The English transcript will be coming at a later date. Thank you for your patience.

ENGLISH VERSION (loosely translated from ASL):

Once upon a time, in an Italian city far, far away, the Milan 1880 Resolution was passed that removed the use of sign languages from educational programs for the Deaf around the world.  Just last Monday, thanks to the hard work of the BC Deaf committee, supported by the Deaf community, Canadian and international, paid off in the rejection of the Milan 1880 Resolution by Vancouver ICED 2010 committee.

Now what??? FORGIVENESS!

I must add this vlog as a postscript to my previous vlog: ICED 2010, the New Era: What do We do?  Markku Jokinen, the president of World Federation of the Deaf (WFD), gave a speech.  One statement he made that made an impression on me is as follows:

“We must forgive ourselves.”  He gave the Finnish sign for forgiveness.  (view vlog at 1:09)  ”We must forgive ourselves first.  Then, we can forgive the Hearing for all those 130 years of terrible oppression.”

He is correct.

Look at us, the Deaf community, both online and offline, in the real word.  We have been engaged in much infighting and horizontal oppression.  Much pulling down of individuals (Crab theory is one explanation) and antagonism has divided us all.  This fragmentation is getting us nowhere.

United, we will succeed in obtaining what we want…and need. Look at the ICED 2010 Rejection (repudiation) of the Milan 1880 Resolution.  Wow. That was quite powerful.  The BC Deaf committee could not have been successful in its negotiations with the ICED 2010 committee if they did not have the backing of the BC Deaf community  or the international Deaf community at large.  We, the united Deaf community sent them a deluge of email letters of encouragement.  This accomplished much.

True, the New Era document is not perfect, but WE GOT SOMEWHERE!

Interestingly enough, I received an email letter from a friend who is Deaf.  He  made a point related to the clause containing the terms “all forms of communication” in the New Era document.  In full, the clause reads:

“Call upon all Nations of the world to remember history and ensure that educational programs accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication.”

My friend suggested that this clause was included to show that we are not rejecting those non-signing Deaf people who  use the following modes of communication i.e. oral, Cued speech, etc., and/or use cochlear implants.  He also suggested that if this clause was not included, it would look like we are rejecting those very people, when nothing could be further from the truth.  These non-signing Deaf are most definitely part of the Deaf community!

All those 130 years of systemic oppression! WHOA!

This same friend said that at one time he knew nothing of ASL because he was raised Oral. Now he is a fluent user of ASL.  If we had rejected him due to his being oral, he would have absolutely resisted becoming involved in the Deaf community.  This would have resulted in him becoming a solitary figure.

Hence, we MUST forgive ourselves, and unite!  Markku, who thinks in global terms, is correct when he implores us to forgive.  Forgiveness (Finnish sign 4:09).  It’s a key word. Forgive!

Forgiveness. It unites rather than divides. United, we shall educate others so that they may finally see…

Proud, confident, productive, creative and enabling Deaf citizens in respective countries*.

(*BLOGGER’S NOTE: The last line was excerpted from the New Era Document, second page.)

ENGLISH VERSION (loosely translated from ASL):

The New Era Presentation Monday Night, July 19, 2010

The Deaf community was invited to the Douglas College for the New Era Presentation  and Global Panel ( Mon and Tues nights) offered by the BC Deaf committee.  (See the open invitation flyer in the video)

This vlog will only focus on the Monday night component of the two-night presentation and panel meetings. There was a good number of folks, not only from the BC Deaf community, but also from the international Deaf Community.  These International Deaf people came from countries such as:

Sweden

Finland

Norway

Saudi Arabia

Belgium

Germany

France

England

Portugal

What took place that Monday night?  There were voice interpreters as well as LSQ, ASL and Gestuno. The people running the meeting were Monte Hardy, Wayne Sinclair, Nigel Howard, Vincent Chauvet,  and Joe McLaughlin, WFD President Markku Jokinen (Finland) and one of the WFD board members, Tomas Hedberg (Sweden) were present as well.

