Friday, October 20, 2006

371: new dailykos posting

Just posted my 370 diary on DailyKos, with the following change:
If a group of gay people protested that a gay leader was doing terribly, and the leader said, "They think I'm not gay enough," what would happen?

If a group of black people protested that a black leader was going terribly, and the leader said, "They think I'm not black enough," what would happen?

This is what happens when Deaf people protest that a Deaf leader is doing terribly, and the leader says, "They think I'm not Deaf enough."

Check it out. Be interesting to see how other communities react.


Anonymous said...

There's a difference between black and deaf. Black people have a specific identity that separates from the deaf (and gay) identity. Most of us didn't grow up with the same identity as black people.

As for the gay/deaf, being gay is basically a choice as opposed to deciding whether to be deaf or not.

Consider that. In other words, you can't compare. Hell, what made you think that we even decided that JK was fitted to be a leader? I don't recall us considering her as a leader in the first place.

Your blog is invalid, not credible, and not even up for comparsion/ discussion. Sorry, bro.

C. A. Fanara said...

I beg to differ with the previous entry - being Deaf is an inate state of being, just like being gay is an inate state of being. Gay people just don't always "decide" one day they're gay, they "KNOW" they're gay just as we "KNOW" we are DEAF!!!

As for African-American comparison, African-Americans and the Deaf do share two things in common: sharing a culture AND oppression.

So, KUDOS to Joseph Rainmound - sure wish I could give him a BIG hug!

Joseph Rainmound said...

Thanks, C-you said it!

But he missed the point: I'm not comparing black people and gay people with deaf people. And I'm certainly not saying they're the "same." I'm comparing how people treat them. What WOULD your reaction be, right? So his point is completely moot ;)


Anonymous said...

Ok, quid pro quo.

You said, "leader." Not people. There's a difference here. By the way, Macolm X was against MLK. They're both black, but X didn't view MLK as a black person is more interesting.

My point isnt moot because you are bringing two examples and then raising the potential 3rd case scenario so literally you are asking us to consider the first two and use that to apply to the third. I call that comparing. :)


Joseph Rainmound said...


1) Nobody chose her to be our leader. If you read my previous posts, I point out that Jordan appointed her Provost, too. But she is, however she got there, a leader.

2) If I compare apples and oranges to bananas, first I remember they are all fruit.

3) So you say that black people ARE like deaf people now? Or are you saying that the point is the parallel? In which case, aren't you verifying my point?

Joseph Rainmound said...

should be: I didn't say we chose her to be our leader... etc.

Alli said...

The point is... there's a reason saying "I'm not deaf enough" is gonna get a reaction.

That said, maybe by using similarly relatable examples, other people will get "it."

Thomas Green said...

Once again, I think the argument about Dr. Fernandes being a leader is flawed. In many discussions and scholarly studies, it shows that leadership is earned and given to the person, as oppose to the person given authority to dicate what will happen, in other words, she is a manager, not a leader. Her appointment as the Provost of Gallaudet University gave her authority to do what she needed to do or to choose not to do. She has never really earned her place as a leader.

As for her "not being deaf enough" is really a political card she played. We, the protestors, who keep saying that Gallaudet is struggling with audism. The spin caused people to be confused about what is the real issue, audism or deafism? The spin is doing exactly what Dr. Fernandes and her team wants it to do.

It makes us look bad when we say that she is responsible for letting audism grow at Gallaudet and at the same time making us look guilty of being prejudiced against those who are not deaf enough. The parallel argument would be reverse-discrimination on race. When a black person gets a job and the white person feels that the black person got it because he is black, the white person would say "That is reverse racism!" Hence the "Not deaf enough" card that was played.

elisa said...

thanks for spreading the message through dailykos, your posts are always very clear and spot-on and from the comments, you're getting more and more people to understand. again, thank you.

Joseph Rainmound said...

Yes, Tom, I agree with you that Fernandes has not and never has earned her place as a leader. She has been placed in the position. But now she is at her current level, she has the support of a fraction of the University, just because of who she is. They are supporting the position, not the person.

I agree that "not deaf enough" is a racist comment. But I want you to go grab Dr. Ladd's book. We are not disagreeing as such now. I am glad you hung out and took time to discuss... do you study deaf studies?

Anonymous said...

I would actually say there are a fair number of parallels between degree of deafness and degree of blackness. Black folk can have a pretty well defined hierarchy based on how light or dark their skin color is, with the lighter colored ones being perceived as having more privilege and sometimes villified by darker ones.

You can draw an analogy with respect to gay as well: issues around bisexual and transgender people can drive gay folk just as nuts because the continuum implies there isn't quite an "either or" between gay and het.

Now, in reality, I think most people would not comprehend the "not gay enough" analogy and would probably not admit to having an opinion on the "not black enough".

But the hearing world has a pretty strong reaction to "not deaf enough" because, see with the first two, if you're a basic white het male or female, the issues are strictly intellectual.

But every last one of us hears -- or doesn't -- in varying degrees. So I think a lot of people will viscerally think that's not really a fair thing to say. Understand this: the hearing world looks at JKF and sees her signing and considers her deaf, case closed.

It was a very nasty tactic for her to use, the more so because an undercurrent of that *does* exist, independent of all the perfectly good reasons she should go, and not only does it muddy these present waters, it creates issues that the deaf as a whole will have to work to repair.

Now I shall go dig through the mysogynistc morass that is Kos and see what the reaction there is. (Forgive me, I'm a good little progressive, but more than a few of the folk over there make me just sick.)