Crack the myth: Reverse Audism does NOT exist.

[jillio]

While I understand the concept.. I'm not exactly sure what you expect for the individual of the majority should do in terms of dealing with people of the minority with a chip on their shoulder?

"Hi, I'm really interested in learning about the black culture. I'm going to major in Black Culture Studies."

"GTFO, the white man has no place here. Don't you even dare to get that major, you have no right!"

"Okay! I understand because I am part of the majority that has oppressed you, so therefore I'll do whatever you want! I'll just switch my major to History then! It sure will be very useful!"

Seriously, what do you expect? They have the right to behave like this? Or should the majority to completely back off? Leave the minority alone? No interaction whatsoever to avoid this type of behavior?

I don't care what you call it, but there is an obvious pattern. Are we pretending that it doesn't exist? Or are we just calling it something that is inevitable but don't like that term to describe it? I'll call it "Dealing with people with a rightful chip on their shoulder." How about that?

It is not a matter of "having a right." It is a matter of understanding others in realtionship to the historical significance of their culture. That holds true in any cultural difference. Until one is able to take a step backwards and see exactly how being a member of the majority instills certain privilege that disempowers the minority without getting so defensive there will never be an opportunity for cultural understanding. Yes, the hearing have power privilege over the deaf simply by the fact that they are members of the majority. Accident of birth. They may not want the baggage that goes with it, but that does not mean that it isn't there. To deny its existence is simply reinforcing it. Unpack the suitcase and look at what you are carrying around honestly.

 

[CSign]

I also see no reason for anyone to attack me for asking you to support your assertion- asking for documentation/evidence is par for the course.

 

[jillio]

No need for insults

... I'm not saying I'm not using the book. Quite the contrary in fact (being a teacher and all). All I'm saying is: we can allow ourselves to question and criticize the book.

We can question the book if we are secure enough in our own identity to drop all the defensiveness and take an honest look at historical context and privilege bestowed automatically at birth or denied automatically at birth. Few have that kind of strength and courage. You appear to be one. Congratulations.

 

[FireTiger]

What you have described is discrimination stemming from a prejudicial belief about a group. Sure that is possible. However, when referring to oppression, the majority oppresses; the minority does not. The very term "oppression" means having a position of power.

But I don't think anyone is arguing that point, that's why specific definitions were brought up.

Nobody is going to argue that oppression is a device of the more powerful.

(although an armed minority can oppress an unarmed majority)

It would be like only looking at one definition of anything and basing what can or cannot be appropriate on just one definition.

Example> Gender-

noun
1.
Grammar.
a.
(in many languages) a set of classes that together include all nouns, membership in a particular class being shown by the form of the noun itself or by the form or choice of words that modify, replace, or otherwise refer to the noun, as, in English, the choice of he to replace the man, of she to replace the woman, of it to replace the table, of it or she to replace the ship. The number of genders in different languages varies from 2 to more than 20; often the classification correlates in part with sex or animateness. The most familiar sets of genders are of three classes (as masculine, feminine, and neuter in Latin and German) or of two (as common and neuter in Dutch, or masculine and feminine in French and Spanish).
b.
one class of such a set.
c.
such classes or sets collectively or in general.
d.
membership of a word or grammatical form, or an inflectional form showing membership, in such a class.
2.
sex: the feminine gender.
3.
Archaic. kind, sort, or class.

verb (used with object), verb (used without object)
1.
Archaic. to engender.
2.
Obsolete. to breed.

—n
1. See also natural gender a set of two or more grammatical categories into which the nouns of certain languages are divided, sometimes but not necessarily corresponding to the sex of the referent when animate
2. any of the categories, such as masculine, feminine, neuter, or common, within such a set
3. informal the state of being male, female, or neuter
4. informal all the members of one sex: the female gender

gender
c.1300, from O.Fr. gendre, from stem of L. genus (gen. generis) "kind, sort, gender," also "sex" (see genus); used to translate from Gk. Aristotle's grammatical term genos. As sex took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be used for "sex of a human being," often in

gen·der definition
Pronunciation: /ˈjen-dər/
Function: n
1 : SEX 1
2 : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

n.

The sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy.

Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.

gender definition (cultural)

A grammatical category indicating the sex, or lack of sex, of nouns and pronouns. The three genders are masculine, feminine, and neuter. He is a masculine pronoun; she is a feminine pronoun; it is a neuter pronoun. Nouns are classified by gender according to the gender of the pronoun that can substitute for them. In English, gender is directly indicated only by pronouns.

 

[jillio]

I also see no reason for anyone to attack me for asking you to support your assertion- asking for documentation/evidence is par for the course.

