RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Steve G on Friday 11 September 09 23:09 BST (UK)
-
:-X I'm Not saying a Word about ..... You know who! ;D
Seriously though, folks; Census Reports and Workhouse Inmates listings both use these categorisations.
What's long since bugged me is; What's the criteria? What differentiates between the three? Who handed out these deliciously un PC labels? What might be a consequence of being so labelled?
Which one would apply to a man who answered the door to the Enumerator, wearing his underpants on his head? Would that man go up a grade, should he enter a pub in that condition?
Surely a discussion that can well and truly provide us all with 'Something for the week end' ? ;)
-
I found these links while replying to a thread on this subject recently, they explain the criteria used
http://studymore.org.uk/mhhglo.htm#CountyAsylums
http://studymore.org.uk/xmad1844.htm
Barbara :)
-
In the 1871 Census people were asked whether any member of the household was an 'imbecile or idiot' or 'feeble-minded', a question that was retained until the 1911 Census.
The exact definitions of terms such as 'lunatic', 'imbecile', 'idiot' and 'feeble-minded' are extremely problematic. According to the 1881 Census Report;
No accurate line of demarcation can be drawn between the several conditions indicated by these terms. Speaking generally, however, the term idiot is applied in popular usage simply to those who suffer from congenital mental deficiency, and the term imbecile to persons who have fallen in later life into a state of chronic dementia. But it is certain that neither this nor any other definite distinction between the terms was rigorously observed in the schedules, and consequently no attempt has been made by us to separate imbeciles from idiots. The term lunatic also is used with some vagueness, and probably some persons suffering from congenital idiocy, and many more suffering from dementia, were returned under this name.
Considering that householders, who could be illiterate, were being asked to give information about medical disabilities without any definition of the terms being used the answers should be treated with caution. Also they would be unwilling to admit that anyone in the family had medical disabilities.
If you want to find out more look at
On the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Idiocy and Imbecility
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~mksimpso/IreDiag.htm
Stan
-
From the Rootschat Lexicon (http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/reflib-lexicon.php?lang='.$lang.')
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,124975.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,127137.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,213471.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,234610.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,252923.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,292500.0.html
;)
-
Cheers for some truly fascinating and ongoing reading there, folks! :)
Best of all, I now see that a rellie of mine who, I thought, had been unable to move for months before his death due to " Paralysis ", had in fact simply lost the plot. I'd never really stopped to consider where the term " Paralytic Drunk " came from before!
Makes me wish I had longer to live ~ there's just so much great stuff still to be learned :)
Thanks.
-
I have an ancestor who is shown as a 'cripple' on one census and an 'imbecile' on another -
does not compute!
-
??? Which came first? Perhaps they were crippled, and later lost the plot, thus qualifying for " Imbecile ".
Or, perhaps they were spastic and someone took more notice of one aspect than the other?
-
He first appears on the 1861 census, it says crippled from birth then what looks like 'deformed' but not sure, what do you think?
then on the 1871 census it says 'imbecile'
He's still alive in 1891 aged 58. Incidentally his disability is not mentioned on either the 1881 or 1891 censuses.
-
I think my head's spinning ..... I'd get that word up to the Decipherers board. I've just sat and blown it up and stared at it till my head spun. Because I just can't get a grip on what it is ~ or appears to be. But, I somehow feel accepting " Deformed " might be a cop out. Yet 'DEF' it certainly looks to start with. Dunno ...
Imbecile? Well, in the strictest sense, one was born an Idiot but could become an Imbecile. Maybe he had a bad spell and got over it?
Sorry. I really do feel there's something just under the surface here. But I'm not quite firing on all four cylinders yet. Haven't had my mug of tea ;)
-
I have a relation, my great great aunts son, who was an idiot.
i am just researching about him now.
he was in an asylum in 1901 and died in 1903 at his parents home, (from the burial records) a few months before he died he was christened - adult christened 20 years old
i was thinking that maybe they knew he was going to die and thus took him home to die and had him christened before he did.
i think its all rather sad.
-
How I wish my ancestors had had the courage to declare one of their sons on a census under whatever word was commonly in use at the time. He was named in favour of his maternal grandfather and that knowledge would have broken down a brick wall and saved me years of fruitless research. I can't even find a birth record for him in on SP and the NHS archives don't have a record of him being cared for away from home. I found him when the family headstone was eventually discovered.
-
Just had another look at the 1871 census and Imbecile has actually been scored through so the enumerator got it wrong - imbecile! ;D
-
Well,that's cool, Parmesan. Only I'm still gagging to get to the bottom of that weird word above. I'm still not happy with it and would like more opinion.
Maybe it's just me? But, I can't manage to see " Deformed " in there. Nor can I put my finger on anything else. It's doing my head in! :-\
-
I did as you advised and posted in the 'decipher' board and had 3 replies all thinking it says 'deformed', like you, I'm not convinced although it seems the most likely word.
