Social Work and we are guided in this by our Indigenous faculty who have expressed this preference. However, you will encounter different people in this group who have different preferences for how they are named and you should always respect that person's preference. Actually, before calling an individual Indigenous, you should identify them as Cree or Ojibway or Mik'maq... if it's even relevant to the discussion at all.

The Canadian government uses the term "Aboriginal". This is not offensive and it's commonly used, but some people don't like it because it's the colonizer's term.

Both "Indigenous" and "Aboriginal" refer to First Nations, Métis, Inuit, and Dene peoples. These are the most inclusive terms. "Native" has fallen out of use in recent years. It's also important to remember that "First Nations" covers many different nations, with different languages, histories, cultures, beliefs, and traditions.

There is a similar situation among the Queer community, as I mentioned last class. Your best option is to ask people how they want to be named. You can't go too far wrong with LGBTTQ. Queer is also in use, but some people in the community find it a problematic term because they still have memories of how it has been used as an insult. Be careful again to recognize that there are many different identities all lumped together under this label and it's almost impossible to make generalizations that apply to all the members of this community.

That's it for now. Let me know in the comments if you have any questions about naming and identities.

Silvia

Capitalization

Just a reminder...

When you are referring to an ideology, do NOT capitalize (neoconservative, liberal). When you are referring to a political party, you should capitalize (the Liberals - referring to members of the Liberal Party of Canada; Harper, a Conservative.... -- referring to the Conservative Party of Canada).

Also note that if you talk about people with neoconservative ideology, they are called "neoconservatives" (not "neoconservatisms").

I'll try to add tips like this as I go along and find some common glitches in your posts.

I'm enjoying working my way through your entries!

Silvia

Examples of neoconservative topics to blog on

Dear Students,

I prepared a list of neoconservative topics for you to blog on. It's posted on Angel, but I'm not able to access the Angel email right now to inform you about it. Hopefully you are also checking this blog for news.

I hope you find it helpful.

Silvia

Examples of Neoconservative Topics to Blog On

Older Adults:

“Conservatives ignoring Canada’s home care challenge,” Liberal Party of Canada, July 28, 2010,

“Policy-pinched Liberals eye home care plan”, The Globe and Mail, Sep. 30, 2010

“Conservatives pushed by Harper to embrace pension reform before key meeting”, CARP, June 10, 2010

“Callous Conservative response to family care plan an insult to caregivers,” The Liberal Party of Canada, Oct. 6, 2010

“Conservatives fail seniors when it comes to housing”, Red Deer Advocate, Aug. 28, 2010

“Federal policy changes in the works for seniors are no coincidence”, The Record, July 12, 2010

Immigrants & refugees

“Tamil ship could lead to law change: Harper”, CBC, Aug. 17, 2010

“Can Canada avoid European-style immigration backlash?”, Windsor Star, Sept 24, 2010

Immigration 2010, Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Blog, Jan. 3, 2010

“Gay rights section nixed for immigrants’ guide”, CBC, Mar. 2, 2010

“Stop scapegoating immigrants for the economic crisis: UFCW Canada”, National Union of Public and General Employees, Feb. 12, 2009

People with Physical Disabilities (Visible and Invisible)

“Harper delivers the goods: New RDSP plan devised for people with physical or intellectual disabilities”, Burnaby Now, Oct. 31, 2009

“Harper government makes direct attack on Canada’s disabled”, Not Just the News Network, July 26, 2010

Ontario March of Dimes – Party platforms (scroll down for Conservative)

“Election platforms: What different parties are saying about disability”, RDSP Blog, Sept. 25, 2008

“Enough is enough, say disability groups”, Fast Forward Weekly, Feb 21, 2008,

Blog post on Conservative government’s position on disabilities, D. Stewart

“ Soldiers squander disability payouts”, CNews, June 24, 2010

“AISH change will help people with disabilities: Stelmach” CBC, Feb 6, 2008

People with Mental Disabilities (Mental Illness, Dementia, Intellectual Disability, Learning Disabilities)

“Conservative agenda will ‘stuff prisons’, advocates say”, Toronto Star, Oct 27, 2009

“Mental health review will be revisited: Blais”, CBC news, Oct. 13, 2010

“Workers’ mental health is employers’ responsibility”, Vancouver Sun, Oct 1, 2010

NDP critique of Nova Scotia Conservative Party’s performance on mental health issues, May 2009

“Tory MP apologizes for calling unemployed citizens ‘no good bastards’”, National Post, November 24, 2009

“My meeting with Chris Summerville”, Travis Erbacher’s blog, Dec. 2, 2009

Privatization of Home Care

NOTE: This post has also been cross posted to my SWRK4200 CLASS BLOG

According to Mullaly (2007), "neo-conservatives have called for a return to the economic values of the private marketplace" (p. 72). This includes a strong trend to the privatization of functions normally considered a state responsibility. One of these areas is home care.

A recent report by the Canadian Healthcare Association indicates that private spending on home care now outstrips public spending. There is an increasing trend to shifting the responsibility for home care to the the private sector. One of the many impacts is that for older people who can't afford to pay for care, informal caregivers (mostly women) have to carry much more of the care.

Having worked in a Quebec CLSC specializing in the development and provision of services to older people, I observed the superiority of public home care services over most for-profit services. Our workers, who had to fulfill certain educational requirements to be hired, were paid a fair wage, unionized, received benefits, and were properly trained. Private sector workers are paid much less (for example, an Ontario study shows they are paid $6 per hour less in that province).

In my Quebec CLSC, our home care workers were part of the multidisciplinary health care team. They are the professionals who see the older person on a day-to-day basis. Often it was the home care worker who drew our attention to serious problems such as elder abuse and they were often an important part of the solution. When home care services are privatized, they no longer have this connection with the larger health care team and it is the older person who often suffers.

I suspect this trend to privatizing home care and health care will continue under a Conservative government, even though there is some evidence that privatizing home care does not save money in the long run (Shapiro, 2006) and a Winnipeg experiment to do so was deemed a failure (Shapiro, 2000). The Romanow Commission called for a National Strategy on home care and we are still waiting for it -- a strategy that will ensure that every older person has equal access to the services they need.