See, this kind of self centered defensiveness is exactly what allows the conditions of inequity to continue unchecked. :roll:

 

[posts from hell]

I'm not looking to debate the issue in this thread. It also wasn't a contentious question. Inquiring minds would like to know... If that is in fact the case then something needs to be done about it. I'm asking for you to please show me even just one article/study that demonstrates majority of DHH kids of "hearing parents" are failing. It's a bit difficult to make a strong assertion like that without anything to support It. I realize you have many things to back that up, but some of us don't. Again, I am not asking this to debate the issue or be contentious- I'm always interested in expanding my knowledge base.

I'm not playing for the other team, PFH.

I sent you a PM - I am not going to discuss this any further in this thread.

 

[TWA]

Wrong. Once again, you didn't understand what you were reading.

I disagree with you. His definition, while simple, is apt. (It is of course telling that he chose to use a particular minority group as the example, but oh well. What can you do with him?)

While it's true that minorities don't/can't exhibit institutional racism towards whites (the majority/dominant group), there are regular occurrences where a specific minority group targets another race (often other minorities). The race of the target is irrelevant if they are being targeted simply because of their race.

 

[jillio]

But I don't think anyone is arguing that point, that's why specific definitions were brought up.

Nobody is going to argue that oppression is a device of the more powerful.

(although an armed minority can oppress an unarmed majority)

It would be like only looking at one definition of anything and basing what can or cannot be appropriate on just one definition.

Example> Gender-

I disagree with you on that one. Oppression is oppression. Prejudice is prejudice. Discrimination is discrimination. They are 3 separate concepts with 3 different criteria.

 

[CSign]

See, this kind of self centered defensiveness is exactly what allows the conditions of inequity to continue unchecked. :roll:

LOL. Ok Jillio.

Read PFH's post I quoted prior to the post you responded to.

 

[jillio]

I disagree with you. His definition, while simple, is apt.

While it's true that minorities don't/can't exhibit institutional racism towards whites, there are regular occurrences where a specific minority group targets another race (often other minorities). The race of the target is irrelevant if they are being targeted simply because of their race.

That is discrimination, not racism. Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (or audism) are 3 separate concepts. Just because the target is of a different race does not make it racism. It makes it discrimination based on a prejudicial belief about a group.

 

[CSign]

I sent you a PM - I am not going to discuss this any further in this thread.

I saw that after my post, and I just responded.

 

[deafskeptic]

That is discrimination, not racism. Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (or audism) are 3 separate concepts. Just because the target is of a different race does not make it racism. It makes it discrimination based on a prejudicial belief about a group.

. I think that would make sense.

 

[jillio]

LOL. Ok Jillio.

Read PFH's post I quoted prior to the post you responded to.

I've read all through the thread; each and every post. You, however, cannot read anything with an open mind because you approach everything from a point of having to defend yourself. This is not about you personally. It is about the fact that you belong to a majority group that practices intstitutional audism and racism without ever having to stop to identitfy it because it has no negative impact on you. You never have to consider it as a member of the privileged majority. Denying it doesn't mean that it isn't there. It simply means that you refuse to look at it.

 

[TWA]

That is discrimination, not racism. Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (or audism) are 3 separate concepts. Just because the target is of a different race does not make it racism. It makes it discrimination based on a prejudicial belief about a group.

The three are not mutually exclusive, and I think you are using your own definitions and semantic interpretations in this case.

 

[deafskeptic]

If it does happen, it won't affect some of us.

ya think?

 

[Frisky Feline]

ya think?

I believe so!

 

[CSign]

I've read all through the thread; each and every post. You, however, cannot read anything with an open mind because you approach everything from a point of having to defend yourself. This is not about you personally. It is about the fact that you belong to a majority group that practices intstitutional audism and racism without ever having to stop to identitfy it because it has no negative impact on you. You never have to consider it as a member of the privileged majority. Denying it doesn't mean that it isn't there. It simply means that you refuse to look at it.

Because you know me, right? You know my background and experiences? Right

And you didn't read everything. If you had my comment was in direct response to a statement PFH made about "asking people not to attack" me. I had anticipated it would directly follow my previous post, but people are so excited about this topic it was bumped to another page. Either way, had you "read everything" you would have known that.

 

[FireTiger]

I enjoyed 'And the Band Played On', and ... rats what was the name of the other book...

Well Kyo Freeman taught the class, he was awesome.

 

[deafskeptic]

I believe so!

I think i have bubbles in my brain!

 

[VacationGuy234]

He didn't say they're failing because they have hearing parents - he said 90% of deaf kids have hearing parents. There's a difference.

I told ya: posts from hell wrote: "So the "Hearing parents are ill equipped to have deaf children" is true."