CAD and the AB 455 California Bill

The AB 455 bill is looking more like a bill that needs to be thrown out because it lacks an official definition for the term "Deaf" seen here in the bill. Unless the bill can provide an official definition to the term "Deaf" then perhaps the bill can be saved rather than scrapped.

But there's a problem.

The confusion could be blamed on zealots who wanted to change the definition of the word "Deaf" with the capitalized "D" to mean all inclusive of those with a hearing loss from mild to profound, whether they know sign language or not.  In fact, you have people like Dr. Genie Gertz, Ella Mae Lentz, and  others who are in the same boat and would even agree with what Dr. Grushkin said,

I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews.

And compare that to the official definition of "Deaf" according to Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) who invented the capitalized, big D, word explains the meaning and difference between "D"eaf and "d"eaf:

We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture. The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society. We distinguish them from, for example, those who find themselves losing their hearing because of illness, trauma or age; although these people share the condition of not hearing, they do not have access to the knowledge, beliefs, and practices that make up the culture of Deaf people.

In short, the term "Deaf" has always been defined as people who are culturally deaf and signs in ASL. That already defined word has already entered into the collective conscious minds of people for almost three decades. But people have a nasty habitat on putting the term "Deaf" into a bill or a bylaw without providing an official definition as a clarification.

California Association of the Deaf bylaws is another good example who used the term "Deaf" peppered throughout but no definition explaining the meaning "Deaf." Yet also, their bylaws make no reference to the term "hard of hearing," either. They didn't write down "Deaf and hard of hearing" in their bylaws like the AB 455 bill did but used only the  "Deaf" term instead. In other words they made the term "Deaf" to mean all inclusive those with a hearing loss from mild to profound rather than to mean only for culturally deaf people.

 At the very bottom of the bylaws CAD has a definition of the term "Deaf":

"Deaf is a term that includes all the individuals: born deaf, deafened in early, sometimes late childhood, for whom American Sign Language and Deaf community/culture collectively represent their primary experience and existence regardless of hearing disability they have.”

Was that an official definition of "Deaf" from CAD? Curiously so in their most recently updated bylaws as of August of 2011 they presented no definition for the term "Deaf" in various forms such as "Deaf community," "Deaf individuals," and the single term "Deaf."

Over the last three decades Deaf (culturally deaf) people have made a point that they "own" the word "Deaf" and for it to mean explicitly one thing, a deaf culture group that uses ASL. They have always agreed with Padden and Humphries' definition of that term.

Deaf with a capital D is a cultural term, rather than an audiological one. As defined by Carol Padden and Tom Humphries in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988), Deaf refers ‘to a particular group of deaf people who share a language—American Sign Language (ASL)—and a culture.”

Hence, it's understandable seeing the confusion of the bill's language writing in "Deaf and hard of hearing" into the bill when earlier it was written as "deaf and hard of hearing."  Exactly what is the official definition of the term "Deaf" seen in the AB 455 bill?

Well? What is it?

I'm waiting.

UPDATE: Of course, this is something that Tara Congdon failed to realize in her "investigative" reporting on CNN that the bill lacked any definition for the term "Deaf" which might become the unexpected monkey wrench. We'll wait and see, and get a more definitive report elsewhere whether the bill might present a problem or not.

Can you spot the video difference?

Can you spot the differences between these three videos? Maybe the irony? Before you complain, think first. Keep it clean...and nice. That's my only request.





The last video talks about this guy in a screenshot which can be found here.

Enjoy.

AGBell members are now officially Deaf people

Recently Don Grushkin made an opinion regarding the use of the capitalized "d" for the word "deaf" to mean an all inclusive definition:

I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews. 

 Since I'm persona non grata over at Deaf Echo I will as usual make my responses here and write my opinions on what Don Grushkin said. I will disagree with his attempt to move the goal post on what "D"eaf is to mean nowadays.

Noticeably over the past few years a few notable people in the culturally deaf community have been attempting to change the meaning and definition of the word "Deaf" to include any and all deaf and hard of hearing people, including culturally deaf people. But the problem is that the term "Deaf" with the upper case "D" has always denoted to mean culturally deaf people and this was explained by Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) on the meaning and difference between "D"eaf and "d"eaf:

We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture. The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society.

