Silencing the Deaf Community?
Recently I witnessed a barrage of comments in another blog that left me feeling disturbed. Disturbed doesn’t accurately describe my feelings, now to think of it. A better description would be outrage.
A Deaf person expressed his opinions regarding the actions of a certain organization. One leader of a Deaf organization appeared and attempted to silence this person by invalidating his experiences and opinions. The implication was that a Deaf person doesn’t have the right to disagree. This leader later asked for her comment to be retracted. Later, in another comment, that leader accused the Deaf person of lying.
The worst part is that this leader is a hearing person. It’s bad enough that the majority of the current Deaf leaders of this Deaf organization not only conducts attacks on other people with different ideas, but also encourage some of its members to do the same. It’s even worse that this Deaf organization condones its hearing leader oppressing a Deaf constituent and am disappointed to see her conduct.
This reminds me of the time when I. King Jordan tried to tape the hands and mouths of his students closed. His memo ’Restrictions of Students’ Expressions’ was written with the intention to silence the students from expressing their disagreements over the presidential appointment of Fernandes. I was aghast to see a president of a university where critical thinking and discussions are supposedly essential elements of the academic atmosphere would attempt to censor the rights of Deaf students to express themselves. His memo was one of the primary reasons why I got myself involved in the protest as the freedom of speech among the Deaf students is protected by the constitution.
What’s happening here? Are we seeing a deja vu where a person or an organization attempts to control the Deaf Community by retaliating against those with different opinions? Didn’t we break the chains of oppression at Gallaudet so we can be empowered as Deaf stakeholders?
Where is the Deaf Empowerment?
Deaf Empowerment will not occur until Deaf people feel free to express their real opinions without fear of retaliation or oppression by the Deaf leaders, hearing leaders, and/or its members. To expect a universal consensus among a very diverse Deaf Community is unrealistic. Labeling d/Deaf people with different thoughts and point of views as colonialists, deficit thinkers, audists’ deaf proteges and other negative labels are also measures to deter them from speaking up freely.
My question: Are we going in the right direction or not?
As for myself, I have no problem with an organization, even with one whose objectives I may not agree with. However, I do have problems with any organization stifling the freedom of speech and ideas within the community
P.S. Let me clarify again. I’m referring to this organization’s long history of attacking others who don’t agree. It gets very tiresome. We need to move on in a healthy and constructive manner, where everybody can discuss freely without negative confrontations from the organizations’ leaders and certain members.
I want to acknowledge one thing: There is no question about Tami making valuable contributions to the advocacy of bi-bi education and her commitment to this field. I wish we have more people like her. MZ
Another addition: Some people think I am accusing this particular leader only because she is hearing. Actually no. If you read carefully the post and the comments, I stated that some DBC leaders and members frequently conducted bashing and seeing a hearing leader starting to do the same thing broke the camel’s back for me. At that point, I can no longer be silent.
Another leader, Barb, came up with a post as a private citizen, accusing me of twisting the facts and allowed her blog be a medium for other people to bash me personally instead of discussing the issue itself. Later this person attacked me in my own post, again accusing me of misrepresenting the issues and claiming that diversity isn’t the problem. So, in other words, she is claiming my post is all a big twist. My concerns remain valid. Many people have been expressing similar reservations for some time. Some people are also afraid of this organization due to the attacks they experienced in both DR and DVTV for expressions of their own ideas that the members didn’t appreciate. As a civil right activist, it’s disturbing for me to witness the systematic attacks on other Deaf people, resulting in retaliatations from others. So far some ended being traumatized, few requiring medical treatment, at least a couple needing the services of emergency rooms.
Is this an appropriate way for leaders of this organization to discuss the issues by accusing concerned people of making unfounded and untrue statements or twisting, then bashing them afterwards? Tami did the same to Ben and a “private citizen”, the DBC leader Barb followed up, too, and her approach was extremely hostile which ends up reflecting DBC in a poor light. Another DBC leader, John came through with another post in his private blog last night, bashing Ben and damaging the reputation of an innocent Deaf organization. It had been removed since then. The pattern still persists.
My concern is how can the Deaf Community be healthy and empowered if most of the leaders and some members of a new organization engage in systematic oppression and intolerance toward certain members of Deaf Community with different views? The answer: it cannot be as long as this practice is condoned by the organization itself.
The actions of some leaders and members have already tainted the image of this organization. How can it help the deaf babies and children? Think about this.
How can we work together for the Deaf babies and children if some members and leaders cannot tolerate the diversity of ideas and expressions in the Deaf Community? How effective is this organization’s marketing to the hearing parents of the deaf babies and chidlren who may see these bashings toward others on the Internet?
This organization has a wonderful concept. It will go a long way when these leaders and members develop better tolerance to the diversity of Deaf Community. We need a healthy and empowering organization. Please think about this. MZ
Another note: Ann C sums it best: We have seen on DR time and again an organization’s leader who hides behind the organization’s name but uses his personal blog or comments on other bloggers’ sites to personally attack others with differing views about the organization he represents. This is when online readers have trouble distinguishing between the individual and the organization, both are seen as one and the same unfortunately. There are some leaders unable to separate their personas from the organizations they run, and thus to the detriment of the organization’s mission itself. Can’t We All Behave?! | benvess.
Recently I witnessed a barrage of comments in another blog that left me feeling disturbed. Disturbed doesn’t accurately describe my feelings, now to think of it. A better description would be outrage.
