To Ella Lentz – Our Discussion
[ASL Version]
[English Version]
For those who don’t know, this v/blog post is prompted by my discussion with Ella Lentz under Aguabo’s vlog found here. In this vlog, she videotaped a videophone conversation with another DVTV’er, Russell Errigo. He did not know the phone conversation was being taped. She also vlogged their AIM conversations. I left a comment here, stating my dismay with the situation and asked why people couldn’t just block Russell E? I also mentioned that I felt this was a double standard, because of what happened in the past, and I found it extremely sad that the Deaf Community was being like this.
Ella Lentz disliked my last statement in my comment. She felt it was audistic, and I responded to her, reiterating my position on double standards. She made a final comment to me, challenging me to define audism. So I have accepted that challenge.
So, Ella. Let us continue our discussion, if you are willing. I first must clarify what I previously said in my first comment, because there seems to be misunderstandings on what I exactly meant.
When I stated that I thought this whole thing was sad, and that ‘the Deaf Community’s like this?’ in my first comment under Aguabo’s vlog, I was not sneering at my fellow Deaf because they’re Deaf. I was dismayed and quite frankly, disgusted at the lack of civility. There are no longer rules of engagement. No rules or boundaries for healthy debates and discourses. It’s become free for all. Where is the dignity? Where is the respect?
I see none. And when I don’t see that, then yes… I refuse to participate in a community like that. And make no mistake about it, DVTV is a community. It’s not THE Deaf Community, but it is the face of the Deaf Community on the internet, other than DeafRead. I think we all know how powerful public relations is, and like it or not, DVTV is a public relations machine for the community.
So you see, Ella… I was publicly disavowing what was happening, because I do not want to be associated with this kind of behavior.
Now, you not only challenged me to define audism and to examine what it is, but you also challenged me to do public self-introspection. And I’m sorry to say, but I am not going to do self-introspection here on my blog, or on DVTV for the entire world to see, and I resent the pressure from you and others to do so. This is my personal journey, and I only share these details with my trusted confidantes. In fact, I think I’ve said way too much about myself lately.
As for the definition of audism – my definition of audism is when you hold Deaf people to different rules and standards, whether it be better or worse, than there are for others, that is audism.
I also think it’s also audism when other Deaf people whose identity doesn’t fit other Deaf people’s view of what a Deaf identity should be, are forced to follow different rules. That’s exactly what happened with Aguabo’s vlog. She was praised for something that a person like me, another Deaf person, would get crucified for. Why? Because my Deaf identity doesn’t fit your criteria of what it should be.
Double standards based on Deaf identity politics and/or being Deaf. That is the essence of audism.
45 Comments
Comments are closed.
CaptVids said,
September 11, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Video is not playing
please fix, I am very interested.
A Deaf Pundit said,
September 11, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Fixed! Thanks for the alert.
Sheri A. Farinha said,
September 11, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Deaf Pundit, first, i apologize that I do not have a webcam to participate on video.
Just an independent observation on my part, Ella wasn’t challenging why you are upset with Aguabo’s vlog. She just captured one tiny part of what you said, based on the way you signed it, to let you know she felt that single statement was audist. I saw her repeatedly tell you how much she values and cherishes you, and appreciates your discussions from time to time. She also explained that is her pet peeve, seeing statements made, and is her goal to make people aware from time to time when it may appear audist. She is not accusing you of being audist per se, just that statement and again its my observation that she was giving you feedback, nothing more and nothing less.
Also, I did not see her disagree with your original beef.to Aguabo. I likewise am concerned about the other vlog (Aguabo) videotaping a conversation without the persons permission, and aim conversation as well, and knowing Ella, I am sure it bothers her too.
Your definition of audism, is based on what you are feeling at the moment. Double-standards are typical of racists such as the case with President Obama’s speeches this week. I am really disgusted with the Republican party’s attacks, the chant of YOU LIE, and the horrifying racist remarks we all witnessed just because he wanted to talk to America’s students. Whoa! Likewise here, you experienced being raked across the coals for your error, however in this case, you see people cheering on Aguabo when you feel she should be recieving the same treatment you did. Perhaps. But you know, an eye for an eye, never was a good rule to follow. Perhaps Russell will file suit against her for defamation, creating a vlog of their conversation without his permission. Regardless that “what” he said was wrong, the mere fact that she did not have his permission, is wrong too. That should be an issue she will have to deal with on her own. Appreciate that you expressed your dismay. You may have more allies than you realize.
Take care.
Anne Marie said,
September 11, 2009 at 9:23 pm
To Ella et al..
