“anonymouse said,
July 18, 2008 @ 4:08 pm

MishkaZena,
I believe you have a good heart and good intentions. But you seem to have difficulty hearing what people are trying to tell you.

You keep reiterating the same points over and over, when these points have been addressed. What many people have a problem with is how those concerns were raised. At least one ex-core member was very destructive in how he aired those concerns. You, while you have remained very civil and offered a more balanced view, have allowed others to perform verbal violence on others on your blogsite.

It’s not about oppression of dissent. It is about objecting to toxic individuals and their destructive behavior…. and those who enable such behavior.

Please attempt to understand this. Thank you.”

It’s too bad that she (Elizabeth) does not get it.

Shame on you, Elizabeth…because you have not said what is needed…and you know it is NOT the right thing to do….. trying to diverse attention from the main topic (by accusing us of promoting the oppression of Deaf rights) .

The real issue, and ONLY issue for many of us is you allowing this crazy, vindictive, bitter man “Barry” to posts on your blog.

Your refusal to answer and your defending your refusal is a cover up…. from that one issue.

YOU ALLOWED this flame war…you are complicated in it. Simple as that.

Letting YOUR blog to be A posting for name calling and baiting, and publishing of PRIVATE IM conversation…is WRONG.

ANYONE WILL TELL YOU THAT IM’s CONVERSATIONS are PRIVTATE.

The EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVATSITY IS THERE.

You don’t get it.

SHAME ON YOU.

PS- I will not take a back seat to anyone …I paid a heavy personal price during the 1960’s marches for civil rights. My family and I suffered personally, professionally, and financially due our belief in civil rights for ALL Americans.

You want to go start another war on the issue on censorship? Fine-let’s go at it. My scars are ready.

Don’t you dare call me a censorship person.

Yup, I don’t agree with the way Deafhood is taught to us, BUT, that is my only opinion, nothing more. I am MORE interested in how deaf Europeans define Deafhood, which I am sure is different from how we deaf Americans define it. I still have Paddy’s book which I read last fall after the workshop and it was *grunt* a dry one. I did say I’d read it again, but I have not gotten around to it yet.

Joey and DE, Aidan made a very good point. In one of her vlogs, she challenged us to view DeafRead as a journey, albeit on individual terms… she is correct. She even asked Rachel back (yeah, yeah, I know many of you are not crazy about her, but she is one of us, whether we like it or not. I think she is a cool young lady… remember she is 21 years old, so a kid she is.) Yeah, DeafRead can be uncomfortable because of the comments which the v/bloggers moderate and the reasons why v/bloggers allow comments go through and not go through.

So DE and Joey, you could, once a while, check DeafRead to assess the thermometer of DeafRead’s Deafhood journey. ;o)

Sigh… As anybody with a copy of the book will tell you, this should read
“502 pages”… Doesn’t change the discussion, but it’s a dumb mistake to
make anyway when trying to convince you of what I’m saying. The other
stats checked out as I remembered, tho, so I’m not ready for the glue
factory just yet.

Sorry for the confusion…

Once again, you provide very incisive, analytical explanations of the points.

I have to say (knowing who you are), you are definitely proof of why we shouldn’t judge a book by its cover!

–DonG.

This is the first time I’ve posted in response to what you have been saying about DBC
leadership lacking transparency with regard to deafhood, though I have been trying to
think of how to explain for a long time, now.

I think that one difficulty with trying to be transparent about deafhood is trying to
explain clearly what it means. Paddy Ladd’s book weighs in at 452 pages, and all
the workshops, and even the longer classes can’t fully explain some of the insights
that start to come up as you “try on” the deafhood perspective to see what fits you.

Some of the things I’ve found while reading this book and others it cites are that there’s
a whole lot of unexpected similarity to the situation of deaf groups and that of “minority”
cultures.

Many cultures are at odds with a surrounding, more dominant culture (Native Americans,
the French in Canada, Basque speakers in Spain, Spanish speakers in the U.S., etc.).

In the world’s 200+ countries there are maybe 6000 different languages. Many multilingual
people are at home in one language, but must deal with schools and jobs that require
fluency another “better” language to “get ahead”.

There are actually more multlingual/multicultural people in the world than monolingual/
monocultural people, but the “monos” tend to be the ones with the privileges and power!

This sets up a “cognitive dissonance” in multilingual/multicultural people that shows up as:

* constantly having to choose between rebelling against or acquiescing to the views of the
larger society, because their own “home” views are dismissed outright.

* being punished for using their home language at school.