The speakers, including Monte, Wayne and Joe, described how the BC Deaf committee  began negotiating with the ICED organizing committee 9 months ago, and how it culminated in the announcement that Monday morning.  I got goosebumps.  The WFD President, one of those… OK. I will list the parties that signed the New Era document. (View the blank lines on 2nd pages where names are to be signed in the vlog)

Vancouver ICED 2010 organizing committee

BC Deaf Community

Canadian Association of the Deaf

World Federation of the Deaf

The last signature, by President Markku Jokinen was finally done at 11 p.m. Sunday night… LAST SUNDAY NIGHT…before the Monday morning repudiation of the Milan 1880 Resolution! (Talk about the 11th hour timing!) The WFD President would never have signed the document if the CAD President had not signed it beforehand.  If that last signature had not been in place, that Monday morning announcement would have NEVER been made.

Now what will be done with the New Era document?

There are 4 original New Era documents signed by all four parties.  One original is given to the WFD organization to keep. The second one belongs to C.A.D.. The third original was handed to the ICED 2010 committee, according to Wayne Sinclair, to pass on to the Greece ICED 2015 committee to hold and follow.  Hereafter, that document would be passed on to  future ICED organizing committees of host nations every 5 years.  The final original goes to the BC Deaf community to be temporarily kept at the Western Institute of the Deaf until Wayne Sinclair succeeds in negotiating with the new Canadian Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg, Manitoba, for permanent placement and display.

As for the Book of Legacy, the Vancouver ICED 2010 committee, BC Deaf community committee, CAD and WFD all signed it .  Folks in the BC Deaf community , Canadian and  international Deaf communities signed it as well on both Monday and Tuesday nights.  There were a good number of signatures in that book. (UPDATE: Approximately 600 signatures)  This legacy book is then given to Markku Jokinen (WFD President) along with the New Era document to take to each WFD meeting in various nations (beginning in Johannesburg, South Africa).  This book will also be lent to future host ICED organizing committees as reminder of our agreement to include, and  to collaborate with the Deaf community.

I wish to share what Gary Malkowski, who was the first Deaf politician in Canada, and the first Deaf MPP in Ontario, said in his fiery speech to the audience (I’m paraphrasing here):

The flag of Milan 1880 is no longer up and waving. It’s down now, and thrown away!  Up with the banner of… VANCOUVER 2010!  THE NEW ERA BEGINS HENCEFORTH!

The audience applauds. *HANDS WAVE*

Is this commenter correct? Does this website actually provide unbiased information from many various organizations?  Has it got neutrality?

 Let’s analyze this website:

1. Count the number of times the words “hearing” and “hear” have been used on the homepage alone.  Total: 11!

2. Count the number of times ASL as a term is used on that same homepage. Total: ZERO

Talk about subliminal messages!

Now, let’s use this checklist to dissect the contents further:

a) Is t bilingual? Check! (English with Spanish translation)

b) Is it trilingual? Mais non.  Nowhere on this website do I see ASL translation.  
c) It has audio for those who may have reading issues: Is it accessible for the Hearing? Check!
d) FOCUS: the ability to hear words and songs. Check!
e) FOCUS: the ability to see ASL words and poetry. Where? Zilch and nada!

I checked “My Baby has a hearing loss” and clicked on states as instructed. This is what I found:

 The number of hearing loss professional organizations like AGBADHH, NICDC, Hearing Association, Let them Hear Foundation, etc etc far outweigh the number of Deaf-centered, or at least ASL-friendly organizations.

 I also clicked on http://www.raisingdeafkids.org which is on the list for any of the states you click on: Go to Communication choices, then you will see:

- Auditory-Oral, (Emphasis: Hearing/speaking)
-Auditory-Verbal (Emphasis: Hearing/Speaking)
-Bilingual-Bicultural- ASL and English (Emphasis: Bilingual Language Development)
-Cued Speech (Emphasis: Hearing/speaking)
-Total Communication (signing and talking with voice simultaneously… Emphasis: still hear and speak)

Consider the evidence submitted above.  One cannot help but reach the following conclusion:

 There’s an overwhelming emphasis on hearing and speaking, and little focus on ASL.  Therefore, this website is NOT unbiased.  It’s in fact heavily biased in favour of the hear-and speak ideology.  It’s got NO neutrality.

 But it’s sure got audism.

Neutrality: the absence of a declared bias

In other words, neutrality means having no opinion and declining to take sides.  ”I’m neutral about this. I refuse to take an opinion. Here are the options, and each has equal viability.   I take no stand either way.”

Does this type of neutrality exist in reality? No.  It’s unheard of.  Really.  Each, and all, of us has a bias, a philosophy in life that we follow.   My own personal bias is simply this: ASL and English are of equal value.  To be Deaf is great.   I do not want to be hearing at all.  No thank you very much.   I like the way I am now.