A Deaf person expressed his opinions regarding the actions of a certain organization. One leader of a Deaf organization appeared and attempted to silence this person by invalidating his experiences and opinions. The implication was that a Deaf person doesn’t have the right to disagree. This leader later asked for her comment to be retracted. Later, in another comment, that leader accused the Deaf person of lying.
The worst part is that this leader is a hearing person. It’s bad enough that the majority of the current Deaf leaders of this Deaf organization not only conducts attacks on other people with different ideas, but also encourage some of its members to do the same. It’s even worse that this Deaf organization condones its hearing leader oppressing a Deaf constituent and am disappointed to see her conduct.
This reminds me of the time when I. King Jordan tried to tape the hands and mouths of his students closed. His memo ’Restrictions of Students’ Expressions’ was written with the intention to silence the students from expressing their disagreements over the presidential appointment of Fernandes. I was aghast to see a president of a university where critical thinking and discussions are supposedly essential elements of the academic atmosphere would attempt to censor the rights of Deaf students to express themselves. His memo was one of the primary reasons why I got myself involved in the protest as the freedom of speech among the Deaf students is protected by the constitution.
What’s happening here? Are we seeing a deja vu where a person or an organization attempts to control the Deaf Community by retaliating against those with different opinions? Didn’t we break the chains of oppression at Gallaudet so we can be empowered as Deaf stakeholders?
Where is the Deaf Empowerment?
Deaf Empowerment will not occur until Deaf people feel free to express their real opinions without fear of retaliation or oppression by the Deaf leaders, hearing leaders, and/or its members. To expect a universal consensus among a very diverse Deaf Community is unrealistic. Labeling d/Deaf people with different thoughts and point of views as colonialists, deficit thinkers, audists’ deaf proteges and other negative labels are also measures to deter them from speaking up freely.
My question: Are we going in the right direction or not?
As for myself, I have no problem with an organization, even with one whose objectives I may not agree with. However, I do have problems with any organization stifling the freedom of speech and ideas within the community
P.S. Let me clarify again. I’m referring to this organization’s long history of attacking others who don’t agree. It gets very tiresome. We need to move on in a healthy and constructive manner, where everybody can discuss freely without negative confrontations from the organizations’ leaders and certain members.
I want to acknowledge one thing: There is no question about Tami making valuable contributions to the advocacy of bi-bi education and her commitment to this field. I wish we have more people like her. MZ
Another addition: Some people think I am accusing this particular leader only because she is hearing. Actually no. If you read carefully the post and the comments, I stated that some DBC leaders and members frequently conducted bashing and seeing a hearing leader starting to do the same thing broke the camel’s back for me. At that point, I can no longer be silent.
Another leader, Barb, came up with a post as a private citizen, accusing me of twisting the facts and allowed her blog be a medium for other people to bash me personally instead of discussing the issue itself. Later this person attacked me in my own post, again accusing me of misrepresenting the issues and claiming that diversity isn’t the problem. So, in other words, she is claiming my post is all a big twist. My concerns remain valid. Many people have been expressing similar reservations for some time. Some people are also afraid of this organization due to the attacks they experienced in both DR and DVTV for expressions of their own ideas that the members didn’t appreciate. As a civil right activist, it’s disturbing for me to witness the systematic attacks on other Deaf people, resulting in retaliatations from others. So far some ended being traumatized, few requiring medical treatment, at least a couple needing the services of emergency rooms.
Is this an appropriate way for leaders of this organization to discuss the issues by accusing concerned people of making unfounded and untrue statements or twisting, then bashing them afterwards? Tami did the same to Ben and a “private citizen”, the DBC leader Barb followed up, too, and her approach was extremely hostile which ends up reflecting DBC in a poor light. Another DBC leader, John came through with another post in his private blog last night, bashing Ben and damaging the reputation of an innocent Deaf organization. It had been removed since then. The pattern still persists.
My concern is how can the Deaf Community be healthy and empowered if most of the leaders and some members of a new organization engage in systematic oppression and intolerance toward certain members of Deaf Community with different views? The answer: it cannot be as long as this practice is condoned by the organization itself.
The actions of some leaders and members have already tainted the image of this organization. How can it help the deaf babies and children? Think about this.
How can we work together for the Deaf babies and children if some members and leaders cannot tolerate the diversity of ideas and expressions in the Deaf Community? How effective is this organization’s marketing to the hearing parents of the deaf babies and chidlren who may see these bashings toward others on the Internet?
This organization has a wonderful concept. It will go a long way when these leaders and members develop better tolerance to the diversity of Deaf Community. We need a healthy and empowering organization. Please think about this. MZ
Another note: Ann C sums it best: We have seen on DR time and again an organization’s leader who hides behind the organization’s name but uses his personal blog or comments on other bloggers’ sites to personally attack others with differing views about the organization he represents. This is when online readers have trouble distinguishing between the individual and the organization, both are seen as one and the same unfortunately. There are some leaders unable to separate their personas from the organizations they run, and thus to the detriment of the organization’s mission itself. Can’t We All Behave?! | benvess.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:02 am
I totally agree with you, Zena. This is one reason I have not been as involved in Deaf organizations as I have been in the past. The constant bickering and “rejection” of those who disagree with the norm.
No one learns without dissent, no one grows without dissent. We all should embrace different ideas and find a common ground.
Disclaimer: Yes, I know that hearing organizations have the same problems. I’m just trying to stay in context.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Hi Alan In my experience, diversity of thoughts and ideas is tolerated much more in the Hearing Community. Disagreements are allowed.
