You can't hide behind a journalistic neutrality when you're creating a historical narrative, particularly when the harms done to the people you're writing about are so profoundly horrible. Silberman makes some implications, and allows the reader to draw their own conclusions about wretched abuses which at times read as non-objecting or passively supportive. 
Praising Hans Asperger as an unbridled hero and treasure, and failing to comment on the harms of outpatient therapies in the 60s and 70s in parallel to the inpatient shows either an acute lack of understanding or deliberate ignorance, and after a few glaring omissions I don't feel like this is a great way to learn about my history.

Expand filter menu Content Warnings
hopeful informative reflective sad slow-paced

Expand filter menu Content Warnings

If I could give this negative stars, I would. 

Let’s get this straight, a neurotypical person should not be writing a history and guide about neurodiverse folks. The most important but ironically lacking in description are the following items.
- Asperger’s and Autism are not interchangeable, see below.  
- The use of Aspergers is totally outdated, and the guy it was named after tortured Autistic kids. 
-High and low functioning labels are damaging.
- Autism Speaks is a hate charity. 
- The introduction starts off with how terrible Autism is and how it needed to be eradicated. An intro should caveat and have disclaimers about current and past assumptions. Autism does not need to be eradicated. It isn’t a disease. 
- the whole thing, so freaking boring. Like does he ever stop rambling.
- This is a colonial whitewashed, classist, cis-heteropatriarchal ableist account of Autism. 

Follow the hashtags below or talk to real Autistic people. We don’t bite. 🙄
#actuallyautistic

Expand filter menu Content Warnings