Granted. The culturally deaf community was able to grant their own exclusive right to capitalize the letter 'd' in "deaf" to mean one thing and one thing only as exactly as what Carol Padden and Tom Humphries pointed out.  And become members of an exclusive heritage group or so they say. Otherwise by not accepting the very definition set forth almost 30 years ago by Padden and Humphries would mean it could no longer to specifically mean culturally deaf people. It would simply become a generic brand with no identification on culture and language (ASL) that ties itself to a specific heritage group. In fact, that very act would devalue the very word "Deaf" away from the culturally deaf community and disappears altogether with no identity at all. AGBell members who are deaf or hard of hearing who do not know a lick of sign language are now defacto Deaf people. No need to focus on ASL, deaf culture, culturally heritage and language. All that would be rather strange if not outright blasphemous to a lot of culturally deaf people and of all things coming from a guy who is helping run Deafhood Foundation.  Funny how one thinks that by saying deaf/Deaf is "divisive" yet there were ASL-only Deafhood workshops (here, too). So much for the concept of including everybody this "Deaf" idea of Don Grushkin's.

Another thing, there is no common ethnicity that ALL deaf and hard of hearing people share regarding their physical trait on hearing loss.  Ethnic means that a group of people either share a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage. Nothing about hearing loss which is a physical trait. The only commonality here we all share is hearing loss whether it is bilateral or unilateral. Whether born with it or acquired hearing loss later in life. And that communication access, as it varies from one person with a hearing loss to another, is the other commonality amongst them as well. Some struggle more than others. Some are fine with it. Some do not have the need to sign while others do require sign language to communicate.

What has been divisive is some of the nonsense deaf politics that have been going on for years rather than over two simple words, deaf and Deaf. There are two groups. The culturally deaf group and the not culturally deaf group. You have hard of hearing, deaf, and culturally deaf. And that's a fact of life.

The Extinction of Keresan Pueblo Indian Sign Language among Deaf Indians?

In 2007 I first published a blog questioning whether the "forced" use of ASL and the adoption of American deaf culture had some impact on deaf Indians their use of their own native Indian Sign Language (ISL) causing ISL to fall out to disuse like the Keresan Pueblo Indian Sign Language (KPISL) and ultimately having them removed from their own Indian culture and customs once they were placed in deaf residential schools. 

Keresan Pueblo Indian Sign Language (KPISL) is a means of communication developed and used among many of the residents of this one New Mexico pueblo. It is one of many North American Indian sign languages found in the United States, and one of two in Southwestern United States that have been studied and documented—the other being Navajo (Davis & Suppala, 1995). A literature review suggests that signed languages were also used among Apaches and Hopis (West, 1960). KPISL is believed to have developed on one pueblo by family members in order to communicate with their offspring, siblings, and relatives who were deaf (Kelley, 2001). It is not at all uncommon for deaf children and their family members to invent a home-based sign system for such a purpose. However, KPISL does not fit the framework for home-based sign systems set forth by researchers such as Frishberg (1987) who states that home signs do not have a consistent meaning-symbol relationship, do not pass on from generation to generation, are not shared by one large group, and are not considered the same over a community of signers. KPISL was passed on from one family’s eldest brothers and sisters to their hearing and deaf siblings, nephews, and nieces. KPISL is also used among non-family members living on the pueblo. It has been found to function in two significant ways: (a) as an alternative to spoken language for hearing tribal members and (b) as a primary or first language for deaf tribal members.

For the KPISL it was considered a first language for deaf Pueblo tribal members. But the sad irony as I have pointed out several times in my blogs concerning the topic of ISL is that the adoptive use of ASL and the adoption of an American deaf culture helped cause the disuse of the KPISL among deaf Indians. Not necessarily the primary cause but certainly bears some culpability. This is especially true with English and its American customs and culture helping along the demise of KPISL/ISL.  However, deaf schools of the past and recent past never made any attempt to help accommodate or preserve KPISL or ISL among deaf Indians attending deaf schools. Instead they were inducted and indoctrinated into the "Deaf World" and its American deaf customs using ASL. In the end after graduation they were forced to choose between ISL or ASL.

Both KPISL and PISL have become endangered languages. KPISL is not much used among the pueblo’s younger generation owing to their learning school English, ASL, or signs that follow the spoken English word order. Before the 1990s, American Indian Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing tribal members usually left home to attend a residential school for the deaf located far away (Baker, 1997; Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996). At the school, there was usually no formal instruction of American Indian or American Indian culture and signs; only Deaf culture and ASL were taught, leading many American Indian students to join the “Deaf World.” After graduation, the students had to make difficult decisions about where and how to establish themselves: on the pueblos with hearing families and friends, in urban areas with other Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing people, or in border towns with limited access to both groups.

