The images above show two different interpretations of disability. The first photo features a man in a wheelchair protesting for his rights, with a sign that says “CIVIL RIGHTS FOR DISABLED” in the background. This image comes from the Disability Rights Movement of the 1960s.  The second image features a cute, silly, young girl with down syndrome who has paint on her hands and a big smile on her face. It envokes pitty from the reader and belittles people with disabilities into children. This is the first thing that comes up when you google “special needs.” The juxtaposition between these two photos shows the very different connotations we have of seemingly interchangeable words. While ‘special needs’ invokes an image of helplessness and generates empathy, ‘disability’ tends to be associated with legal rights (through the Americans with Disabilities Act) and a challenge that doesn’t define the individual.

What does this text argue: The juxtaposition between these two images shows that “special needs” is an ineffective euphemism for “disability” because it belittles the individual with a disability and doesn’t provide access to legal rights.

I am drawn to this artifact because it effectively demonstrates the issue with using the terminology “special needs” since it stems from people’s Google searches and thus highlights people’s connotations of the term. This image is appropriate for in-depth analysis because it begs the question of why people have this connotation, which will allow a conversation about the history of language surrounding the disabled community.