March 19th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Welcome to the madhouse Mishka, we have had this for years in the UK via the hearing run RNID. They have never lost a chance to run the deaf down, and threaten their blogs with legal action for speaking up either. Recently they labeled culture an medical dependency issue, then told deaf they are ungrateful whiners. THe days of deaf-run charities and groups is near over here, hearing people run everything, and don’t want us except as pathetics on their front page to illicit sympathy, and suggest we support them.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
MZ,
This is Tami, the hearing person you are talking about in this blog. My intentions in making
comments in Amy’s Dog and Pony post was to let Ben know how much DBC has been doing recently after he posted this comment:
http://www.deafeyeseeit.com/2009/03/17/dog-and-pony-show/
# 19 From Ben:
In conclusion, this is what I think: we the deaf community do not need another organization like AFA or DBC that’s hellbent on destroying other organizations. I am strongly in favor of unification of organizations like NAD, AGBell, DBC, and the rest to improve the conditions of individuals and NOT products or ideals for a group.
(My comment that was deleted by Amy.. was not to devalue his opinion. It was to let him know what I have been doing personally in the way of advocated….side by side and not in front of my Deaf colleagues) I never once made comments about Ben personally nor was I trying to silence his opinion.
Also you misunderstood and need to reread my comments as I Never wanted MY comments retracted (which I think Amy did because I can’t find it on the blog).. but I wanted Amy to remove the language F….this and F….that was in Ben’s comment #33 which is now #34) There are children reading these blogs.
My first comment was removed by Amy from the Dog and Pony post…hmmm… Basically I commented on everything that DBC has been doing recently. That information you can find on http://www.dbcusa.org.
I know I started my 1st comment that was deleted with… I “respectfully was offended by Ben’s comment #19 regarding DBC being “hellbent”… My comment that was removed also clarifyed what DBC is doing so Ben would understand that we are doing so much work on a national level and not simply ranting and raving about AGBell, and we are educating people about bilingualism through research based information.
Here is my second comment:(note the first sentence was intended to remove the profanity in Ben’s comments…which was either #33 or #34.)
#51 Tami Says:
March 18th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Amy, Could you remove or edit comment #34 as this language seems to be unnecessary.
Ben,
DBC does not take a stance against Deaf children learning to speak or be oral. DBC is only against “exclusionary” practices that deny Deaf children access to ASL and this includes children who use CI’s, hearing aids, or use neither. Research shows that children, regardless if they are hearing or deaf, have higher achievement rates in language development than those who are not exposed to sign language at birth. If you had been to the CAL-ED conference, this same message was echoed time and again by researchers and other presenters.
DBC seeks to educate those who have impact on Deaf children’s lives and their families lives on the benefits of ASL in early language acquisition.
Ben….your comments about DBC are simply unfounded and not true. If you have not seen any of DBC’s most recent presentations to at EHDI and CAl-ED, I suggest you do so you can understand better what we are doing.
Just like Amy pointed out…AGBell is focusing on communication and not language. We are focusing on language and cognitive development.
MZ….I believe this whole thing was totally a misunderstanding and I apologize for anything that I wrote that you may have misunderstood.
P.S. I do not consider myself a leader. I am a mother that has seen the benefits of ASL and bilingualism for my own daughter and our family. My goal in all this volunteerism is that more parents will also have the opportunities to be fully informed on all opportunities, including ASL, that are available for language acquisition. That is it…I have no other hidden agendas.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Misha,
I’m not so sure if you are reffering to DHHIG and Changes for Deaf Government Employees (www.cfdge.wordpress.com) blog because this sounds so SIMILAR to what we are going through.
We have been trying to voice our concerns regardings the fairness and openess of the new board election process and other issues.
They decided to launch personal attacks to discredit me. See David and John O’s post on the website.
All the blog did was to raise the issues and awareness. It did not attack any of the board members, with an exception of those “anonymous” comments.
Oh well. I’ll just keep on going like the energizer bunny and contiune to voice out the concerns because I truely believe Members should be aware of them and be proactive in the organization.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
“Ben….your comments about DBC are simply unfounded and not true.”
These are his opinions. You may not agree with his but you went too far when you said they were unfounded and not true. It happens that some of other people do agree with him.
You narrated the recent activities. However these events do NOT erased the previous activities of DBC.
Ben has a right to his opinions. You have no right to deny him his experiences.
As an appointed hearing leader of DBC, you need to let Deaf constituents express their opinions, whether you agree with them or not.
We don’t see NAD go after Deaf constitutents. We don’t see other organizations do that. However, DBC does again and again. This pattern is what I find disturbing.
Since Tami identified herself, I will include the post and the comment section for others to read. http://www.deafeyeseeit.com/2009/03/17/dog-and-pony-show/
March 19th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
MZ,
My greatest apologies to Ben if I offended his right to his opinion.
I was only stating the facts of what DBC is currently doing in advocating for Deaf babies’ language rights and parents’ right to be fully informed regarding the benefits of ASL and bilingualism (ASL and English).
I would hope that I am also entitled to express my opinions if someone is saying something about the work that I am personally doing for DBC that is inaccurate or portrays the organization that I am affiliated with in a negative light.
The events of the past were personal issues between people and that was truly unfortunate when it overtook the big picture of advocating for Deaf babies’ rights to language so they can achieve the developmental milestones that hearing babies and children are entitled to.
I am very sorry if I offended you or anyone else that was not my intention.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Ah, Deaf on Deaf, Deaf on deaf, deaf on Deaf, deaf on deaf spats.
