English Version:

Hello, everyone. I have just arrived from Vancouver, B.C. yesterday, and am still jetlagged. My body is on Pacific Time, and haven’t adjusted to Ontario (EST) time yet. I was in B.C. for three reasons: Deaf Canada Conference and ICED 2010.  I gave some presentations at both conferences, but only attended the latter conference for one day as that conference is quite expensive.  The last reason is to give my eldest son his early 13th birthday present (which is a trip to Vancouver).  I was in the city for 7 days.

Over the course of the past week and a half, I have not viewed any vlogs or blogs even though I knew that opinions were being expressed on the announcement of the ICED 2010 committee regarding their rejection of the Milan 1880 resolution.  I wanted to hold off on the viewing until I have shared my views and experiences from that day, as well as the evenings of July 19th and 20th (Monday and Tuesday).  Once I have done this, I will view all the other v/blogs on the subject.   The sharing of my views/experiences will likely result in two or three v/blogs since I have much to cover.

The topicsI wish to discuss are:

a) what happened during the opening ceremony at ICED 2010.

b) the outcomes of the meetings on Monday and Tuesday nights at Douglas College where the BC Deaf community and international Deaf  congregated.

Now, onto the subject of the Monday morning opening ceremony events.  Allow me to describe the set up of the room, where the ceremony took place.  It was packed with about 725 attendees sitting in rows.  At the front of the room were three giant screens.  There was a stage set in front of the screens where the speakers sat facing us in rows.  Dr. Joseph McLaughlin stood at the podium giving his speech.  The screen behind him showed powerpoint presentation slides.  In the screen at the right of that screen, the ASL interpreter was shown.  The third screen, to the left of the central screen, was set up for the LSQ (lengua signes quebecois) interpreter to be seen.  In the audience, there was a translator who used International Sign, and/or Swedish Sign language (I am not sure which just yet, so I will need to confirm) with the International Deaf professionals.  I was sitting in the middle to right of the room with a friend whom I had not seen for years.

Dr. McLaughlin explained the statement of principle contained in the document titled A New Era: Deaf Participation and Collaboration (my copy of the document is shown in the vlog above)  The document is posted at the ICED 2010 website, I believe. Once Dr. McLaughlin was done his part, he passed the document on to Marguerite Henderson (whose brother is Deaf).  She read from the document:

Therefore we (ICED 2010 Committee):

• Reject all resolutions passed at the ICED Milan Congress in 1880 that denied the inclusion of sign languages in educational programs for Deaf students;
• Acknowledge and sincerely regret the detrimental effects of the Milan conference, and
• 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.

I was absolutely floored at  the announcement of the rejection of the Milan 1880 resolution.  My brain immediately seized so that I was unable to register the next two lines.  Honestly, I had absolutely no idea what the last two statements were.  I was still reeling at the fact that they actually rejected that 1880 resolution.  The word “reject” was so powerful that my friend and I stared at each other in disbelief.  I asked her if they actually announced that.  She said, “yes.”  I still sat there trying to process that information.

Then people–both Deaf and Hearing– stood up waving their hands in the air.  That was when I finally realized it wasn’t a figment of my imagination, and that the repudiation of the Milan 1880 Resolution actually happened during my lifetime! Overjoyed, I stood up and waved my hands along with the others.  Immediately, emotion overcame me and tears formed in my eyes. Reject. Just a word, but what a wallop that word packed!

I know that there are people who demand that the word “apology” be used in the second line in conjunction with the detrimental effects of the Milan conference.  But, for us, both the BC Deaf community and international Deaf participants in that room,  the importance of the word “apology” quite paled before the sheer emotional impact of the word “REJECT” that was used in the beginning of that announcement.    We all became very emotional… yes, ALL OF US.  As I looked around the room, I saw many Hearing allies…Ah, what a historical moment!

During that day, even when I gave two presentations, I was still processing the momentous announcement in the back of my head. I STILL had no idea what the other two parts of that announcements were.   Later, when I found out what the last two lines were, I was thrilled that they called on all nations to respect all sign languages, although I wasn’t too crazy about the part “all forms of communication.”  Still, the point is that they called for respect towards sign languages, whereas before that day, there was absolutely NO official respect whatsoever.