I do not have time to do video but let me spell it out graphically
BOTH handshape “5″ ((((((((SHAKING)))))))))))) eyebrows furrowing at your being constantly soooooooo conformist like china water dropping between eyes forever.
FIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNISH!!
Deaf Anonymous said,
September 11, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Jeannette. This is just another spat exposing double standards rampant in the Deaf community.
Gamas Wanderings said,
September 11, 2009 at 11:57 pm
WOW. Is all I can say.
All of that recent activity in DVTV went way too far out of hand. I would suggest people adhere to Taylor’s suggestion instead of stooping to the levels that suggests we’re anything but adults.
However, it is my opinion where the problem is: The word Audism.
Perhaps everyone needs to STOP using that word for the time being.
Why?
Because no one seems to have the same interpretation of that word.
Like some b/vloggers have predicted, it would cause more division among the deaf/hoh in the online arena.
I have a suggestion, maybe DR and DVTV might want to consider having a blog/vlog conference regionally to brainstorm certain topics such as Audism and what it means and whether or not it would be conductive to the betterment within the deaf community. Should it be use? What is wrong with disablism? Should both be trashed and whether or not we should use a more impartial word such as Oppression or maybe Discrimination? Get into Oppression and Discrimination and expand from there. Something to that effect – it could be an online discussion in a video chat or text chat medium. Or something!
It is clear that Ella’s point of view is causing a lot of discourse in the blogosphere, because apparently it isn’t just her view but her demands of others to adhere to her view. No way can everyone do that. No way. No how. We’re all different and unique human beings.
For a deaf person to imply a statement is an Audist statement is a low blow. As a dod, I would NEVER ever consider another deaf or HOH person to be an oppressor. A person with a different view from my own? Yes. Audist? nah. Then again, that is JUST my view and NO ONE Is required to hold the same view as mine.
And example would be, there is a couple that I know and many deaf/hoh people know them too, their son is very well known in the community. It just so happens that they both were raised oral and eventually emerged into the deaf culture, they have deaf children. They sign in ASL, however they have oral roots which they embraces. One day I saw them orally speaking to each other in public. I later found out that it was something they always do. They never sign in public. Is that audistic? nah, it’s more of their comfort level. No way it is Audistic. This is just one example.
Let’s get the definition clearly explained with Oppression/Discrimination and go from there. I for one do not think “Audism” should be used, but, rather Oppression. That’s my view and I know there are others that do not see it that way. I expect others to respect that view and share their opposing view without labeling me.
If one were to discuss things, it should be a view/perspective on the topic at hand without getting personal. Accept that the person has a different view. Respect that view, even though one does not agree. No one should try to shape another person’s view to meet theirs.
Like Anne Marie said, FINISH!!!! Yea! I second that. The assumption statement like the one I saw Ella made to DP was more of a dictation from one to the other and that is soooooo not cool.
The statement that this is “hearing” way and not “deaf” way is also sooooo not cool. It is as if she was telling others that to be deaf, one MUST not “be like these hearing people.” It’s so wrong on many levels.
DP, you made a good point and thank you for vlogging about it, also, thank you for explaining to others that no one needs to dig deeper into anyone’s personal assessment nor should anyone be an open book for the world to poke into.
Even though I disagreed with some of your views in the past, it was just your perspective I disagreed with, not you personally. It’s another thing that the vloggers need to think about when they get into heated debates online.
Gina aka Gamas
BR said,
September 12, 2009 at 1:16 am
Anne Marie,
Please don’t forget to look at the big picture. “Conform” is a relative term. Conforming to what?
I’m not referencing the specific incident(s) described in this v/blog, but am being philosophical. Just referencing the concept of conformity without giving the larger context is not meaningful. There are times and circumstances in life where conformity is called for as a sub-phenomenon, in the service of independence and non-conformity in the supra-phenomenon.
Kevin said,
September 12, 2009 at 1:34 am
Wow.
I just happened to land DVTV and saw your and Ella’s vlogs.
Personally, I am not fond of DVTV even though I raised in deaf sphere for my whole life.
However, the conversation between you and Ella are very interesting.
I want to see what Ella had to say at this time.
Dianrez said,
September 12, 2009 at 1:41 am
The difference between the controversies is that the attacked party was popular in one and an unpopular character was in the other.
That explains, but doesn’t justify the flap to begin with. The principle “don’t feed the trolls” applies to this latest one. Just ignore the offensive person. Block him, as Tayler recommends. When enough vloggers block him and otherwise don’t respond, he will dry up for lack of attention and go away.
However, this went on and on, building up, causing secondary issues to grow off the original one and people repeating themselves. More people got hurt and few are satisfied.
