Back to topic.
Each person's experience is different. My upbringing was based on positive reinforcement and support from my parents that helped make the optimistic person today. I believe there are always something better or something good that will come out of our own experiences and learn when things do not work as expected. I've also learned to be patient because results take time, even if it means taking a lifetime to see the end result.
Growing up I've never liked people with pessimistic attitudes. I noticed when people behave like that, they generally feel insecure about themselves and tend to lash out at people succumbing to their own emotions and use words as their weapons. Sometimes subconsciously find ways to drag other people down to their level thinking "If I'm feeling negative, others should, too." The key lay in growing up in a good household with a good positive, parental support system in place. Sure there were negative experiences but the key is that positive experiences outweigh the negative helping to instill those optimistic attitudes. It is also good to be the non-conformist peppered with independent and critical thinking skills. Having said that, I'm not discounting those whose own experiences were much different from mine that could have been much more drastic. I'm just pointing out that laying a good positive foundation is key for a more optimistic approach in life instead of living the life as a "drama queen" at every stage of his or her life passing out ad hominems like candies on Halloween night. Whenever I see that happens, it makes me wonder on just how happy or satisfied they are with their life. Even to the point of screeching "Where is OUR money going?" having the audacity and pure ego to think all money donated to deafness organizations ought to be going to "Deaf-centered" organizations because it's "OUR" money. Oh, really? Not saying that Commerson is that person or doing that. He has the right to opine in his own way with some valid points but the problem is the heavy wet blanket conspiracy to lay blame at everything that moves instead of acknowledging and holding accountable some of their own actions. The conspiratorial flag can be seen waving prominently in the first paragraph of his part II article when he wrote a mouthful:
The white supremacist audist capitalist patriarchy education-as-a-banking system hegemony has long since incapacitated our children.I understand the need to buck the system once in awhile but I just have a different approach and see things differently rather than laying it on thick such pessimistic attitudes laced with the "woe-is-me" approaches. That's just me. I like positive boot-strappers who strive for inclusiveness. But I think what Commerson was trying to say in one part of his video is the need to challenge the educational system by giving greater power to over to students and encourage them to develop their own critical thinking skills. A need to develop and think for themselves. Sure, and I agree. I asked a LOT of questions when I was a kid at school and never once did teachers stop me from asking those questions. We were encouraged to do so. People need to ask questions and think for themselves rather than pay homage in a prostrate position bowing to people without thinking (i.e. gullible). Today, that's exactly what I'm doing now in my blog by thinking for myself using the power of critical thinking. However, the problem seems to be he is essentially blaming everything as the source of the problem without going into details as to why, which ones, and how exactly but in glossed over generalities.
Ryan Commerson used a quote from Paulo Freire, who wrote "Pedagogy of the Oppressed":
“One cannot expect positive results from an educational or political action program which fails to respect the particular view of the world held by the people. Such a program constitutes cultural invasion, good intentions notwithstanding.”I find it quite ironic when Freire noted that one cannot expect positive results from an education or political action program in terms of hegemony because whenever people reach a certain level of power and control they may find themselves doing the same thing to other people when given the chance. We see hegemony in all walks of life, including some in the Deaf community as a subset of a larger culture on practicing oppression. The key is to have a more open society approach than a closed one because technology continues to increasingly close the communication gaps between deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people.
With my own independent, critical thinking approach I see differently the views on a variety of sensitive topics on deafness which has earned me much scorn from some Deaf people only because I'm the guy who usually throws a monkey wrench into their way of thinking. Instead of agreeing to disagree do they resort to openly call me names thinking its a winning argument. I've been shown pictures of the double bird shots with the crossed eye looks aimed at me on their own blogsite only to have it quickly taken down which was an indication that their arguments were purely based on emotion rather than approaching it from the view as a hearty debate.
I've said several years ago at the beginning of my blog in 2004 moving forward that technology would be the key to help close that communication gap with hearing people and provide alternative approaches to those who may have a different look on what deaf/hh people are capable of. I repeated my technology mantra during my verbal speech (see my video at time stamp from 1:25 to 1:42 with ASL interpreter) at Gallaudet University's vlog/blog conference in early 2007 and how technology could help easily spread and preserve sign language. I still believe it's true today that technology is key to our own separate individual successes such as CART, implantable hearing aids, cochlear implants, digital hearing aids, face to face communication technologies, video phone on laptops, video phone on cell phones, email, blogs, vlogs, remote interpreters, speech to text capabilities on smart phones for non-texters, ASL interpreters (relay calls) via smart phones, more CC shows, easier capability to add subtitles to your own videos, speech to text recognition on videos (e.g. YouTube), including more FM induction loops in public places, and many more down the road not yet seen developed or incorporated widely. I'm the ever so optimistic person with never a dour moment. In order to educate people, one must remain positive. The moment you go dour and go negative by making it personal is the moment when judgement gets clouded.
