"Accountability breeds response-ability." – Stephen R. Covey
From the Slums of Mumbaih (Bombay)
I was visiting my folks on the weekend. I was in Adelaide playing golf and catching up with friends, attending a party and relaxing on the beach drinking good coffee. All was good in the world. My kids played in the sand, cracked jokes and generally charmed everyone in sight. It was just splendid really. Adelaide is my idea of urban Utopia. I took my mother to lunch and shopping at one of the major shopping centres of Adelaide. In one short moment this urban Utopia was shattered, I suddenly found myself in the slums of Mumbaih.
I understand that disability rights in India have improved immensely in recent years. However, I vividly recall seeing a documentary about disability in Asian countries. There was a scene of a young disabled child. The child walked only on his hands dragging his useless legs behind him. He walked on his hands through the slums of Mumbaih. He had a dirty tin cup. He would brandish this at passers by hoping for a hand out. He was dirty and unkempt. It was harrowing to watch.
So here I was in urban Utopia. I was walking through a modern shopping complex. Last week Australians received $900 each as part of the Australian Governments strategy to kick start the economy. The stimulus package they call it. People were out in force spending their $900. I marvelled at the happy faces. In the distance I saw an old friend. He is Deafblind. Years ago I taught him English. He is an intelligent man and he even studied overseas.
As I moved closer I saw that he was sitting down on a beach chair. His white cane was in front of him. In his hand he held a tin cup by the handle. Emblazoned on the cup was the name of one of the major sensory charities in South Australia. My friend cannot see a lot. Neither can he speak. Sign language is his preferred mode of communication, either very close up or tactile. He could sense people walking by him but not really see them.
He was not able to really explain why he was there. So he moved his head from side to side as he sensed people walking by. As he moved his head he waved the cup in a wide ark in front of him. His face was a picture of panic. Not knowing who was around him, just hoping that his movements would attract enough attention for a hand out.
I stopped in my tracks. No more than a few metres from him I knew that he could not see me. I just stared. I was totally transfixed and horrified. This proud and intelligent man had been reduced to a beggar for a charity. His dignity totally shattered. Visions of the disabled boy from Mumbaih and his tin cup flashed in my head. What had they done to this proud human being? In my eyes they had destroyed the last shreds of his dignity.
I beat a hasty retreat. I could not face him. I could not talk to him or say hello even though I had not seen him for several years. I found my mum and my kids enjoying lunch in the food hall. I excused myself on the pretext that I needed to get something for my friend’s birthday. I headed straight outside and sat down on a bench. I was not yet angry just shocked. The anger came much later. As I write this, the vision of my friend waving that cup and moving his head frantically from side to side is still vivid and shocking.
At first I tried to make excuses for the charity. Do not ask me why. Perhaps sub-consciously I did not want to believe that what I had just witnessed was actually happening here in a wealthy country like Australia. I said to myself, “The Government doesn’t fund them enough” – I reasoned that if the Government funded them enough the charity would not be reduced to this sort of begging. I reasoned that my friend, an intelligent man, knew exactly what he was doing, and therefore this made it ok. I reasoned that my friend was paid for the charity work that he did. Not much, but it was a supplement to his pension.
In the end I could only find anger. Anger – that people like my friend could be exploited in this fashion. Anger – that he, through lack of opportunities and through lack of support from successive Governments, had been reduced to a street beggar for a charity. Anger – that this proud and intelligent human being was being viewed as an object of pity by the passing public.Anger -that if I never saw my friend again this would be my last vision of him.
I really wish that I had gone over to say hello. Perhaps by saying hello I could have reassured him that all was ok. Perhaps he would have smiled and felt less isolated and alone. Perhaps by communicating with him the public would have seen that there was more to the man than just a beggar on the street. I did not and I will forever regret that.
This sort of fundraising strategy goes on all over the world. Not just in Australia. People with disabilities protest that they do not want to be promoted as objects of pity. They plead that they be promoted as human beings with hopes and aspirations. They want to be promoted as people who contribute to and enrich society. Very rarely are they listened to. The mighty dollar speaks loud. Human dignity is but a small price to pay.
