Autism Speaks (but not for autistics)

Autism Speaks, despite its prominence as a major autism advocacy and research organisation, has faced significant criticism from autistic self-advocates. Let’s delve into the objections raised by the autistic community:

1. Viewing Autism as a Disease:
   • Autism Speaks was founded on the premise that autism is a disease that needs to be cured. Their original mission statement reflected this perspective.
   • Most autistic self-advocates emphasise that autism is not a disease but rather a natural variation in neurotype. We advocate for acceptance rather than seeking a cure.
2. Stigmatization and Discrimination:
   • By framing autism as a problem to be fixed, Autism Speaks inadvertently contributes to stigma and discrimination against autistic individuals.
   • This portrayal reinforces the idea that there is something inherently wrong with autistic people, perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
3. Lack of Autistic Representation:
   • Autism Speaks is primarily led by non-autistic parents of autistic children. This lack of authentic representation is a major concern.
   • Autistic self-advocates argue that an advocacy organisation without autistic voices is akin to a whites-only group addressing racism or a men-only panel discussing sexism.
4. “I Am Autism” Video:
   • One of the most criticised aspects is Autism Speaks’ “I Am Autism” promotional video.
   • In this video, autism is portrayed as an enemy, causing fear and perpetuating negative stereotypes. Many found it deeply offensive and dehumanizing.
5. Focus on Difficulties Over Possibilities:
   • Autism Speaks tends to emphasise the deficits and challenges associated with autism rather than celebrating the unique strengths and possibilities of autistic lives³.
6. Financial Allocation:
   • Critics point out that only a small fraction of Autism Speaks’ budget goes toward direct services for autistic individuals and families.
   • Less than 1/3 of 1% of their budget is allocated to the “Family Service” grants that fund services.
7. Autism Acceptance vs. Awareness:
   • Autistic self-advocates prefer a shift from mere awareness to autism acceptance. We advocate for understanding, inclusion, and celebrating autistic achievements.

In summary, while Autism Speaks aims to raise awareness and provide support, its approach has sparked controversy due to its framing of autism, lack of authentic representation, and focus on difficulties rather than possibilities.

Sources used in preparing this post:

• The Mary Sue: The Autism Speaks Controversy, Explained
• Psychology Today: A Reporter’s Guide to the Autism Speaks Debacle
• The Conversation: Autism advocacy and research misses the mark if autistic people are left out
• Autistic Self Advocacy Network: Before you donate to Autism Speaks, consider the facts
• Autistic Mama: 4 Simple Reasons I Don’t Support Autism Speaks
• Reporter Magazine, RIT: The Autism Speaks Controversy

The History of Monopoly: From Protest to Profit

Monopoly is one of the most popular and iconic board games in the world, with millions of copies sold in over 100 countries and 37 languages. Of the many games to be found in the resources for children and young adults in our local Friends Meeting House, Monopoly is conspicuously absent. The goal of becoming the sole land owner by bankrupting the other players really isn’t in the cooperative spirit that Quakers like to cultivate.

But did you know that the game has a hidden history of social activism, controversy, and innovation? In this article, written with the assistance of Copilot, we will explore how Monopoly evolved from a tool to teach about economic inequality to a symbol of capitalist success, and how some people are trying to reclaim its original spirit by creating alternative versions of the game.

The Landlord’s Game: A Critique of Monopoly

The origins of Monopoly can be traced back to 1903, when a woman named Lizzie Magie created a game called The Landlord’s Game. Magie was a follower of Henry George, a 19th-century economist who advocated for a single tax on land to prevent the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few landlords. Magie designed the game to illustrate the negative effects of monopolies and to promote the idea of a more equitable society.

The Landlord’s Game had two sets of rules: one that followed the conventional system of property ownership and rent collection, and another that encouraged cooperation and shared prosperity. In the first set of rules, players competed to buy properties, charge rents, and drive their opponents to bankruptcy. In the second set of rules, players worked together to create a common fund that paid for public services and utilities, and shared the income from the properties. The game also included a “Prosperity” rule that ended the game when the total wealth of the players reached a certain level, and declared everyone a winner.

Magie patented her game in 1904 and self-published it in 1906. She also tried to sell it to several publishers, but they rejected it because they thought it was too political and complex. However, the game gained popularity among progressive groups, such as college students, Quakers, and socialists, who used it as a way to educate and organise people around the issues of economic justice and reform. The game also inspired several variations and adaptations, such as the Anti-Monopoly Game, the Suffragette Game, and the Georgist Game.