Now, if you want to look at biases,  take the hearing loss professionals who claim to be neutral as an example.  These professionals are audiologists, speech pathologists, medical professionals who work with newly-diagnosed Deaf babies, early childhood educators.   These people say, “Oh yes, we provide all options neutrally, and lay them out for the parents to look at.”  (True, ASL is included, but in such a way that it is not  emphasized, and overwhelmed by the array of other options. ASL is offered, but usually as a last option. )

SEE, Cued Speech, AVT/CI, Signed English, etc… all those options are geared for the development of the English language with emphasis on the hearing and speaking component,.  Even Signed English places emphasis on the hearing and speaking as it includes voice, mouthing as well as signing.  So does Simultaneous Communication and total communication that are included in the wide array of options.   ASL, although seriously underemphasized, is offered on the table for the overwhelmed and bewildered parents to ponder.

Of course, the parents would go for the options that support the development of the English language solely.  They would go for what is familiar to them: hearing and speaking.  For further explanation on how the system is stacked in favour of the monolingual, hear-and-speak ideology, view Don G’s excellent vlog.  That vlog shows that neutrality is nonexistent when it comes to offering options to parents of Deaf children.

If you want actual evidence that the hearing loss professionals are NOT neutral, just take a look at the large number of Deaf children that end up in the mainstream setting with cochlear implants, and taught to speak.  Look at the smaller number of Deaf children that are enrolled in Deaf schools.   That, to me, indicates a definite bias on the part of the hearing loss professionals who influence parental choices that impact their Deaf children.

Further evidence of that bias can also be seen in the recent passage of AB-2072 in California.   Here is the link to this article that proves that neutrality DOESN’T exist on the part of the professionals behind the writing of AB-2072.

REMEMBER: There is no such thing as neutrality in real life!

(1.) The Deaf parents of a deaf infant recently screened for hearing loss have been told by the state that they must have their deaf child undergo surgery for a cochlear implant at 6 months and employ only speech therapy  in English for the child’s language development, no other options are allowed.  How would the Deaf parents feel upon learning that they have no choice on how to raise and communicate with their child?  Of course, resentment and anger.

(2.)  The hearing parents of a deaf infant recently screened for hearing loss have been told by the state that they must implement ASL only to begin the child’s language development.   How would the hearing parents feel upon learning that they have no choice on how to raise and communicate with their child?  Of course, resentment and anger.

Then she spent the entire rest of her post defending the Hearing parents’ right to NOT have ASL foisted upon them by the state against their wishes.  Fair enough,  I agree that the state should not infringe upon the rights of the parents.

Yet, I see NO one on that post, either on the blogger’s or the commenters’ part, stand up for the Deaf parents of Deaf children who had their rights forcibly infringed upon in the name of the hear-and-speak ideology.  The blogger implies that Scenario 1 has not happened yet.  I submit that this is inaccurate information.   To wit:

The Deaf Sherlock’s post

Implanting against Legal Parents’ Wishes at Deafness.about.com

Parental Rights at Deafness.about.com

I have not seen much if any outrage re: Scenario 1 on the part of these people, and yet Scenario 2 causes them to blame Deaf ASL activists for the possibility of Hearing parents’ rights to decide for their Deaf children being infringed upon.   Why is this the case?

Into which category do we Deaf people fit? Race or Disability? Well, this vlog is a sequel to the first vlog (The Canadian Definition of Audism). In that vlog, the CHS (Canadian Hearing Society) is of the view that Deaf people are not only disabled, but also an ethnic (race) minority.

How might we use existing legislation to combat attitudinal barriers? We may do so upon racial and disability grounds. Before I explain how to do this, I must first explain what happened during Gary Malkowski’s presentation Breaking Attitudinal Barriers in Policy and Practice. He asked his audience, one of which I was, this question: Which category do you think Deaf people fit into? Race or Disability? Gary then qualified this by explaining that race no longer has to do with biological characteristics, such as skin colour. Race includes these characteristics: accent or manner of speech (or language), culture, history, beliefs and practices, traditions and social constructs”.
Silly question, I thought, with a tinge of arrogance. Race, of course, especially since we have all these characteristics of a race! I don’t accept disability as a label for us! Gary’s answer startled me. He said: We fit into both racial and disabled categories. He explained that since we claim disability tax, use ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program), and use ADP (Assistive Devices Plan) in which the government pays half of what it costs to obtain TTY, and other devices we need, we have accepted the label of disability for ourselves. So, that indeed means we are both a race and a disability group. So what do we do? How do we use legal means to combat attitudinal barriers? Two significant pieces of Human Rights legislations are as follows:

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (AODA):

•Remove attitudinal barriers that discriminate against people with disabilities

•Eliminate systemic barriers in organization’s policies, practices or procedures that discriminate against people with disabilities

•Engage in public awareness activities designed to raise employer and service providers awareness of disability issues and to combat negative attitudes and stereotypes about persons with disabilities

Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policies and Guidelines

•Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination

•Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate

•Policy and Guidelines on Accessible Education (this component will not be discussed here.)

(Malkowski, 2010)

Although we can use AODA to help us break down attitudinal and discriminatory barriers, OHRC is a significant piece of legislation. It needs to be made clear that racism and audism are both attitudes. The former is the ideology that one racial group is inherently superior to other racial groups. The latter is another ideology that to be hearing is superior to those who are deaf; have hearing loss. However abhorrent these attitudes are, we cannot take racists and audists to a human rights tribunal just on the basis of these attitudes. We cannot prove anything.

But, when these attitudes and ideologies manifests themselves openly in language and behaviours that are discriminatory against, for instance the Deaf, out of unfounded concern for safety. This then poses barriers. The use of discriminatory language in policy for instance, then becomes grounds for complaint to the Human Rights Commission.

This indeed happened in BC (British Columbia), where the Ministry of Transportation imposed a policy against Deaf people driving 18-wheelers due to safety concerns. So, of course this prevented Deaf truckers from getting trucking jobs there.

The Ministry of Transportation got hauled before the Human Rights tribunal. The lawyers for the discriminated deaf drivers asked the government for the premise they came up with for their discriminatory policy. The Ministry of Transportation pointed to the medical association in BC, who recommended that Deaf people not be allowed to drive large trucks for safety reasons. When challenged on this, the medical association revealed they based this recommendation on the number of elderly people who lost their hearing and got into vehicular accidents.

Needless to say, none of the Deaf complainants were elderly. Their lawyer called in an insurance company and asked for their statistics. The company answered that statistically speaking , deaf drivers had better than average driving records due to the fact that driving is a visual skill, and that many Hearing people tended to be distracted by music or using the cellphone. As a result, the discriminatory policy was scrapped. That is how we can use the Ontario Human Rights Commission Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial legislation to combat discriminatory policies and practices that are rooted in racial and or audist attitudes. (Malkowski, 2010)

Here’s a scenario: Your employer refuses to provide you with an interpreter based on his perception that he would experience financial undue hardship as a result of providing you. This unwillingness “to use or put accommodations in place because of cost seems almost reasonable until faced with the Duty to Accommodate” (Malkowski. Vibe’s The Canadian Hearing Society Magazine, Spring/Summer 2003) Malkowski revealed during his presentation that the Ontario government has financial assistance available to support small businesses in meeting their duty to accommodate. Should your employer refuse to provide an interpreter for you, he would have failed in his duty to accommodate, and that would be grounds for you to bring your complaint to the Human Rights Commission using the OHRC Policy and Guidelines Disability and the Duty to Accommodate.

Remember, as a racial group, we Deaf people may may use the OHRC Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination to break down attitudinal barriers. As a disabled group, we may use the Duty to Accommodate component of the OHRC if we are denied accommodations that we require.

1.

“I can’t hire you beause you’re deaf.”
“It isn’t a safe environment for someone with a hearing loss”
“I can’t promote you to supervisor because of your hearing loss.”
“ASL is a “fun language”, less important than English.”
“I can’t rent this apartment to you because you’re deaf.”
“Deaf people must learn English (forget ASL) because when they grow up they will have to function in the hearing society and need it to find jobs, find happiness and have a full and useful life.”

(Malkowski. The Canadian Hearing Society Magazine. Spring/Summer 2003 and Malkowski.Removing Attitudinal Barriers and Audism in Policy and Practice. 2010)

2.

“I can’t hire you because you’re black.”
“It isn’t a safe environment for a woman”
“I can’t promote you to supervisor because of your Jewishness.”
“Spanish is a “fun language”, less important than English.”
“I can’t rent this apartment to you because you’re Iraqi.”
“ Immigrant people must learn English (forget Spanish) because when they grow up they will have to function in the [American] society and need it to find jobs, find happiness and have a full and useful life.”