The extinction of a language happens when they fall out of disuse because of a dominant language and culture:

If a language (spoken or otherwise) is not utilized or passed down from one generation to the next, then the devastating result would be language extinction. Accompanying the loss of a native language is the loss of the traditions, culture, and perhaps even a loss of life. Language extinction, also referred to as total language death, is defined as occurring, “when there are no speakers of a given language idiom remaining in a population where the idiom was previously used (i.e. when all native speakers die). Language death may affect any language idiom, including (so-called) dialects and languages.” 

The death(?) of KPISL and its culture is an example of how a language failed due to the lack of it being maintained and passed on down to the next generation of KPISL users.  Deaf Indians using KPISL went to deaf schools who were forced to adopt ASL and its American deaf culture which led to the lack of maintenance of their own ISL and culture that spanned generations in their own tribe.

During a study conducted in the Spring 2000 by the University of Texas at Austin, a previously undiscovered form of sign language was uncovered. Walter Kelley and Tony McGregor, two doctoral candidates from the University write, “The signs, Keresan Pueblo Indian Sign Language (KPISL), are used by some of the pueblo’s Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing individuals. This newly discovered language, an idiosyncratic home sign language, was developed perhaps by family members in order to communicate with their offspring, siblings and relatives who have a hearing loss. The signs appear to have evolved in the same way as spoken language, progressing gradually from the representational to the symbolic, from the picture to the symbol, but still remaining primarily representational or ideographic (Frishberg, 1987). Today, many individuals in the pueblo use it while communicating with others inside the small village” (Kelley,1998). However, the potential for collision with ASL lies in the fact that without regular usage or due to the integration of American ASL in schools, KPISL is now becoming a dying language. Kelley and McGregor go on to reveal, “Unfortunately, the signs are not used among the younger Pueblo Indian generation due to their learning in school American Sign Language (ASL) used by American Deaf individuals or Seeing Exact English 2 (SEE 2), a methodology of using signs following the spoken English word order. In addition, KPISL was used at a nearby pueblo but it is no longer seen” (Kelley, 1998).

So, in retrospect some of those deaf schools that use ASL were responsible in more ways than one for the inevitable language death of deaf Indians' ISL, in this case KPISL.

The purpose and use of KPISL were different than that of the PISL.

KPISL didn’t originate for the same purposes as the well known Plains Indian Sign Language (PISL), which was primarily developed to facilitate intertribal communication between the American Indian tribes that spoke different languages in the Plains region of the present United States and Canada—a region extending from what is now the state of Texas northward to Canada and, at its widest point, stretching from Arizona through Oklahoma (Taylor, 1978). Signs were used during hunting and trading among the different tribes and were also used for storytelling and a variety of ceremonies. Plains tribes known to use signed language included the Cheyenne, Comanche, Kiowa, and Sioux. Signed languages were also used as a means of communication by the Iroquois in the state of New York, the Cherokee in the Southeastern United States, the Eskimos in Alaska, and the Mayan in Mexico (Johnson, 1994; Scott, 1931; West, 1960).

The question now lies on how many deaf Indians with their own ISL who were indoctrinated into deaf schools forced to learn another language (ASL) and American deaf customs, culture and language (English) and forgo or diminish their own Indian Sign Language, custom and culture? Much the same way when thousands of hearing Lakota Indian children who were forced into American schools at boarding houses to learn and adopt American customs, language and culture.

They were not tall, muscular braves, armed with bows and tomahawks that emerged from this train. Instead, what greeted the crowd were frightened children wrapped in blankets. They were tired, cold, and frightened by the crowd of strange white people that stared at them. There were eighty two boys and girls that arrived at Carlisle that night.


These were the first of many Indian students that would learn how to be “civilized” at the Carlisle Indian Industrial School. What these students didn’t know was that they were about to have a burden placed upon them. Aside from trying to learn a new language and culture, they would be tasked with bringing everything they learned back to their reservations and teaching their people the White Man's ways. In order to do this, the instructors at Carlisle used gender, in particular the females, to "civilize" the Indians. 