In the next vlogs I will describe the events at the meetings at Douglas College where an interpreting program is run.  That is where the BC Deaf community and international Deaf gathered.  That was a incredible experience, which I will tell you about next.   See you then.

One commenter in my last post asked for better examples of how Deaf parents had their parental rights overridden or violated.  Well, here are some, from a source whom I shall keep anonymous:

a) “In Holland, I was told by deaf parents that their child would be placed in a mental institution if CI is not given to him.  This occurred in 2009. ”

b) “I know of a family of two deaf children being threatened by the state social worker to take away their children for refusing to enroll them in a public school as they wished to put their children in Fanwood, New York in 2004″

“We had a hard time to enroll our daughter who is hard of hearing in Montessori Children’s House because the school district didn’t agree with the curriculum for our daughter. It took us almost one year after enrolling her there to get the school district off our back. A lot of papers sent “fro and back” … Totally unnecessary.” This was in 1990.

“Oregon School for the Deaf is not permitted by the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) to deal with deaf children under the age of 5. They are referred to their own school districts, and the parents are educated about various modes of communication. There is absolutely no ASL specialists in these school districts. ODE prides in the fact that they know nothing about ASL. There’s no one in this state department who is well honed in the language and culture of the Deaf.”

Even as I type, I am getting more examples of  Deaf parents’ rights to make decisions for their Deaf children being trampled.

Readers, if you have further examples, you are welcome to leave them here.

My point here is: that decisions like producing and voting on  AB-2072, should NOT be done WITHOUT the input of those affected, which happen to be us… the Deaf community, especially Deaf children in this generation and future generations.  Remember the rallying cry of the Blacks during Civil Rights Movement: “Not about us, without us!”

Hello!  Now that I’ve made my confession re: dysconscious linguicism in my previous vlog, I will discuss what linguicism and dysconscious linguicism are.  They are kind of complex concepts, so I will attempt to simplify them and keep this post short and sweet.

LINGUICISM:

What is it?

It’s a form of prejudice that involves an individual making judgments about another’s wealth, education, social status, etc, based on the other’s choice and use of language.  (Wikipedia)

It’s a form of prejudice, an “-ism” , along the lines of racism, ageism, sexism, classism and audism.  (Wikipedia)

This concept is best described in this way:

SCENARIOS:

Two persons are talking. During the course of this conversation, one of the persons is assessing the other’s wealth, quality of education, status in society based on the other person’s use/choice of language or dialect.

A) If the other person shows an excellent command of English, the assessor assumes he is quite well-educated, possibly from a wealthy family, which then indicates an elevated status in society.

B) If that other person shows poor command of the English language, or uses another language, the assessor assumes that  he’s ill-educated, poor, possibly  from a ghetto and therefore from the lower classes in society.

The scenarios described above is linguicism, pure and simple.  How does linguicism as described above apply to the Deaf?

A) When a Deaf person is able to speak English with his voice, or write excellent English, he gets lauded as intelligent and well educated.  This person is considered successful in life.

B) When a Deaf uses ASL (no matter how fluently), but writes mediocre English, and cannot speak English, he is considered intellectually inferior, ill-educated, and guaranteed to fail in life.

This judgement is blatant linguicism.  What is worse, we internalize this attitude and apply it to our own people!

DYSCONSCIOUS LINGUICISM:

What is it?

I will use the terms of racism and audism to aid in understanding the term dysconscious linguicism.

DYSCONSCIOUS RACISM:

A form of racism that accepts dominant white norms and privileges. (Pewewardy)

If one is Black, Aboriginal, or other, one allocates a high degree of respect to the dominant White majority at the expense of one’s esteem of one’s own racial group.   This individual desires to “be as White as possible” and renounce his own racial heritage and norms.  (Pewewardy describes it another way:  If you have seen these racial antics and negative behaviours … for most of your life, you may become absolutely numb to it.)

DYSCONSCIOUS AUDISM:

A form of audism that accepts dominant hearing norms and privileges.  It is the attitude of a Deaf individual that Hearing people are better than Deaf people. ” To hear is better than to be deaf.”  It is the desire to be as Hearing as possible.  I will apply Pewewardy’s explanation here: If you have seen  (audist) antics and negative behaviours for most of your life, you may become absolutely numb to it.)

DYSCONSCIOUS LINGUICISM:

(The definition is similar to dysconscious racism and dysconscious audism.)