It’s no wonder intelligent people are observing this and not being charitable towards the needy Deaf organizations as they scramble amid trying times in the economy not to mention morale. There’s lots of dogs amongst us confused as to which worthwhile causes we should belong to today. Many don’t realize that the times are just warning of what might come our way if collective populations don’t come to their senses. I’m tired of whoring on vindication =)
March 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Actually Tami,
all this has prompted me to step back in the game and write my entry, but before doing so, I’d like to point out a discrepancy that you may have missed. Indeed, some of the personal attacks to me and the organizations I’m involved with may be just between me and the individuals (who happen to be leaders of DBC). I refuse to see it this way on this ground:
DBC has never publicly reprimanded their leaders for using DBC as a weapon against individuals and organizations. By keeping your silence, you endorse their behavior. By refusing to demand that they remove DBC from their attacks on me, you agree to them.
Whether you agree with them or not is truly irrelevant. DBC has never apologized to me for their relentless attacks and DBC has never tried to distance itself from certain individuals who used DBC to hurt others.
Tami, Actions speak louder than words here.
Five out of six core members have attacked me using DBC and its philosophy. It is not unfair for me to determine that, yes, DBC is behind this.
Perhaps you may feel offended. That, again, is your right. But do be aware of the facts before you go on and accuse me of misrepresenting DBC.
You have never made an effort to contact me nor tried to clarify why I felt this way. I have contacted you a while back and there is no excuse as to why you didn’t try to do that with me. Instead of seeing my message for what it is: unification of organizations–you decided to go for the red herrings and focus on only ONE word.
So be it.
My entry is coming.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
This is very small deaf community. Everyone knows this and this and this.
Will this be solved in 10 to 20 years from now?
Yes, Tami. Very, very sad. DBC has to clean up their acts and should not have announced that they endorsed Audism Free America. DBC should have neutral and stay away from all the chaos.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Seriously… when all of this is going to stop? I’m starting to think that people are deliberately stirring things up because people feel that
1) things are too quiet on DeafRead,
2) they want attention back on their organization.
What is going on, is extremely counter-productive, does not contribute anything to intellectual discourse, and it sure as hell doesn’t reflect well on us. Perhaps it is time for some bloggers to start banning individuals from their blogs, to ensure their blogs do not get hijacked anymore. Because that’s what is happening. Blogs are being hijacked.
*shakes her head in disgust*
March 19th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
This all started, I think, with individuals taking personal offense at comments that were meant to be general, were misstated, or because they came from a leader which would have been better tolerated if they came from a noninvolved person.
Let’s stop splitting hairs and taking personal offense. If an organization were to respond to jabs, it might perhaps be done on their website and not on others’ blogs, except to give a brief comment with a link back to that website.
Otherwise, there were many excellent points raised (and DBC managed to give a very good defense that deserves examination.) Still a worthwhile read, even if hijacked.
What was unsaid was that some entities have bad feelings about others because of past history and no one is immune. If we can judge actions TODAY and not past ones, we could make better progress. There are more similarities among all of them and the minds of most Deaf professionals today than in the past, so let’s work with that.
Let’s cool it and move ahead. Amy, sorry your blog got sidetracked from the original topic, which was AGBell’s deceptively optimistic PR show.
March 19th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
It’s too quiet on DR because bloggers and commenters get attacked right and left for their views, and few people are being respectful of others’ views.
As an oral deaf person, I felt I had to stay mum on your blog article about Lisa Goldstein. NOBODY who is an oral deaf person would have felt comfortable making a comment on that ‘un, knowing full well that he/she would get attacked for having an NON-relevant viewpoint. That’s the sticking point, a different viewpoint gets “shouted down” as non-relevant.
Tami got a variation of the same crap, that “hearing” person who “fronts a deaf organization and should have known better” than to what? open her mouth?
That’s not to say I agree with DBC’s tactics, I don’t, but Tami didn’t deserve to be described as such.
I can cite more examples, but suffice it to say that the chasm between deaf and Deaf is getting wider because like Rodney Dangerfield used to say, “I don’t get no respect.” Imagine how this looks to the hearing parents of deaf children viewing all this online. >groan<
March 19th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Tami, regardless of your intentions or not, that is what happened… and there’s been a long standing pattern of this kind of conduct
It would seem that there is still simmering resentment among the leaders of DBC regarding the exodus of former members. I would have thought that by now, everyone would have moved beyond this. But obviously, it’s not the case.
March 19th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Hi Ann, good to see you again. I don’t think you would make the comments that Lisa did.
With Tami, there is more to it than what appears on the surface. Ben had made his post, so maybe that will help you understand better the real issues.
March 19th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
In regards to making donations I wonder if Audism Free America (AFA) and Deaf Bilingual Coalition (DBC) attained 501 (c) (3) status with the Internal Revenue Service? I’m especially concerned on part of DBC because it has been over a year now as far as obtaining the such on a stand-alone basis which it should have done in the first place instead of relying on a statewide deaf advocacy organization. This kind of relying scenario potentially causes very bad precedent especially if California Association of the Deaf denies an interest group especially if the interest group is ASL-Cochlear Implants.
March 19th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Ben’s blog, describing his experiences of being attacked by DBC leaders: http://blog.benvess.com/?p=268
Robert, it’s been almost two years as DBC was set up in July of 2007. I don’t know if DBC and AFA did get their own 501(c)(3) or not.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
DBC causes onstant strife at DR and DVTV. They look for trouble, picking on Deaf people. They make me sick. Others are fed up,too.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:52 am
You know, I don’t get it. This is something I’ve seen come up on DeafRead before…
We Deaf are criticized by Hearing and Deaf people for being supposedly anti-Hearing.
Then when we include Hearing allies, we’re criticized for supposedly being too dependent on Hearing people.