NAD (National Association of the Deaf) was established in 1880 in support of using ASL and had a huge role and influence to help incorporate ASL in deaf schools since its inception.  The irony is that during those years when deaf schools incorporated ASL, deaf Indians were indoctrinated into their deaf culture, ASL and American way of life (English language, customs and culture) at deaf residential schools at the expense of their own native sign language, customs and culture. Just like the deaf Keresan Pueblo Indians. This is the equivalent of hearing Indian children of the past being sent to American boarding schools to learn another language (English), American customs and culture at the expense of losing their own native language, customs and culture. But the scale and impact of this among deaf Indians going to deaf residential schools are unknown. Certainly not at the scale and breadth like the Carlisle Indian Industrial School for hearing Indian children who were forcibly placed into. And that it was the English language and western (American) culture that ultimately put their own native Indian language and culture at risk.

Many deaf Indian children were sent to deaf residential schools just as many hearing Indian children were sent to Indian residential schools.

Since the late 1800s, social, cultural and historical factors have caused the number of native users of traditional American Indian sign language to dramatically decrease along with the decline of native languages and cultures, came the loss of signed language that was once a widely used alternate to spoken language, and a traditional way of storytelling.  The role of a signed lingua franca has been replaced by English, which means that fewer hearing Indians are learning the traditional ways of signing. The decline of sign language among native groups also contributes to the marginalization and isolation of tribal members who are Deaf (see Goff-Paris & Wood 2002 and Miller 2004 to read more about the experiences of Native American Indians who are Deaf) (page 51).

.
.

 By the turn of the 20th century, however, a dramatic decline in sign language use among native groups was evident, largely due to its replacement by English as a lingua franca. The documentary evidence suggests that the use of a signed lingua franca continued well into the early 20th century. However, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the United States and Canada (mainly in Northwestern and Southwestern regions) residential Indian schools were established by state, provincial, and federal governments; and by religious organizations in some cases. It become common practice for Indian children and adolescents to be systematically removed from their families and placed in these residential educational institutions. The official educational policy during this period was "cultural and linguistic assimilation." This translated into loss of many native ways, including the loss of native language and culture for many Indian children. Indian children were taught English only and in most cases were forbidden to follow or practice their cultural traditions (page 60).

Similarities do exist between many deaf Indian children who had their culture and their own language (e.g KPISL/ISL) who were sent off to deaf residential schools to learn a new language (ASL and English) and culture (American culture) to that of hearing Indian children who already had their own culture and own Indian language who were forcibly sent off to Indian schools to learn another language (English) and adopt American culture and customs. Just like the before and after picture seen above of a hearing Indian boy.

All this brings me to a recent blog I did on why NAD and other deaf schools have not apologized for helping with some of the eradication of deaf Indians' own ISL when deaf Indian children were forced to choose their language and culture and with no effort to help them preserve and maintain their own ISL identity and culture. And most importantly I also already asked whether an apology is really necessary despite the fact that we will never know the full impact on the placement of deaf Indian children in deaf residential schools that use ASL have had on their ISL and culture. We may never know on how many similar tribes like the Keresan Pueblo who had their deaf Indians lose their native sign language and part of their culture to ASL and American culture and customs at deaf residential schools of time's past. For all intent and purposes the KPISL could be technically extinct at this time until further research can ascertain that KPISL is still alive and that deaf KP Indians are still using it. 

Accountability goes both ways, folks. 

Echoing Sentiments

Chris Heuer produced a piece in Deaf Echo basically lamenting over Sarah Churman's YouTube video that went viral by going over his own little history and hinting that he may just take back his sincerity about Sarah Churman.

Sarah Churman, if you’re reading this, let me start out with a disclaimer. What I’m about to write isn’t about you. If your implanted hearing aid works for you, that’s great. For the moment I say this with all sincerity.

Some of you, including Sarah Churman, might be wondering what I mean by that remark: “…for the moment.” By way of an explanation, let me tell you a story.

The one thing that many, many people continue to forget about the viral YouTube video of Sarah Churman was that the Churmans never expected it to go viral in the first place. In the first 8 days since YouTube aired, she has been on the Today Show with Matt Lauer and the Ellen DeGeneres show, and was featured on CNN with Anderson Cooper. Webwise, she was all over the place as well. Pretty good in just a few days time. Technically it'd been about 5 or 6 days time rather than 8 days because it took a few days before the video went viral and that's when the media caught wind of it, both the web and on TV. It went viral with no fault of Sarah's own. She didn't put the video up, her husband did with the encouragement of his mother so that their families and friends would be able to witness Sarah's reaction to her implant being turned on. The video captured accurately that Sarah was hearing herself for the first time. And now some people are heaping scorn at her for a variety of reasons. 