Oh! – I know that charities need money. I know that they are underfunded by the Government. I know that many provide excellent services and have dedicated staff and require money to sustain this.BUT – Why must we tackle these problems by destroying human dignity? Why must we raise the spectre of suffering, wretched lives and pity just to get a dollar? There has to be a better way.
Years ago I and deaf staff where I worked protested about a poster that was used to raise money through a Radio-thon. All day the radio made announcements imploring the public to donate. The messages were overwhelmingly negative. Poor deaf people living wretched lives, suffering, isolated and lonely. A poster was produced showing finger spelling for HOW TO SAY I LOVE YOU – At the bottom of the poster was the picture of two hands opening a wallet. Say you love me by giving me money. We protested vehemently and were told by the boss that we needed to get over it. We were told that we had a “Holier Than Thou” attitude to fundraising. In short we were dismissed and ignored.
I am not angry now. I am just sad, that in a rich country like Australia, that my friend, an intelligent and dignified person, had been reduced to a beggar for a pittance. I feel shame for Australia and shame for the charity that allowed my friend to be reduced to this sorry state. Thank you for reading and listening – I know that at least some people care.
Just spent the last 45 minutes on a train reading up on the Rebuttal.
Gary, I am proud that you are uninhibited to say what you feel. This guy from SA must be having sleepless nights! If my friend was tin shaking as per the example on the rebuttal, I would definitely say it looks fu$@ed!
Why, cos it is embarrasing and as any friend should do, I reckon I’m protecting their dignity. If my friend tells me to piss off- so be it, but I would be affected by what I see and I reckon I wouldn’t be alone.
Even taking a corporate image stance which though trivial in comparison, there are huge risks with this exposure.
Gaz. I love ya, and you are my role model.
I don’t fully agree with the editorial decision to write a clever article, because The Rebuttal published an edited open letter from the Deaf CanDo organization in a latest E edition of The Rebuttal. There was an explosive unnessary article about the Deaf Blind person who rattling tin in public that saddens and anger to lot of people here. It may be good for boosting a growth of number of blog readers; therefore it’s an attractive for the Rebuttal’s future sponsors.
So far, I have read 26 comments that were entered in response to that unnecessary written article. I am fully surprised to see the CEO of Deaf CanDo wrote two comments. He was actually reading your article and comments with his time and effort. I applauded for his involvement within the Deaf and Hard of Hearing communities. It is very rare to see that happened in the CEOs’ world. If I see a very serious problem arising within the South Australian Deaf community, then I’ll go and see Paul after I exhausted all avenues. He knows it.
Former Deaf SA was always in red in the last 10 years. Since Townsend House took over the Deaf SA organization, I’m impressed with the Deaf CanDo that turns the balance sheet into BLACK. This is from the hard working people including the volunteers and the people who rattling tins. They are still working within the stakeholders objectives. The Deaf club is still open within the beautiful ‘262’ building every two weeks so the CEO knows this is virtually important to the Deaf community. So what is the actual problem?
In regards to the Deaf blind person that Gazza mentioned in his written article, I know the Deaf blind person. I have met him twice in a shopping complex from Rundle Mall where he rattling his tin. I asked him how was he doing and he was happy chatting with me while he rattling his tin. He seems to be enjoying himself. If I see him again, I will explain to him of what the Rebuttal wrote. He has the right to know about this. What if, the CEO refused to let the DeafBlind person work in what he like? One of the Rebuttal team will write article differently. You can’t have both ways.
For those blog readers who have replied in the comment’s section, sorry guys, there is no justifying, because the article was cleverly written.
Cheers
Timothy, the article is a personal reflection, not a cynical maneuver to increase The Rebuttal’s readership.
You and Paul, in particular are quite over wrought over one person’s personal views, that I question both your objectivity towards this piece.
Gary was writing about a SPECIFIC incident, and he openly admits his failings, whatever they are.
It is you and Paul, in your rush to overwroughtness [tis a new word, if it doesn't already exist], that fails to see his point.
A point that everyone else can see.
Timothy
Thanks for your post. Its important that we see different view points. I am pretty sure the article has caused a few waves in SA and there will be a lot of discussion going on.