THIS is the crux of Crab Theory. NONE of us can move forward and up when we’re all so busy pulling each other down for trivial and imagined problems, when the real problem is oppression and audism that is ACTUALLY happening out there, and we are all in danger of getting our little crab tuches (not sure how to make this word plural) boiled in the pot!
March 20th, 2009 at 3:28 am
{seesmic_video:{“url_thumbnail”:{“value”:”http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/a3HCdMCscq_th1.jpg”}”title”:{“value”:” ”}”videoUri”:{“value”:”http://www.seesmic.com/video/k8RI8ZoFUR”}}}
March 20th, 2009 at 4:30 am
Hmmm… I am sorry to see that it has come down to this. Amy’s purpose of her latest posting is marketing and the kind of audiences the organizations seek to address and how we could help address the wider audiences, about the WHOLE spectrum of the deaf community, not only oral ones. Somehow… it got off of the point. I did not help either, my throwing in the part about audism, so I apologize for it.
I don’t care about crab theory, etc… that is another example of labeling our actions and we don’t need it. We all have our opinions and we need to express them and to feel validated. Normal response… not “crabs”. From
I for one appreciate Tami’s tireless work seeing to deaf babies’/children’s needs to be met. AFA, I don’t know much about it, but the word “audism” is unfortunately coined up with a lot of negativism thus aptly to be abused, to many people like my son, who feel comfortable with talking than signing. So I expect to hear more anti-AGBell stories from AFA
( . That is the point I believe for Amy’s blog… MARKETING and how we manipulate audiences through marketing… biasedly and unbiasedly. And MZ’s blog for the need to be able to disagree without getting put down…. that we all have our need to be acknowledged NOT to be put down.
Take care.
March 20th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Hearing allies are NOT the issue. This organization had been systematically attacking Deaf people, silencing dissent and smothering diversity in the community. Witnessing a hearing leader starting that by accusing a Deaf member of making statements that are unfounded and not true, and brushing aside his very valid opinions, is what got me outraged.
Just because we have different opinions and experiences don’t indicate that we are audists, colonialists, deficit thinkers, audists’ deaf proteges, or making statements that are unfounded and not true. Whether others agree with us, we have the right to our thoughts, but according to this organization, we cannot do that.
Hence my question: Where is Deaf empowerment if an organization has been systematically oppressing diversity of Deaf stakeholders and their thoughts, beliefs, and ideas?
P.S. By the way, I was the one who brought Tami into DBC.
March 20th, 2009 at 6:12 am
Thank you Karen.
I never intended to put anyone down but be brutally honest about my experiences. I’m sorry that some may think it’s crab theory but my opinion isn’t trying to pull DBC down or anyone as a matter of fact.
Honestly, I think some people need to have their facts straight before making accusations and labels against others.
You don’t know our story, Don and you never tried to acknowledge our side nor our experiences and for you to make judgment calls like that is quite insulting.
Just be glad I’m not in the mood to expose you.
-ben
March 20th, 2009 at 6:18 am
One thing I will admit, though, MZ…
I wish you hadn’t played the hearing card on Tami. I think people were waiting on that one so that they could pounce on you rather than hearing your true message–the brushing off and invalidating…
Tami came out and said she didn’t intend it that way and I’m gonna give her the benefit of the doubt since I don’t know her personally and may have read her comment in a negative light (due to my personal experiences in the past).
It would be wrong of me to clump Tami along with the others who hurt me in the past for Tami have never done something as flagrant as some others did.
As for DBC, well, I’m beginning to see that all this really isn’t about DBC (since DBC’s goal is to promote bilingualism among deaf babies) but rather, personal vendettas of certain individuals and raw feelings of others and DBC got tangled up in this mess.
Could we, from this point on, separate the organizations (DBC and DeafRead) from the individuals involved. I’m a member of several deaf organizations and it would truly break my heart if commenters here kept associating the organizations with my own personal opinions–when in fact, I’m not wearing those hats when I make statements online…
mwahs!
Ben
March 20th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Ben, I was the one who ASKED Tami to join DBC. I was responsible in seeing that DBC has a hearing person at the beginning It was bad enough when Deaf leaders and core members were doing this, but when a hearing leader begun…., that’s when I had to speak up.
Tami apologized, however she did it, though that may have been unintentional. This behavior from the majority of leaders and members of this organization had been ongoing since a leader started with Paotie.
I have no problem for its ideas as I’ve always supported the diversity of ideas and thoughts, regardless of my personal beliefs.
March 20th, 2009 at 7:10 am
This trend needs to be stopped and twisting words and accusing people is a low blow so this is being investigated and someone will be exploited big time because this is one of the reasons how hearing people are steering away from deaf people where we need them as our ally to fight the bigger issue.
Stop whining and move on, can we?
March 20th, 2009 at 7:16 am
There was no twisting. Others saw it, too.
The hearing allies must treat us with respect.
Empowerment starts first at home, acknowledging the diversity in our community without pulling us down.
March 20th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Power struggle within the deaf community has been around for eons….this is all so typical. Not surpised here. Sometimes it takes changing leadership to make things better, alas, that has not been done. As far as hats goes, once someone is a leader in an organization, that person’s reputation is ALWAYS on the line regardless of which hats one wears. A fact that, I’m sure many do not like. Just the way it is.
March 20th, 2009 at 8:03 am
I don’t SEE a power struggle, certainly not here in the Britain. A struggle would at least indicate there were two visible and opposing sides….We have just become hyper-apathetic, and take whatever is given without personal responsibility clouding the issues.
