Concept of Color vs Concept of Sound

Here's a great captioned video of a guy born blind who have no concept of what color is like and tries to explain to the sighted audience that it's fruitless for them to try and describe colors to him in the hope he'd understand the concept of what color is like. It simply goes nowhere. Reframe that thinking when trying to describe the concept of sound to a deaf person born completely deaf since birth who have not worn a hearing aid or cochlear implant at all, and never heard what sound is like. The idea is the same which is why the concept of sound is so important for those who can hear and discriminate the differences. You don't know what you have lost if you have never experienced it in the first place.

The Deafening of America

In a Facebook conversation it got around to the use of the word "Deaf" and how one court is trying to avoid using a noun that create different classes of people such as deaf and hard of hearing. I asserted that by saying "Deaf" will not work to define a group of people with hearing loss since the word "deaf" has been far too long been ingrained to mean one thing. Same goes for "Deaf" as a more recent definition coined by Padden and Humphries back in the 1970s. I have broached this topic a few times in the past.

A comparison was used for the word "Deaf" by using "Blind/blind" in making a case. A term used by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB.ORG):

".... all of their members to be blind regardless of visual acuity."

To them it creates a "classless" non-discriminatory definition within their own class of people (B/blind) from those with normal range of vision even though 90% of their members happens to be not legally blind. I'd like to see NAD admit that some of their members are not legally deaf as well even though I suspect some of the NAD officers are pushing for the whole "Deaf" wording. Just a suspicion. Not that it's true or anything like that.

This "Blind" definition is still discriminatory. What I mean is that it still show differences between classes of people from the "haves and have-nots," essentially so.  But using the "Blind" description/definition will not work just as "Deaf" will not work. What I am talking about are what people see themselves as.

Let's take the mildest form of hearing loss whether it's in one one or both ears they would not consider themselves as "deaf."

The meaning of the word "deaf" has been ingrained for far too long to mean one thing and that evokes that a deaf person means the person cannot hear a darned thing.  In retrospect using "Deaf" won't work to include all people with all range and types of hearing loss. The same goes for "blind" which evokes a description of one who cannot see a single thing. People see "deaf" and "blind" as the extreme end of hearing and visual (acuity) loss, not the mild types.  Instead of that, people try and use an alternate "safe" terms like "legally blind" and "legally deaf" to discern the differences but even that can present problems, too.  When one says "blind" to what does the term evokes for you? Same for "deaf." What does the term evokes for you? Perspectives vary.

There are people with 20/20 vision who do wear glasses. Are they blind? Hardy. Saying "legally blind" emphasizes the extremity of visual loss as opposed to simply saying "blind" which doesn't help much here. Do people with mild hearing loss considered as "legally deaf"?  Even if the person is 1 to 5 db above normal hearing range? Or even 10 dB? The type of accommodation and function between people with vision loss and hearing loss are quite different in level and scope. With glasses you don't miss things visually but with hearing aids you can miss things such as words by not understanding every spoken syllable. There is an inherent problem with the word "deaf" (saying "D"eaf doesn't help either) to include every single people with any amount of hearing loss, even by 1 or 5 dB above normal hearing range. Just won't work. The same goes with the word "blind."

If the court want to create a word that does not break into two different classes of people (e.g. deaf and hard of hearing) then create a word, a noun, that does not carry a stigma. A word that's neutral in meaning. A word that doesn't create a misunderstanding (e.g. deaf, Deaf, blind, Blind). In other words, find something else other than those words because they won't work to fit all people with hearing loss. Just like "Blind." It won't work. Find a noun that fits and describe people with a certain condition. Even by saying "Deaf" is still discriminatory but the word does discriminate between those who cannot hear to those who can hear. It does create a separate class. The problem is the amount of functional differences. Same goes for "Blind."

It's true that we fit in the category of people with hearing loss. There's no denying that.  The same goes for those that fit in the category of people with vision loss. But are all of them blind? There's already an inherent problem in using that word, capitalized or not. Not matter what words to use to define a group, it's still discriminating between classes of the haves and have nots, essentially so. People use other terms like "mobility-challenged" instead of "crippled" or "handicapped." But saying "mobility-challenged" evokes extremity of a condition but it's certainly far better than the other two denigrating words. I'm older and can't run like a young teen in a track event but I'm still quick and nimble. Am I "mobility-challenged"?

What about "visually-challenged"? Or "hearing-challenged." Or "hearing impaired" which is about the hearing that is impaired, not the person. Same for "visually impaired." What is the best PC word around to avoid "classes" of definitions and not offend or confuse anyone? Saying "Deaf" will not work.

Good luck with that one.

KVP takes a pill and the D/B Fiasco?