Why don’t we just do as we do in the clubrooms: think “tsk” at seeing someone act out of order, break eye contact, quietly dismiss him, and turn our attention elsewhere. The issue then doesn’t grow into a barroom brawl. In most cases the troublesome drunk eventually leaves. No residue, especially the kind that remains on cyberspace’s hard drives forever.
WAD said,
September 12, 2009 at 2:10 am
We all often misunderstood other people. In my opinion, it is very clear DP was expressing her conscience. DP’s deeply committed to ethics and values. Many of her v/blogs and comments are ethics-themed.
debby said,
September 12, 2009 at 7:03 am
United We stand until 1860
Offended deaf by hearing?
Divided hearing and deaf
We all fall
Years Later Deaf Community
Came back to United
Offended by Deaf?
Divided “D” or “d”
we all fall again.
Karen Mayes said,
September 12, 2009 at 7:48 am
I understand where you are coming from (in my viewpoint, only.) We all keep forgetting that we all have our own opinions which could be easily viewed as negative or positive. Like one would view a person as a genius while other would view that person as an idiot. So who’s really right or wrong? Neither.
Sometimes I feel that certain doctrines (or is the word “ideologies” a better word?) could be manipulated in order to pass judgement or to impose the expectations of norms of any cultures… which could be felt as irritating.
Emotional maturity usually involves the acceptance of one’s opinion without nitpicking in order to put one in his/her place.
Well done, DP.
A Deaf Pundit said,
September 12, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Sheri,
I had to sit and think for a while about what you said. The problem is, Ella did call me audist in the past. Not in this instance, but when I objected to what Barb DiGi did, Ella left a video comment stating that I was a traitor to the Deaf Community, and an audist.
So for her to claim now… that she values and cherishes me… It really rubs me the wrong way. Her actions do not exhibit that she does value or cherish me.
I fully realize that Ella was objecting to one statement I made in my video comment and that it could be perceived as audistic. And I already made my case above, in my blog post why I do not think it is an audistic statement.
If I went in a gay community forum, and saw this kind of behavior, I would say the same thing. “It’s sad that the gay community is like this.” When I say that, I’m not referring to the ENTIRE gay or X community. I’m referring to that particular community.. and in this case, I was referring to the DVTV community.
As for my definition of audism being based on how I’m feeling at the moment – really? I don’t think so, and quite frankly, I don’t appreciate that assumption.
I grew up in an environment where legal issues, ethical issues and heavy topics like this were discussed all the time. Before the fiasco with Barb DiGi, my definition was the same. And afterwards, it utterly and totally confirmed my belief that this is what audism means.
Karen Mayes said,
September 12, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I think that we either choose to “conform” for the reasons of security, stability, and easy acceptance OR to be “independent” in order to feel free and unlimited by the expectations. The “independent” people are usually viewed as threat or unstable or ignorant, needing to be taught… it brings up in my mind of the Christian missionaries of centuries ago.
So I guess Deafhood represents stability to some people who quickly conform to the expectations which Deafhood claims to bring. However, audism is the word that is often trumpeted by people who believe in the doctrine of Deafhood… rightly or wrongly.
Emily said,
September 12, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Your debate is a moot… Michelle did the right thing because she clearly said that she saved those evidences to protect our Deaf community and herself. I heard that she met with an attorney and police officer. They told her that she did nothing to physically harm Russell…
There are many exposed truths everywhere so our right to privacy is reduced…..
Whats funny,,, they said that both Russell and Michelle have the right to 1st Amendment… He has the freedom to speech and she has the freedom to press. IMHO their lawsuits against each others are moot !
White Ghost said,
September 12, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Well, I finally read all of the comments. Labeling on us for being audists/audisms *when* they disagree with us, does not solve the problem. Some of them walked out on DVTV will not prevail.
There is a big *if*. If Ella and her camp don’t agree with us, so be it, they will face an isolated world.
DP, I have so much respect for you, I like your thoughts on ethnics and values in the v/blogosheres. You have a passion to help and work with the underprivileged people in the non-profit organization and charities.
A Deaf Pundit said,
September 12, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Emily,
My debate is moot? What is the difference between what Michelle Aguabo did and what I did last June?
I’ll tell what I think is different – I brought up an issue that was of public interest, that was ALREADY made public. The problem is, it was about a person who was popular, and I got castigated for it.
Aguabo brought up an issue that was being discussed privately, and about something that is widely considered to be NOT of public interest, and the legality of what she did is questionable. Not only that, but it happens to be about someone who is NOT popular. She got praised for it.
And you’re telling my debate is moot?
No… I think nobody wants to touch this. Because you don’t want to face it.
