Author
|
Topic: Terry Fox
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 11 September 2008 05:33 PM
On April 12, 1980, Terry Fox, a photogenic sprinter with one leg, set out on his marathon of hope, and became a media darling. Runs held in his honor, have raised millions for Cancer research and inspired people all over the world. It should be pointed out, however, that if Terry had been poor, mishapen and of Cree dissident. He wouldn't have received so much media coverage, no one would have been inspired and Terry Fox runs wouldn't be a global phenomenon. The worship of Terry began with racism. Then there is the ablest component of this exercise. Terry Fox was in enormous amounts of pain while he was running. If he had chosen to forgo that pain, and fight for a cure for cancer from behind a desk, no one would've cared. The media loves martyrs. If people with disabilities don't suffer, (preferably in some grueling athletic event,) no one notices. We embrace Terry Fox, not because he was struggling to find a cure for cancer, but because he engaged in a masochistic act while doing it.28 years on, and what has been the impact of the marathon for hope? Cancer is still with us, and governments are still focusing on treatment for the disease rather than prevention. Fox has been deified by our society, but not in a way that benefits the physically and mentally challenged. Instead of being considered incapable of doing anything, we are now considered by many people to be capable of anything,(I know you are a double aputee with an oxegen pump in your neck, but if you push yourself, just like Terry did, you too can conduct mine sweeping operations in Bosnia!) with many average Canadians forgetting the simple fact that not all people with disabilities have the ability or desire to be Terry Fox. We are still denied the opportunity to be ourselves. Thanks a lot, Mr. Fox [ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ] [ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 12 September 2008 05:18 AM
CMOT, I was a teenager in 1980 and participated in several "Run for Terry!" fundraisers for cancer research. I bought the entire narrative, the lone individual fighting against all odds for change. Even if it cost him his life! (tm) The lone individual has to be male, white and middle class, and the lone individual is "universal". And photogenic.The more cynical would say that there are people who make very good livings working for the "illness" charities, schmoozing with high society at glam fundraisers. The Marathon of Hope did nothing to dislodge this myth, working it from the other side, non-glam, but still lodged in the mystical "cure". Then there's the whole "believe it and you can do anything" mind set which is just icky, to say the least. So, what, if someone dies of cancer they just didn't believe enough? Bullshit. Your post has helped me to get a few levels deeper. Thank you.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 12 September 2008 08:11 AM
Thnk you for this, CMOT. I have searched in vain for years, on the internet and elsewhere, for a leftist - or even "progressive" - critique of the Terry Fox™ industry. You are the first to provide that kind of analysis.Even babble has not had such a discussion before. Many babblers unwittingly contributed to the mythologizing and exploitation of Terry Fox back when the Greatest Canadian campaign was on. The drive to privatize medical research certainly gets a boost from the annual "runs". The reinforcement of the idea that medical breakthroughs depend on our charity, rather than our determination as a society to devote our collective resources towards helping humanity, is a natural by-product of the Tery Fox™ industry. Of course, if "we" ever do find a cure for cancer, it won't belong to "us", but to the private interests doing the research. The National Cancer Institute, which uses the Terry Fox money to provide research grants, says in its policies that it "does not wish to own or have a vested interest in Intellectual Property (IP) which may emanate from any of the research projects it is supporting." [ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 12 September 2008 01:06 PM
quote: Then there's the whole "believe it and you can do anything" mind set which is just icky, to say the least. So, what, if someone dies of cancer they just didn't believe enough? Bullshit.
Able Bodied person: You can be the most indipendant person on Earth! Me: Great! Can I independantly decide to stay at home and play Baldur's Gate while eating Pringles? Able Bodied Person: No. Me: Oh. We can be indipendantly minded, but Normies often have the final say as to whether the decisions we make are "good" [ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 12 September 2008 01:13 PM
One good thing that the Cancer Society does do, I have to say, having had a family member who relied on it, is non-medical support for cancer patients. So, for instance, when my family member had lymphoma and had to travel to another city for treatment, either the Cancer Society or some group funded by them (can't remember which) organized carpools or rides, put the patients up in a residence where they could stay overnight if their treatment was first thing in the morning, or too late in the afternoon for them to recover to drive home, etc.However...the argument can still be made that these things should be publicly provided, not funded by "charity". And yes, I have a huge problem with charity money being raised to fund medical research, which should be a public good, but which will likely just make pharma companies rich when treatments are discovered.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 13 September 2008 07:02 AM
quote: Originally posted by Sarcastro: Terry Fox - Phony Martyr Hero of RacistsI can add nothing to that but shame for once being inspired by him as a young lad. Shame on us all. All that running for LIES !!!!! Arrgh!