Strange world indeed.

Why is it so hard to congratulate a grown deaf adult seeing the immediate (and emotional) success from her implantable hearing aid in a video? A result that took Sarah by surprise at the clarity of sound that was coming in. Why reserve such congratulations to her and instead lament about one's own history struggling with his hearing aid wishing his story was video-taped and had gone viral, too? Had Sarah Churman's video received only 2000 views, all of this would've been essentially a "non-story." But instead it churned out some 7.2 million views/hits so far in less than two weeks.

Of course, I don't expect that everybody will share the same sentiments echoing mine when it comes to congratulating Sarah on her successful use of her implantable hearing aid. My approach is to separate myself from Sarah's and leave it at that because I recognize that each of us is different when it comes to our hearing loss, our experience, our upbringing, our preferences to communicate, and whether we successfully used our hearing aids, cochlear implants, other implantable hearing devices (e.g. Baha, Envoy, etc) or none at all (e.g. signing) to our benefits.


Off topic:
I'm disappointed and sad to report this but I am left with no recourse but to report this behavior and continued misunderstanding.

I left a comment at Deaf Echo on a blog piece about Sarah Churman just a few minutes ago. I went back to see if any responses came up (Patti's came up) only to see that my comment was once again removed. I am guessing this has to do with a disagreement and misunderstanding over what I wrote, my opinion several months back (and here) in Febuary 2011.  But I wasn't sure if I was still on the banned list (seven months later) and made a screen copy of my comment submission just in case. Sure enough, I'm persona non grata (the new commenting rules can be seen here while the old seen on Feb 2, 2011 can be seen here) for petty reasons, I suppose.

Before at 9:50 AM PCT (Oct 9, 2011):

Removed at approximately 10:10 AM PCT (Oct 9, 2011):

As you can see my comment was deleted. Nothing demeaning, hateful, derogatory, or abusive about it as you can clearly see from what I wrote seen in the screen capture. No ad-hominem attacks.  No foul language. And certainly not a spam. I think whoever removed my comment needs to have the cojones to look past his/her own petty feelings when it comes to a difference of opinions instead of hiding behind claims of "abusive comments" as reason for the continued blocking. Incredibly, the moderator(s) still refuse to point out exactly which or what comment of mine back in February 2011 was considered as an "abusive comment" which can, frankly, be anything they would want it to be and call it justified.  All of my comments have not been abusive nor disrespectful as Candy pointed out before as a witness to this whole charade. Clearly my recent comment seen in the screen capture above is not abusive nor disrespectful at all.  Folks, let's learn to let go such pettiness since after all Bobby (one of the moderator of Deaf Echo) said:

We love a good discussion that drives things forward, and we act aggressively to maintain a good environment for our readers and writers.

I've always loved having a good discussion that drives things forward in my blog and in other discussion forums, too. Nothing in my responses were shown to breach that "good environment for our readers and writers" as you can see in my latest comment that was conveniently deleted.  But then again, it's their blog and they have every right to do what they feel is right even if it means letting misunderstanding getting the better of them. Yet, I find all this incredulously humorous. And I certainly have a right to blog my opinions on people who simply cannot accept alternative viewpoints and opinions who are unable to simply agree to disagree. Agreeing to disagree is a show of professionalism. Pettiness is not.

Be proud....

There's a difference between being proud of who you are versus being proud of what you are when the latter focuses on what's missing about yourself versus the very being that makes you...you. Just like the whorls on your finger tips, each one is unique, so is each person. But being proud of who you are focuses on the whole you regardless of whether you have a hearing loss, vision loss, stuttering condition, loss of the legs or a paraplegic, a missing appendage or any number of conditions that may limit one's life. Acknowledging your condition is part and parcel of your whole being but it doesn't define you completely. Limitation doesn't define your successes. It's who you are that defines your successes. It's your drive, determination and faith in yourself. One can succeed despite his hearing loss.

Now, to say "despite" does not necessarily mean to hate one's hearing loss but rather that a person is undeterred by his or her deafness whether one wears a cochlear implant, hearing aid or none at all. That's how I see it. I see it as something that's progressively positive which is dependent on a lot of things. Just so happens deafness is merely a part of life's challenge.