A form of linguicism that accepts the dominant language as superior to own minority language.

It is the attitude  that English is superior to ASL (or Spanish, or other… insert language here).

Remember my previous vlog that described my perception of ASL as broken English, and how the ASL-using Deaf weren’t smart and required support because they had low-quality education?  Well, that was an excellent example of dysconscious linguicism,   When we have dysconscious linguicism in the Deaf community, that usually comes hand in hand with dysconscious audism.   You might recall the hard of hearing students in the last vlog who thought they were privileged to go to public schools because they could hear and speak better than the rest of us? Those same students also viewed ASL as broken English!

English version:

Guess what.  I’m guilty.  Guilty of what, you ask?  Dysconscious Linguicism!  What is that?  That is something I will explain in Part 2 of this vlog series.  In this part, I will give my background and tell my story.  In doing so, I will explain the reason for accusing myself of dysconscious linguicism.

I come from a Hearing family of which I am the sole Deaf member.  I am congenitally Deaf, with an unknown etiology.   At the age of 18 months, my mother placed me in a preschool program that provided a signing environment.  (Prior to that time, I had no exposure to language, neither signed nor spoken.  My communication consisted of pointing at things. )  Immediately, I began to thrive in that environment.  I also began reading books at an early age, and developing a love for books.

At the age of 3 1/2, I enrolled in a residential school for the Deaf.  It was during my time at that school that a situation arose.  I suspect that this situation was one that began my internalization of linguicistic attitude toward ASL.

One Monday morning, and I clearly remember that it was a Monday because on that momentous day, my classroom teacher was absent for whatever reason, and there was no substitute teacher available for my class.  As a result, my class was split up so that we all ended up being assigned to different classes for that day.  One classmate and I ended up in a class of 9-10 year-olds while we were both only 6 or 7 years old at the time. The Hearing teacher of that class had us write on blackboards about our weekend.  So, my classmate and I shared a blackboard and wrote extensively about our respective weekend activities.  Once done, we returned to our assigned seats in the classroom. The older students also returned to their seats once they were done with their assignment.  After looking at the other blackboards, we were baffled to see that each of the older students had only two or three sentences about their weekend activities.  This was in stark contrast to our blackboard, which was filled to capacity with our writing.

Now, all those older students had Hearing parents, although they were all ASL users. We (my classmates) were not actual ASL users though we did sign.  To clarify: we were both nerds. We were both voracious bookworms who devoured as many books as we could.

When the Hearing teacher inspected the contents of all the blackboards and saw the marked contrast between the work of his students and ours, he castigated his students severely. Basically, he said, “What is wrong with you?!  These 6-7 year-olds are far better writers than you 9-10 year olds!  They are able to fill up a blackboard while you only wrote 2 or 3 sentences! ”

When I witnessed that blistering criticism, I was mortified and felt bad for his students.  I think that  was when I began to internalize the rampant linguicism against ASL in that school .  That is, the viewpoint that when one uses ASL, one’s command of English is poor, and that ASL was broken English.  A good number of teachers at that school  reinforced my internalization of that linguicistic attitude as I grew up in that school.  There were some teachers who told me that ASL was in fact broken English.   It did not help that each time I saw an ASL using student, he or she exhibited (what I perceived to be) a poor command of the English language.

When I turned 13, I found myself struggling with math, while I did quite well in English classes.  I began to notice that most ASL-using students did quite well in math while I wasn’t.  Once I realized that, my respect for my fellow students grew.

By that time, I was also laboring under the misconception that Hearing people, purely on the basis of their ability to hear and speak, were more proficient in English than us Deaf people.   There were several hard of hearing residental students from my school who were mainstreamed in public schools.  These students exhibited an attitude of superiority simply because they attended public schools (which was taken as a sign of prestige) and we did not, and because they could hear and speak a bit.  That was blatant audism… dysconscious audism at that.  (Linguicism is closely tied to audism.  This will be expanded upon in the next v/blog.) I also internalized that dysconscious audism!