* being told that the dominant language is the only language permitted at work

* horizontal violence, back-stabbing, and the necessary “hypocrisy” of failing to shun
publicly while distrusting privately.

…and MANY more such repetitively negative, even traumatizing experiences.

Dr. Ladd’s book groups various definitions of culture, then establishes deaf culture as a
valid culture among others by each of these definitional groupings.

This allows those exploring the situation of deaf people to consider the use of tools
successfully used by other cultures’ advocates to CHANGE some of the long-standing
patterns of privliege and abuse that come from the disparity of status between
individuals of these “subaltern” (non-dominant) cultures.

In my opinion, the rapid rise of the DBC is due, at least in part, to this reframing of our
past experience. To that degree, it is fair to say that the DBC is informed by the deafhood
perspective.

However, the complexity of actually connecting us to these other, “subaltern” cultures
makes it so very difficult to be clear (and therefore transparent) when trying to explain just
why it might be a most useful reframing to us as advocates for deaf babies’ language
rights.

Deafhood is NOT a cult. It is NOT purely academic, though there is certainly an academic
component to understanding it more fully. In my opinion, it is a useful explanation of
a lot of the things that have held us back in the past, and points out possible avenues of
change that we might be able to use in the future.

Thank you for putting up with the length yet incompleteness of my post.

You keep reiterating the same points over and over, when these points have been addressed. What many people have a problem with is how those concerns were raised. At least one ex-core member was very destructive in how he aired those concerns. You, while you have remained very civil and offered a more balanced view, have allowed others to perform verbal violence on others on your blogsite.

It’s not about oppression of dissent. It is about objecting to toxic individuals and their destructive behavior…. and those who enable such behavior.

Please attempt to understand this. Thank you.

When we protested at Gallaudet, did that mean we wanted to destroy Gallaudet? No. We want full transparency and due process for Gallaudet. We wanted the best for our beloved institution.

Because I asked for clarification doesn’t mean I want to destroy DBC. This is America where concerned citizens have the right to ask for transparency and clarifications. This is not a Communist country where we are not permitted to ask for clarifications, while retaining our support for the organization.

I am starting to feel this Deaf America practices severe oppression and crucifies anyone who wants to ask for clarification. How can we move forward as empowered Deaf Citizens? We were too oppressed to speak openly at Gallaudet for many years. Look what happened? Gallaudet kept getting worse and worse, eventually leading to a second revolt.

Most universities welcome the democratic system where concerned stakeholders feel free to conduct constructive dialogues. It’s the same with organizations in the hearing America.

Is Deaf America being held to a different standards, where democracy doesn’t exist and that we must follow blindly, like sheep, regardless of our concerns?

Shame on you all who want to oppress deaf people’s rights to ask questions and fail to recognize that open discourses are healthy to a democratic society, hearing and deaf.

Incidentally I recollected that the private e mails from Fernandes and two Deaf Accountants were published in my blog, as well, as other blogs and one in the newspaper. I don’t recall any outcry over them.

I’m seeing a double-standards here. We will have to disagree on few points. I call for transparency and it’s obvious many pepole are comfortable with the lack of transparency. Many people have sent me e mails to thank me for asking for clarifications.

You know I try not to moderate my blog… unless the flame war between the commenters have gone out of control.

In my opinion, people have the right to express their opinions whether we agree with them or not. This isn’t the first time people have posted something not only I but others sharply disagreed, but I don’t block their comments, even if some do bash me horribly. For sure anyone can see that I don’t agree with those who bash me harshly.. so your statement that I am implicit or agree with Dr H’s motivations are not valid. That’s always my pattern and will continue. I don’t try to control other people’s comments.

I’ve repeatedly stated my position, both in the posts, in my comment sections, and at the comment sections of other blogs/vlogs. That’s very clear to anyone.

I believe that everybody are entitled to their beliefs and opinions whether I or others agree with them, however, I don’t agree to anyone being fired. Cochlear implants are highly controversial in the Deaf Community, which makes a lot of sense… as it contradicts with the core value of deafness treasured in the Deaf Community. I am astounded that anyone would be fired for this.. as long as they don’t express this belief at work place and that they do a professional job working with kids using C.I.s. I would expect that the employers understand the rights of employees to state their personal beliefs outside their work hours. If this isn’t being permitted, then I would hope that the employees discuss this with their employees.

For example, I worked for the federal government and I criticized the president outside of my job. I wouldn’t be disciplined for expressing my thoughts. So why should it be different for employees of deaf schools? Something is very wrong with this picture. The employers are given too much power which contradicts with the individuals’ rights of expression.