He wasn't a phoney martyr, he was a real martyr, the question is why do disabled people have to be martyrs in order to get themselves noticed? Lots of gimps toyle for many disability related causes( Prevention of sexual abuse, decent job programs, the right to sex etc) and never get recognized. But a disabled man crucifies himself on aschvault and he automatically gets the adoration of millions. It's not fair. [ 13 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ] [ 13 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
terryfoxishero
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15494
|
posted 13 September 2008 08:42 PM
I have come to expect totally insane opinions and comment from the extreme left wing community that rabble caters to. This post however shocks and angers me beyond belief. Not only can I not believe that anyone can not be inspired by Terry Fox, to come out of nowhere and play the race card is despicable."On April 12, 1980, Terry Fox, a photogenic sprinter with one leg" How was he so "photogenic?" I don't recall any talking about his fabulous looks. " t should be pointed out, however, that if Terry had been poor, mishapen and of Cree dissident." Says who? If he was Cree, or from any other ethic group , I would not have been any less inspired by him. If I were you, I would be very careful with calls of racism since your post is borderline racist and there is plenty of racist sentiment on this site. "Terry Fox was in enormous amounts of pain while he was running. If he had chosen to forgo that pain, and fight for a cure for cancer from behind a desk, no one would've cared." Shocking!!! If Terry did something that was comparatively speaking easy and normal he would not be recognized as much as if he did something extremely hard and extraordinary! Should we give special recognition to all 7 billion people on the planet. "We embrace Terry Fox, not because he was struggling to find a cure for cancer, but because he engaged in a masochistic act while doing it." No, we embrace Terry Fox because he put other people's problems and lives before his own. I know this is a hard concept for the extreme left since your values are generally selfish and "me first." "28 years on, and what has been the impact of the marathon for hope? Cancer is still with us" So the fact that a cure has not been found is Terry's fault? Also, just because a cure has not been found, does not mean major progress has not been had. Look at the life expectancy and survival rates of various forms of cancer in 1980 compared to now. There has been huge progress in this area. "governments are still focusing on treatment for the disease rather than prevention." So in all cases, it is the cancer victims fault that they got cancer? Even in cases where it is the victims choices that caused the cancer (ie smoking), that is not a serious enough offense to deserve a death sentence of cancer. Your statement is completely heartless. Yes we need to focus on prevention but we also need a cure. "Fox has been deified by our society, but not in a way that benefits the physically and mentally challenged. Instead of being considered incapable of doing anything, we are now considered by many people to be capable of anything,(I know you are a double aputee with an oxegen pump in your neck, but if you push yourself, just like Terry did, you too can conduct mine sweeping operations in Bosnia!) with many average Canadians forgetting the simple fact that not all people with disabilities have the ability or desire to be Terry Fox."
This is completely ludicrous. Just because Terry Fox was disabled and did what he did does not make society believe all disabled people should be able to do something similar. Very few 100% healthy people with no physical disabilities could do what Terry did. Does society think all people with ALS should be a physicist like Stephen Hawking, or all Canadian males with no physical disabilities to be like Gretzky? "Thanks a lot, Mr. Fox" Yes, thanks a lot. You made this world a much better place.
From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 14 September 2008 05:22 AM
This is an interesting academic take on it.A number of things get mythologised about Fox: - He didn't get media attention until towards the Quebec-Ontario border. - The film with Robert Duvall showed him as short-tempered, egocentric, impatient, and verging on the suicidal at times. - The Canadian Cancer Society didn't want to fund his run. They told him to go get seed money and corporate sponsors. - Part of the "Terry Fox myth" is down to him dying young. Look at what happened to Steve Fonyo -- same accomplishments, but not living up to what was "expected" of him as a role model. When you scrape everything else away, Terry Fox was someone who was sporty before his cancer (junior varsity at SFU) and wanted to be sporty after his amputation. Blaming Terry Fox for "people with disabilities being denied the opportunity to be ourselves" is a reach. If I die tomorrow, I'm not in control of my hagiography. Blame the Terry Fox industry, not Fox. [ 14 September 2008: Message edited by: Willowdale Wizard ]
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 14 September 2008 11:29 AM
quote: Blaming Terry Fox for "people with disabilities being denied the opportunity to be ourselves" is a reach. If I die tomorrow, I'm not in control of my hagiography. Blame the Terry Fox industry, not Fox.