When I became a day student (after several years as a residential student), I was thrilled to be riding a school bus with Hearing kids. I communicated with them using pen and paper.  I soon noticed something odd. The person, with whom I was writing back and forth, seemed to be struggling to read my written messages, using the sounding-out and re-reading strategies.  I was puzzled by this as I had no such issues with reading.  Whenever I fingerspelled to that person, she sounded out each letter I spelled then in syllables, then in complete words.  It was a slow process and I began questioning this individual’s intelligence.

That was when I had an epiphany (… at the grand old age of 13!):  Just because a person could hear doesn’t mean this person had a better command of English than a Deaf person.  Therefore, the logic followed that Hearing people aren’t necessarily smarter than Deaf people.  (In other words, the ability to hear/speak alone doesn’t necessarily denote intellectual prowess, prodigious or otherwise).  That life-changing insight caused me to begin examining my views on my fellow schoolmates who were ASL-users.

Up to the age of 13, I had been signing in the English order and fingerspelling sophisticated words (think Dilton in the Archie comics, Reed Richards in Fantastic Four or Beast in X-Men comics).  The other students finally became quite frustrated with me because while I could understand their ASL, they struggled to comprehend what I was telling them.  Things came to a head and I was told in no uncertain terms that I had to start using ASL, or my friends would stop associating with me purely because they were fed up with having to work at figuring out what I was saying.  I understood their position, and began the long process of switching from English to PSE to ASL.    This process lasted through my university years, both undergraduate (Gallaudet U.) and graduate (U of Rochester) and my early teaching years.  Finally, I became quite fluent in ASL.

Looking back, now that I have the utmost respect for ASL as a bona fide language, I realized something.  During that time when I was signing in the English order as a child and thinking that my schoolmates were using broken English, I was actually the one who mangled ASL!  I reiterate: I had been using broken ASL all along!

Go to Part II, which will discuss the definitions for linguicism and dysconscious linguicism.  (Part II will be posted soon.)

PS:  If you wish to view comments and discussions under my vlog at YouTube, just click directly on my video twice, and it will take you there.   If you wish to leave a comment there or here on my website, be my guest.

What is audism? How is it a valid term? These questions were posed to me by one of my commenters in response to my last v/blog post. I had planned to do part 2 of that post, but these questions made me realize the importance of delving deeper into what audism is, despite having given the CHS definition for it. So, a detour has to be taken to explore audism and its effects.

The information I am about to impart is derived from an excellent presentation given at a CHS workshop for the Deaf community in my area last week. The topic was Removing Attitudinal Barriers and Audism in Policy and Practice. The presenter was Gary Malkowski, Special Advisor to the President, Public Affairs of the Canadian Hearing Society.  He has a strong  political background, and experience in combating audism. I learned much from his presentation, and wish to share this knowledge with you.

Audism is:

• Prejudice or discrimination based on the ability to hear; lowering one’s estimation of, or devaluing, persons who are Deaf or have hearing loss; perception that the norms and behaviour of hearing people are somehow better than those of persons who are Deaf or have hearing loss.
• Attitudinal barriers in the expectations and behaviours of employers, educators and services providers regarding the capabilities and employability of Deaf persons and people with hearing loss.

Audism can be intentional or unconscious; regardless, there must be raised awareness to identify and remove audist attitudes and behaviours.  Audism can be masked in a concern for safety, most often a concern that is unfounded.

Audism can result when:

• There is a lack of awareness of accommodations
• There is a perceived financial undue hardship in providing accommodations
• Unfounded “safety” concerns pose barriers (i.e. barriers to employment.)

(Malkowski, March 2010)

To give examples of the above, I have to cite The Canadian Hearing Report article, Audism, by Malkowski, published January 2009, p. 28-30. Malkowski explains that:

“Discriminatory practices rooted in audism that create unfair limits and barriers to employment for people who are culturally Deaf or have a hearing loss are often presented as concerns for safety (It isn’t a safe environment for someone with hearing loss), being unaware of accommodations (I can’t promote you to supervisor because of your hearing loss; how will you communicate with your team?” or perceived undue financial hardship in providing accommodations.

In reality, employees with a hearing loss have an above average safety record. Few jobs require “hearing” to function safely: driving is a visual skill; many noisy environments require hearing protection that limits all employees’ hearing and emphasis is placed on being visually aware. In terms of accommodation, information about available technology including TTYs, telephone visual signalling or amplifiers, as well as other accessibility services including interpreting, captioning, and relay services, are readily available and the employees themselves are the best resources as to what they will need in order to effectively and successfully meet the requirements of their position.” (Malkowski 2009 )

I am certain that the below examples of audist beliefs that Malkowski gave in his presentation would sound familiar to many of you who read this post:

“I do not have time to learn sign language.” “Why do I need to learn sign language; an interpreter is good enough.”  (Service provider who employs, works with, teaches and provides services to Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals.)