I think some deaf people are naive whenever they talk in terms of the a-wordism. They don't realize what they are saying or doing to other deaf/hh people. I feel many do toss that word around recklessly just so they can feel better about themselves. A way to somehow legitimize themselves as being the "better group." A de facto group that must be mimicked and worshiped. All that reminds me of a purity test for people with hearing loss must meet or be forever branded just because they can hear better, have a particular communication preference or have alternative viewpoints. It's really sad whenever people behave like that.

All that brings me to this.

I say it's better to accept a person for who he/she is rather than to judge him/her for what he/she is when it comes to deafness. You see, I accept a deaf/hh person if she is comfortable with her speaking skill even if she doesn't know sign language. I accept a deaf/hh person even if he believes that SEE is the better sign language for him and other people, even for kids. I accept a deaf/hh person who prefers ASL and doesn't feel the need to speak. I accept a deaf/hh person who opines that hearing loss is life-limiting. And the same goes conversely when others say it isn't life-limiting.  I accept a deaf/hh person who believes that deaf babies need to have a cochlear implant or not at all. There are many valid points they all present but there is no need to use the a-wordism against other deaf and hard of hearing people. I may disagree but that is as far I'd go. I present my own viewpoints and opinions.

I think those who recklessly toss the a-wordism around against other deaf/hh people because they didn't like their viewpoints or opinions have some kind of self-esteem issues. I think many are constantly trying to legitimize themselves as a group and so they must resort to using the a-wordism...... alot. If not that perhaps a certain ego or jealousy may be a factor for behaving that way. Or perhaps they are unable to argue on merits alone and must resort to ad homenim by appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. Whatever the manifestation as a reason for the justification on using the a-wordism against other deaf/hh people, it's all part and parcel of the whole legitimization process by de-legitimizing others. An attempt to legitimize one group as "de facto" while all others are irrelevant. Rather reckless, I'd say.

You see, I'm the better person because I have no need to accuse or go after other deaf/hh people by using the a-wordism out of spite. Intellectually and emotionally it does not make any sense. It has simply become an emotional crutch. An attempt to prop up and legitimize themselves at the expense of others.  A deep-seated need to whip out that a-wordism because doing so makes them feel better. And that, my friends, is a poor excuse and a serious problem by those who must deal with their own self-esteem and personal issues.

Am I proud to be deaf? No, that's the wrong tack because saying that focuses on what's missing or lacking. Instead, I'm proud of who I am. I'm just a guy who happens to have a hearing loss who wears a hearing aid. A guy who is fluent in speaking the English language and sign language. A guy who can hear. A guy who loves playing ragtime piano. A guy who succeeded in a lot of things in life irrespective of hearing loss. A guy who is a confident person who wishes to express himself in a different way.  A guy who understands that in life things can change for the worse or better. I know where I stand. I'm proud of who I am. And that is something that people will never take away from me no matter how many a-wordism is used against me. It's irrelevant and has no merits. It has simply become a crutch word in the name of the "legitimization" game.

Walk the walk?

I'm promoting this anonymous comment for my blog here. That comment was made in Death of Deafread. Why am I putting it here? Because I liked what he/she wrote and makes a few succinct points about "awdism" and such.

I could also state the situation in the other direction. Deaf/hh people who prefer speaking and listening (regardless of whether they are also fluent in ASL, and have a Deaf wife and Deaf friends) are considered to be hearing wanna-be's. Deafhood supporters call them colonized and dysconscious awdists who have been brainwashed by AG Bell and OOOO (Oral Only No Other Option). Cochlear implant manufacturers, surgeons, hearing aid manufacturers, audiologists, speech teachers, oral schools, etc., are all elements of a massive anti-deaf machine bent on eliminating deafness, Deaf people, and ASL. and lining their pockets with money in the process. I'm not making this up. These are Ella's exact words. According to her, there is no middle ground: One is either Deafhood, or one is an awdist.

it isn't mudslinging to point out these public statements by Ella. I watch all her vlogs. I haven't taken any of her statements out of context. they may not be on the Deafhood web site, but they are on ASL Ella's YouTube channel.

it isn't awdism to point out what Ella and other Deafhood supporters have said about Marlee Matlin and her support of the Starkey Hearing Foundation. it isn't awdism to point out facts about Gallaudet University. I *get* that Deaf people are protective of our cultural institutions. Yet, by saying rapes have happened at Gallaudet, that it means Deaf people are bad, Gallaudet is bad, and I disrespect Deaf people by saying so, simply... isn't... logical.