Karen Mayes said,
September 12, 2009 at 1:08 pm
It reminds me of the elementary/secondary schools’ ongoing situation with the cliques (popular vs outcasts.) Most kids would rather be popular than be treated like outcasts. I am seeing the same thing in DVTV. When one realizes it’s better having “honest” friends who’d accept who you are, being popular is not important anymore, since being popular does blur who’s honest with you and who’d take advantage of you.
Gamas Wanderings said,
September 12, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Ahh, Emily, It is not a smart thing to post personal comments between two people online via AIM or VP. There are wire-tapping violation concerns too. I’m not an attorney, but, I know enough and know better not to do it. It’s also a matter of respect, even towards the ones you do not like.
Just because someone told you that he/she already conferred with an attorney or police and so on does not mean anything. Why? Because neither you or I know the real truth. Only time will tell. Maybe do a bit of a look up on cases in past of similar situation to get an idea of how the law looks at it.
One final thought, I wish people would look at the topic and idea and not take sides only because it is someone they like or it is their friend. Keep that separate. I have agreed with a person I do not like and I have disagreed with a person that I liked.
Dianrez said,
September 12, 2009 at 1:38 pm
“Audist” should be rarely used, because overt audism is rare. It should only be applied to hearing people, never to any kind of deaf person.
For us to call each other audists is meaningless because we all live the deaf life and it makes as much sense as black people calling each other KKK’s. It is a powerful word and needs to be used like live ammunition for maximum impact, otherwise it becomes just a silly word with little meaning.
Now: Ella is talking about us needing to have the same concepts. Conformity isn’t the question, it is UNITY she means. Theoretically if we are all united behind what we want from the community, it is more convincing. Since we are of different minds about what we want, I’m afraid Ella is barking up the wrong tree. Some other way to get behind a cause and work for it will have to be found.
Similarly, ETHICS is a concept we all have different minds about. It is more useful to discuss it in general terms or situations, without naming specific persons, without labeling them unethical.
As people of the blogsphere, let’s just IGNORE the trolls, people who pop up just to stir up trouble and dissension, purely for the attention itself. Block them, delete them from your blogs/vlogs, attend only to worthwhile contributions, and keep it dignified. This can be applied to otherwise good bloggers that let go an inappopriate comment in a moment of bad judgment. Ignore them or take it offline and settle it privately.
Anybody that threatens, harasses (attacks someone repeatedly), refers to weapons or dangerous criminals in a suggestively threatening way, is more than just a troll and should be reported to the editors. They may be just blowing off steam, but even in the hearing community it is not allowed.
Merely being disagreeable, offensive, irritating, critical, or unneccessarily provocative is being a troll and deserves the same treatment as the town drunk…blocking, removal from the premises or ignoring. Simply don’t comment at all, popular or not.
As Carl said in his vlog from Holland, he was mortified. I was, too, to see this spatting going on in public for all the world to see and for posterity, as this is archived in various caches all over. Can we just keep the dirty laundry in the hamper and wash it privately without making it a public affair?
Todd said,
September 12, 2009 at 1:44 pm
-> #14 Emily <-
It would be extremely helpful if you do not continue to promote yourself as the spokesperson for the entire deaf community. It takes a community to voice for the community. There cannot be a person dictating what is deaf communty's voice. I, too, support Michelle's ideals. However, I do not agree that she did this ethically nor, did she represent the community intelligently and professionally.
The Law prohibits anyone secretly recording a converstation. It is everywhere. When one makes a call to public service entity through a telephone, a recorded message is played, "..this call may be monitored for quality assurance…" The same applies for arresting indiviudals. The police is required by law to read the persons' Miranda's right. If this doesn't happen, the whole confessions and/or statements will be tossed out in court.
To prove this -http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/98327_05052006.pdf
An excerpt here – "It is a federal crime to intentionally wiretap or electronically eavesdrop on the conversation of another without a court order or the consent of one of the parties to the conversation."
So, evidently Michelle's supporters including yourself believe she did not behave unethical or violated any law. You do realize the consequences of your actions? You are opening a pandora's box. If you vouch Michelle did the right thing. Then, do expect others secretly record your converstations.
To me, this is not the intelligent way to fight for our cause of equal status quo in this country.
White Ghost said,
September 12, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Emily,
Todd, DP and Gamas are right. Think about the Medical confidentiality. if someone provides the medical information to other person via AIM/VP conversation without the consent, it’s the illegal, for instance.
ireflections09 said,
September 12, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Humphries’ definition of audism is “The notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or to behave in the manner of one who hears.”