Firstly I would like to point out that the letter we published from the President of Deaf Can Do was edited with his input and approval. It was edited because it was long and we would not have been able to fit it into The Rebuttal format. The final draft of the letter as published came from the President himself. (For Blog only readers there is an ezine edition of The Rebuttal that is distributed with an editorial and a Your say Page)
If you do meet the guy concerned I would appreciate it if you could explain what has happened with this edition. If he so wishes I am more than happy to come back to Adelaide, meet him and explain why I wrote it. If there is anything I can do in regards to developing a more accessible format for him to read, even if it means using a Relay Interpreter I am more than happy to facilitate this happening in anyway I can.
Now in regard to sponsorship and readership of The Rebuttal. There is no sponsorship. We advertise free of charge. We dont get paid, have never sought payment, will never seek payment. We do it simply because we feel strongly about things and like to see informed and open debate. Sure we like getting more readers but only because it contributes to debate and change .. No other reason and no other motive.
Now your other point about clever writing – ok I will admit to this. As a writer you want people to stand up and take notice. You have to create a vision and story that will make people think. This is all I try to do. Sometimes this hurts people along the way. It is not intentional and we try to avoid it if we can. BUT sometimes issues are really controversial .. like this one .. and publishing such issues is done after careful consideration.
In this article I could have used other examples. My own mother, for example, walked by and said “poor thing”, my kids who were with me said – “whats wrong with that man” there were many reactions and responses that I did not use.
I identified my own weakness, which is not an easy thing to do. I will say it again, my not going up to the guy to say hello was pathetic. I am profoundly ashamed at that. BUT the fact remains if a hard and seasoned disability worker that Im am (20 years last month) can react this way how then were the public viewing the situation.
Do you see the public, for example, walking past and whispering to each other. Or stopping, hand and mouth to look and pity. Or taking the long route to avoide any type of confrontation. What are they thinking? What is their lasting impression of people with a disability? Is it a positive one? Thousands of people walking by and forming an opinion, a view and an attitude? Is it a positive view and attitude?
My view, and clearly the view of many, is that it promotes stereotypes of disability that are negative and needy. My view, and the view of many others, is that this does more harm than good. Mostly my view is that the guy is far better than that, regardless of whether he made the choice to be there. There is a more positive and constructive way to use his talents.
The money earned from tin rattling is not worth the damage it does to the perception and attitude towards people with a disability. There are beter ways, more positive ways for these organisations to raise money.
I hope Deaf Can Do, when the dust has settled and when Paul and I have stopped taking pot shots at each other, can take the message of these many postings on board and find better and more constructive ways to raise funds. I have offered to help, they can either carry on like a wounded dog or they can listen to what has been said by the many people on here and elsewhere who abhore negative stereotypes. Balls in their court.
Please remember Tim, putting yourself in the frontline to voice issues that people talk about but not in public is no easy task. You cop a lot of abuse for it, it can be stressful and it takes a fair bit of courage. We have no ulterior motive other than to create change. Change that will hopefully see Deaf people and people with a disability take charge of their own lives without pity and sympathy but as valued for what they give to society not what they cost and take.
[...] article From the Slums of Mumbaih (Bombay), has garnered quite a few comments. One of the rarer instances of [Australian] Deaf people getting [...]
[...] article From the Slums of Mumbaih (Bombay), has garnered quite a few comments. One of the rarer instances of [Australian] Deaf people getting [...]
What, people are still using collection tins in the hope of getting donations?
Like Tony Nicolas says, this is 2009! There are very few charities now that take this approach, and look for alternative means. Those few charities that do it, I proactively avoid them as I view it as negative on every level.
The examples I remember who take this old fashioned approach aren’t deaf charities but others such as protection of animals.
I think its demeaning for animals, and here we are, doing the same thing for deaf people!
It harks back to when I am in Cambodia, one of the top five poorest countries in the world; where a single dollar is the difference between life and death for the majority of its populace.
Disabled people there are reduced to aggressive begging. Those who have not been able to get much are reduced to sleepy begging as they have no energy left; just barely enough to outstretch an arm holding a begging tin for money.
Glad to know we have moved on. Not.
A difficult one for me to comment on, because its something we’ve all seen before. Thus when you’ve seen a million times: what’s new? An excellent post though, and brings a point across. The word ‘handicapped’, in the UK has roots from ‘cap in hand’.
What strikes me from the comments, is the name: Deaf Can Do.
