jillio

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.

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

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

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

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-

jillio

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

posts from hell

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

TWA

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

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

LOL. Ok Jillio.

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

jillio

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 saw that after my post, and I just responded.

deafskeptic

. I think that would make sense.

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.
Upgraded to Opus 2 9/10/2010
Think Pink.
FREE JILLIO!

jillio

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

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

deafskeptic

OMG


Poweron is on a mission to dominate the Deaf world after everyone becomes deaf!

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.
Upgraded to Opus 2 9/10/2010
Think Pink.
FREE JILLIO!

Frisky Feline

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

deafskeptic

ya think?

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.
Upgraded to Opus 2 9/10/2010
Think Pink.
FREE JILLIO!

Frisky Feline

I believe so!

CSign

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 think i have bubbles in my brain!

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.
Upgraded to Opus 2 9/10/2010
Think Pink.
FREE JILLIO!

VacationGuy234

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

FireTiger

Well yes and no- they are interrelated.

To get anywhere we need your definitions of these words...

As in my opinion and others' opinions, audism has all three traits.

Prejudice- an uninformed opinion about a group based on one's personal but incomplete experiences either taught (directly or indirectly), media (foolish or exaggerated portrait), or social (oh we must treat everyone the same even if it means singling out a group and treating them different so they can be the same. Same is good, different is bad)

Discrimination - The act of using a prejudice against a group

Oppression - To use one's (or groups') natural or unnatural power over another (one) or group. To feel one is entitles to the right over another group because of real or imagined difference in strength or ability (might is right).

jillio

No, they aren't mutually exclusive. One can be prejudiced without discriminating. One can be prejudiced and discriminate. One can be personally opposed to racist or audist belief systems, and yet, participate in the social structure that allows it to continue.

Most actions that are racist or audist are without racist or audist intent from the individual. The individual of the majority culture simply does not have the level of awareness needed to recognize how their behavior contributes to the institutional practices of racism and audism. It is not enough to simply say, "I did not intend that in an audist manner." One has to step back and take an honest look at the privilege they accept every single day of their life contributes. Generally, the majority never questions it because they don't have to. That is why it is about power.

No, these are not my definitions, nor my semantic interpretations. These are sociological constructs on which years and years of research have been done. And I personally believe that the reason we have made no progress in the area of eradicating racism or audism is because the majority is unwilling to separate the 3 concepts and look at them in isolation. One sees the word "audism" and they immediately start defending the ways in which they are not "audist". One sees the word "racist" and they immediately start defending the ways in which they are not "racist." When in fact, they may not be personally prejudiced and they may not willingly engage in discriminatory practices. That doesn't mean that they don't unconsciously participate in racism or audism, simply by refusing to look at the historical and cultural context and the relevent ways in which it impacts others. The very act of denial is a part of the power.

jillio

I know what you post here. And it is obvious that you are defensive and unwilling to discuss these issues without a constant need to defend yourself.

FireTiger

One cannot discriminate w/o prejudice...

Yes one can have both or just prejudice, but discrimination is acting on prejudice-

jillio

One does not have to consciously feel entitled to the right to hold dominance over another group. One only has to accept the power that is bestowed by being born into a member of a dominant group and be unwilling to look at the big picture and see how they function of a part of a society that indeed, practices group oppression...with or without conscious intent.

jillio

Actually, one can discriminate without prejudice. When the discrimination is against an individual based on perceptions of that individual without a group affiliation, they can discriminate without prejudice. Prejudice stems from perceptions about a group. Discrimination occurs on an individual basis in most cases, and can occur because of perceptions of the group, or because of perceptions about the individual totally removed from the group.

FireTiger

Ok, true for Oppression - conceded, It doesn't have to be willing or known...just exist.

I disagree with discriminate- w/o an initial impression (wrong impression) of the group the individual is from there is not discrimination.

I can say NO to going out with a (something descriptor) guy...

It might be because I am prejudice, having a wrong opinion about the group.

It might look like discrimination if another thinks I'm acting on not wanting that date because of my opinion of the group.

OR it might be because I'm married...

I cannot come up where one discriminates against an individual when not based on the prejudice against the group that person is from.

If I choose not to go out with (some guy) its not discrimination even if he has four arms, is purple, monocular, can fly... it is because I am married.

In my opinion discrimination is always based on -some group- no one is of no group... there is sex, race, social class, culture, nationality- usually quickly apparent.

DeafCaroline

Actually, every single time I researched CIs, there's always a comparative study of how CI kids perform better in mainstream and then they would show percentages of how each group of categorized deaf students performed in mainstreamed or oral settings. Deaf/HOH children who are not implanted and may or may not have some level of hearing with hearing aids generally perform much more poorly in mainstream/oral settings - both academically and socially. There are tons of studies generated by the CI industries illustrating this.

Deaf kids who performed the best (academically and socially) were generally deaf kids in quality deaf schools and CI kids in mainstream and all the rest in between performed the most poorly.

It's not hard to do the math if you were to sit down and calculate what percentage of deaf kids are implanted, which percentage are in deaf schools and which are mainstreamed (which is usually the preferred options selected by parents who cannot afford to move close to a deaf school nor send their child to one and/or they are willing to send their deaf child off to one and prefer to instead opt for the ideal special ed for deaf within mainstream schools or at least for assisted services).

And when you do the math - then it's not so debatable that majority of deaf children are not performing up to par considering CI kids and deaf kids in quality deaf schools are very much in the minority.