KVP. You know her blog. But, alas, the blog is no longer there.

Blog has been removed.  

Sorry, the blog at karenvonpills.blogspot.com has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs.

Not that the blog was important or anything (see the old archived piece here), it was an odd ranting blog that sort of spiraled out of control in various places in her blog. Not all of them, mind you. KVP's blog appeared as a blip on the internet horizon and then disappeared.  The last blog was on March 25, 2013. Four days ago. The last post showed a picture of a man holding up a business card that says, "When people starts (sic) talking against you....Means you are growing!" And then her blog disappears. How ironic. But you can still read it via Google Reader by subscribing by typing in the internet address to her blogsite. And read what you may have missed. It's all there. Defamation and all. The good, bad and the ugly.

Next.

BTW, I heard about the latest so called "rift," if you call it that or true at all, about what's going on at Gallaudet University.   I believe it had to do with two Deaf-blind candidates who were not chosen as a speaker for an upcoming event but a person of color was chosen instead. If there's any truth to that we'll have to wait. Some believe this may be due to the McCaskill brouhaha last semester and so an "appeasement" was perhaps made towards people of color by picking a different speaker.  Again, I'm hearing this through the grapevine.  Regardless, the deaf/blind have it hard when it comes to communication access even at Gallaudet University. I did several blogs about deaf/blind over the years including this fascinating deaf/blind pianist since I'm a ragtime pianist myself, of course. In one of the blogs I discussed adding captions to signed videos such as "No subtitles for Patty" and "The advantages of subtitles on vlogs. It was surprising how so many deaf vloggers groused at the idea of adding captions/subtitles to their blogs.  One deaf/blind commenter said something profound about being deaf/blind in a community full of sighted people like at Gallaudet University.

Please keep in mind, the Deaf-Blind community is really at the bottom of the totem pole, struggling to be seen, heard and recognized. It does not really help that our peers, the Deaf community, responds in this manner whether they realize it or not.

Bottom of the totem pole is an understatement. They continue to be marginalized in all aspects of life, including at colleges. If you want "Community Accountability" then this should be one of them according to the Tactile Mind blogger who is Deaf/blind herself.

I think it’s time that the Deaf community learned about accountability – towards its very members – grassroots, women, men, the educated, around the world, the blind, the DeafPlus, et cetera – and truly learned how to INTEGRATE that into their livelihoods.  

Because you might as well get used to me butting into your lives with my lovely hands tactiling yours in FORM OF COMMUNICATION using the very COMMON method: SIGN LANGUAGE. Any sign language around thw world. That can be said for others, however, this opinion article is based on my experiences and views being an international lecturer meeting hundreds if not thousands of Deafblind people around the world who say that they grew up Deaf, but now that they’re Deafblind, they don’t feel part of the Deaf community anymore.  

My answer to that?  

It takes two sides to come HALF WAY to communicate. The Deafblind people have to come halfway and educate the others how to communicate with them; The Deaf people have to come halfway to learn how to support them, how to integrate them within the Deaf community, to ensure that rejection is not a verb in anyone’s language.

Indeed.

Community accountability does not mean challenging a deaf person to prove that she's a deaf-blind person. Only the most crudely obnoxious and uncaring people would even do that. Community Accountability means that you take the effort to include them in your "Deaf world" such as providing subtitles to your signing videos.

As a Deaf-Blind person, I truly appreciate subtitling in vlogs because I am legally blind now. It does help a lot to be still involved in the v/blogosphere with the subtitles. If there wasn't any, I wouldn't complain because I visit a lot of blogs.

Patty's not alone on wanting to feel welcomed and involved in these signing vlogs if only they included subtitles so the d/b can understand what's was being said for those with limited vision and are still able to read.

I'm going to respond generally here.   

When a vlog isn't subtitled, I admit I do feel I miss out a lot of what the person is signing. ASL is my language. I do rely on my DH to tactile to me what the vlogger signs.   

A suggestion if I may offer to any vlogger that wishes to help the Deaf-Blind community with subtitling. Yellow fonts with the black background is actually much better to read than the standard white fonts.   

The white fonts is just too strong and some words can be missed out. Yellow is softer and words are easier to read.   

Please keep in mind, the Deaf-Blind community is really at the bottom of the totem pole, struggling to be seen, heard and recognized. It does not really help that our peers, the Deaf community, responds in this manner whether they realize it or not.   