Is there anything in that definition that implies discrimination against the deaf based on speech or language or Deaf culture? The definition is a description of discrimination against the deaf based on HEARING. No where in that definition is speech, language, or Deaf culture mentioned. My blog article “-Isms Run Amok” covers this. I believe the word audism should be strictly and sparingly used to call on a hearing person’s or hearing institution’s oppressive behavior towards those who are deaf or Deaf.
Why are we using the word “audist” against our own? Both Deaf and deaf people suffer many forms of discrimination by the hearing. It’s bad enough that we have this problem and then get labeled audist by our own. It’s somewhat like what happened during the Civil Rights movement when some African-Americans described other blacks as “Uncle Tom’s”. Such labeling of our own is not conducive to fighting the bigger problem, that is, the pervasive and insidious form of audism apparent in many hearing institutions and the deaf education system in this country.
I believe Ella is out of line to call other d/Deaf’s behavior or perspectives as “audistic”. What a divisive word! No one deaf or Deaf person is alike because each of us have different family backgrounds, different educations, different communication modes, are either “organic” deaf or technology-users, and as a result, different perspectives do abound. It does make for an interestingly diverse deaf community. But we do share in common the problem of facing a world that has not accommodated our deafness or Deaf Culture. Let’s apply the word audism to only this problem.
Todd makes an excellent point about secretly recording VP and AIM conversations that later get published on a vlog or blog. If one person is allowed to do it, then it follows that it will not stop others from doing so also. That’s why there are laws in place to protect people’s privacy. Besides, it’s downright snarky and dishonest to do that to another d/Deaf person, never mind if he’s disliked or not popular. Reminds me of juvenile high school antics among cliques.
DP, you’ve made a succinct point about DVTV being a public relation machine. Once you click “submit” or “post”, your words/signs are out there for all the world to see and those posts and comments remain forever in cyberspace archives. It’s like the dictum “Don’t drink and drive”. Act impulsively online without thinking twice will bite you in the butt. And Michelle Aguabo’s vlog bit the deaf community’s butt bigtime.
Ann_C
Sheri A. Farinha said,
September 12, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Yo, Ann_C. Yep, saw your article on -isms. Subscribe to your blog via rss feeds cuz I like your style and you seem like a fair person. I don’t see how Aquabo bit the deaf community’s butt big time. You are a membe of the Deaf Community, so ar you insulting yourself as well with this remark? Not everyone in the Deaf Community participates on DVTV, so I feel thats an unfair generalization. So, with that said, I just want to make an additional point to your “why are we calling each other audists?” You know very well there are blacks who call other blacks racists, there are women who call other women sexists. This is not unusual. Granted, I wish it wasnt said on a video, but, this kind of thing happens in every culture and community. It was not the intent of the racism definition at the onset, but with every movement, there is always a group of individuals who want to push the movement farther along, and call attention to the -isms no matter who is saying it, and or exhibiting an -ism lik behaviour. Such see comments which in their eyes as “their job”. Remember, Malcom X was MLK’s biggest critic. Both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X had similar overarching goals of achieving equality, justice and freedom for blacks in America; however, their plans for achieving change were very different. On the one hand, Martin Luther King Jr. promoted integration between whites and blacks and worked for equality and equal access for all of American’s citizens, black and white. On the other hand, Malcolm X did not view blacks as citizens in America and he advocated that blacks separate from whites in America to create a separate nation. BOTH had major impact on our Civil RIghts. Both had their own following.
This is not unlike what we see happening here in our community. Frankly, as women, I wish we would show more support of each other, instead of calling one another out publicly. You believe Ella is out of line to call other d/Deaf’s behavior or perspectives as “audistic” and yet, there are many who feel Deaf Pundit is often out of line scolding people constantly about what they say or do and many people are fed up with Deaf Pudits superior attitude towards other Deaf. So what do you call it then? In my view, the two are more alike than not. The rest of us aren’t helping unless we say, FINISH-FINISH to BOTH -take it up privately. Cuz otherwise, this post is starting to appear like the start of another hunt.
I ask that we be fair and encourage the discussion between DP and Ella to go offline. The REAL battle isn’t with each other.
Thanks.
A Deaf Pundit said,
September 12, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Sheri,
Ella’s more than welcome to come here or on DVTV under my vlog there to continue this discussion. She can defend herself.
I don’t think that I have a ’superior’ attitude to my fellow Deaf. I just expect better from ourselves. We can be better than this, Sheri.
Kevin said,
September 12, 2009 at 6:43 pm
It appears that you have won the battle between you and Ella. We haven’t heard from her for a while. I am sure she is figuring out how to preserve her reputation. She ought response to your blog here ASAP. There is no way that she is unaware about your new blog here.