Monopoly: A Story of Plagiarism and Profit

The game that we know today as Monopoly was not invented by a single person, but by a series of people who modified and improved the original Landlord’s Game over the years. One of the most influential figures in this process was Charles Darrow, a salesman from Pennsylvania who learned the game from his friends in the 1930s. Darrow made some changes to the game, such as adding the names of Atlantic City streets, the railroad stations, and the utilities, and drawing a colourful board with illustrations. He also simplified the rules and eliminated the cooperative option, making the game more competitive and exciting.

Darrow began to sell his version of the game by hand, and soon attracted the attention of Parker Brothers, a major game company. Parker Brothers bought the rights to the game from Darrow in 1935, and launched a massive marketing campaign that made Monopoly a huge success. However, Parker Brothers also tried to erase the history of the game and its creator, by claiming that Darrow was the sole inventor of Monopoly and by suing anyone who tried to produce or sell similar games. Parker Brothers also ignored the fact that Darrow had copied the game from others, and that Magie still held a patent for The Landlord’s Game.

Magie, who was still alive and active, was outraged by the plagiarism and the distortion of her game. She tried to challenge Parker Brothers and to expose the truth, but she was largely ignored and silenced by the media and the public. She sold her patent to Parker Brothers for a meagre sum of $500, and died in 1948, without receiving any recognition or royalties for her invention. Meanwhile, Darrow became a millionaire and a celebrity, and Monopoly became a global phenomenon and a cultural icon.

Co-opoly: A Return to the Roots

In recent years, some people have tried to revive the original spirit and message of The Landlord’s Game, by creating alternative versions of Monopoly that challenge the dominant narrative of capitalism and competition. One of these versions is Co-opoly, a cooperative board game that was developed by a group of game designers and activists in 2018. Co-opoly is a “conversion kit” that transforms Monopoly into a game where players work together to protest land assemblages and halt the construction of luxury condos. Players bring activists to the city via public transport, and drive them to locations where they can build housing co-ops consisting of tiny homes. The game ends when the players have successfully created a sustainable and inclusive community.

Co-opoly is not only a game, but also a statement and a movement. It is a way to reclaim the history and the potential of Monopoly, and to use it as a tool for social change and education. It is also a way to celebrate and promote the values and practices of cooperation, solidarity, and democracy, and to challenge the myths and realities of capitalism, inequality, and exploitation. Co-opoly is a reminder that Monopoly is not just a game, but a reflection and a representation of our society, and that we have the power and the responsibility to shape it according to our vision and our needs.

Ethical absolutism vs ethical relativism?

Where do you stand? I’m sceptical that there there is any moral or ethical stance that is absolutely true regardless of time, place or circumstance. And yet there are some situations where I feel there is no other possible ethical/moral stance other than the one I hold can ever be acceptable. So I ask myself is this because this is a case of ethical absolutism or is it that my experiences as an autistic person living in a largely secular and liberal society conditions me to be blind to any other perspective. I really don’t know.

According to ethical absolutism, there are objective moral values and principles that are always valid and correct, regardless of time, place, circumstance or people. For example, some people may believe that lying is always wrong, no matter what the situation is. Ethical absolutism is often associated with religious views, as it implies that moral law is grounded in the very being of a deity or deities.

There seems to be one moral principle that humans universally hold to be intuitively valid and correct, and that is the “Golden Rule”: that we should treat others as we would want to be treated. This appears to be true across recorded history regardless of culture or religion, and some might reasonably claim that this is an example of ethical absolutism. But is it?

Personal experience tells me otherwise. I have little doubt that other autistics have had similar experiences. Often when I have treated others as I want to be treated, I find myself in hot water, with responses ranging from annoyance to anger to physical violence. Similarly when others treat me the way they want to be treated I find myself between a rock and a hard place. If I act honestly, I also find myself in hot water with responses no different to those I have just mentioned, and if I hide my true self then I quietly allow myself to be subjected to treatment that ranges from unpleasant to extremely painful. So regardless of whether I apply the Golden Rule, or others apply it to me, I tend to suffer.