“ASL is a “fun language”, less important than English.” (Special Educator)

“…children with cochlear implants who achieve the ability to hear and use speech…do not need sign language anymore because they have the possibility of speech…” ( Media reporters and medical professionals)

“We do not need an ASL proficiency policy for employees involved in sign language programs for achieving and maintaining the sign language proficiency expectations for teaching positions.” (Educator of Deaf and  Hard of Hearing students). (Malkowski, 2010)

(FYI: CHS has an ASL proficiency policy, which most other places do not have. You may check the job posting section of their website. Scroll down to Qualifications section for proof that this policy exists.)

One cannot answer what audism is, without mentioning the effects of audism on Deaf and Hard of Hearing persons. The effects of audism will be discussed in part 2 of this blog series, as this is turning out to be one long post, in both English and ASL versions.

(TO BE CONTINUED in What is Audism? Part II: The Effects of Audism…)

There are naysayers who claim that audism is not a valid term because it doesn’t even exist in the dictionary, and it doesn’t exist, period.  It has been said that audism is too vague to enforce, and overused as a term.  Overused as a term?  Indeed? Not from where I am standing.  Hearing people (including co-workers, friends and relatives) tell me they had never heard of the term before, and at first confused it with the term autism.  Once the term audism was explained to them, they immediately accepted it.

The fact that audism is not in the dictionary has not stopped websites or organizations from developing policies to combat it.  To wit, websites like ASLRocks and DeafCube.com have adopted anti-audism policies. Organizations that have been set up in service to the Deaf communities, especially Canadian ones, have begun to do the same. The Canadian Hearing Society (CHS) in Ontario has an excellent definition for audism. Below is an excerpt I have copied and pasted here from page 2 of the CHS position paper on discrimination and audism which has ASL translation for each paragraph. (You will need to click on the link provided above to take you to the website itself.  Beside each paragraph you will find an ASL button.  Click on it for the ASL translation.)

Audism (Ô diz m) n. 1. The notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears. 2. A system of advantage based on hearing ability 3. A metaphysical orientation that links human identity with speech.

The CHS then goes on to explain how the organization developed its definition.

The first is the initial seed planted by Tom Humphries (1975). The second is adapted from Wellman’s (1992) discussion of institutionalized audism. The third definition was presented at the Deaf Studies VI conference by Bahan and Bauman (2000).

The CHS delves further into what audism is, and the basis for it:

Audism is a form of discrimination based on a person’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears, including the conveyance of beliefs that a hearing person or a deaf person who behaves in a manner more similar to a hearing person, in appearance, communication and language use, and/or function, is more intelligent, qualified, well-developed, and successful than another individual who may be more culturally deaf and/or have a preference for the use of a sign language or a communication mode dissimilar to that used by hearing people.

Like all forms of discrimination, audism is grounded in misconception and misunderstanding: “…often disguised in sentiments of concern for safety, unawareness of accommodations or perceived undue financial hardship in providing accommodations.” (Malkowski, 2003) “…the belief that life without hearing is futile and miserable…and that … deaf people should struggle to be as much like hearing people as possible.” (Pelja, 1997).

This paper also states the rationale for CHS’s position on audism.  To support the CHS position, they point to these seven significant Canadian pieces of legislation:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982)
2. Canadian Human Rights Act (1985),
3. Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Disability and The Duty To Accommodate: Your Rights and Responsibilities 2007.
4. Ontario Rights Commission’s Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination (2005)
5. Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate (2000)
6. Ontario Human Rights Code (1990)
7. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2005)

(For more information on each piece of legislation above, please go to the CHS website. )

Based on the choice of legal decisions to buttress this organization’s position on audism, it is clear that the CHS is of the view that Deaf people are not only disabled, but also an ethnic (race) minority, with their own language, culture, history and social construct, and because of this, we, the Deaf people, face attitudinal barriers in the form of ableism and racism.  I will expand on this in another post, but the point here is that audism is indeed a valid term, with a clear definition, and requires an anti-audism policy that is enforceable on both racial and disability grounds.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

HELLO, everyone! I haven’t made a vlog in a long time, but today is special because it’s Christmas. It’s a time for families to gather together, feast and share stories of Christmases past, and of course, celebrate the birth of Jesus.