The name itself implies, deaf can do anything but hear. So if the organisation really believes that, or at least markets itself as such …. why isn’t a deaf person the CEO? Why isn’t SMT filled with deaf people? Instead, we have deaf(blind) people in the streets, effectively begging. That’s a very odd image of “Deaf Can Do”. Deaf can do begging.
Why is the name of the organisation saying one thing, in reality its doing something totally different? Contradictory, no?
Whilst Paul says that deaf people don’t have to do this (they have a choice), is it actually a free choice? I don’t think it is. Deaf people, don’t exactly have access to good employment opportunities, and begging dressed up as raising money are one of a last resort. They can’t find employment elsewhere, because too many negative images around. Charities fuelling this nicely.
Organisations have somewhat a responsibility to understand this, a cycle that is never going to be broken as long as pitiful images are projected in the mainstream.
Do you really expect hearing people to employ a deaf person, they can do exactly the same as me (with adjustments) if the last thing they remember: tin can, I need help, chuck money at me? This image serves charities very well, it ensures their long term survival; however, the ultimate aim of any deaf charity should be to make itself redundant. Except that won’t happen, because its too financially lucrative. The real people who benefit from deaf charities, are hearing people who work for them (both financially and some feel good factor, “they are doing something worthwhile”).
All charities are public entites, and because of their status enjoy special privileges which really shouldn’t be abused. If you’re going to sell an ideal to the general public, then you really need to practice what you preach. In the meantime, we have a hearing CEO er, patronising deaf? Fabulous!
Alison
Of all posts here your post probably sums it up best.
Charity is supposed to be motivated to help others. Often it is more how it makes the giver feel than the receiver. Now this may seem cynical BUT we give often more because at the end of the day it gives us an endorphin rush. Most of us get a buzz thinking something we have done benefits others. I am sure, and I have said this before, people like Mother Theresa, Ghandi and Martin Luther King lived in a state of constant euphoria.
This is not a bad thing when you are feeding people who are starving or when like Ghandi or Luther King you are changing the world to make it more equal and more inclusive. But when what you do, potentially, contributes to the continuation of the very thing you are trying to alleviate it is a different matter.
Now I have been critisised here for using this example of the deafblind man. In his home state he has been readily identified. I have used him perhaps as the scapegoat to highlight an appalling state of affairs. I may have been wrong in doing this, but like the givers to his tin can my motives were not cynical.
Unfortunately Deaf Can Do, its CEO, staff, president, board members – all who have either posted or sent me private emails have taken offence to what has been written. They have, I think, missed all the points that you raised in your post. They can not see the big picture. Rather they have ghone in to protection mode.
The worst is that the man I used as an example has been thrust by them in the frontline again. Its like they are dodging a bullet and using him as a human shield. In an effort to survive and avoid damage they have used platitudes – its his choice they say, he is happy doing what he wants or worst we dont employ him we just pay the company that does to do our tin rattling .. in this way the absolve themselves of all blame. They lay blame on to me and other posters for daring to suggest that what they do is wrong, for all the reasons you so articulately presented.
As you say they are in a survival mode. They dont want to, at least at this point, enter into a constructive debate on the larger issues because admitting you are wrong, well it’s not a good image is it? Admitting that you are actually self serving, this can not be acknowledged can it?
Yes, they are all loaded questions.
But thank you Alison for your post. I, in the meantime, because I throw stones will continue to have the stones thrown at me by them. My stones are aimed to break down the bariiers thet these organisations unwittimngly put up for Deaf people and the stakeholders that they supposedly are helping. Their stones are aimed at bringing me down a peg – maybe I need that.
But the tide of opionion on these pages has been clearly articulated – to the CEO, the president, the staff and the Board of Deaf Can Do I implore you, again, to drop your defensive guard and actively engage in this debate so that people like the deafBblind man in question do not have to be used as scapegoats and examples like this ever again.
And the Final question to Mr Flynn – Are you prepared to step down and mentor a Deaf person for your position, create a climate for a Deaf person tobecome the CEO? Or do all the arguments presented by Alison apply to you?
This post was written by you, *as a member of the public*. You clearly told us you were out shopping and havinf lunch. Lets leave that for a moment.
