If Michael Jackson “belongs to Black people”, then what about Deaf children?
This morning, when I picked up my newspaper, I saw this article on the front page, in which Jamie Foxx honored Michael Jackson, saying “Michael Jackson belongs to us, and we shared him with you”. My immediate thought was, “If Black people can say this about Michael Jackson, then what can we say about Deaf children?”
For YouTube version, click here
MM said,
June 30, 2009 @ 12:20 am
Our children ‘belong’ to no-one but themselves. We are fortunate if we are be able to love and nurture them to adulthood, but we don’t own them, so the deaf community cannot either, they don’t aask to come into the world, they don’t owe us anything, they are born individuals.
They make their own choices as they grow up, as do we….. I’ve never bought in to the collective of deafness, my blog credo was MM against the collective… and I do not believe most at deaf.read do. Buying a disc or a watching a show with a pop star in it, is nothing like bringing up a child !
Have white people demanded he is one of them ? I don’t think so ! Who do mixed race children ‘belong’ to ? Border-line deaf ? etc…. I can use sign language every day, no-one might still assume I am deaf because I speak OK ! that comes from this ‘mythical’ and exclusive view of being ‘Deaf’ too.
It appears to many, Mr Jackson did his best to look white, by bleaching his skin that way,as do some deaf who throw away a hearing aid and are now deaf, or deaf learning to oralise because they don’t want to be seen as sign depdent or just because not signing is easier for them.
The paper is over simpistic, they are just “He was black, we are black, he is one of us…” It doesn’t always follow.. We know the ‘story’ behind your blog is more about deaf education and culture NOT being given to deaf children as you would like it to be seen, so they go straight to the deaf community and maintain the culture of it, I think, and I read anothre blog recently, technology, and access, has killed off a lot of deaf culture, not ‘oral’ education.
It certainly dissolved many deaf clubs.
Theresa said,
June 30, 2009 @ 6:41 am
It’s not that simple Hon. A baby born out of a Hearing mom’s body is HER baby. It does not become the property of the Deaf community. I get what you are saying but it just isn’t that “black and white” (to borrow from your beloved MJ). That would be like saying that the Hearing children born to Deaf parents are only shared with them. Doesn’t work that way. Back to the drawing board, Doc.
Michele said,
June 30, 2009 @ 7:30 am
There’s a power struggle over Deaf children, and right now hearing people are winning. They’ve got the medical and educational establishments behind them. Deaf people only have got a handful of Bi-Bi schools and NAD to fight back with.
LL said,
June 30, 2009 @ 8:11 am
It is so frustrating! We have to continue to fight for our birth rights as Deaf persons! Rosa Parks stood up (or actually sat down :0) and was noticed – we will be noticed albeit painfully slowly!
nacpac said,
June 30, 2009 @ 8:44 am
Good point…I liTked how you used the word “share” in this vlog.
Speaking of returning back to the drawing board . . . try using Gays as an analogy. They are usually of hetero parents just like the majority of the Deaf are of hearing parents.
Then the same old boring argument of “baby born out of a Hearing mom’s body” wouldnt pop out again.
RLM said,
June 30, 2009 @ 8:51 am
MM made very excellent reference that all deaf children belong to no-one but themselves.
I’m totally agreed with MM that nobody ought to own deaf children except own themselves.
No questions about how racist the Jackson family and other black leaders are!
MJ made a fine example of beautiful human diversity undefined by color of skin and nationality and creed. MJ raised in the Jehovah’s Witness upbringings and defied the concept of seperatism.
Theresa,
That is surely the violation of real humanity and naturalism by treating any children like some kind of property.
You and others could see why I am much opposed to the cochlear implant surgery on deaf children without their consents and treated it as “cattle branding” to show the world that the deaf child definitely being a private property.
All the cbildren are surely belonged to the family of humanity, not their breeders. Comprendo?
RLM
DrDonG said,
June 30, 2009 @ 10:08 am
RLM –
It was not one of Jackson’s family that said it. It was Jamie Foxx, who has no relationship with them, except that he’s Black too. It shows that the Black community views each other as part of their “family” (they call each other “brother” and “sister” — how much more “familial” can you get than that?)
Yes, all of us ultimately are our own selves, but we are part of our communities (as well as part of the World Humanity). You are part of me. I’m not saying I own you, but you are part of me as a Deaf person. Is that “racist”? I don’t think so.