Which set of statements would get people outraged, and upon what grounds? The second set, of course, because they are either blatantly racist, or sexist.  The outrage would spill over into the media, in government buildings, in human rights tribunals.  Many in the majority group would side with women, racial groups on this, and justifiably so.

Yet, the silence is resounding when it comes to the first set of statements.  They are blatantly audist.  How many people would speak up? Admittedly, my choice of words in the first and second sentences of this paragraph could be construed as audist .  This just goes to show just how pervasive this type of language is in this society.  To wit: I obtained Mike Schmidt’s permission to use his vlog from Facebook.  This vlog will show exactly how pervasive the negative perception of the Deaf is, and how the term deaf has such negative connotations:

In his vlog, Mike called for a change in the use of language when it comes to the term deaf, and I agree that it is necessary to challenge the audist language as applies to us Deaf and Hard of Hearing people.  The language as shown in text in Mike’s vlog are actually deaf slurs, in the same vein as racial slurs.  This language reflects the attitudinal bias, which is audist in nature.  Audism is so similar to racism in attitude, and is reflected in discriminatory language and behaviours that uncannily resembles those of racial discriminatory language and behaviours.

During his March 10, 2010 presentation, Removing Attitudinal Barriers and Audism in Policy and Practice, Malkowski calls on us Canadians to challenge the attitudes and discrimination using both the following pieces of legislation:

• Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policies and Guidelines: Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrinination

• Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act,

both significant Human Rights legislation pieces in Canada, made stronger by the fact that Canada just became the 82nd country to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in New York.

THE EFFECTS OF AUDISM:

As I stated in Part 1 of  the What is Audism? series, you cannot explain what audism is, without describing the effects of audism on Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals, and the Deaf community as a whole. Again, this information came from Malkowski’s presentation.

I will now give a few of the effects that Malkowski mentioned during his March 2010 presentation:

Audist beliefs result in intentional or unconscious audist behaviour, such as:

• treating Deaf children with oral skills differently – more positively – than Deaf children with sign language skills (i.e. in the classroom, in extracurricular activities, sports and recreation.)
• systemic discrimination
• negative stereotypes, misconceptions and myths regarding the abilities of Deaf and hard of hearing children, students, employees, social citizens.
• dehumanization by medical and educational establishments (i.e. the focus on a deficit model or pathological view of hearing loss.
• lifelong impact on children’s ability to acquire and understand English or ASL or both  (Malkowski, 2010)

To illustrate the systemic discrimination, and negative stereotypes, misconceptions and myths regarding the Deaf/Hard of Hearing, I remind you readers of Amy Cohen Efron’s DVD, which began as a vlog: The Greatest Irony.   In that DVD, she described the irony in allowing Hearing babies to learn ASL while Deaf babies are denied access to ASL, especially by those in the AVT profession.  Malkowski mentions this irony as well in his presentation, saying that ASL is accepted, and viewed as beneficial for Canadian hearing children’s early development and yet viewed as detrimental to the development of Deaf children (Malkowski 2010).

The effects of this misconception in addition to the dehumanization of the Deaf by the medical and educational establishments are clearly described in Malkowski’s research article on audism in the January 2009 edition of The Canadian Hearing Report, page 28-30:

“it is still common practice, for example, for audiologists, speech-language pathologists, early intervention and early childhood education providers, educators of deaf children, boards and government ministries to discourage deaf children from learning and using their natural and accessible language – sign language. In fact, many parents of deaf children who are making decisions around their child’s education are still not given balanced information about the benefits of sign language. This restriction of the use of sign language. coupled with a fundamental belief that a deaf child should learn to use residual hearing or the hearing that is a result of a cochlear implant and learn to speak is the most blatant form of audism.

Sadly, when spoken language, both expressive and receptive, is not accessible, precious time is wasted. The child is labelled a spoken language “failure” and the window of opportunity to acquire language quickly closes. Unfortunately, these spoken language deficiencies can be identified as a learning disability. In some cases there is no cognitive disability; in others, learning disabilities are compounded by language deficiencies. In both instances, it is too late for the language deficit to be repaired and this can have enormous associated costs in terms of special education requirements, and long-term mental health issues, among others. A great number of professionals – audiologists, interpreters, educators, speech-language pathologists, and medical practitioners– have enormous amounts of power and influence.” (Malkowski, 2009)

Malkowski mentions that one of the consequences for  this practice of withholding ASL from Deaf children in favour of oralism, and isolation in the public schools is that there are now a higher number of solitary Deaf adults without contact or connections to the Deaf community at large.  This contributes to the long term mental issues mentioned in the quote above. (Malkowski, 2010)

For further examples of what audism is, and its effects on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing people, I strongly recommend that you view this DVD, Audism Unveiled, by Bahan, Bauman and Montenegro. This was shown during Mr. Malkowski’s presentation last week, and this will prove to be eyeopening for those who have never seen this movie before.