It is just a small hard core fighting away for this, and getting ridiculed by hearing for ‘attacking those that help deaf people’, and “Undermining charities that do deaf people good…”. Even get called discriminators who don’t accept hearing people who accept us….
The attacks can come from deaf as well as from hearing here, we don’t really know who is on the side of empowerment, or, if deaf understand what equality means, they have been conditioned to ’support’ for so long, I think the answer is simply they are too scared to go their own way…
As far as the ‘Dog and Pony Show’ blogs, I can only express sadness at the jibes of people who are oral, each to his or her own I would have thought. There is nothing preventing deaf doing their own ’show’ and expressing their idea of culture and communication, and they do.
It all started with audist and oralistic propaganda which got out of hand and was applied everywhere without thought or justification, now it’s just a form of abusage and not even covert.. we need to move on, but it still isn’t happening.
March 20th, 2009 at 8:09 am
MM, I call it a power struggle, here in the USA because I have seen it happening too often growing up. Happens quite often at deaf clubs with the leaders that holds office within the officers and the board. Pretty typical, and it still goes on to this day, if not in deaf clubs, then in other organizations. I think the british are more refined, ya think?
March 20th, 2009 at 8:09 am
It has hurt me, too, to see people I respected saying things unneccessarily and others getting offended and getting off the original topic.
Not to ask for a group hug, but it seems that the way out of this is to acknowledge each other’s positive aspects and actions and think first before criticizing them over what may be misstatements or unintended interpretations.
Ben, you’ve said things that tend to start a controversy. It was your four letter word usage that caused Tami’s request to remove your commentary, rightly or wrongly. I understand a mom trying to keep things clean for child readers, also I understand your annoyance and expressing it that way.
In the same category is “Just be glad I’m not in the mood to expose you.” (Cringing) Ben, don’t do that. It’s a threat, whether you intended it that way or not, and was divisive and unhelpful to the discussion. I’m glad people are not responding to it this time.
We deaf have lots of history both as organizations and individuals and frequently mix up the two, which holds us back. Okay. It takes a lot of restraint to keep quiet because of the good intentions, however one feels about the individuals involved. To do otherwise risks us being regarded as self-interested and worse, suspected of having a hidden agenda.
The people in this controversy need to move on, overlook the past and keep their common goals in sight. I’m heartened to see Ben and Tami privately communicating, understanding and hope to see this happen with all of us before it reaches the public blogs.
March 20th, 2009 at 8:25 am
DianRez,
Point taken on my last sentence in my last comment. I was at my wits end after his comment here and over at my blog. I just don’t appreciate his condescending comments, is all.
As for my usage of the word f****, I believe I have the right to do so. I even offered for the blogger to remove the comment in entirety before it was posted and the blogger felt that it was appropriate and within grounds of my freedom of speech. I feel like this is red herring—
I don’t see you addressing the fact that it was in retaliation to someone basically saying I’m not Deaf. My usage of f*** wasn’t intended to offend. In fact, I’m sorry if parents feel that their children shouldn’t see those.
I don’t have a child and I don’t feel the need to censor myself for other people’s children. Perhaps they should keep their kids away from me. I’m a bit taken aback that parental responsibility wasn’t the issue here.
Once again, I don’t have children. Period. I don’t feel obligated to adjust my language or whatnot for other people’s children. I didn’t choose for them to produce kids.
I cannot overlook the past so easily, DianRez, especially if certain people are still beating at me for the things I’ve already apologized and owned up to. There are many unresolved issues that will keep coming back until these people own up to it.
I dunno. Seems a bit unfair for me to be punished so severely for my actions and others walk scot free for actions equivalent or worse than mine. The past is a reflection of what will happen again in the future if we don’t do something to make it right… now in the present.
-ben
March 20th, 2009 at 10:03 am
I believe Ben has a point. We can’t always watch how we communicate.
Anyway, Barb did mention that she spoke with Ben and Amy for some clarifications and we just need to move on… And Tami and Ben had some diaglue, which is none of our business. There is no need for nitpicking.
March 20th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Mishkazena’s comment on Amy Cohen Efron’s blogpost, Dog and Pony Show? yesterday is contradictory with her blogpost three years ago.
YESTERDAY
Mishkazena said:
YET:
THREE YEARS AGO: the same Mishkazena posted on DeafRead What is Audism? The Definition of Audism on her blogsite. Making zero comment on the definition of audism indicates that Mishkazena drinks the definition as true.
What gives?
March 20th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Lol Candy ! I’ve been called many things, none of them ‘refined’ ! I don’t do stiff upper lip personally, makes lip-reading harder
With respect to Ben, I think using the F word is unneccessary, there are women here, and I wouldn’t use that word, because it is not polite, I like to think I have outgrown the childish usage of these words, which are for effect more than anything, so let’s not try to justify it as a ‘right’ it is bad languag.
Anyone can swear, those that don’t surely show more control ? It displays disresepect and is bound to inflame, so why resort to it ?
March 20th, 2009 at 11:43 am
You know what? Let me do a blog entry on that very word.
March 20th, 2009 at 11:46 am
*chuckle* what word, Ben? Not that “f”? Guess we could do a history of it, how it originated, etc? ;o)
March 20th, 2009 at 11:52 am
(1) It stands for “fornication under consent of the king,” which was supposedly tacked up over the doors of government-approved brothels in early England. (2) It stands for “for the use of carnal knowledge,” which allegedly was stamped on condoms, or, alternatively, used the same way as “for unlawful carnal knowledge.”
That is best I can find… I am just trying to be light-humored, not throwing any fuel to this fire… just diverting the attention… ha.