Deafhood supporters feel that their cultural values, way of life, and very being have been and are under attack by so-called technological and medical advances. And so, they react in emotional rather than logical ways, such as Jeffrey did here. I understand where he's coming from. Yet, they don't seem to realize that Deaf Culture and ASL have survived the horrors of Milan 1880, oralism, and the use of hearing aids.

I liked what the first Anonymous @6:01 pm said about "We cannot help any older generation of deaf who suffered ... and still hating and blaming AGB their language problem because they have some persecution complex issues to deal with."

That's exactly what's going on. That's why folks like Ella, Jeffrey, DonG, et al, deserve our compassion rather than our scorn. Like you said Mike, they talk the talk but don't walk the walk. If they are examples of Deafhood, I don't want any part of it.

Another Anonymous

Happy 4th of July everyone!

I am Fiver! speaks again...

An anonymous commenter "I am Fiver!" left another comment under a blog I covered a few months back about this "Fiver" person. The guy who proclaimed to be "the most dangerous threat to their (Deafhood) plans."

Here's what he/she said after reading previous comments:

Interestingly, a number of readers posted their own experiences or views that seemingly reinforced a number of my own. These are independent and largely anonymous voices that lend validity to some of my assertions. Of course, there are always the naysayers.

Shel has been the most vociferous with her attempts to rationalize these methods that are oppressive to those children with residual hearing and speech that can be developed. The “bi-bi” approach, or rather “movement” is operating under the guise of “teaching language and culture.” This implies that ASL and Deaf culture are only incidental to the teaching, when in fact, those concepts are the main goal. Auditory methods and speech articulation are suppressed under the rationale that it is necessary in order for these children to “assimilate” ASL to proficiency. There are many fallacies regarding this assumption. But just bear in mind that these people are profoundly affecting the lives of these children by altering the primary language to ASL and by exposure to a culture that has not been defined.

There is no theory or empirical evidence that ASL is a “bridge” to English language learning, even though this very premise has been claimed by many renowned (unnamed) educators of the deaf. In the past these advocates for “bi-bi,” ASL, etc. have alluded to, or insinuated that such a thing exists. But when pressed, they admit that there is no evidence. This has not stopped them, however. They are fervently working to manufacture “studies” and seeking out established language experts to validate their methods, by claiming parallels about how hearing persons learn foreign language. It is not the same! Learners of a second language have already acquired their primary language!

The goal of our schools, whether they are public schools for the hearing or public (state schools) for the deaf, the majority of states require that English must be taught as L1 (English=First Language). This is not happening in deaf schools where ASL is being taught as L1 (ASL=First Language). In such cases, this is clear violation of state law. Children must be taught English in order to function and be economically viable in the world, once they leave the school. I suppose, I do not know, but suppose, that they will rationalize their actions by saying that deaf require a visual language in order to communicate. All that they are doing is engraining these children into a language that is little known or used outside of deaf circles.

The minds of young children are “in the process” of being wired in early childhood. Although much of this “wiring” occurs in the first 2-3 years, it continues for many years after this “ideal window” for language development. Once a child is “wired” for a language of a certain type, that mode becomes life-long and unlikely to change. Proponents of the “bi-bi” movement know this, and are pressing forward with this misguided approach that will create a whole new generation of deaf individuals bereft of English language skills, recognizable speech, and enculturation into an extremely small minority “society” that has historically, and likely to remain a social and economic under-class in perpetuity.

I shall stop now. May I ask those whom seem more interested in speculation about my identify and the desire to "defrock" me before the Deaf establishment that will cause the hammer to come down, please be so kind to simply focus on the message. I understand that you probably can't but then its sufficient evidence that what I am saying must grate at your sensitivities, perhaps even create a bit of paranoia?

I am Fiver!

Interesting comment. And, seriously folks, I don't know who this guy is. But he/she certainly brings up some interesting discussion. Are Deaf culture and ASL under assault?

When cyberbullying topic is a good discussion but....

Cyberbullying discussions are good when topics broached are about intimidation, retaliation, control, creating an atmosphere of fear, stalking and the effort to try and ruin people's reputations. I think cyberbullying is all encompassing where it can fall under the stalking, intimidation, and harassment category. Whenever somebody discusses cyberbullying or bullying we generally know it's about harassment. But lately I've noticed how some people simply have the capacity to misunderstand conversations, blogs or vlogs and equate them as threats. We already have one such example that took place in court which proved one person's action wasn't seen as a threat. Just an overly active imagination here.