-
for what its worth I blew it up yo the max on my screen
line reads "Crippled from birth Deformed".
This suggests more than just not being able to walk,
maybe a twisted spine or similar.
-
Looks like we'll have to accept the majority verdict on this one then, Cheeser.
Bit of an abstraction from all this but; I was thinking to myself how " Crippled and " rather automatically leads the mind to " Deformed ". And that's when my own mind did a lateral shift and showed me what I suspect was hovering in my own subconscious .....
All this reading I've been doing, about Idiots, Imbeciles, Lunatics and Maniacs? I wonder if I was trying to think of " Deranged " ?
Doesn't fit at all, of course. Not suggesting that for a moment. But, I do wonder if that's where my mind was going. Off the bloody rails, I suppose! ;D
-
Aye G-ster I guess so.
Actually looks like Defursel to me, but I'm an idiot ....
-
Defursel
Ye've just made that up, haven't ye? Look at Google. This thread's the only place they mention it! ;D
If you're an idiot, what's that make me? They want me on chorophacinone, for life! Apparently, that stuff's for people who've " Lost touch with reality "! :o
Bloody nerve! ;D
Sorted it out myself though. Came over here and hide myself away in this bog. Now I while away my time conversing with pizza toppings who make up words .......... Perhaps I should take the drugs? 8)
-
The original question has been answered and the mystery word decoded by consensus, so unless there is anything else on topic - would you like me to move this to the Totally Off Topic board?
-
::)
-
Under the old Mental Health catergories these were divided by IQ levels if my memory serves me right, worst of categories was imbecile these were usually people with an IQ of less than 60 with serious mental and/or physical deformiites. Idiots were people with IQ less than 70 and Feeble-minded fell between 70 and 90. I may be a bit out on actual figures but not that much. All could have physical problems as well as what we now call learning difficulties. There was also another category Moral Defectives this was usually given to women who had illigitimate children or lived off immoral earnings and could be sectioned and incarcerated under the Mental Health Act. Incidentally, as a retired nurse for what was then termed Mentally Handicapped people, we had in our care a lady who was locked away for the sole offence of having an illigitmate child, she was in her late teens when sectioned and although under the Mental Health Act of 1959 was free to leave, having only known institutional life for 40 years did not wish to do so. She was still alive in the late 80's and her daughter visited her regularly. Its sounds likely that your relative could have suffered with Cerebral Palsy (spasticity) and although may or may not have had normal IQ, because of the poor knowledge of these conditions at the time and lack of therapy and speech aids, may have been thought to have low IQ. The film My Left Foot illustrates this very well but he was proved to have normal IQ when ways of helping him communicate were discovered. Lunatics were people who would now be classed as having Mental Illness and come under the Psychiatric umbrella. Hope this helps. Lorraine
-
Thanks for the input, Lorraine :)
-
My understanding is that prior to the 1851 census the government became concerned at the level of people in these categories in society due to inbreeding amongst already closely related communities, and wished to have an idea at the extent of the potential problem. By the look of some of the village family trees that I have researched I think their worries were justified.
-
Good and interesting point, Roger. I too have looked into some of the goings on in the lower west country rural areas of a couple of generations back. One can almost hear the banjo's as one reads .... :o
Hells teeth! That's just led me to think a bit further along those lines. Not something for publication here but, I actually know of an recorded case which pretty well demonstrated what we're thinking!
Interestingly, it involved a direct descendent from just such a 'close' community. Makes me shudder to think what more might lie behind That incident now. Urgh!
-
Plus in the areas I am researching surnames Gypsy and known to you from a recent thread, in a village where it is reported that arranged marriages were extremely common.Do you know of any? People whose families were likely to have been involved seem to follow an omerta worthy of the Mafia!
-
Under the old Mental Health catergories these were divided by IQ levels if my memory serves me right, worst of categories was imbecile these were usually people with an IQ of less than 60 with serious mental and/or physical deformiites. Idiots were people with IQ less than 70 and Feeble-minded fell between 70 and 90. I may be a bit out on actual figures but not that much.
While some sort of approximations like these can be made, it's worth remembering that the notion of IQ was only invented in 1912 ... so attempting to apply such distinctions to 19th century censuses is somewhat dodgy ;)
-
I wouldn't know about 'arranged marriages', Roger. But, I yet have a bit of a brick wall to get through, regarding one of my lines of deepest interest. And, now we're veering towards it? That line is gathering rather too much incidental evidence of a 'Bad Gene' to be lightly ignored. Something not right with the men.
That brings us nicely back onto topic. And That now makes me wonder if there may not be a link in all of this.
Taken in isolation, nothing quite hits the mark or explains itself. Put it all together? I'm wondering if we're not hedging round the discussion of a strong possibility here?