March 20th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Hey, MZ you could remove my comments if you find them in distaste… I’d have no problem with it… I am just in a silly mood.
March 20th, 2009 at 11:58 am
LOL Karen, I’ve made my post
it’s not for kids!
Now, Y’all can’t say y’all weren’t warned!!
N O T F O R K I D S!!!!!!!!!!!
-Ben
March 20th, 2009 at 11:59 am
I remember the episode of Bullshit by Penn and Teller covering that word–that historical tidbit isn’t true.
i will have to watch it again and tell you the whole history
March 20th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Jean, these labels, audists, colonialists, deficit thinkers, and audists’ deaf proteges, your favorite one, were recently hurled toward Culturally Deaf people already fluent in ASL. These labels were being used against Deaf people who are not audists, but have different point of views.
These negative labels are counterproductive and damage Deaf Unity within the community.
I rest my case. The actions yesterday and today show the extent of attacks by some leaders and members toward Deaf people who have problems with their conduct. How can we resolve issues if disagreements elicit attacks from others?
People who bash others personally rather than address to the topics end up making themselves look worse. They need to think how their comments make them appear to the public, especially the hearing parents of Deaf babies and children.
Have a good weekend.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Karen and Ben, it is cool to joke. I have no problem with these comments
March 20th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
In reading things through the last couple of years I have to make one simple comment..
Change affects individuals and groups because what once was, no longer is. Nor do the way that used to work working. The results is simple…individual people are standing on shifting sands as they try to follow what used to work or are faced with ideas or thoughts yet learning how to deal with some of them. Some of these ideas and thoughts are new while some are an old friend that accepted as is a long, long time ago.
I’ll use myself as an example. I had gone back to school to fulfill a long held dream of becoming a teacher. Unfortunately my own life had to prioritize around my schooling. I was a dutiful daughter who no longer could fulfill that dutiful daughter role and faced with siblings and parents that couldn’t understand my so called selfish actions. Was I selfish? No. My family which is my son and I come first along with my schooling. I could no longer devote such attention to the dutiful daughter role. The result is my siblings and parents try to put their disappointments, insecurity, dependency and etc. on me. Is it my problem? No. I have my own set of problems to deal with which is changing my own behavioral patterns that didn’t work for me and the dealing with the realization of why I do things a certain way. I had to find new ways of doing things. Am I happy? Yes but I realized I can’t please everyone nor can I be every where.
Now let’s use this same example of what is happening in the Deaf community. Do we all agree that change is taking place? I s everyone facing shifting sands?? What is the result? Individual people change within themselves as they are forced to change with, faced with thinking that used to work but doesn’t or forced to realize they did things a certain way because it was expected of them. Ideas like assimilate, colonization, oppression, and etc. are coming to the surface as people are waking to their realization that what worked is not authentic.
It takes a wise man or woman to realize that every one of us in a different place in their walk. Each of us is facing issues on a personal level as the larger picture of impact hits each of us. Sometimes feelings get expressed that have a connection to the past. Let us look at some of those:
Opression of the deaf/Deaf by whom? Hearing. Is it surprising that when change happens that one hearing individual who is doing good might be faced with a barrage of anger? By the same token, individuals that were once oppressed have anger that they honestly don’t know where it comes from. Decisions were made for them that affected their entire lives and their identity. Who do these individuals, hearing and deaf/Deaf blame? There is a process to identity and one of the steps is negativism.
Assimulation to a culture by whom? I see it in both worlds Deaf and Hearing. Deaf with their ASL and Hearing with their Orals. Is it working? In my eyes, Nah. Why not join forces and use both? Why not be open and honest and let all see the benefits of both worlds? May times parents make choices thinking theirs is the best yet they see little of the ‘real’ world. Why are Deaf sheltered in their own schools? Why are deaf isolated in their schools? Where is the bridge? Who is right? Who is not?
The list goes on and on from both sides. We all need to realize that change doesn’t happen overnight! It affects each and every one of us differently depending on where we are in our walk as an individual and where we are in our lives. Look at black/Black or if said politically correct African Americans and their history. Oppression to protest to education to change.
I see the same thing happening within the deaf/Deaf community through the blogs/vlogs, presentations, and inventions like VP, little Deaf/deaf organizations fighting long time big Hearing organizations. The list is endless. There is protest that is trying to lead to education and change. Let us extend an olive branches or thinking good thought even when negativism is directed at one individual, at a group or at one’s self. Sometimes we have to make friends with our enemies to create a larger picture change. This battle is not about us individuals but about change for the future and recognition that we are individuals going through change that is for a bigger picture as our sands shift.
Change is scary. Why? Because as change happens, it takes many out of their comfort zone. What used to be is no longer is. We are being impacted individually and as a community. Realize that your individual impacts are about yourself and express those thoughts as positively as you can. You’ll be surprised at how many others are feeling the same and experiencing what you are feeling. As the saying goes, WE are a community of MANY but yet at the same time share one thing, a hearing loss or being deaf/Deaf. We are where the Blacks used to be in the 1960’s with their protests. We’re going forward to the Civil Rights Act for the Deaf/deaf, Hard of Hearing, LDA and etc!
March 20th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Toast my glass of Mudslide. Here’s the recipe of Mudslide: http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink1wx4179.html
Cheers to Ben, Mishkasena and Amy for accepting anyone of us who brings up any critics and share our opinions and ideas! One blogger may be not ready face any of our critics and wanna be safe in own self blog to bash down on a person’s errors instead of going your blog, and any other blogs. That blogger is not ready to face the realty on both sides. It’s a one way street!