Random hearing person goes shopping and has lunch with his mother. Sees deafblind person in the street collecting money for a charity, takes his own images of what he sees away. Somehow blogs it. It goes like:
“Saw a deafblind person in the street today, he amazed me! Despite being impaired of both his their senses he could sit there and collect money. I am so thamkful I am not living in a silent, scary & intimidating world!!!!!!! I gave him some money to help him, I wonder how he got home? I thought he was very brave. We take so much for granted, and we should be helping him. I have never met anyone who is both deaf and blind before so can not begin to imagine how they feel. How they won’t be able to do so many things in life, like have a proper job, that’s why I gave him money.”
Question: would the people at Deaf Can Do send e mails to that random hearing person blogging about what he observed in a public place? You wrote you saw a deafblind man in the street, you are not allowed to do that! You are not allowed to write about what you think of this, because its exploiting the deafbind person.
Somehow I don’t think emails would be written to the general hearing public because you cannot control what a person thinks or sees in a public place (freedom of thought, conscience…).
Yet an organisation appears to be doing precisely the opposite for deaf. Why the different treatment, is that not a form of discrimination? If not, why do you think not?
My other thought, what’s with the Big Brother role? Where’s the permission to attempt to control other people’s thoughts on what they saw in *public*? If you need convincing on this one, go and watch ‘The Lives of Others’.
Ultimately, the only thing you can control is portrayal. What people take away from your portrayal is out of your jurisdiction.
Random hearing person goes shopping and has lunch with his mother. Sees deafblind person in the street collecting money for a charity, takes his own images of what he sees away. Somehow blogs it. It goes like:
“Saw a deafblind person in the street today, he amazed me! Despite being impaired of both his their senses he could sit there and collect money. I am so thamkful I am not living in a silent, scary & intimidating world!!!!!!! I gave him some money to help him, I wonder how he got home? I thought he was very brave. We take so much for granted, and we should be helping him. I have never met anyone who is both deaf and blind before so can not begin to imagine how they feel. How they won’t be able to do so many things in life, like have a proper job, that’s why I gave him money.”
(Copied from the previous post)
A fictional letter from Paulo Flinch, Ceo of Can Do for Me
Dear Blogger
Thank you so much for your heart wrenching blog post. It is so good to see that there are compassionate and sympathetic members of the public willing to give up their hard earned dollar for those less fortunate.
What you have written describes the plight of many people with a dual sensory loss. They live wretched lives. They need organisations like Can Do For Me to be able live indpendently and be happy like any normal person.
Perhaps I can interest you in other initiatives of can Do For Me. For fifty dollars you can purchase three raffle tickets. The prize is a trip around the world, first class on an airline of your choice. Or perhapss I can interest you in CANDOOOIE Cookies. These wonderful cookies are only $10.00 a packet and well worth it at the price.
Buy purchasing a raffle ticket or a box of cookies Can Do For Me can continue to support people such as the man you saw in the shopping centre. WE can continue to pay our staff and myself to come into work and save them. For with out us their lives would be very wretched indeed.
Or you can become a member of Can Do For Me. For just $10 a year you will receive a Can Do For Me pen and key ring. Every month your will receive the very exciting and informative Can Do For Me Newsletter. You will read of other heart wrenching stories like what you have witnessed. And best of all you will learn first hand about every raffle and new product on offer from Can Do For Me which we know you will get involved in or want to buy.
Thank you for your donation. I hope it is the first of many to come.
Yours with Gratitude
Paolo Flinch
* Disclaimer .. if the contents of this letter should offend in anyway the CEO is absolved of all responsibility. The fundraiseing manager on a six figure salary is fully rersponsible for the content.
Alison…. it is so refreshing to read your post. Thank you for sharing and encouraging me to think things from a different angle.
Noticed still no reply or commitment from the CEO in question (or any CEOs related to this sector for this matter). I take it that the organisation doesnt agree with our concerns or that they won’t admit to defeat?
Will they (or any CEO) commit to ensuring they will appoint, mentor/coach and have in place deaf senior managers in their organisation as part of its succession planning.
Last but not least, it is interesting to see how the CEO in question clearly indicated that the deaf/blind person as being ‘intelligent’, ‘smart’ etc and if so why isnt this employed in this organisation maximising his skills and capabilities? The mystery continues.