Sunday, August 29, 2010
White deaf man calls black person an "Uncle Tom"
Pretty shocking to see this happen in this day and age. Go here for more details and where it took place. People need to understand and realize the need for greater tolerance and how it is important that it's about a person's character and not about skin color. Yesterday was Martin Luther King's 47th anniversary of his "I have a dream," speech that was delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. This "Uncle Tom" (see definition) name calling is getting old and need to stop already.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Well, I agree. It is pretty shocking the way you described the situation. I think what's more shocking is how you and your cronies side with the California Academy of Audiologists (CAA). I was tempted to call you an Uncle Tom, but I won't....
From your posting, you said, "People need to understand and realize the need for greater tolerance and how it is important that it's about a person's character and not about skin color." How about replacing "skin color" with hearing?
While you were upset with the deaf blogger who called a black man "Uncle Tom," I was upset to see a hearing blogger put out a spoof of DC Metro map where he suggested not to go on specific color lines. It was clear what his intentions were. That irresponsible blogger reminds me of you.
CDNIAS shared their side of the story; we should have known that you were not particularly interested in the truth.
Are your blog postings your ideas of "Restoring Honor?"
Exactly how did I and "other cronies" sided with the CAA, Marla?
You can make that replacement with "skin color" with that of "hearing" if you wish. In many cases, it's quite apt to do so in making a point.
I've not seen/read that spoof you're talking about.
Both CDNIAS and CAA share bias opinions. Both of them have many valid points. Be careful how you tread this territory.
My blog postings are about informative blogging. The other blog is about restoring honor.
LOL. "Cronies".
(e
"Both CDNIAS and CAA share bias opinions. Both of them have many valid points."
All along, you said that AB2072 was about informing parents of ALL communication options. We agreed. The difference was in how much of the information would be shared.
Now the official CAA letter stated: "...the August 20th amendment...requiring audiologists to review and counsel all parents regarding all treatment (sic) options is, in our view, professionally inappropriate, and frankly, would result in additional parental confusion..."
Where is the outcry about that statement where audiologists aren't willing to share ALL options?
That had been your gospel truth, and ours, too...but we got bashed.
You gave CAA a forum to outline their opposition whereas you wouldn't allow CDNIAS to share their side of the story without your bashing CDNIAS. No matter what our message is, you wouldn't "restore honor" and would make disparaging remarks about our strategy (with constant references to Ella and her personal beliefs).
I hope one day you will see it fit to restore honor to CDNIAS and its effort to share ALL information with parents.
I am reminded that when both have "valid points," as you stated in your blog, the question, in the courtroom, would then become, "which of the two are more credible."
One thing I can say about CDNIAS is that they fought a honest fight.
It is easy to have selective memory, and that's ok. I will continue to enjoy your blog.
The CAA points out in the analogy section about what is inappropriate. Inappropriateness does not mean one is unwilling to do what they must do. They didn't say that wouldn't do it. Just that it's inappropriate. It's one thing for a person to put his/her profession into jeopardy for not following the law (i.e. AB2072 bill) and another to proclaim in their own opinion the inappropriateness of such an action to carry through.
Outcry? You're not going to see one from the public where 90 to 95 babies born with a hearing loss are born to hearing parents. Education is key. CDNIAS and other similar organizations fell behind the 8-ball for not keeping tabs on the political scene in the California legislature until it was literally almost too late. Chalk this one up as an important lesson learned. You can only do better the next time. Not doing so, then shame on you twice.
No. I did not give CAA a "forum" as you put it. They provided a letter to me and I made it available to the public quickly. A few responses to readers as a response to that letter in my blog as well. But it's not "forum" since that is moot since the bill has passed and ready for the Governor's signature. This was only in a space of a few days. Hardly a forum here. What's more, CDNIAS was able to publicized it's opposition through their own website and with the help of Deafread. CAA had none of that.
No honor was lost to CDNIAS through my blog. A scapegoating tactic on your part to say otherwise. An unwise charge. Everybody has an opinion. Many share valid points. See value in both the CAA, CDNIAS and other similiar organizations there points.
Marla ,
I am going to copy and paste it on here what I saw in one of his blog
" An email was sent to me today from the CAA in regards to my yesterday's blog in the effort to answer many of the readers' responses. They asked me to do this and so I am putting this email response in my blog. No names will be divulged here so please DO NOT ask me for them! The CAA's responses are below and answers some of the responses/questions seen yesterday in my blog comment box. "
" Hi Mike,
I and my board read your blog and the comments to yesterday’s post. We would like the opportunity to respond. Please let your readers know it comes from the CAA board of directors and legislative committee..do not use my email as it is from work… "
So I assumed Mike didnt give CAA "forum "
I am not sure if CAA use keywords or Labels to search for some blogs in google.
Labels: ab2072, ASL, audiologist, CAA, California Academy of Audiology, Deaf, DHH community, hard of hearing, hearing impaired, pamphlet
Please correct me if l am wrong , thanks
GoatMan aka Travis
Marla,
You said: "We agreed. The difference was in how much of the information would be shared."
That's not true. Maybe you did, but, trust me, many others did not. Ella did not and originally Sheri did not. Tina Jo eventually said that the part where parents should be informed of everything was finally acknowledged by her. Eventually some came to acknowledge that it is fair to share all communication options, but...
As to any blogger giving a forum to CA DNIA, many tend to be one sided and some tried to present both sides. What I got from CA DNIA, or rather the person behind CA DNIA was resistance in sharing information. The message I got was, "Trust us, you'll understand when this is all over."
Before you start accusing someone of being one sided, try to understand the tactics that was employed by the person who ran the show who was also unwilling to share CA DNIA's side.
As for CAA, it don't matter because when they opposed, they opposed too late. They couldn't have change the tide. Not this year.
Oh great, now I can't call any uncles whose name is Tom.
Calling someone Uncle Tom is a racist?
What's happening, the world is going insane?
obviously that you don't know about uncle Tom's cabin!
That's right, Uncle Tom was in tolerance! This taught Black community to accept "White control"! which means he was 'oreo'! So you accepting "Hearing control" means you are in tolerance with Hearing because you try to act like you know everything that Hearing know. You have not honored the Deaf community and you bend down for the Hearing world!
@Marla: "How about replacing "skin color" with hearing?"
No. How about dropping equivalency? The skin of an apple cannot be replaced with the skin of orange just because it's all fruit inside. After all, it's the fruit's character that make the difference, not its skin.
Whether a person's hearing ability (or the lack of) and/or the color of his skin are obvious to others, it is his or her character that makes all the differences in the world for others.
Almost tempted to call Mike an Uncle Tom about the AB2072-CAA affair is really uncalled for, Marla.
Post a Comment