Tactile smile with hugs, Patty

That's the crux of it. Easy to understand and quite a reasonable request for deaf people who like to do their signing vlogs but not include subtitles/captions. Spare me the inane excuses for not doing it. Just admit that you're lazy and don't care for doing it and I'll accept that honest appraisal of yourself for those who are completely capable of doing so versus those who are not as tech-savvy or English-savvy.  The least they can do is own up to their demands of others this "Community Accountability" but yet they become one of the biggest violators of the lot when it comes to their signing vlogs by shoving the deaf/blind out of the loop.  It just drips with hypocrisy. Kind of like signing a public pact to not cyberbully but in the end becomes one of the biggest cyberbullies around. Do yourselves a favor with this "Community Accountability," include the Deaf-blind into your world and stop being an ass for once with stupid excuses to match with your behaviors.

A cure is worth it....or not?

The now famous news of gerbils whose own deafness were nearly restored using stem cells to treat their hearing loss will probably be the turning point in medical history on the path to restore hearing loss for the human population. It'll be a matter of time until we are able to reverse hearing loss in humans using stem cells. This would bode good news amoung the many 35 million people with hearing loss in the United States. Not to mention a highly lucrative field once it gets going. I would say that 98% of the population with hearing loss would more than likely accept this news as positive and that many would accept this medical procedure for themselves instead of opting for hearing aids or cochlear implants.  The remaining population (2% of the total population of people with hearing loss) consisting of some 600,000 or so culturally deaf people would either accept this news positively, negatively or remain on the fence about it. 

Now, being culturally deaf does not mean all of them would be against this medical choice on choosing to restore hearing loss should a medical procedure actually becomes available.

Being culturally deaf also does not mean a person has to be born with a hearing loss first and learn to sign early on. Many late deafened people are culturally deaf.

Being culturally deaf does not mean a person must not wear hearing aids or cochlear implants. Or that he or she must go "au naturel" instead of relying on hearing aids or cochlear implants. Many culturally deaf people wear hearing aids or cochlear implants.

I would say that those culturally deaf people who wear hearing aids or cochlear implants would be more than likely support for the restoration of hearing loss in people using stem cells than not should it becomes available and a reality. And that it becomes a medical choice and not a law.

Would I take it?

Sure.

It'd be for my right ear only since that is the only ear that can hear well and it wouldn't take much for my ear adjust to the new clarity of sound in its natural splendor without my hearing aid for the first time in my life. As for my left ear I don't wear a hearing aid since I do not derive any real benefit due to the severe/profound hearing loss I have. Although the possibility does exist that I could "train" my left ear for years with a hearing aid and then opt for the procedure. Who knows?  I'll just bide my time and if this medical procedure does happen during my lifetime then I'll have the opportunity to make an important decision.

I'd say it's worth it for myself to see that my hearing loss in my right ear be restored and be fully functional. Others will have a different opinion about it and many would personally be against it. So, for those who are shaking their heads, if there's a cure for blindness, then please do not opt for it for yourself or for your baby if you have a serious vision problem. After all, you wouldn't want to look like a hypocrite for being against on the restoration of hearing but accept the restoration of sight?  Can't have one's cake and eat it, too.

Deaf culture? Yes. Blind culture? No. Arrogance?

Alicia made a response today in a blog called "Why do deaf people want to be considered a culture and not a disability, but not blind people? "

Because while Deaf people have their own language, arts, poetry, stories, and so forth... blind people do not.

Says who? Isn't this rather an arrogant thing to say? Would it be arrogant and perhaps selfish for a Deaf person to say that?  For anybody to say that?

In an old discussion forum from several years ago one person who is blind had this to say about "Blind culture."

Does blindness have a culture? I've asked this question a number of times in various situations and the most common answer is "no". The subject of whether blindness has borne a culture is a topic of debate in many blindness-related forums and meetings.

The existence of a deaf culture is not in dispute. Many people are proud to be counted in that community and consider their inability to hear to be a characteristic and not a disability. Blindness is viewed in almost the opposite light. It's odd.there are many people who would attach certain characteristics and behaviors to all blind, and yet deny that we have a culture of our own.

To admit that blindness was more than a disability, that it was a cultural characteristic of which we could be proud, would be like finally admitting that we are not the pitiful creatures that the media, and some of society, usually portray. To call us a culture would be like recognizing our uniqueness without belittling it. Would it be an accurate term though? Are we truly a culture?

I posit that we are. Many of us use a form of written communication that differs from the mainstream. Braille bears no visual resemblance to the written alphabet and only a person trained to read Braille can do so. And, it is a form of reading and writing unique to the blind. Even (most) visually impaired print readers have to either get their materials from an alternative source, or use technical aides to enhance the print.

The need to do this is unique to the visually impaired. Like some signing deaf people need an aural interpreter, those of us not around our chosen written medium need someone as a print interpreter. We may share the same language as the majority, but the way in which we access printed material differs markedly

Alyssa Hopfe continues and note the bolded words....