Today, I just watched several vloggers (and bloggers) wishing each other a Merry Christmas. I wish to participate, and say this:

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL! I hope you have a wonderful day.

Oh, by the way…

I’m so disappointed that we have no snow here (especially on Christmas Day)! You Americans have an overabundance of snow. Please send some snow here!

Again, Merry Christmas!

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.

Below is the English version, although not an actual precise translation, of my ASL rebuttal of the allegation that Deafhood is a tool for discriminatory profiling against fellow members of the Deaf community.

DEAFHOOD. What is it? It IS the Deaf experience… that’s it. However, this concept needs some elaborating upon. You might have noticed the clash between two camps…those who agree with the term Deafhood, which is defined as the Deaf experience, and those who view Deafhood as a worthless and discriminatory concept. I will discuss the latter view later on, but for now, we shall examine whether Deafhood is discriminatory against those who are not culturally ASL Deaf members of Deaf families.

Let’s take a look at those (of us) who agree with the term, Deafhood:

• I’m from a Hearing family, but grew up in a Deaf school.
• Ella is a member of a Deaf family, and an alumnus of a Deaf school.
• Don G grew up oral (in a mainstreamed setting) and later discovered ASL.
• Ridor is from a Deaf family and attended a Deaf school.
• InsaneMisha? She was raised oral, but now uses ASL.
• DeafChip was the only Deaf member in a Hearing family and attended a Deaf school.
• The DeafJeff: Jeff had an oral upbringing and later on started using ASL
• Mike Schmidt is from a Deaf family, but he is hard-of hearing, and progressively losing more of his hearing.
• Barb DiGi, like Mike, is hard of hearing and from a Deaf family.
• Patti Durr isn’t from a Deaf family, nor did she grow up in a Deaf school. She is hard of hearing.
• And many others like Carl, Aidan and others whose backgrounds with which you are familiar.

We are all from diverse backgrounds, yet we share the Deaf experience, which includes the struggle against audism and the second-class citizenship treatment.

Even Barry, Kelsey (HonBrit), Russell and others of like minds do go through the Deaf experience. They actually have struggles against audism, whether they deny it or not. Regardless, they do go through Deafhood.

To further assist in understanding Deafhood, I’d like to refer to Star’s vlog, which explains womanhood. In that vlog, she says all women go through that experience as mothers, daughters etc. Some women enjoy being women, while others don’t. Some would rather be men due to the enviable “status” of men. Experiences vary. Some women have positive experiences while others have negative experiences being women.

Likewise, some Deaf people may have positive experiences being Deaf, while others have negative ones. The experiences may vary, but we, the Deaf , ALL share the same general experience… the Deaf experience. In a nutshell, it’s Deafhood. That’s all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I’ll tell you what Deafhood is NOT. It’s NOT discriminatory profiling against those that are not culturally Deaf, ASL using, members of Deaf families. In other words, the argument that the Deafhood term discriminates against oral, the deafened, and those who are non-signers is implausible.

Examine those who walked out of DVTV, the very same ones who agree with the use of Deafhood term to describe the Deaf experience (Ella, Don G, Mike S, and all others that I just told you about in this post). What are our backgrounds? Then examine this individual’s allegation about Deafhood being the tool for discriminatory profiling against fellow members of the Deaf community. You will find that this profiling allegation is now rendered null and void.

That’s MY view on Deafhood. To reiterate, this term means the Deaf Experience… with a heavy emphasis on POSSIBILITY THINKING!

To view comments by people of different backgrounds under my youtube vlog, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgjcYjH8UtI

This response to DeafChip’s vlog discusses the concept of the collective being better than the individual, and how independent thinking individuals can bring strength to the collective. There is commentary on assimilationist attitudes and how assimilationists attempt to pigeonhole a group of people who disagrees with the majority view as not being independent thinkers. The question is brought up as to who are truly independent thinkers… the assimilationists or those who refuse to accept the majority viewpoint.