So I now apply my own golden rule: treat others how you believe they want to be treated, and if unsure ask. It’s one that I’m beginning to ask others to apply to me, although it’s taken me 70 years to learn how to ask. Of course there are some people who are offended by me asking – whether it’s asking how they would like to be treated or asking them to treat me how I like. But that’s another story for another day.

Getting back on topic: According to ethical relativism, there are no objective moral values or principles, but rather they are relative to some further instance, such as culture, society, individual, or situation. For example, some people may believe that lying is sometimes acceptable, depending on the context and the consequences. Ethical relativism is often associated with tolerance and diversity, as it acknowledges that different groups may have different moral standards.

It appears to me that both ethical absolutism and ethical relativism have some advantages and disadvantages (although I strongly favour relativism), and they raise many questions and challenges. Some of the issues that they deal with are:

• How do we determine what is morally right or wrong?
• How do we resolve moral conflicts or disagreements?
• How do we account for moral diversity and change?
• How do we justify our moral judgments and actions?
• How do we balance our moral obligations and rights?

I’m not sure that these questions have easy answers, and perhaps they don’t have an answer even after careful reflection and dialogue. Some people may prefer one ethical perspective over another, while some may try to find a middle ground or a compromise. What I can say is that some of my ethical views have changed over time in response to new experiences or information, while others have become more entrenched. How about you?

Being on the same page as Sir Lloyd Geering

This, in part, is an article I intended to post to celebrate Sir Lloyd Geering’s 105^th birthday on 26 February this year. As the anniversary came and went the article became less relevant until I had forgotten all about it until I rediscovered it a week or two ago as I was weeding out old unpublished articles. If it hadn’t been for an an article I read the previous day it would have been deleted, but the coincidence prompted me to a complete revision, and this is the result.

Although Sir Lloyd Geering was 31 years old when I was born, his religious journey and mine run almost in parallel in time and in outcome. I was unaware of his existence until he hit the headlines in 1966 when I was 17. He gave an address where he stated that the Bible’s record of Jesus’ death and resurrection is not true. Not long after he made the claim that humans have no “immortal soul”.

I was surprised how similar our ideas about religion were, although I would never have dared been open about them, as I knew I was considered to be odd. Adding another reason to be bullied by expressing what I mistakenly thought was a unique way of understanding religion was something I wished to avoid. Hearing someone with authority openly express what I feared to share did help me to see that I wasn’t a complete oddball/nutcase. It helped to restore in me a little confidence to trust my own experiences and my interpretation of them – something that society had been very successful in destroying up to that time.

For anyone wishing to know a little more about Sir Lloyd, I recommend reading Celebrating Sir Lloyd Geering: New Zealand’s ‘prophet of modernity’ published in September last year following the establishment of a scholarship in honour of his name.

Before I summarise where Sir Lloyd and I agree (we don’t agree on everything), I feel it is necessary to point out that he is not “some obscure theologian from New Zealand” who has nothing of value to contribute because “he’s a theologian” as claimed by some contributors to the comments on my blog. In this country he’s highly respected, as a glance at the list of honours that have been bestowed on him indicate. Please note that honours are granted after wide consultation and especially with those in the same and similar field(s) of endeavour, which in the case of Sir Lloyd is with other theologians, religious bodies and organisations, and academia. His honours include:

• Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 1988 Queen’s Birthday Honours for services to theological and religious studies
• Honorary Doctor of Literature degree by Victoria University of Wellington in 1988, where he was also Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies
• New Zealand 1990 Commemoration Medal for his services to New Zealand
• Honorary Doctor of Divinity degree by Knox College in Dunedin in 1992
• Principal Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit (PCNZM) in the 2001 New Year Honours for services to religion and theology – redesignated as a Knight Grand Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit (GNZM) in 2009, after the restoration of titular honours by the New Zealand government
• honorary Doctor of Laws degree by Otago University in 2006
• Member of the Order of New Zealand (ONZ), New Zealand’s highest civilian honour, limited to 20 living people, in the 2007 New Year Honours for services to public and theological affairs

Where Sir Lloyd Geering and I agree:

