Be proud....

There's a difference between being proud of who you are versus being proud of what you are when the latter focuses on what's missing about yourself versus the very being that makes you...you. Just like the whorls on your finger tips, each one is unique, so is each person. But being proud of who you are focuses on the whole you regardless of whether you have a hearing loss, vision loss, stuttering condition, loss of the legs or a paraplegic, a missing appendage or any number of conditions that may limit one's life. Acknowledging your condition is part and parcel of your whole being but it doesn't define you completely. Limitation doesn't define your successes. It's who you are that defines your successes. It's your drive, determination and faith in yourself. One can succeed despite his hearing loss.

Now, to say "despite" does not necessarily mean to hate one's hearing loss but rather that a person is undeterred by his or her deafness whether one wears a cochlear implant, hearing aid or none at all. That's how I see it. I see it as something that's progressively positive which is dependent on a lot of things. Just so happens deafness is merely a part of life's challenge.

I think some deaf people are naive whenever they talk in terms of the a-wordism. They don't realize what they are saying or doing to other deaf/hh people. I feel many do toss that word around recklessly just so they can feel better about themselves. A way to somehow legitimize themselves as being the "better group." A de facto group that must be mimicked and worshiped. All that reminds me of a purity test for people with hearing loss must meet or be forever branded just because they can hear better, have a particular communication preference or have alternative viewpoints. It's really sad whenever people behave like that.

All that brings me to this.

I say it's better to accept a person for who he/she is rather than to judge him/her for what he/she is when it comes to deafness. You see, I accept a deaf/hh person if she is comfortable with her speaking skill even if she doesn't know sign language. I accept a deaf/hh person even if he believes that SEE is the better sign language for him and other people, even for kids. I accept a deaf/hh person who prefers ASL and doesn't feel the need to speak. I accept a deaf/hh person who opines that hearing loss is life-limiting. And the same goes conversely when others say it isn't life-limiting.  I accept a deaf/hh person who believes that deaf babies need to have a cochlear implant or not at all. There are many valid points they all present but there is no need to use the a-wordism against other deaf and hard of hearing people. I may disagree but that is as far I'd go. I present my own viewpoints and opinions.

I think those who recklessly toss the a-wordism around against other deaf/hh people because they didn't like their viewpoints or opinions have some kind of self-esteem issues. I think many are constantly trying to legitimize themselves as a group and so they must resort to using the a-wordism...... alot. If not that perhaps a certain ego or jealousy may be a factor for behaving that way. Or perhaps they are unable to argue on merits alone and must resort to ad homenim by appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. Whatever the manifestation as a reason for the justification on using the a-wordism against other deaf/hh people, it's all part and parcel of the whole legitimization process by de-legitimizing others. An attempt to legitimize one group as "de facto" while all others are irrelevant. Rather reckless, I'd say.

You see, I'm the better person because I have no need to accuse or go after other deaf/hh people by using the a-wordism out of spite. Intellectually and emotionally it does not make any sense. It has simply become an emotional crutch. An attempt to prop up and legitimize themselves at the expense of others.  A deep-seated need to whip out that a-wordism because doing so makes them feel better. And that, my friends, is a poor excuse and a serious problem by those who must deal with their own self-esteem and personal issues.

Am I proud to be deaf? No, that's the wrong tack because saying that focuses on what's missing or lacking. Instead, I'm proud of who I am. I'm just a guy who happens to have a hearing loss who wears a hearing aid. A guy who is fluent in speaking the English language and sign language. A guy who can hear. A guy who loves playing ragtime piano. A guy who succeeded in a lot of things in life irrespective of hearing loss. A guy who is a confident person who wishes to express himself in a different way.  A guy who understands that in life things can change for the worse or better. I know where I stand. I'm proud of who I am. And that is something that people will never take away from me no matter how many a-wordism is used against me. It's irrelevant and has no merits. It has simply become a crutch word in the name of the "legitimization" game.

Walk the walk?

I'm promoting this anonymous comment for my blog here. That comment was made in Death of Deafread. Why am I putting it here? Because I liked what he/she wrote and makes a few succinct points about "awdism" and such.