I've always believed that the best voice to show to the world is simply to show the end result of what we're capable of rather than resort to attacking individuals, companies, or organizations and make it personal. Leaders need to lead and be accommodating to others and hold to a higher ethical standard when it comes to accountability instead of hiding behind the facade of "leading from behind" that serves only as crutch and an excuse.
10 comments:
A couple of thoughts, Mike:
Thank you for reading and viewing the series. Discourse is a good thing.
The series is written by both Alison Aubrecht and Ryan Commerson. Just wanted you to hold me accountable, too, not just Ryan.
Regarding the captioning- or lack thereof- Ryan and I are attempting to do an authentic presentation of both languages (ASL and English) which is why we have both the English version and the ASL version. We feel that by simply captioning we are compromising both languages and the culture inherent in language. Still, this is an experiment and we are open to ideas.
We also agree wholeheartedly with the need for positive thoughts and compassionate understanding even as we set boundaries and challenge oppressive systems. Our series is not finished. We have two more installments coming and our goal is to first ask people to consider looking at education from a different perspective (get outside of the deaf Ed box) and then present ideas on how we can do things differently (next installment).
One more thing, if you look at II.ii, you will see specific examples of things we feel create barriers to learning (and to critical thinking).
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
Alison (Aubrecht?), I would disagree with you on the captioning aspect. You are attempting the "purity" route. English captions for a signed video does not compromise the video or its message in any way. If that's the case, then better bring out your protest signs and demand that Gallaudet University stop adding captions to their thousands of signed videos because it ruins the "purity" or the message of those signed videos. This is almost on par the equivalent argument from hearing people saying that by adding captions on movies or TV shows will interfere with the quality or the "purity" of that show. Which, on the surface, would appear they were essentially saying that handing out transcripts would be the other option. Laughable. Yet your argument cannot persuasively be made for foreign films when subtitles are added because, heaven forbid, mustn't affect the purity of a spoken foreign language or its message might get messed up and compromise both languages at the same time!
I'm a big believer of total inclusiveness without the bull nonsense or excuses when it comes to videos and captions whether videos are done in a signed or spoken format. There are instances when people prefer a signed video with the help of captions over a transcript because they can get to see body language and emotion at the same time. You can't get that on paper. Others would rather read. Others read and watch both. Others who are learning to sign would want that additional help seeing both the captions and signing at the same time. One must consider all those possibilities.
Alison, I am continually disappointed in people who attempt to use "purity" route when, ironically, we have Deaf, deaf and hard of hearing people clamoring for greater and greater captioning access. Using the "purity" route for signed videos when screaming for better captioning access is simply the height of hypocrisy. This is your opportunity to reach beyond 0.01 percent population with your videos (whether you have a written English version or not). Because you'd have a video already with captions and can easily be embedded in blogs and websites covering deafness related issues.
Yet, every time a person who uses the "purity" excuse or other reasons such as in the name of politics (i.e. "get even"), I simply see that as a crutch excuse not to do the extra footwork in promoting greater inclusiveness for all people. What you have promoted is a "Deaf only" video rather than a video for everybody. This is what you and many others have been screaming for years demanding better captioning access but refuse to do it yourselves when it comes to your own signed videos. In my opinion, that's a sad outlook on things regarding "oppression" when you are doing pretty much the same thing. Next time, when you turn on a tv show or go to a movie, ask for a transcript instead. Not quiet the same thing when it comes to the concept of inclusiveness when captioning is key.
I hope you reconsider your stance regarding captioning/subtitling your own videos.
peanut gallery heckling here on the notion of captioning ASL videos or not:
hope I'm not drifting too far from the point, BUT...
if Commerson and Aubrecht are that serious about getting their message out to the world about changing the education system, why on earth would you NOT caption that message? since 0.001% of the world uses ASL, nobody would understand a captionless video.
duh.
seems to me that Commerson and others who spend a lot of time and energy whining about how awful everything is, are preaching to the choir - of other deaf people who are also whining about how oppressed they are and how evil AGBell is.