• Religion is not a set of doctrines or beliefs, but a total mode of living that shapes one’s worldview, values, and practices. Religion is a human creation that evolves over time in response to changing historical and cultural contexts.
• Religion is not a supernatural phenomenon, but a natural and possibly necessary aspect of human existence. Religion serves various functions for human beings, such as providing meaning and purpose, expressing awe and wonder, fostering community and morality, and coping with suffering and death. Like every other aspect of human society, religion can also have negative effects, such as promoting violence, intolerance, and oppression.
• Religion needs to be reinterpreted and reformed for the contemporary world. For this age, it requires a global and ecological perspective that respects the diversity of religious traditions and the common humanity of all people. It calls for a critical and creative approach to religion that engages with the challenges and opportunities of the present age. The religious organisation to which I belong also holds this view, revising its collective insights every 10 to 20 years.
• God is not a personal or transcendent being, but the embodiment of one’s highest values. The traditional concept of God as an external agent who intervenes in human affairs or reveals divine truths serves no useful purpose today, nor does the idea of God as a metaphysical reality or a ground of being.
• God is a symbol or metaphor that expresses one’s ultimate concern or commitment. God is the name we give to what we value most in life, such as love, justice, peace, or beauty. God is not an object of worship, but a subject of aspiration. God is not something we believe in, but something we live for.
• God is not a fixed or universal concept, but a dynamic and contextual one. God changes as human values change over time and across cultures. God reflects our best hopes and ideals, as well as our worst fears and failures. God challenges us to grow and change, as well as to critique and transform our society.
• God is not a matter of faith, but a matter of experience. God is not revealed by authority or tradition, but by personal insight and conscience. God is not encountered by prayer or ritual, but by action and service. God is not found by looking up or out, but by looking within and around.

There are other theologians who share a similar perspective to Geering – that God is not a supernatural being, but a human construction or symbol. For example, Paul Tillich, a German-American theologian, argued that God is not a personal being, but the “ground of being” or the ultimate reality that transcends human categories. John Shelby Spong, an American bishop and author, proposed that God is not an external entity, but the source of life and love within us. Don Cupitt, a British philosopher and former priest, suggested that God is a human creation that expresses our ideals and values.

These theologians are considered as non-theistic or post-theistic – they do not affirm the existence of a personal God who intervenes in human affairs. They are also influenced by modern philosophy, science and biblical criticism, which challenge the traditional views of God and religion. They seek to reinterpret Christianity in a way that is relevant and meaningful for contemporary people.

Tuesday titbit 2023-06-06

With all the hoo-ha regarding trans rights and bathroom use in the USA and the legislators pushing through literally hundreds of anti LGBTQIA bills, here’s something to consider:

In America, more US politicians have been convicted of assaulting someone in a public bathroom than have trans people. Given that there are far more transgender folk in America than there are politicians, perhaps these so called “Bathroom bills” are targeting the wrong people. Just a thought.

It just occurred to me…

If the Earth was flat, wouldn’t cats have pushed everything off it by now?

Stupid people

How many stupid people do you know of? Some of my blogging friends seem to be able to make stupid people lists many pages long. So I thought I’d try making a list of my own. Here it is:

My stupid people list

As you might possibly observe, it’s a decidedly short list. I can’t think of a single stupid person.

I can think of plenty of stupid things that have been said by a great many people (including some by yours truly).

I can think of plenty of stupid ideas that have been held by a great many people (including some by yours truly).

I can think of plenty of stupid actions that have been performed by a great many people (including some by yours truly).

I only see the words, ideas or actions as stupid, never the speaker, thinker or actor. Am I the only person with this perspective?

So the sixty-four thousand dollar question is: Is this (a) a stupid perspective, (b) the perspective of a stupid person, or (c) something else?

Musical Monday (2021/11/22) Damn The Dam

The song was originally written and sung by John Hanlon for a two minute advertisement by New Zealand Fibreglass to promote home insulation. It was part of a wide campaign in the early 1970s lobbying to make home insulation mandatory, and of course the company would benefit by having its home insulation products installed in every new home. It was possibly a brave move by the company, as two minute commercials were extremely rare at that time (still are) and only 10 seconds of the advertisement actually promoted their insulation product, glass fibre Pink^® Batts^®.

Electricity demands were rising rapidly at that time and the nation had historically built hydro power stations to meet the growing energy needs of the country. Dams, while a renewable resource, destroy much of the local natural environment by flooding vast areas of land. We were running out of rivers that were considered socially acceptable to dam, and insulation of homes was seen as a means of slowing down the ever increasing growth in electricity demand.