Very true. I just get pissed off at North America's obssesion with disabled Jocks. Gimpy thinkers, nerds and artists get no coverage at all in the mainstream press, unless of course, we count Stephan Hawking, but it's only a very small minority who can even come close to being as brilliant as he is, wheather you have a disability or not. What we end up with are two extremes with society constantly expecting us to live up to the example of role models that a lot of us can't identify with. [ 14 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ] [ 14 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 16 September 2008 07:00 AM
SSC, no one is blaming Terry Fox for anything, and you shouldn't feel targeted by CMOT's criticism. What CMOT and others are offering is a critique of the communal myths that certain cancer groups encourage us to buy into. This means a white-supremacist myth (which simply means that the public values Fox's achievements more because he was white, it does not mean that Fox is a racist--you should peruse the anti-racism forum for more information about white-supremacist North America) and it means we value Fox because he embodies the essence of the capitalist lie: that even the most hard done by can achieve everything they want if they put their mind to it. Meanwhile, the poor and disabled do not have the benefits and help they need, but we don't have to supply them, because we have bought the lie of 'hope'.Read what Michelle has written: even though one in four people will get cancer in our lifetimes, (this data is on the Canadian Lung Association website), Cancer associations like the Lung Ass maintain their 'blame the victim' mantra: don't smoke, exercise, eat right, etc. While completely neglecting to leverage the main polluters who are the main contributors to the increasing cancer rate. Why is that? CMOT is critiquing this social practise and how the Terry Fox narrative contributes to it. Sounds fair to me...
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Star Spangled Canadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15502
|
posted 16 September 2008 09:57 AM
Well, I mean I hate to look at someone's (a real person's) death through some sort of literary lense, but in terms of "why did he ahve to die?", I actually do think his death was important to the mythology and symbolism. First, obviously, it underscores teh serious, fatal nature of cancer and why finding a cure is so important. because young men and women in teh primes of tehir lives like Fox was are killed by it. Secondly, the fact that he died and did his marathon knowing that he was going to die underscores the more "selfless" aspect of his story. He knew he wasn't going to find a cure for cancer in times to save HIS life. He was doing it to help the people who came after him, a sort of enduring elgacy. rather than jsut accept that nothing could be done and it was too alte for him, he gave that gift to the rest of the world.And, again, not to harp on the race thing and maybe some people ehre jsut are more attuned to racial issues than I am or experience it more directly. Though, I'm currently in teh states in a pretty segregated city in a state with a long history of racial animosity and it really brought home the relative racial harmony that exists in Canada. Honestly, until i read the first post in this thread, it never even occured to me that tehre was any sort of racial element to the terry Fox mythology. That he was white seemed no more significant than whether he was right-handed or left-handed. And I honestly DO beleive that were he any otehr colour, his story would ahve proved jsut as inspiring. And as to his physical appearance being "attractive", I mean, that's anotehr thing that never really occurred to me. Fox certainly isn't someone I'd describe as "ugly" but he enver stood out in my mind as being particualrly movie star handsome eitehr, jsut a pretty average, normal guy who did something extraordinary.
From: Originally from Ontario, now in Virginia | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 16 September 2008 11:35 AM
quote: Why, as WW points out and CMOT hypothesizes, did Fox have to die to punctuate his myth properly? It's a matter of questioning our assumptions about this story and what such a story motivates us to do.
I shouldn't have used the word martyr(although with all the coverage that happens when a doctor helps a gimp die, there's no denying that there is a element of martyrdom in the way our society looks at disability). We don't necessarily have to die, but we do have to suffer. Rick Hansen didn't kill himself on the man in motion tour, but he drove himself like a cart horse. In many situations, people don't look to us to emulate Christ, so much as they expect us to endure the trials of Jobe. Of course it helps if the Jobe in question dosen't look like John Merrick, have a speech impediment or dark skin, otherwise the resulting news story ends up being less about the (most always athletic) event they are participating in,(what inspired you to run for Africa's starving millions?) then it does about the condition of the athelete in question(why do you have those growths on your face?) [ 16 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ] [ 16 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|