“If autism isn’t caused by environmental factors and is natural why didn’t we ever see it in the past?”
We did, except it wasn’t called autism it was called “Little Jonathan is a r*tarded halfwit who bangs his head on things and can’t speak so we’re taking him into the middle of the cold dark forest and leaving him there to die.”
Or “little Jonathan doesn’t talk but does a good job herding the sheep, contributes to the community in his own way, and is, all around, a decent guy.” That happened a lot, too, especially before the 19th century.
Or, backing up FURTHER
and lots of people think this very likely,
“Oh little Sionnat has obviously been taken by the fairies and they’ve left us a Changeling Child who knows too much, and asks strange questions, and uses words she shouldn’t know, and watches everything with her big dark eyes, clearly a Fairy Child and not a Human Like Us.”
The Myth of the Changeling child, a human baby apparently replaced at a young age by a toddler who “suddenly” acts “strange and fey” is an almost textbook depiction of autistic children.
To this day, “autism warrior mommies” talk about autism “stealing” their “sweet normal child” and have this idea of “getting their real baby back” which (in the face of modern science) indicates how the human psyche actually does deal with finding out their kid acts unlike what they expected.
Given this evidence, and how common we now know autism actually is, the Changeling myth is almost definitely the result of people’s confusion at the development of autistic children.
Weirdly enough, that legend is now comforting to me.
I think it’s worth noting that many like me, who are diagnosed with ASD now, would probably have been seen as just a bit odd in centuries past. I’m only a little bit autistic; I can pass for neurotypical for short periods if I work really hard at it. I have a lack of talent in social situations, and I’m prone to sensory overload or you might notice me stimming.
But here’s the thing: life is louder, brighter and more intense and confusing than it has ever been. I live on the edge of London and I rarely go into the centre of town because it’s too overwhelming. If I went back in time and lived on a farm somewhere, would anyone even notice there was anything odd about me? No police sirens, no crowded streets that go on for miles and miles, no flickery electric lights. Working on a farm has a clear routine. I’d be a badass at spinning cloth or churning butter because I find endless repetition soothing rather than boring.
I’m not trying to romanticise the past because I know it was hard, dirty work with a constant risk of premature death. I don’t actually want to be a 16th century farmer! What I’m saying is that disability exists in the context of the environment. Our environment isn’t making people autistic in the sense of some chemical causing brain damage. But we have created a modern environment which is hostile to autistic people in many ways, which effectively makes us more disabled. When you make people more disabled, you start to see more people struggling, failing at school because they’re overwhelmed, freaking out at the sound of electric hand dryers and so on. And suddenly it looks like there’s millions more autistic people than existed before.
“…disability exists in the context of the environment.”
Reblog for disability commentary.
That last paragraph is absolutely important.
“How come nobody ever heard of ‘dyslexia’ until widespread literacy became a thing?”
Four Swedish police officers’ New York vacation was interrupted when a fight broke out on the subway. The train operator called for support, and — being cops and all — they dutifully stepped in to help until local authorities arrived.
The visiting cops had to subdue the two men involved in the fight, which no doubt takes skill to do safely. But it’s how they did their job after they gained control that really impressed people.
Say it louder for those in the back to hear. Calmly and unarmed.
Cops who help people, calmly disable a situation and restore public order rather than flex their authority, escalate the situation leading to a shit storm? Interesting….
This is actually heartbreaking when you remember Lilo tells Stitch her parents went for a drive, and the bad weather caused them to crash.
I always thought this scene was adorable
Wow thanks guy
Right in the childhood.
i never made that connection
WOW
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
YOU RUINED MY FAVOURITE PART OF THE MOVIE
I get the feeling the adults knew…
and now I’m wondering how in the hell Lilo came to the conclusion that there’s a peanut butter loving fish god who demands tribute or else he’ll murder your family.
When massive trauma hits, some people try to find any way to make sense of what seems senseless. Find any semblance of control, of responsibility.
Lilo may be blaming herself (unfairly) for her parents’ death. This was the only connection she could make, the only thing she could have had any control over, so to her it must have been her fault. If only she was a good girl. If only she did the right thing. Then maybe…
It’s very very hard to lose a mindset like that even when it’s the most irrational thing, even when it hurts you, because then you’re left with nothing.
And when you’re six your pattern recognition skills are a work in progress. Lilo sees that type of fish one day and as it swims away it starts to rain; connection made.
“Lilo may be blaming herself (unfairly) for her parents’ death. This was the only connection she could make, the only thing she could have had any control over, so to her it must have been her fault. If only she was a good girl. If only she did the right thing. Then maybe… “
This movie had some of the best scenes cut out of it.
Even with some scenes taken out, this movie is unsettlingly heavy.