The advertising jingle proved so popular that it was released as a single and rose to #5 in the New Zealand hit parade in 1973. Hanlon made a condition of its release that all the profits from the song be donated to environmental causes. The song was then adopted by opponents of the Lake Manapouri hydro power scheme.

Today it’s remembered by most Baby Boomers, of which I am one, as a protest song – younger generations are probably unaware of it’s existence, and for those who are aware, it;s just another NZ folk song. Few remember that it started life as an advertising jingle for home insulation.

It’s odd, looking back to those days, that we young adults were very much into protests. It’s not just a 21st century phenomena that many today’s youth believe it is. We were just as idealistic as they are. In fact I venture that today’s youth is rather tame when compared to the youth of my generation. Among the causes we campaigned against were the Vietnam war and wars in general, gender inequality, nuclear weapons and testing, and in this country nuclear energy, Apartheid and sporting contacts with South Africa, destruction of the environment, whaling, to name just a few. Meanwhile in America and Britain, demonstrations against racial inequality frequently turned into highly destructive riots.

We were a generation with very high ideals, but somewhere along the way, we have been distracted by the needs of providing for self and family. As a generation, I feel were were, and possibly still are, more liberal and slightly more left leaning than the more recent generations. Perhaps it’s a false perception, but I feel that today the world is becoming more conservative, less tolerant than the sixties and seventies, has made definite a lerch to the right, and partisanship is very much more pronounced.

Back to the song Damn The Dam, written and sung by John Hanlon

Damn The Dam, Music and lyrics by John Hanlon, sung by John Hanlon, 1973

Leaf falls to kiss the image of a mountain,
the early morning mist has ceased to play.
Birds dancing lightly on the branches by a fountain
of a waterfall which dazzles with its spray

Tall and strong and aged, contented and serene,
a kauri tree surveys his grand domain,
and for miles and miles around him, a sea of rolling green.
Tomorrow all this beauty won't remain.

Damn the dam cried the fantail,
as he flew into, as he flew into the sky.
To give power to the people
all this beauty has to die.

Rain falls from above and splashes on the ground,
goes running down the mountain to the sea.
And leaping over pebbles makes such a joyful sound,
such as Mother Nature's meant to be.

I have grave reflection, reflection of a grave.
Trees that once lived green now dead and brown.
The homes of tiny animals and little birds as well,
for the sake of man's progression have been drowned.

Damn the dam cried the fantail,
as he flew into, as he flew into the sky.
To give power to the people
all this beauty has to die.

Damn the dam cried the fantail,
as he flew into, as he flew into the sky,

Damn the dam cried the fantail,
as he flew into, as he flew into the sky.
To give power to the people
all this beauty has to die...

Truth

Fiction is a lie that tells us true things over and over again.

Neil Gaiman

We have art in order not do die from the truth.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Tell all the truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth’s superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind —

Emily Dickinson

There’s a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure the truth.

Maya Angelou

Covid 19 Delta outbreak: Peter Davis – No man is an island; HIV/Aids epidemic lessons we can learn from — Peter Davis NZ

The following article Looks specifically at two recent (as in my lifetime) infectious disease outbreaks in Aotearoa New Zealand and what we have learnt and still need to learn and perhaps more specifically what we should do in light of such discoveries. As is often the case, marginalised communities are mostly invisible to the majority, even when they are the most impacted by epidemics such as Covid. HIV/Aids and the 1918 Flu.

The Delta variant of Covid reveals features of NZ society we prefer to keep hidden but perhaps the pandemic provides us with an opportunity to learn more about those features and what we can do to make society more equitable. Although Peter Davis discusses the situation as it specifically applies to Aotearoa New Zealand, I suspect similar opportunities exist in most parts of the world.

Perhaps the only terms that may need clarifying for those outside New Zealand is the term DHB (District Health Board). At an administrative level, NZ is divided into 20 health districts each administered by a board partly made up of elected representatives and partly by appointments from central government. Bulk funding for each board is provided by central government and each board determines how those funds should be spent. As Peter points out, only 5% of the expenditure of the Auckland DHB goes to primary health care and a paltry 0.15% goes to public health. Surely this is where we must in the first instance revise our priorities.

Published in The New Zealand Herald, 10th October 2021

Covid 19 Delta outbreak: Peter Davis – No man is an island; HIV/Aids epidemic lessons we can learn from — Peter Davis NZ