Let's review the major points though. I believe we are a culture because: Many of us share a 'written' language, or at the very least, the need to have an alternative method of accessing materials.

We share linguistic traits unique to the blind.

We are a minority symbolically identified as being unique among those around us.

We are linked by the attitudes of those around us and by the problems we face.

A number of us live in similar economic conditions.

We form groups to further the aims of the whole.

We share some methods of understanding our world and we sometimes share mannerisms.

We share internal conflicts alien to the larger community.

We are intrinsically linked by the concerns that we have.

Now for the benefits of recognizing our status as a culture rather than just a group or community. People would begin to see blindness as a characteristic rather than a problem to be solved. People wouldn't automatically assume that we are hopeless or that we'd sell our souls for sight. Whatever divisions within, discrimination would be met with a powerful response. Our unique ways of gathering information would be seen as cultural traits.

We would develop more pride in ourselves with the knowledge that we were a culture and that our "mannerisms" (some of us have them) were a norm. People would be less apt to say "So and so succeeded DESPITE his blindness" and may even start to see blindness as a component of the success.

Organizations and corporations would be forced to accommodate us as they have the deaf (closed captioning for them, audio description for us).

Readers would be bound by an official code of ethics. Complete integration or "normalization" wouldn't be one of the goals considered when educating the blind. Medical breakthroughs wouldn't be heralded as "the only true road to equality" and they wouldn't be what we supposedly pine for the most. One of the largest pluses would be that blind people would be hired to work with other blind people as a matter of course and respect for a unique culture. No longer would a sighted person be considered an optimum teacher for a blind person. American Sign Language (ASL) is considered by many to be a complex and beautiful language, whereas Braille is seen as a last resort. This double standard MUST end.

In order to gain respect, and for blindness to be seen in it's proper light, I believe that we need to recognize our special status as a culture and act accordingly. We should hold our heads up and be proud of what we are! Yes, proud.blindness and all. We should call ourselves what we truly are, by virtue of bonds formed by language, experiences and concerns.we are a culture. For those of you who disagree with my stance, I ask that you at least consider the possibility that what I say has merit.

To deny or not recognize blind people as having a Blind culture would be the same as not recognizing Deaf people of their own culture as well. Doing so would be an act of arrogance.

New technology on captioning and audio at theaters

This is what I'm talking about. Let innovation drive technology as a solution rather than have laws forcing companies to do the impossible.

New technology will start being rolled out later this year in major movie cinemas, making it possible for deaf and blind people to follow the film they are watching.

The digital technology, which includes providing captions and audio descriptions, will be introduced for films screened by the four major cinema groups.

New ideas and innovation are what make these things possible. There are always new technologies being developed for deaf and blind people, and people with various conditions or disabilities.

How to describe piano ragtime to a deaf person....

There are certain music I believe that most deaf people, especially those born with a hearing loss or lose it early in life, do not even know it exist or even care for it. One of that music is ragtime. I genre of music that I've come to know and enjoy immensely.

What is ragtime anyway? According to Scott Joplin, the "King of Ragtime," he aptly described ragtime music as "weird and intoxicating" when played right. Yeah, but that doesn't describe it does it? In ragtime on a piano it is the (melodic) syncopation of the right hand with the accented bass movement of the left hand. Chords do not define ragtime but the syncopated style that makes ragtime music recognizable. Which is why it's called "ragged time." Confused? Ok. The bare bones description. On the piano it combines the left hand bass movements (the "oom-pah oom-pah" feel to it) with the deep bass notes that you can actually feel the vibration. The right hand movements play the syncopated movements that produces the melody with an off-beat sound to it. This is mostly the higher notes which is harder to feel and detect its vibrations. With that combination of sound it gives that particular "weird and intoxicating" flavor of music to it.

It's hard to describe to a deaf person on why ragtime is so enjoyable and pleasing to listen to just as it's hard to describe to a blind person why a particular painting is so wonderful and pleasing to look at. Descriptions can only go so far. Other senses must be used help fill in this gap.

First, if you have a good set of speakers for your computer (or to an even larger, stronger external set of speakers) let's go to John Roache's website where he describes what ragtime is all about and a chance for you to feel (and perhaps hear) what it "sounds" like. John Roache is able to break it down into separate, identifiable music and when combined makes it into a ragtime music. In this case, he uses the familiar tune of "Mary had a little lamb" and turns that into a ragtime example.

All I can say is that as with jazz, stride piano, novelty piano, or even ragtime piano, one has to appreciate the musical qualities behind them in order to truly enjoy these genre periods. I don't expect Deaf people to understand why I enjoy and play ragtime piano except that I find it "weird and intoxicating" whenever I play it. It's a musical art that keeps on giving.