I could also state the situation in the other direction. Deaf/hh people who prefer speaking and listening (regardless of whether they are also fluent in ASL, and have a Deaf wife and Deaf friends) are considered to be hearing wanna-be's. Deafhood supporters call them colonized and dysconscious awdists who have been brainwashed by AG Bell and OOOO (Oral Only No Other Option). Cochlear implant manufacturers, surgeons, hearing aid manufacturers, audiologists, speech teachers, oral schools, etc., are all elements of a massive anti-deaf machine bent on eliminating deafness, Deaf people, and ASL. and lining their pockets with money in the process. I'm not making this up. These are Ella's exact words. According to her, there is no middle ground: One is either Deafhood, or one is an awdist.

it isn't mudslinging to point out these public statements by Ella. I watch all her vlogs. I haven't taken any of her statements out of context. they may not be on the Deafhood web site, but they are on ASL Ella's YouTube channel.

it isn't awdism to point out what Ella and other Deafhood supporters have said about Marlee Matlin and her support of the Starkey Hearing Foundation. it isn't awdism to point out facts about Gallaudet University. I *get* that Deaf people are protective of our cultural institutions. Yet, by saying rapes have happened at Gallaudet, that it means Deaf people are bad, Gallaudet is bad, and I disrespect Deaf people by saying so, simply... isn't... logical.

Deafhood supporters feel that their cultural values, way of life, and very being have been and are under attack by so-called technological and medical advances. And so, they react in emotional rather than logical ways, such as Jeffrey did here. I understand where he's coming from. Yet, they don't seem to realize that Deaf Culture and ASL have survived the horrors of Milan 1880, oralism, and the use of hearing aids.

I liked what the first Anonymous @6:01 pm said about "We cannot help any older generation of deaf who suffered ... and still hating and blaming AGB their language problem because they have some persecution complex issues to deal with."

That's exactly what's going on. That's why folks like Ella, Jeffrey, DonG, et al, deserve our compassion rather than our scorn. Like you said Mike, they talk the talk but don't walk the walk. If they are examples of Deafhood, I don't want any part of it.

Another Anonymous

Happy 4th of July everyone!

The Death of Deafread

I just find it funny whenever the words like "balderdash" and "poppycock" are expressed, especially if its done with a British accent. There are many synonyms that go with it like "flapdoodle," or "humbuggery" which is just as funny. So are the words like "crapola," "crock," "drivel," "fiddlesticks," "rubbish," "hokum," "hooey," "malarkey," "tosh," "piffle," "taradiddle," and, probably my favorite, "twaddle" because it sounds so funny when one says it. Why am I bringing up those words? Well, in a word, Deafread. Or more specifically it's the moaning and gnashing over Deafread's aggregator site and how it supposedly cause the a-wordism to overflow. The problem is that it's an aggregator site. It does not discriminate. In fact, there is a disclaimer saying,

"DeafRead does not endorse any of the blogs by the mere act of publishing."

Secondly, it publishes anything that's related to hearing loss, Deaf culture, deafness issues and so on. No where does it says "Deaf people only" or "Deaf culture only" in bright pink neon letters. And so these frothing of mouths over what Deafread publishes is a bunch of, well, twaddle. The idea of Deafread is to allow a variety of viewpoints, opinions, experiences, and perspectives to be published by bloggers and vloggers who are either hard of hearing or deaf, or have a connection to those people. There are bound to be unpopular opinions, perspectives and viewpoints to be blogged. That just goes with the territory.

Lately I haven't been keeping up with all the readings over the last few months and I'm a bit behind on what's going on. It's like riding a roller coaster. You just want to get off for awhile and have a picnic on a green grass by the lake for a calm and peaceful moment.  Do I want to get back on that roller coaster? Not really but I do have my own thoughts and opinions on a lot of things and so I blog.  Just recently someone told me to go and check out Jeff's blog. I asked why but told me to check it out anyway. And so I did. Nothing unusual. Just that Jeff is being Jeff. Just a lot of bitching. And he has every right to say what's on his mind, however cryptic it may be. I wasn't sure where to look but I suspect it had to do with what started the conversation was J.J.'s comment on Deafread, myself and Candy on the problem of trying to enforce a-wordism in an aggregator site. That was confirmed by my friend when I asked for clarification if this is what he was referring to. The discussion continues with Jeff, Deafpundit, Dianrez, Ann, and a few others jumping in. From the looks of it comes down to is people somehow trying to find a way to control Tayler's Deafread. That sort of thing has been going on for some time.