MM said,
June 30, 2009 @ 11:04 am
I’m generally in agreement with the poster Michelle, it’s some sort of power struggle, possibly for the prolongation of deaf culture. Although the spread to suggest overuling or even opposing parental rights, because they are hearing, etc is an real issue, and as a parent I would not go for any community or other area telling me what is best for my child, I think that is a fundamental given with most.
A parents right and legal obligation is to nurture, to protect, the ‘community’ has no such onus, legal or otherwise. I don’t think the deaf community has that right unless the children are theirs. Is it a parents duty to equip a deaf child for a ‘Deaf’ community ? it is not, they have an obligation perhaps to do what they think is best for their child, my child drives the choices I make.
Cool Whip said,
June 30, 2009 @ 11:30 am
RLM,
Be careful with racist labels. As an African American, I do not consider James Foxx’s comments racist. I think that Blacks belong to each other because Blacks and I share similiar culture, experiences,and history. We understand where we are coming from. You do not have a right to judge people because you are not black and have experiences. It is the same as the hearing person does not have a right to judge a deaf person because he or she is not deaf. You can observe the black or deaf person’s life. You can be an observer, but you cannot be a judge.
Valhallian said,
June 30, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
I am inclined to side with Cool Whip here. He is absolutely correct when he says that black people have a culture of their own. It is just the same way as where deaf people have a culture of their own as well. And it indeed would be nice of the hearing people could just observe us as opposed to judging us, but that unfortunately isn’t usually the case.
On another point, MJ is not a child so your analogy of saying that deaf children belong to us does not work here. Children, both deaf and hearing, are the “absolute property” of their parents or legal guardians until they are 18.
DrDonG said,
June 30, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
Val,
I am sure that you realize the “belonging” is not meant in a sense of property ownership, but in the sense of being rightfully a member of a particular culture, whether it is Black or Deaf.
MM said,
July 1, 2009 @ 1:47 am
‘Belong’ and ‘own’ seem very much the issue Don ! Valhallian: Pesonally I would never see my child as my ‘property’ ! where did THAT come from ? I think you mean responsibility….
jhn doe said,
July 1, 2009 @ 8:09 am
To the racist Jamie Foxx:
You can have Michael Jackson, we have the true KING – Elvis. At least he was never accused of child molestation and was never racist.
Michele said,
July 1, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
One more thought for all of us to ponder…if the Black community “claims” MJ (and we might as well include OJ), despite the fact that MJ went out of his way to look as white as possible (and the fact that OJ would only associate himself with white people and stayed away from black causes, despite many pleas from the black community)…it would suggest that the Black community “claim” is self-deceptive and deluded (or if one wants to be nice, ‘wishful thinking’) and desperate to hang onto its people no matter what specific individuals like MJ or OJ did. One would think that the Black community could afford to let those two go, since they have so many other fine representatives (i.e., MLK, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, etc) already.
Michelle said,
July 1, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
To me this analogy would be the equivalent of honoring someone such as Marlee Matlin in the Deaf community by saying she belongs to us (as a member of our community), but we share her with “all of you” (through her gifts in the entertainment industry that reach far beyond the Deaf community while still representing us honorably through her endeavors….) Just my two cents… In saying this I am not in any way, shape or form passing judgement on the life of Michael Jackson beyond his contributions to the field of entertainment.
Trying Hard to Understand said,
July 2, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
It is difficult for me to make any other analogy between Michael Jackson and the black community than the example of my own often-dysconscious audism.
So Michael lightened his skin? I wear a hearing aid even though it’s all just noise. I wear it so I don’t get hassled so much when my “too good” speech gives people the impression that I MUST be able to hear. Just point to my manipulation of the stereotype, and I get the good thing I wouldn’t otherwise get. Yes, I deserve the repetition anyway, but I’m much less likely to get it if I don’t fit their stereotype.
By this, I mean, hearing people hear me, see the hearing aid, and think of me as one of them… Whatever else you may think of Michael Jackson, he clearly needed to be liked by everybody… To be part of the “us”, not part of the “them”.
So, perhaps we can take a Deafhood lesson from Michael’s life of wild highs and lows, driven to succeed, but also genuinely suffering from having his own dysconscious racism so firmly in control that even all his money could not free him. Nasty stuff those dysconscious -isms…
$0.02 minus deflation…