This is a response to Teri’s ASL vlog at FaceBook discussing her view on ramifications of walk-outs on DVTV and DeafRead. Issues raised here are the ramifications, collectivism vs individualist business model and how the Hearing majority would view us.

APPROXIMATE ENGLISH  TRANSLATION OF THE VLOG:

Hello Teri Sentelle , I wish to respond to your vlog.  There are three basic points I want to debate.

THE FIRST POINT: You mentioned us, the walk-out vloggers.  You stated:  We were weak for walking out of DVTV.  We gave up.  We hurt the Deaf community.

Hmmm.  Your point of view is interesting.  My response?  No, not necessarily.   Tayler keeps emphasizing that his DeafRead and DVTV are newspapers.  Yeah, newspapers… OK, if that’s the definition he wishes to to apply to his aggregators… well, sure. That’s fine by me.

If you don’t like a newspaper, do you keep subscribing, or do you stop subscribing to the newspaper?  Usually, you stop subscribing.  (Oh, also,  if you subscribe, you don’t have to read every article in the newspaper.)  Now, supposing that we stopped subscribing, does that mean we gave up? Does that mean we are weak?  Not necessarily.  We can go look for another newspaper available out there.  If there’s no other newspaper available, we go ahead and create our own.

At present, we are at Youtube.com.   Youtube.com has a lot of issues, I agree.  Some of the vlogs created out there…Hearing ones… are appalling.  Some other vlogs…I cringe at.  I don’t go to those vlogs.  I just go to one section: Deaf vloggers section.  We subscribe to each other, so we are connected.  We can find each other.   Some of the vlogs are found at FaceBook.   Hmm.  Some vlogs are scattered here and there, yeah.

You suggested that we create a new aggregator.  Yes, that’s what we are now doing, but with the goal of allowing a variety of topics to be submitted, and not limited to Deaf-related ones.  That was one issue you had with DeafRead, and I agree with you on that.  Putting Deaf-related topics on the front, and relegating other topics to the Extra, hidden behind the front page?  I don’t necessarily agree with that either, but it’s HIS (Tayler’s) newspaper.

Is DeafRead the only place for us? No! I question the premise that because it’s the only place available, we must stay there.  Now, I want to make a clarification here.  I still have my website, my blog there at DeafRead because I value the Deaf community as well as the parents, especially the parents!  That is why I’m still there.   DVTV, well, that’s a different issue.  I’ve already explained the reasons for my walking out of DVTV in my other vlog.

SECOND POINT: You asked us to return and fix DVTV and DeafRead as a community. Hmmm.  You made a valid point.  However, there is the issue of collectivist vs. individual ownership business model.  The two clash with each other.  The appeal for a return of communal teamwork to reform DR/DVTV is one that fits the Deaf cultural model.  By contrast, the business model is oh, so American… Hearing…model… AMERICAN. Seriously.  And I’m not talking about the Japanese model, which I will discuss later.

The American model is top-down, with the leader at the top.  That leader makes the final decisions that filters down to the people below him, who abides by those decisions, whether they like it or not.  On the other hand, with the collective model, people make decisions together.  Take the Aboriginals (Native Americans) for example.  They usually make decisions on an unanimous basis, which often take time.

As for the Japanese model (which I mentioned earlier),  the Honda company is successful because it doesn’t exactly follow the top-down leadership model.  They incorporate feedbacks from people at the bottom who work at their company, and make improvements accordingly.

The problem with the DeafRead business model is that the leader receives feedback, but doesn’t always listen.  This is a classic example of the clash between individual ownership and the collective model.

Oh and one more thing.  Minorities are often collectivist-minded.  Thef Black community had their Civil Rights movement.    Malcolm X had a different viewpoint than MLK.  Malcolm advocated violence, while MLK was all about peaceful approaches.  The two leaders were so different, and yet they had the same goal… a collective one, too.

THIRD POINT: The low opinion that the Hearing group might have about us as a result of viewing our infighting. That they might consider us in need of rehabilitation.

Let’s look at the Black community again.   “OH! The White people are watching us!  We gotta behave!” ???   There are movies that exhibit Black on Black violence.  There are White people who stereotype Blacks as being violent, awful, etc.   Harlan Lane wrote in the Mask of Benevolence comparing the views people had on the African tribal people, and the views on Deaf people.  The views were the same!  So, must we worry about what the Hearing community thinks of us?  We are just as flawed as they are! Should we be on our best behaviour because THEY are watching us, lest they attempt to rehabilitate us?   Should we live in fear?

Let me summarize my points:

By walking out, we are not necessarily harming the Deaf community. That’s a matter of perspective. You are entitled to your perspective, Teri, but we don’t share the same view as you.   We walked out based on our principles.  That brings us to the second point: collectivism clashes with the business model, which is related to our reasons for walking out.  Thirdly, and I reiterate: should we make decisions based on concerns of how the majority views us? Or, should we make decisions based on what is best for the Deaf community?

We may not all share the same views… (shrugs).  That’s what makes life interesting!

FYI:  All comments are moderated, so your patience is appreciated.  Thank you.