First there was a group of Deaf people that wanted to get rid of "deficit thinkers" from Deafread in order to control views seen and heard in the Deaf community via Deafread aggregator site beginning in 2007.

They tried that and....failed.

Another year passed and suddenly a new idea on the effort to control Deafread's content and that was to try and force Tayler Mayer to institute guidelines in DR by implementing the "a" word. And attempt to heap social guilt on him. But Tayler realized it'd be an impossible job to enforce that concept because there is no acceptable definition and it was just a cover.

They tried that and.... failed.

So after three years of trying to control Deafread people as a last resort boycotted DR by walking out as bloggers who were once linked in the Deafread aggregator list.

And so what I'm seeing is another round of discussions on finding ways to try and control Tayler's Deafread aggregator's site according to their demands.  Yet Ann makes a good counter point.

There's the other side of the coin, Jeffrey.

There are some Deaf-centric ppl who actually criticize and deride those deaf who choose to hear and speak. Mind you, I KNOW I'm deaf and don't pretend to be otherwise. Yet I don't go around criticizing those who use ASL and are culturally Deaf as inferior.

The prob is that some ppl, regardless of language preference and hearing technology or not, cannot respect the choices others make for themselves and are comfortable with. That's what it comes down to.

There would have to a "deafism" guideline, if an *udism guideline is to be adopted in DR.

Fair's fair, but oh, what a headache to enforce such guidelines...

Just because I don't discuss ASL/sign language in such breadth and detail with lofty praises does not mean I have a disdain for it even though I do sign. Even my daughter signs. Ditto my wife. And even my friends whether they sign in SEE, PSE, SE, or ASL.  Granted, I am comfortable speaking and listening, and I prefer that communication route because that is what I do daily with my other friends, relatives, family, co-workers and people in general as well. I have my preferences and nothing about superiority.  If that were the case then I wouldn't have friends in the Deaf community. I simply would not want to interact with them. Remember, having a preference does not equate with superiority. Just because I see things differently does not mean that the Deaf community ought to be extirpated or that ASL be vanquished or shunned. I just have a differing viewpoint and perspective on these things, and the people I wish to associate with in the deaf and hard of hearing community, and Deaf community. There are people who do not like my blogs. And then there are people who do like my blogs. These people happen to be Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing and hearing. Nothing new there.

This is a problem on the internet because it's easy to judge people from behind a screen and thus I must remind myself constantly the caveats of using the internet versus meeting people in person which can result in a totally different perspective about the person. Each person who reads a blog read it differently than the next person. The reader forms a picture about the blogger. And if it's something that the reader doesn't like about the blog piece for whatever reason it can leave a negative impression about the blogger based on his or her interpretation. But the next reader may come off with a positive impression. No matter what, people will either like the blog piece or not. Despite that fact what doesn't do any good is to target people like Deafpundit did by calling certain known deaf, hh, and Deaf bloggers the a-wordism. Only this time people are attempting to use the a-wordism as the de facto reason or guideline for removal from Deafread under the guise of "non-conformity." In other word, finding another way to encourage censorship. This is just as bad when John advocated for the removal of "deficit thinkers" from Deafread. Like Ann said, "but oh, what a headache to enforce such guidelines." I agree.  And I think it all boils down to absolute control one way or another come hell or high waters. 

In case you're wondering at this point on why I'm writing the word "a-wordism," it's my way of disagreeing on how such a word is used against other people for political and ideological purposes in the attempt to harm people whether done consciously or subconsciously because of prejudice or hate.  I recognize that discrimination does exist against people who are deaf and hard of hearing which is why I favor technology to help bridge that communication gap. I favor all kinds of communication and language access because there is no one shoe size fits all.  It is a complex issue in a complex community of people with hearing loss from all walks of life.

As for Deafread, perhaps people would rather see the aggregator site die and shut down for good rather than see it continue as it were? Maybe it's time that Tayler shut down his site once and for all? Maybe it's time that Tayler repent to the Deaf gods for his transgressions and get his 50 lashes across his back?

