Is Calling a 71-Year-Old Victim of a Violent Crime “Elderly” an Example of Ageism?

A column from the Manteca/Ripon [California] Bulletin on “The Impact of ‘Elderly’ & Other English Words,” offers interesting perspectives on labels, especially in a time where high-profile name calling seems calculated to cause wide offense.  But what about more casual uses of labels?   

The column by Dennis Wyatt was sparked by news coverage about a vicious attack on a 71-year-old Sikh man in California’s Bay Area.  Several of the coverage items referred to the victim as “elderly.”  

In response to reader criticism of the label, Wyatt explains his perspective:  

Words can and do conjure up specific and different reactions and images with various people. Besides government definitions, laws and terminology that place people 65 and older under the umbrella of elder law there are other factors at play with language whether it is current trends, regional or cultural influences, or generational.

 

In the case of the vicious attack on the 71-year-old that those who knew him described him as frail and elderly, the word “elderly” confers the fact he’s not a “strapping” 71-year-old. I know of a few guys in their early 70s that the suspect in Monday’s attack would not have messed with. Not because they were simply healthier and would fight back but because they could have probably cleaned his clock.

 

The word “elderly” conveyed the correct image. The man was a vulnerable target and I’d venture to say the cowards that attacked him determined that to be the case. 

I do agree with [one reader’s] observation that simply being 71 years old doesn’t make one elderly. At 62 I don’t feel old at all. In fact I can make a solid case I’m “younger” today in terms of health and what I can do physically than when I was 18.

In my elder law class, I sometimes begin the semester by asking students to give a definition of “elderly.”  The results are often interesting.