I agree with your overall point, Mike, that one's message would be more likely to promote change if it was positive. I recall Commerson was the one who ignited the whole furor at Gallaudet by leading the walkout when JKF was announced as the President-elect. I don't have anything against him personally. He's actually a pretty nice guy. Obviously, articulate. I'm just wondering if his actions match his message.
as a side note: as an educator, and a product of the American public school system, I'm heartily sick of people bashing the school system. No system is perfect, but it works for most. Like someone famous once said: "99% of success in life is achieved by just showing up."
Anonymous the First
"...that's a sad outlook on things regarding "oppression" when you are doing pretty much the same thing".
Exactly! Thanks, Mike.
I hope the Butterfly Effect series authors will reconsider their stance on captioning their videos, too. It remains a one-way street so far.
Ann_C
Ann,
One woman who confided yesterday that she wanted to know what was going on and went over to watch the video. The moment she saw that it wasn't subtitled she immediately dropped it and didn't bother to watch it at all. That's one example of an opportunity lost to get the message out or across. Even with subtitles does not mean their message or opinion will be accepted by everybody. Just that you have the opportunity to reach out to more people. This is what CC supporters have been banging their heads all these years telling companies and people alike about the need to CC their videos and yet the irony persists among some Deaf people who insist on "purity" sake not to include subtitles to their videos when it is obvious that they have the means to do so.
I've had more thoughts about the content of Comerson's video. Truthfully, I couldn't watch it all the way to the end. Only Ella could create a more depressing and cynical video. What a total downer.
Comerson was rather selective in his recap of the history of public education as it was conceived in the early history of our nation. Education was different 200 years ago. Things are quite different now, for reasons too numerous to go into.
Clearly, Comerson is an acolyte of Jonathan Kozol and other reform educators. Kozol is highly regarded and much awarded for his efforts to improve the public school system. I don't deny that the system is inequitable, that's a given. Affluent areas have lots of money to spend on education, and poor areas have less. Students from affluent areas do better in school, and students in poor areas don't.
The problem with inequalities in the system is not simply money, and it's not entirely the schools' fault. The real root of the problem is poverty. It's a serious social ill, a self-perpetuating cycle, and difficult to solve. Even if you give struggling schools more money, children raised in poverty still don't do better in school. Some do, of course. But generally speaking, poverty has long-lasting consequences on a child's physical, cognitive, and academic potential.
Instead of blaming schools, it would be better to focus on eradicating poverty.
Anonymous the First
Take D.C. for example, for a few years they had a school voucher available to poor income families in predominantly black neighborhoods giving parents the choice on which school they can send their children to. Many sent their kids to private schools where kids were beginning to excel and improve their academic performances but it took Congress (Senate) to kill that program 2 years ago and put it to a halt primarily because teacher unions didn't like the arrangement on allowing low-income District children to attend private schools at a fraction of the cost to the city to educate them versus public schools. As for DC they saw an 21% increase in graduation rate with mixed improvement. The idea was to give control and decision over to parents on where to send their kids whether it'd be at a nearby private or public school of their choice. Recognize the problems inherent in public schools. For example, in York City from five years ago the district had 440 teachers but 295 administrative and support staff. The stuff of bureaucracy. For ever 1.5 teachers come with 1 administrative or support staff. Horrible bureaucracy.
So, that's another aspect regarding problems of poverty, you have control over how and where tax-payers' money would go. But this is getting off topic. Mostly what Ryan focused on is among deaf/hh students in schools. I agree with what you said about poverty and its lasting impact in a variety of areas.
Comerson's conspiracy thinking about why schools are so bad underlie all of his thinking about the problems in deaf education. His premise is that education is all controlled by old, rich, white men, who are only in it to line their own pockets, and want to mass-produce dumb workers who will do what they're told and feed the humming machinery of the vast military-industrial complex. Or the oral-aural-implant complex.
Yawn.
Anonymous the First and Only
In this nature when someone like him with his way of choosing words and not being considerate to have it subtitled, then he's on the downfall.
Excellent blog! I, for one, tend to get overtly 'negative' all the time. I take less time to enjoy or celebrate while spending most of my time worrying or ruminating over some incident in the past. Thank-you for such positive write ups.
Rosun
Post a Comment