Poppycock.

Fiddlesticks.

Piffle.

Drivel.

Twaddle!

Deaf Sneetches?

Here's a subtitled video "The Sneetches".

If you know the story about The Sneetches by Dr. Seuss then you'd already know about the story on tolerance and acceptance rather than to think one way is the better way. It's the senselessness of prejudice, discrimination and vanity. In other words, don't act all "snooty" or "snotty." I grew up reading all of the books by Dr. Suess. I suppose you guys have done that as well. But eating green eggs and ham are hazardous to your health. Chomping down a plate full of  green, moldy food isn't a smart thing to do.



And so, this led me to realize that even some Deaf, deaf, hh and hearing people aren't immune from being a "Sneetch" because "The Sneetches" story is about the human condition and frailty in us all regardless of hearing status or cultural affiliation. Elitism is an apt description, too. I even see a bit of "Zax" in them refusing to budge in some instances as well.

The Zax are characters from the Dr. Seuss books. They are stubborn and arguable and have messy hair and hairy bodies. They live in the Prairie of Prax. Varieties of Zax include a north-going Zax and a south going Zax. Due to their stubbornness, they refuse to go in any direction other than their assigned directions. If a south-going Zax encounters a north-going Zax, they cannot solve their issue and the world progresses without them, such as a highway being built over them.

But here's my view I've had for years now. I accept people regardless of their mode of communication. I understand the roles and decisions parents must face for their children with hearing loss with the hope they make informed decisions. I don't  go around calling parents "monsters" or "child abusers" for the hard decisions they had to make.  I don't go around and call people "Deficit Thinkers" just because of a difference of opinion or accuse them using the a-wordism, either. I believe babies, deaf, hard of hearing or hearing, knowing how to sign would be advantageous for them when it comes to communicating. And I also understand the fact that early intervention is key as well when it comes to auditory training and speech skills. I believe that communication access is essential to anyone with a hearing loss be it mild or profound and there are a variety of mode of communication and methods available for all of us, especially in a world where communication access technology is growing by the leaps and bounds.  But to call people as "sneetches" or "snooty" or "snotty" is at risk for using terminological exactitude in a world of constant labeling.  I don't act "snooty" if somebody prefers to use his or her voice and accuse the guy using the a-wordism. Nor would I act that way if a person prefers to sign, either.  But a Sneetch would say your signing isn't a "language" but my signing is a bonafide language signing while using English word order with his nose in the air.  Are you sure you're not a "Sneetch"? Really, it wouldn't matter how one signs or whether it must pass the language muster as long as people are able to understand each other, right? Wouldn't that make me "Sneetchless"?

Like I said before, isn't diversity great?

And now, go and take a vote in my poll whether I should continue blogging or not.

When Racism is worst than the a-wordism at Gallaudet University

As I said before, I believe that the charges of "avdism" (the a-wordism) on campus of Gallaudet University as being “rampant” or even “prevalent” are nothing more than shrill than fact. Are there examples of a-wordism on campus? Sure. Rampant? Hardly. Considering that this IS Gallaudet University where students come in from the outside world full of discrimination (or very little depending where you came from) and even oppression in many cases on a campus full of deaf and hard of hearing students, faculty and staff who are equal in every way. Including the equitable and free communication for all which is desirable though this not quite the case considering the "rampant" act of marginalizing students who don't sign very well or prefer to speak and/or use their hearing aids. But that's for later.

What we have here is a marginalization against students or people of color on the campus of Gallaudet for years. Even back in 1989 when I addressed this to IKJ and a group of people in my speech regarding the diversity problem and marginalization. Today, I have said ever since May 2006 the “Unity for Whom” question because I’ve the seen what the atmosphere was like then and compare that to now which has changed little except there's more awareness. The people of color is still pretty much the same, ratio-wise, a plus 90% mostly white as it was 18 years ago when I started at Gallaudet as a freshman on January 1988.

