Reading this bleached article piece again and again I can only conclude it to be a non sequitur piece. It made no sense, intellectually so. What I saw is an emotional piece in the guise as an intellectual discourse simply because of the attempt to insert the idea of "neglect" into the whole picture when it comes to parents' decision on implanting their deaf child. That agenda is clear. A subtle message without overtly saying it. Hence, my question to the author. What is he trying to say? What is his official stance on cochlear implantation for children?
You have parents making an informed decision on getting a cochlear implant for their deaf child versus making an uninformed decision of Jamaican parents who apply bleaching agent to their children's dark skin in the effort to lighten their skin color. The former is not a neglect or child abuse issue while the latter is definitely considered as a neglect and child abuse issue because of the increased inherent medical risk, health issues and side effects to the child where it can disfigure the skin on the face, the most prominent feature to be bleached. An attempt to play "doctor" while using unsafe chemical products on the skin.
It's not even close between the two examples. Nothing to compare when it comes to parallels.
One is based on an approval from doctors and specialists before getting a cochlear implant while the bleaching example has nothing to do with any medical issue but about vanity and peer-pressure. The decision process on getting a cochlear implant is a long one that require many visits and researching before deciding on implantation. As for the bleaching part, it's an impulse decision without any regard to the child's own health and well being.
Again, no parallels. Nothing to compare.
The bleaching of skin is a fad much like tattooing. Cochlear implantation is not a fad. Bleaching is not a medical issue while getting a cochlear implant is a medical issue. No different from getting Lasik surgery for your eyes to help improve vision or getting the right prescription glasses for those blurry eyes. There is something to be said when senses are impaired do people seek medical correction or assistance. Changing the color of one's skin isn't a medical correction or a need but purely a cosmetic one, just like using Botox to enhance the face.
Again, nothing to compare.
The bleaching of skin is due to peer-pressure based on the need for social acceptance and survival. Getting a cochlear implant addresses the need to access sound and not about peer-pressure or survival. However, cochlear implantation does allow the opportunity to develop listening and speaking skills over time. Bleaching one's own skin does not improve anybody's skills but it's purely on the basis of social acceptance. You cannot compare between the two as having parallels. Simply irreconcilable.
Getting a cochlear implant does not preclude a child from learning sign language. Nor does it preclude a child from a social aspect on the opportunity to mingle among his or her signing, deaf, hh or hearing peers. You have a child's right to hear from the very beginning when the opportunity to develop listening skill would be at its peak (0 to 4 years old). Once that opportunity is past then it is too late to have that upper hand for the rest of the child's life. It's purely a medical fact. Timing is everything when it comes to the brain's development on learning new sound and words. Having said that, the introduction to deaf culture can occur anytime during a child's life from birth to adulthood should child decide later or get introduced with the help of his or her parents.
Again, noting to compare when it comes to parallels.
That blog piece appears to covertly impart guilt on parents by using emotionally laden words like "cultural genocide," "neglect," and "criminal" and parallel them with the bleaching of children all in the guise of an intellectual discourse as far as I'm concerned since the author refuse to clarify his reason for that blog piece. I am left to make this observation on my own. It turns out to be a non sequitur piece since one example is considered to be a medical issue while the other is obviously not.
5 comments:
Wow...don't u give up? Focus your family rather than creating so many senseless blogs. Some of them are pretty valid but the rest you surely dig your head into the ground like an ostrich. Cmon. Move on, lil Mikey
I got to agree with you there, Mike. Bleaching your skin for cosmetic reasons, even if the bleachee hopes to get a better job, more money, or other benefits still isn't the equivalent of getting a cochlear implant. Bleaching one's skin may, or may not, be an expression of internalized oppression from colonialism. Not all people of color feel the same way about their skin shade.
Living with a hearing loss, on the other hand, implies less access to sound. It's not necessary to have full access to sound in order to have a happy life. Deaf people are very adaptable, and very diverse in how they accommodate their deafness. Nothing wrong with being deaf. Same as nothing wrong with being very dark or very light. Same as nothing wrong with having no hearing aid, one hearing aid, two hearing aids, or one or two CIs. Not a big deal.
I too don't quite get the point ... but it sure feels to me like yet one more thinly disguised slam against CIs being a manifestation of dysconscious awdism, colonialism, oppression, ... yawn ... zzz ...
honestly - if Deaf Echo or whoever it was doesn't want a CI, don't get one. For the rest of us who have one, want one, or dont give a fig either way - please go away and get a life.
anony @ 7:41 PM,
The name is "Mike." Remember that while you hide behind that anonymous shield of yours.
Anony @ 7:42 PM,
Yeah. It's strange how they try and say it's "racism" whenever blacks bleach their own skin to make it lighter when it's really about vanity. I mean, they are still black. They still have the same facial features and what not that identify them with a certain race. Those with au cafe lait color are still a part of the black race to those with deeper color. And at the same time, you don't see people call others out for wanting a deeper tan as having "deeply ingrained racism," do you? Rather convenient to go after blacks, I'd say. It's vanity for personal or social reasons, even pressure. Just the same as Obama who dyed his hair darker to hide the growing white hair. Must be that deeply ingrained ageism thingy. He's an ageist!
Here's the problem with these folks. They are always asking these questions such as how they feel about themselves as a deaf person or as hard of hearing person? A black person or as a dark-skinned person? They are perennially focused on the "what you are" rather than simply accepting them as who they are instead. There's a difference. They look for labels while for others, labels do not matter and not the issue. Keep watching that and they keep bringing up the same "what you are" meme. It never fails.
I realize that I owe Deaf Echo an apology. I was disrespectful in my comments about him getting a life. I disagreed with his ideas, but gave in to an immature hissy fit about yet one more sly assault on people (of any age) who get a CI.
I appreciated Deaf Echo's points about bleached Jamaicans still being black Jamaicans, and about deaf people (of any age) still being deaf despite their amplification. Yeah - so what? People who get an implant are not trying to "pass" as hearing. They want to to be able to hear - plain and simple. Maybe Deaf Echo cannot hear, and thinks no one else needs to be able to hear? What is so wrong about wanting to hear anything at all?
To have some hearing ability does not exclude the possibility that one can also be a strong, positive, culturally competent D/deaf person. I know lots of culturally "D"eaf people who are audiologically hard of hearing, or wear hearing aids or implants, and speak intelligibly. They are happy with themselves and do not consider themselves oppressed victims. Their Deaf friends and community are happy with them too and accept them as they are, amplified or not.
In the case of deaf babies, their parents want them to be able to hear as much as possible. I'm pretty sure they KNOW their child is still deaf. Hopefully, they will love their deaf child regardless of how much or how well s/he hears, listens, speaks, or uses sign language.
I have noticed a tendency in Deaf people who oppose CIs for deaf babies to ascribe malicious intent to parents who implant their deaf babies. They throw around scary words like "genocide." The implication is that the Hearing parents do not accept or love their Deaf child as s/he is. The hearing loss is looked on as something wrong that needs to be fixed.
Maybe that group doesn't ascribe malicious intent, but the long-term outcome of having implanted deaf babies grow up to be implanted deaf students and later implanted deaf adults will inevitably leads to the demise of the Deaf community and ASL, and that would be bad.
Yet, deaf children have been getting implanted for more than 25 years and guess what? The Deaf community is still around. Shows no sign of shrinking. The last big gathering I went to, I could look around the room and need more than two hands to count the number of Deaf people I saw with implants, vigorously signing away to each other. Seems like a non-issue to me, wouldn't you say, Mike?
Anonymous #2
Post a Comment