Ann_C said,
September 12, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Sheri,
I am not insulting anybody here, and for once, I agree with DP in that we can be better than this. Aguabo did no better than Sewell did, using private conversation recordings to “prove” another d/Deaf party did wrong. Perhaps Russell E. went overboard with his taunting (lies?), who knows. In the comment section, DP expressed her dismay at all this behavior. Ella capitalized on this situation to call another Deaf person’s (DP’s) response as “audistic” while she “values and cherishes” DP as well–if that isn’t a velvet iron glove, I don’t know what it is.
In other words, there is a tremendous amount of backstabbing and taunting back and forth and it doesn’t reveal a pretty picture of the online deaf community as a whole. This is what I mean about Aguabo’s vlog biting the online deaf community’s butt bigtime. Sure, I expect to see disagreements occur on issues within the community, but some d/Deaf people go for the personal jugular, which diminishes all of us and makes dialogue on issues impossible.
BTW, I read Malcolm X’s biography years ago. Malcolm X was MLK Jr’s biggest critic, yes, because he truly believed integration would not achieve blacks’ goals. Malcolm X went to Mecca and saw brothers of all colors in Islam, black, white, and every color between, a reality that blew his mind, and he finally started to understand MLK’s reasons for integration. Unfortunately, Malcolm X’s life was cut short before he could publicly express his change of heart for the civil rights movement. He was a great orator and it was the civil rights movement’s loss at a critical time.
This story about Malcolm X is a good example to illustrate what I’m getting at here: there are all colors of d/Deafness, one brother(sister)hood, a movement that can do much if we rise above the personal pettiness and see that we are all One.
Ann_C
Sheri A. Farinha said,
September 12, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Hello there Ann_C,
I’ve alot of support for what you are trying to express here.
Support what you’re saying re Malcom X. Support that Aquabo should’nt have taped
a private convo and aired it publicly without his permission (regardless of what he said was wrong or not). I’ve said this in my original msg.
Support that we should see we are all One!
You can help tho, by deleting your constant reference to the “d/D” tho cuz that
just reinforces the split. To just say we are all “Deaf”, think as one, we will
behave as One. Eh?
Tho let me ask you a question, do you honestly think it helps here, if you feel
Ella was wrong to publicly humiliate DP by saying she felt that ONE statement in
DP’s original comment was audist, then ah, where’s your reasoning when DP is
publicly naming Ella in her headline to call her out, is in fact publicly
humilating her to respond? I’m of the opinion, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Therefore, I don’t see how this post is supposed to help with the backstabbing.
If I were Ella, I wouldn’t respond. I wouldn’t see the productivity of it. I see
that DP has some real issues with Ella and hence my belief is that they should
have this dialouge offline.
If you all want to have a healthy dialouge about the issue, about audism, in my view, I would title a vlog, “an invitation to openly talk about Audism – - do we as Deaf, exhibit audistic behaviours?”. Something like that….I support positive approaches to problem solving. We can create the results we want to see by reinforcing the positive aspects of what people ar saying. If we all want to be better, then we need to BE in terms of what we say.
Thanks for the healthy dialouge.
A Deaf Pundit said,
September 12, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Sheri,
I do not see how my blog post is humiliating Ella. I put her name in the title, so she would know it is addressed to her. I had left a comment under Aguabo’s vlog, stating that I would do a vlog to address her points raised to me. I’m not insulting her. I’m not belittling her. I’m merely challenging what she said.
And I have to laugh at the notion that her comment that what I said was audistic is humiliating. It’s her opinion. Why would I be humiliated at someone’s opinion? I do take issue with it, but by no means am I humiliated by it.
You know, I’m trying to understand why exactly she thinks what I said was audistic. I’m still not satisfied with what she’s stated so far. And since it started publicly, let’s finish it publicly.
Like I said… I’m only challenging what she’s saying. Last time I checked, people in general don’t think there’s something wrong with challenging another’s opinion.
White Ghost said,
September 12, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Sheri,
When DP does not accept the behavioral of deaf people’s thoughts (as for DP who is the one of them disagreed with Aguabo’s recent vlog on AIM conversation), Ella criticized her opinion, and then, she considered and labeled her an audist. Ella should not have labeled her or others “audists” when she disagreed with their views/opinions. Even, she announced that the DVTV is now “audismvideo.tv” in her own vlog. It was poor and improper. Go and see her vlog, “DEAFvideo.TV?”
We have expected us to accept others’ agreements and disagreements as long as we respect for each other. I don’t expect that my friends to agree with me or not. We cannot please everyone. We need to earn the respect the most of all.
Ella has turned many people off in a big time.