Kristi Merriweather pointed out in her observation when she wrote a blog piece in DeafDC called "A Fictitious Protest for Fictitious Reasons."  She made several salient points on how the recent protest marginalized students of color just because they are in the minority. Healing cannot be done unless we do the "mea culpa" part (it means "my fault") in acknowledging our role, somehow, somewhere, that have made what we are today and where are with Gallaudet University, which is an institution first that serve all deaf and hard of hearing people who may want to be a student someday. Approximately 20% of the people who took the "mea culpa" poll believed that we are all at fault somehow for this protest mess, while the rest of those who voted continue to assign blame at others except for themselves. I said my "mea culpa" many moons ago.

The first step as I said is the "mea culpa" and Noah Beckman finally took the correct step in doing so yesterday in his interview with Newsweek.

Will you write a letter?

Oh, absolutely. I’m guilty of being oppressive and part of that is taking ownership and responsibility. Back in May, when I told a specific group of people that they couldn’t speak in front of the student body [during the initial protests against Fernandes]. It was the black group of students who wanted to speak. …That wasn’t the best decision I’ve ever made, so I’m definitely guilty of that oppression. At the time my thinking was that I didn’t want to have a message that was confusing.

Many students of color objected to the whole selection process, not just the appointment of Fernandes. Did they get much help from the other protesters?

The white students didn’t do anything to support students of color and work together. [The black students] wrote a very powerful letter, and the board didn’t respond, and the SBG didn’t support them in this process. That must’ve been in November or December—awhile back. So with that, I think the racial differences were clear on our campus. I was guilty of that racist behavior, and it’s not something I’m proud of. So, I think the healing process along those lines is critical. I’ve learned so much since May and with this process, to have a higher level of sensitivity to the various groups on campus, to have respect for students of color and increase the sense of unity.

The uproar started when the final three presidential candidates were announced. Gallaudet’s students of color were concerned that a white candidate with only a master’s degree was included, while a well-respected black candidate, Dr. Glenn Anderson, was eliminated. At the time, some white students said Gallaudet wasn’t ready for a black president. Do you think they were right?

I’d like to say no, but there are some groups of people, small groups of people that have that attitude. It exists on our campus, sadly enough. We’re definitely more than happy to see any qualified individual, person of color or not. The most important thing is to have a person right attitude and the right sense of respect for Gallaudet and who we are as deaf students and in the deaf community, more than anything else.

Racism on campus of Gallaudet University has always been the case and many were constantly side-lined just because they're the minority population. Like many others who were or are also marginalized or pushed aside just because they are different and want to see things to ensure that they, too, are seen as equal participants and receive the same equal communication regardless of background or communication preferences. So, until we hear more "mea culpas" this healing won't go anywhere.

You probably know who those people are.

White Priviledge and Avdism During and Post-Katrina Disaster? Discussion at Gallaudet University

Gallaudet University will be hosting a special event at the Swindells Auditorium this Thursday, September 07, 2006 from 4:00 - 5:30 PM where Richard Morin, a renowned former Washington Post reporter who has done extensive investigations into race in America, will present the results of his work on how discrimination, based on skin color, is affecting the degree of support racial groups are receiving during and after Hurricane Katrina. He wrote on June 9, 2006 "The Color of Disaster Assistance."

Yesterday, a discussion topic was on "avdism" (purposely misspelled) and how such blatant practices were seen during and after the hurricane that struck New Orleans last year. I like to see the list of examples of such blantant practices. Nevermind the fact that there were many instances of people, hearing and deaf, who went out of their way to help the many displaced deaf and hard of hearing hurricane survivors as evident in the Deaf Survivors blog. The Deaf Survivors blog also blogged many instances of how technology continues to improve and help people in times of emergencies. Of course, we still have to face the ugliness of how deaf and hard of hearing people were treated. Sometimes, incredulously so, even a few Deaf people laughed at some of the plight of Deaf, deaf or hard of hearing people or purposely disinformed people with a fake list of dead Deaf people (and here) killed during hurricane Katrina. Truely sick people, including some deaf people out there.

Now, I'm curious. Did the use of the a-wordism discussion yesterday mentioned any positive stories or examples of people going out of their way to help deaf and hard of hearing hurricane survivors? Or did they play the "avdism" rant to the hilt instead? Who went to see the "avdism" discussion yesterday?