Who are you calling a militant?
The recent discussion about “militants” from Der Sankt, Jon H., and others got me to thinking about “militants” and what this means, and who is a militant? Here, I look at some Deaf leaders that some people call militant, and take a historical perspective on who would be considered a “militant”.
Platonic's Eye said,
March 16, 2008 @ 1:39 am
Good to see you who brought up that issue I think it is very good however many of Deaf Community do not understand what is militant due to very little knowledge of politics and in fact, Militant could be very broad defination of how we all view. I myself used to be called radical but I never thought if I was a radical. Well, I do still view many issues that matter to me in my very liberal thinking. You are right about being militant depended on history how we all people view very very different way of defination. Deaf Community will never understand that defination of a militant unless anyone within our Deaf Community who has very well knowledge of politics. That would be a different story!!!
Joey Baer said,
March 16, 2008 @ 2:34 am
Don & Platonic’s Eye,
While it is true that many Deaf community do not understand what militant really means, Don’s vlog is one great example to educate people that NONE of us are militants afterall. At this point, the Deaf community is trying to making our point that we can stand and make decisions for ourselves. The more we expose the Deaf community with examples like this vlog, the more empower we will become and work together even more!
Great vlog, Don!
deafchipmunk said,
March 16, 2008 @ 5:12 am
Hi there
Thanks for sharing your view of militancy with us. Of course the term of militancy has so many different definitions. Each person sees it differently. There are many good different causes of militancy. Also there are many bad different causes of militancy. Hatred is part of bad causes.
About Deaf people you mentioned in your vlog, in my view, they are not militants but are Deaf activists to promote the best interests of Deaf people.
I am concerned the most is a very few “hatred” militant individuals that do not share value with overall population. That is a bad cause.
There is NO Deaf militant organization.
Sometime militancy is necessary becasue of no choice and no other way around. For example, we need our own militancy to fight against a dictator to restore our democracy and freedoms. That is a good cause.
Deafchip
Paotie said,
March 16, 2008 @ 7:13 am
Interesting.
In today’s world, “militants” are more often identified with terrorists and “death squads” within the context of the Middle East, rather than little old ladies angry at the world.
Many “militant” groups of the Middle East have no qualms to use children, women and even mentally retarded people to blow themselves up to kill people – including innocent bystanders (collateral damage) and advance their causes.
Let’s hope we don’t find a day when a Deaf “militant” goes to a deaf residential school and blows up the school cafeteria in the name of “militancy.” And it’s not all that far-fetched given that many Deaf “militants” genuinely believe they have a God-given right to advance their political cause at the expense of others. Human collateral damage is perfectly acceptable for these people.
Speaking of human collateral damage by militants, Pol Pot was a militant and wiped out 2 million people. A bit like some Pakistani “Death Squads” blowing up children with bombs meant to target political leaders. A bit like the American Black Panthers, which initially started as a gang-led movement to provide community services to African Americans – until the gang went corrupt and violent. A bit like the Klu Klux Klan (KKK). A bit like the Aryan Nation.
Malcom X was “militant” until he went to Egypt and renounced his previous views and began advocating a more peaceful approach. Of course, he was killed by “militants” (Nation of Islam) who disagreed with his renouncements. In the same context, Martin Luther King, Jr. was also considered a “militant,” too – and he preached non-violence..
Both of these “militants” were killed for being “militant.”
Timothy McVeigh was a “militant” and blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City and killed 19 children among nearly 200 other people. He expressed no remorse whatsoever.
He was executed.
If you genuinely want to promote Deaf “militants” to do anything at all costs, including human collateral damage, then one of these days, ya’ll are going to find the ultimate form of “militancy” by a Deaf person – a killing, a bombing or something insidiously stupid in the name of advancing some Deaf political cause.
Paotie
DE said,
March 16, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
Gotta be your best vlog so far, Don!!!!
The Deaf community is going through a political renewal, and looking at the Big Picture. This is a process which is healthy or painful, depending on one’s center. Some would hurl accusations of “militancy” (as if it’s a bad thing) to distract each other from the Big Picture. Some would proudly claim the “militant” label and move on. Et cetera.
We must not stop the momentum. Together we will prevail.
DE
Platonic's Eye said,
March 16, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
Salute to Poatie, Excatly in our Deaf community has a very very long way to learn. Suggest DE to read the book- Politics written by Aristotle that is a tool for political process or political renewal you name. And also the Republic written by Plato that help the defination of what justices mean. That books will be a great helpful to your cause. Did you know that civil right movements started with the Republic in the book and Politics also that changed a whole Black community and today many of them are very political activists. Do we have a bigger picture in our Deaf Community tell me which and who!!! If you DE read that books you will see a better picture of what you would like for our Deaf Community I will salute you someday!!!
Jean Boutcher said,
March 16, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
Don, this is an excellent vlog!
Paotie, There are two sides of militancy. One is positive; the other is negative. President Thomas Jefferson was a very positive militant. He did not use any aggressive weapon to change an idea; rather, he used a pen to write. Also, the protest in the DPN and UFG at Gallaudet was to revamp the administration. To refresh your memory, the U.S. Department of Education gave Gallaudet an “inefficient” grade in November 2005. Most naturally, shareholders were reasonably upet, not negatively militant. Who was a negative militant in the UFG? None other than the one who used a bulldozer to destroy the protesters’ idea of revamping the administration.
Jerome Cain said,
March 16, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
They are more like an ASL fighter. They fight for the rights of children.
Platonic's Eye said,
March 16, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
Nobody blamed at Dept of Education that gave federal money to Gallaudet University and number of those people who worked and did not know how to use them properly that was where caused Deaf Education become so flawed and ineffeicient first place and already showed strong evidence that Deaf Education has mislead to democracy. IT affected Gallaudet community in a long run. DPN and UFG become a kind of militant in a way but not to my knowledge that they still misled somewhat and benefit a whole Gallaudet community at sametime and remind same old story and from what I see your viewpoint might be right but there are still struggling to find the real identity of their own. So far I have not seen a real big change at all! Being a miliant is noting wrong but trouble defination become confused due to media and journaliists that view a miliant as a context of terrorism! I can understand what a whole Deaf community include Gallaudet Community try to walk on the edge of the defination of militant! You are right about the history of being a militant in very positive in 1770 or 1800 they had different view of militant to them not today we all have veiwed a militant in very negative way. Tell me who wants to be calling a militant or activisit? In fact both are same thing but the word in itself makes a big difference today!!!
DrDonG said,
March 16, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
I want to say a few things.
First, I am trying to show in my post that our Deaf leaders are not militant in the sense of the word that most people seem to be taking it, but, are activists. They speak out about what they believe in, just as Patrick Henry, Nelson Mandela, the Chinese students at Tianamen did. Some of these people in history suffered for speaking out — Mandela was jailed for around 20 years, some of the students were killed or jailed, etc.
But this is my second point: even if they were “militant” in either sense of the word, they were acting for the right reasons — as history shows, they were right not to accept the status quo.
Now, I am not saying that we should be going around bombing the Dept. of Education or AGB’s headquarters (much as some of us might be tempted to…
), but to speak out and try to get the system changed when we are seeing that the system does not work is not a bad thing and we all should be supporting their efforts and working together toward that goal instead of branding activism as “militantism”.
–DonG.
A Deaf Pundit said,
March 17, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Interesting. So where’s the speaking out on St. Mary’s and NCSD, if you all really want to help reform Deaf Education?
Ah, that’s right. You’re all too busy planning for the protest this June. :p