In your, Ben and Amy’s blog, even critics come and share our opinions. Which is fine with me, as long as there is no big attacks. You all 3 did proof by welcoming open discussion.
I see in your, Ben and Amy’s blog, people discuss the issues, supporting and disagreeing… not so much on personal bashing. That’s how some of us like it!
I do not see why it is so hard for some people to accept that diversity is ok, different ideas and thoughts are ok.
March 20th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Cheers,
I am not sure which blogger you are referring to but it does appear that it sounds close to what you are describing a blogger who chose to blog about a topic instead of coming here and that is me.
It is just funny that this blogger you are describing who had bashed down on a person’s errors instead of coming here is not the intention of my part, that is, if you are referring to me. I felt that my comments were too long and that the comments of this hearing leader of Deaf organization was to be re-printed.
FYI, there is no written rule to go to anyone’s blog to leave a comment instead of blogging. Also that it is never safe to be online anyway even at your own blog!
I just find it ironic that one of the commenters on my blog complained that her comments were deleted by one of the three bloggers who you said that they are welcome to critics and ideas. Just go and see for yourself at http://deafprogressivism.blogspot.com/2009/03/getting-facts-straight.html
I don’t have a problem welcoming any critics to share their opinions nor coming here to discuss. You know, your issues and ideas are always welcome. Never did I say I encourage personal bashing as you could see what I wrote. I don’t believe in name calling or labeling. All I pointed out is the matter of interpretation that I felt it became way out of proportion when grilling this hearing person who engaged in a two way street discussion with this Deaf person. I know her personally and I am always awed by her actions. There is no way that I felt a lack of Deaf empowerment with her. All of what MZ said is a contrary to my views, that is that. This is what I just want to set it straight.
Speaking of attacks, I do perceive this blog as an attack to this hearing person who has not shown any evidence of oppressing a Deaf member. This is like cry wolf, ok.
By the way, none of the bloggers you mentioned above came to mine either so why pick on this blogger or me, in that matter, who chose to blog instead of going to theirs? It doesn’t mean that he or she is not ready for reality.
What you don’t know is that I have engaged in a two way street with two of the bloggers using webcams last night. Also, I have always take the time to respond to each of the commenters on my blog as much as I can.
By the way, diversity is not the issue here.
March 21st, 2009 at 1:23 am
From what I read diversity has a very strange meaning to some people ! e.g. justifying bad language, personal, and virtiolic attacks etc. Poor America ! stuffed really by your own determination to protect free speech, but you are a poor match for the weird and subversives !
I censor my blog, I remove comments that abuse too, I don’t care how people see that, I don’t do it, and I don’t want it.. I also NEVER respond to a blog that continually attacks and tries to undermine, let ‘em stew
The best response, is… NONE to them.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:41 am
Pardon me? Conducting a medium for a bash fest against me in your blog is no longer sufficient?
When you made that statement ‘By the way, diversity is not the issue here’, I feel you are invalidating my concerns.
Now that is rich. First Tami told Ben his statements about DBC are unfounded and not true. Then you are telling me diversity is not the issue, dismissing my observations and experiences, along with two bloggers, and few commenters here and elsewhere.
With that attitude of yours, why would I discuss this with you?
Tami isn’t a stranger to me, either. Not only do I know her, we have worked together during Unity for Gallaudet and I was the one who invited her to join DBC. Her comment was something I never expected to see from her. I am glad it was straightened out and that Tami learned what Ben went through by the hands of several DBC leaders in retaliation.
By the way, I didn’t make that comment about three bloggers. It was a commenter and I have no idea what you are talking about since I didn’t block any comment in this post.
It’s unfortunate that a leader of the organization chose to ignore the issues here, going for a personal attack. This approach is unconstructive.
I am hopeful that some of this organization’s leaders and members will learn to tolerate better the diversity of beliefs and opinions within the Deaf Community without attacking, invalidating, criticizing, or using negative labels against them.
People will always have different opinions, ideas and philosophies. Diversity is the backbone of America. Freedom of speech, when used responsibly, is the trademark of America, too.
Have a great weekend. It’s beautiful outside so I hope people will enjoy the signs of spring.
March 21st, 2009 at 11:36 am
DBC= Deaf Bash Coalition.
Does anyone agree with it?
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:18 am
MZ –
I agree with you in the another addition paragraph. The reason why I can see anyone within this organization needs to *fix* for the better positions, be advocatees, good role models and be self-aware and teach others that don’t need to use and learn the negative profanity.
I don’t see DBC change a bit for over two years. This is very small community and everyone knows this and this and this….it still persists.
Sad.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:46 am
My son’s friend,..a young Hearing mother of a six month old baby deaf girl,..read this discussion today. She is looking into early intervention for her daughter so as to teach the baby girl some form of language at the earliest possible stages in this babies development. I got a feeling that the child will have ASL be taught it’s first language as the result of reading this discussion!!
Heh! AG Bell “dog and pony show!!” Heh!
March 24th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Precisely why I always refer to this comment, ‘Words are like mirrors, a reflection of self. DBC of all people love to whine about opression and especially audism for an obvious reason. They’ve mastered it themselves by attacking deaf people who happen to disagree with them. And now DBC is wearing a new mask, that of Audism Free America, thinking it will give them a new lease on life but unfortunately for them we are not buying.
My reliable source tells me that it was DBC that came up with the new ‘AFA mask’ idea. I guess they really miss the ‘hey’ days when they were not transparent to anybody that was outside of their so-called Deafhood hoodlums.
Good blog, MZ.