This is a response to Amy's vlog: http://videoserver.us/ftp/abcohende/response/responseforyou.mov from her response to my post on disablism.blogspot.com.
You (Amy) raise the larger question of what makes a successful militant thinker? That is the million dollar question. Every leader would love to know.
I suggest that the "who, what, where, when, and how" is critical in understanding the success of militant thinking and its consequences. History has shown the success and failure of militant thinking by taking the who, what, where, when, and how in consideration. More importantly, the concept behind militant thinking is a process of going 'against' the current hegemony and ultimately making a paradigmic shift. Sometimes a group fails to consider the timing or leaves a certain group behind and ultimately brings their militant thinking as a failure. I have shown several examples in this vlog of the success/failures of militant thinking. In sum, it is important to be consciously aware of the "who, what, when where, and how" in order to increase the chances of a successful militant thinker.
By the way, forgive my fiance for walking behind me. ;) I also need to find a better background so it isn't as "cluttered."
Best,
Tommy
14 comments:
interesting...
perhaps we should think of ways to approach hearing parents (via support organisations in hospitals when their deaf child is born or are discovered to be deaf via hearing tests) instead of approaching parents in AG Bell events?
just a thought from the discussion between you and Amy :)
Well, May I critize you for one thing, okay. Aristotle did not drink any poison but Socrates drank that poison. Now there were four famous people who discovered the truth and were murdered because they stirred up the paradigm in very positive way. And tell what did you find them what did they have something in very common? And in oppsite of four evil they did stir up paradigm also, find what did they have something in common? On other side of positive were Socrates, Jesus, Martin Luther King,and Gandhi had something in same common. All of them discovered the truth and fought for freedom, while on other side of opposite, Nero, Hilter, Stalin and Hussein(Iraq) murdered their own people because they were afraid of truth!
Tommy and Amy,
I viewed both of your vidclips and would like to respond.
Militancy is necessary for any oppressed people to "fight" back. Complacency goes nowhere. Militants moves people forward. Militants fight with anything, from passive non-violence to fatal violence.
Within one oppressed group of people, it is natural for them to disagree with one another on how militant they should go. Assertiveness, activism, militancy, anarchy, and other tactics of consciousness-raising.
During the protest last summer at AGBAD's summer conference in Virginia, I shared an email to few friends about one of the protesters. In the email, I called that person a militant and was chastitized. I was asked to call that person an activist. I recanted and agreed. The difference between activism and militancy is distinctly different yet can be blurred.
Tommy and Amys' clips are an example of a healthy discourse within the deaf community about our tactics on how to fight against audism, especially in the delicate situations of influencing the minds of the parents of deaf children who will become like us, deaf adults, in the future.
Your posts reveals brilliant reasonings on the term militancy and on how to use it. We need brains like you and militant activism like others.
All I want to see is more posts like this along with "more action and less talk" by activists and militants in the deaf community.
Good post here, Tommy
Who is that hot blond chick who kept distracting us?
I do not believe our Deaf Community are really oppressed at all, then who needs militant?
May I add to that comment. The word militant we in our society do not use that term but we often use activist. Militant is a context of the political and more associate with terrorist or extremist. The way mass media describe the identification with very negative! I myself do not like that word militant I would choose a better word-activist! Thanks
When is the WEDDING date ? Good luck !
I myself prefer to use the word activist. The term Militant carries negative innuendos and can paint visions of violent people behaving like terrorists.
Otherwise, this is a thought-provoking discourse
Tommy,
I think that the word, DEAF MILITANT got stigmatized by someone from DeafDC and Mike McConnell group to demoralize many Deaf people from being part of the advocacy group such as DBC.
Cathy
I think everyone has different interpretion of militancy and activism.
Militancy in my own eyes is not a good name in our own democracy. In totalitarian world, militancy may be good and necessary. It is depending on situation all over the world. As of now, militancy is popular in Muslum world.
What I am talking about in my own vlog is that there are a very few hatred militants that have gone cross the line. I call them illegitable "hatred" militants with no respect to human rights and Deaf community. There are a very few deaf hatred militants (I never put capital letter of "D" in deaf militants in my vlog)
DBC is an activist or consumer or advocate organization depending on people's view on it. DBC is a good citizens' Deaf organization that believes in human rights for everyone and care for everyone. In my opinion, AGBell is an "hatred" militant organization that believes in practice of audism. It tends to reject many "fail" deaf people for not meeting AGBell's mission. The problem is that nobody feels any "threat" from AGBell except Deaf community.
AGBell is a very aggressive organization to get their claws on any deaf child and their family at any cost.
DBC is a very assertive organization to help many people open their eyes and let them know that they are always welcome no matter what happened.
Deafchip
I have been to many anti-war, impeach-Bush-Cheney, anti-genocide-in Darfur, anto-poverty, anti-hunger rallies since October 2002, but the media do not define me and others as militants; rather, they define us as peace activists and human rights activists. Very few who cross the line would be arrested and called militants.
Even those who protested against the Board of Directors' selection of Fernandes as president were wrongly labelled as militants, extremists, and terrorists. Those who mislabelled us either did not understand the concept of these terms to the fullness or deliberately used these terms to intimidate and stop our protest. Ironic as it may sound, it was Jordan and DPS who were terrorists.
That awesome vblog! i am very support ur respond. that true that i believe deaf baby should have asl make it succuessful for future. my opinion to key to help hearing parent about deaf baby meant about.. and need more deaf people to stood up more lecture about themself and hearing people have to see and listen deaf people respond and exprinece and succueful person and hearing parent can education and understand about deaf culture and they will feel satisfty. i want stood up for commiuty otherwise i am not good engish but great asl. this can be change world. bec of freedom of speech.
Cathy, you're giving me way, way too much credit on this "deaf militant" stigmatization. Extremism exists on both ends whether it's a peaceful approach (a la Gandi) to Hitler's forcing of wills to his bidding. Though I have discussed about "militant in thinking" elsewhere in a particular context just as Tommy discussed his "militant thinking."
Deafchip writes:
"AGBell is an "hatred" militant organization that believes in practice of audism."
Right on! Alexander Graham Bell was a paragon of militancy! He wanted to sterilise all deaf people so as to end them as a variety of human race!
That was very aggressive of
AGBell. Gandhi or MLK would not
have done that.
Post a Comment