I agree that they should have this dialouge offline.
Sheri, I am glad we can have the opportunity to open the healthy dialouge. Whether we agree or not, I have enjoyed our company at Paotie’s green couch! It has been fun, tho.
Sheri A. Farinha said,
September 12, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Hi Deaf Pundt,
I do feel the sincerity in your desire to understand her comment better, I think it got lost with the spiel about the “challenge” and the other stuff. Do you remember that whole discussion we all had last summer about attackling the issue, not the person? This is why my suggestion earlier might have been more of what you were looking for to get an answer. II do believe we have the right to challenge and be challenged, its all in how we say it.
Let me put it this way, please see the concept not verbatim….
Earlier you mentioned that you had a hard time believing she cherishes and values your opinion because of issues that have occurred in the past and it rubs you the wrong way, right? Same could be true for Ella, seeing her name in a headline, because of issues that have occurred in the past, it may rub her the wrong way too. You see? So how is it helping to publicly challenge just because it started pubicly? That is why I say, two wrongs don’t make a right. Her comment was part of many others who were participating in a whole dialouge on another issue, not in isolation as a vlog itself as you have done here.
Have no idea how she feels about any of this, haven’t talked with her, because she is capable of responding herself. I am merely sharing how it looks from my point of view. As you know, I rarely have the privelege of participating on v/blogs, and when I do, I try to do my part in promoting healthy dialouges and focus on the issue. My original purpose was to support your issue about violating a persons privacy videotaping them without their consent, etc. I was frankly horrified seeing a person videotaped without his knowledge.
Thanks for your time dialouging with me today. I wish you all the best with getting the answers you seek.
Take care.
A Deaf Pundit said,
September 12, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Hi Sheri,
I think it would help if you view Ella’s first comment to me. The link is in my post. That may give you a better insight in my position. She publicly challenged me. So you should really direct that question to her, not me. I’m merely continuing the discussion here and on DVTV.
it’s unfortunate that she decided to leave DVTV and isn’t choosing to come here and discuss this further… because while your question should really be for Ella, I’ll tell you why I think this should be in public… By having this in public, it might help others understand her and my position better. Not only that, but others might be able to contribute to developing a more precise definition of what audism is.
I think we all want to have a more precise definition of audism, don’t we? And a better awareness of what exactly entails double standards. Which that means being honest with each other, without insulting, belittling, or labeling.
I’m glad to see we do agree on something. It’s nice to know it’s possible.
Gamas Wanderings said,
September 12, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Sheri,
How about “deaf” rather than “Deaf”? Would that sit well with many? I think we shouldn’t bother to denote who is cultural or not if we want to be “one”, no?
Ann_C said,
September 12, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Hi Sheri,
Thanks for understanding what I was trying to say and for your support.
Even though I don’t vlog ( I blog and comment in English because that is my primary language and it’s what I’m comfortable with), I sometimes check out DVTV vlogs, and I’m sorry to say that some vloggers are leaving DVTV. Some vloggers have interesting views to learn about, even though theirs are not what mine are. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect their views, I do, but I have the right to disagree when and if I want to within my blog or in comments under other blogs, and that’s where things get misinterpreted. It often seems that some d/Deaf people take it personally, when my view is NOT a personal attack, but a disagreement about the issue. So it appears that some d/Deaf people have trouble separating the issue from the personal.
I have seen discrimination by the hearing in God-knows-how-many-ways, I’m not stupid. If those in Deaf culture and use ASL can understand that deaf people who use technology (hearing aids or CI) and speak still have to deal with the shit hearing people pull on us, then we’d be there for our Deaf culture bro’s who experience discrimination on other levels by the hearing world. Some in Deaf culture who use ASL claim that deaf people who use hearing aids/CI’s and speak have open sesame to the hearing world and are treated better. Well, I don’t speak for all “d”eaf people, Sheri, but just because “d”eaf people are treated better, it still doesn’t make what hearing folks do on a ‘covert’ basis to an HOH or cochlear implantee who speaks any better than what they would do in a more open ‘overt’ way to discriminate against a culturally Deaf person who uses ASL or other sign language. Oftentimes covert discrimination is far more destructive than the overt kind, because the “d”eaf speak. It’s audism, no matter how we d/Deaf split hairs over it. We shouldn’t be calling each other, our bro’s and sisters, “audists”.
Until then, the d/D persists. I don’t like it any more than you do. *smile*
Ann_C
White Ghost said,
September 12, 2009 at 11:18 pm
It’s nice to seeing the healthy dialogue between both of you, DP and Sheri. I know we should not label the insensitive words that people wouldn’t accept. It’s unfortunate that people wouldn’t care or understand the sensible words in which we don’t like or appreciate.