Simply put, audism is an attitude of prejudice and perception that it is better to be hearing than to be deaf, and that if one is Deaf, one must strive to fit into Hearing society as much as possible.  It is clear that audist attitudes and behaviours by the majority group do have negative effects on the mental, physical, emotional and educational well-being of Deaf and Hard of hearing people as individuals and as a minority group.  Thus, it is proven that audism as a term is valid, and must be addressed.

Below is a translation of this vlog.

Hello Everyone. I am splitting this vlog into two parts. This vlog, Part I, will define racism and audism, after I share this story. In the second vlog (Part II), the differences between righteous and selfish anger, and how they relate to audism and racism, will be discussed.

This story took place in the evening last Sunday, August 2. My 11-year old son, Troy, loves playing hockey. In the summer, he plays road hockey and ice hockey in the winter time. Last Sunday, he was playing road hockey near my house with a group of friends whose ages ranged from 8 to 12. Troy scored lots of goals against the other team, so that his team was really trouncing the other team soundly.

One 8 year old boy “Jack”, who was on the other team, did not take kindly to losing, so he lost his temper. He took his hockey stick and attacked my son with it. Troy managed to miss being hit. He told Jack to stop it, and called him an idiot. Jack took umbrage and said nastily, “No, I’m not an idiot! You’re the idiot! You got it from your DEAF parents!”

At first, my son was stunned that Jack actually said that. He then promptly lost his temper and struck Jack’s stick away with his own stick. Troy later explained that he did this rather than harm Jack himself. (Violence isn’t appropriate. I had a discussion with him about that.) The point must be emphasized here that Troy was quite furious about the insult against his parents.

The other players who witnessed this altercation were appalled. One boy exclaimed, “That’s racism!” The others concurred. Disgusted, they all left the game on their bikes. Three boys remained: Troy, Jack, and his embarrassed older brother. The older brother proceeded to chew Jack out on his inappropriate racist behaviour and told Jack in no uncertain terms that his behaviour was unacceptable.

Troy was quite upset that this situation occurred. He knew that audism existed, but I don’t think he quite expected to encounter it himself at this time, or any time at all. He came to me and asked me quite insistently to email Jack’s mother and inform her about what happened. I suggested that he approach her himself and discuss the situation with her. He was quite reluctant about this. My husband ended up going with him to Jack’s house for moral support. It was Jack’s father who answered the door, so Troy told him the story.

Upon returning home, Troy and I discussed the incident. We were amazed at his friends. They did not know the term audism, or even what it meant. Yet, they knew enough recognize the behavior and identify it as racist. Interesting. A group of 8-12 years old boys knew! WOW!

Now, let’s talk about the terms: Racism and audism.

Racism is based on the concept that one group is better than another based on a physical feature: skin colour, OR ethnic background. One obvious example could be given: Whites are deemed superior to Blacks. There are other examples that could be given, but for the sake of simplicity, we will leave it at that.

Audism, on the other hand, is based on the concept that it is better to hear than to not hear. Audists are those (often Hearing) people who believe that it is better to hear, and that if Deaf people cannot speak, they are to be pitied.

Audism and racism are similar concepts. Interestingly enough, the behaviours related to audism and racism are recognizable, and similar. In the story I described, Troy’s friends knew enough about racism to recognize the behaviours that included verbally attacking someone based on his parents’ physical feature, deaf(ness), which automatically reduced that individual to a lesser status. That behaviour strongly indicates audism.

That audist behaviour is tantamount to the racist behaviour of calling a Black person the “n” word. The intent behind such behaviour is to pull someone down below one’s level. Now, do you see the parallels between audism and racism, and understand it? Please view the definitions that I typed into my vlog at the end. The links are there. Check them out.

Audism: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/audism

Racism:wordnetweb.princeton.edu/erl/webwn