Anyway, I know, Sheri, we don’t always agree but it’s been fun partying at Paotie’s green couch, tho!
A Deaf Pundit said,
September 12, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Sorry White Ghost… your last 2 comments got caught in the spam filter for some reason.
Karen Mayes said,
September 13, 2009 at 7:27 am
Good morning…
One thought that I’d like to share. I think that we NEED to analyze the word “audism” to its bone. So far it has become an overused, abused, etc. word, used as a weapon lately to try to destroy one vlogger recently. I personally feel that the word audism is better word for LEGAL use only… workplace practices, medical services, education, etc…. not in personal homes. Even the person who claims to know everything about the word audism tried to use the tactic on DP… tells me that she must be sidetracked by the increasingly murkier waters surrounding the word.
So there’s a need for a panal discussion… or a round table discussion… to separate myths from facts about audism and to agree on it once and for all.
A Deaf Pundit said,
September 13, 2009 at 8:44 am
Hi Everyone – I wanted to let you all know that I’m out for the day, therefore those who leave comments won’t see it published until I’m back this evening.
Thanks.
Gamas Wanderings said,
September 13, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Yup, Karen Mayes, I agree.
It’s also interesting that Gallaudet University’s Deaf Studies Department does cover “Audism”.
Be interesting to know exactly how they go about “teaching” Audism over there.
Anonymous said,
September 13, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Hi DP, hope you’re having a great day. Regarding the vloggers who have left DeafVideo.tv, it’s my personal opinion that DVTV is much better off without them. A lot more peaceful. The people who have voluntarily left or were banned, in my view, seemed to be more interested in suppressing opinions that are different from theirs than in engaging in respectful dialogue. The ones who stay, like yourself, tend to be more interested in productive discourse. It’s really hard sometimes, but I’m refraining from making any further comments that would be regarded as disrespectful or inflammatory. Just let me say that I agree with others, that claims of audism should never be made by one deaf person against another. I’d also like to say that even though I don’t always agree with your ideas, DP, I appreciate your courage and continuing efforts to raise the level of civility, ethics, and discourse among us. Which often means being unpopular and publicly castigated. You’ve got more guts in your little finger than I do in my whole body! Carry on the good work.
A Deaf Pundit said,
September 13, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Hi Anonymous (and the others who expressed similar sentiments) – thank you for your kind words. It’s nice to receive this once in a while.
And hmm. I think later this week I’ll make another v/blog clarifying why I think even us d/Deaf can be audistic towards each other.. and I’ll also try to make my definition more precise… I do think this discussion is important, because once we understand audism better, the more appropriately we can use that term, instead of just hurling it around as a weapon.
White Ghost said,
September 13, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Gamas….
Audism has invaded Gallaudet? What’s next? Declining the numbers of the enrollments at Gally wouldn’t help. I believe “audism” course at Gally will fade within 10 years from now. I find it hard to believe. There are more deaf programs at any universities/community colleges and more mainstream schools. There’s more to come! Students will not know the word, ‘audism” in everywhere at any school. Impossible. *shakes my head*
Audism Attacks at Gallaudet! a.k.a “Mars attacks!” from the movie in 1996
Gamas Wanderings said,
September 14, 2009 at 12:38 am
WG, lol
DP just said she would make a b/vlog on Audism covering deaf vs deaf. These things DO happen, but i think Audism is the wrong word. We’ll have to see what she says. My point has always been, why do we need a special term for deaf people? What is wrong with oppression? Or discrimination?
Definitely there have been HOH people and Oral deaf who “look down” at signing deaf. Then again there are all kinds of attitude of superiority. However, these things happens in the world at large too. You have people in different socio-economic class that look down at each other, for example. It isn’t an “ism” of some sort, it’s human nature to stereotype, thinking one is better than another. Guess, I’ll have to hold off and see the next b/vlog.
Jessica said,
September 23, 2009 at 11:31 pm
I think “audism” is a good word. There is sexism, racism, ageism to start with. Now there is audism. Even blacks have what I read about a while ago called internal racism which affects their relationships. I read that the more internal racism they had, the more it affected their relationships. I thought it made sense because the more they looked down on their own race, it reflected how they saw themselves hence not being able to give the best of themselves to the relationship. So I think same with Deaf with “internal audism”. It influences how we perceive ourselves and the Deaf community.
Jessica said,
September 23, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Also wanted to add that I think all the -isms boils down to basically one thing-looking down on a group of people because of something, may it be race, hearing loss, age, gender,, whatever. Just that those words are more specific to which group of people referring to.