Let's expand on this here on what's an overly active imagination looks like.

In Russell Errigo's vlog he talked about his fears on how the California government could one day cut off funds to organizations in the hearing loss field in Julie Rems Smario Facebook discussion on June 6, 2010 at 3:09 PM.

My biggest fear is seeing a huge state cutbacks to Norcal, DCARA, GLAD and other sister organization who opposed the AB...2072. The state recognized them as one side viewpoint which does not meet the state standard for the funding purposes. The bridges have been burned.

I remember that comment very clearly. He's clearly concerned. There is no doubt about that.

A couple of months later in August 2004 he brought up the same points and concerns about the potential loss of fundings of deaf organizations in his YouTube video starting at the 1 minute 5 second mark. In that video he did refer elsewhere about a Facebook discussion he had a few months earlier discussing that same concern of his on funding cuts.

But here's the thing. I was a bit dismayed seeing intelligent people who actually thought Russell would call upon the government of California to encourage them to de-fund deaf organizations such as NorCal, DCARA and so forth. No such verbal threats ever happened from Russell. Russell is already on record hoping that this funding cuts WON'T HAPPEN to those deaf organizations. He is already on record as seen in the links I've provided. He clearly shows a concern for those deaf organizations who might see a cut in funds from the state in the coming months and years ahead.

So much for that.

Then there's another discovery on the curious mindset of how some Deaf people think that targeting other Deaf people is justified by contacting their employers. Actions manifested into this whole neurotic orgasm of this "deafhood" movement that has been running amok ever since.

Candy (see her blog) was a victim of a planned attack when nutty people actually contacted her employer based on a lie and disagreements over her blogging opinions and facts.  Although her workshop presentation at the 2010 IRS/DEAF Leadership Development Conference in Salt Lake City recently was a success despite their failed attempt to "boycott" her workshop.

Anybody with a mindset thinking their action is justified in calling an employer over an opinion piece or get upset when a Deaf person works with a variety of deaf and hard of hearing people and organizations (i.e. "working with the enemies") would be seen as borderline delusional. It doesn't pass the smell test when they know their action is designed to psychologically hurt, intimidate, and/or instill certain institutional fear in Deaf people by calling their employers. That action alone is a classic example of how it can fall under the cyberbullying or bullying category. And for those who contribute to help on addressing the cyberbullying problem but at the same time secretly nod in approval on the tactic of contacting employers is an example of hypocrisy in action.

The vulgarization of "deafhood" continues.

Hypocrisy on the DR boycott and "avdism"?

About a year ago people decided to boycott Deafread because of Tayler's refusal to put the "A"-word in the Deafread guideline as grounds for not accepting a blog.

Because I lack the experience, knowledge and authority, I refuse to embed the term “au****” into the guidelines. Doing so would have significant impact on the deaf community and would not be able to bear the responsibility of forcing the wrong interpretation upon the community. Until there is greater consensus on “au****”, therefore having less room for it to be abused, the guidelines will protect DeafRead by the “excessive negativity” clause and DeafVIDEO.TV by the harassment rule. Following this fiasco in which au**** was exposed to be both widely misunderstood and abused, I retracted my committment to Patti to add it to the guidelines. As Patti and I agreed more recently, I will instead work with the DeafRead team to incorporate a broader term that will offer tighter protection than that of the “excessive negativity” clause.

Note that I am censoring part of the "a" word in Tayler's comment in the above for my own personal reason. You can read here on why. I could've replaced it with "avdism" though but either way I'm making this known for you readers.

And because of Tayler's refusal to include such a word in the Deafread guidelines numerous Deaf bloggers decided to boycott Deafread and not have their blogs show up on Deafread. One of the blogger is Dr DonG where he explained why he boycotted Deafread.

I have long since been speaking against au****. I have taken a stand against a****. I believe that if you “talk the talk”, you must “walk the walk”. Au**** hurts, and it hurts worse when it comes from one of our own. But it hurts worst when one of our own allows it AND profits from it.

That is the reason that I feel I can no longer be involved in DVTV, if au**** is allowed to continue. I cannot let someone directly profit from au****. It’s bad enough when Hearing people, like at Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, profit from au****, but we Deaf should not allow it, we should not accept it.

So, people boycotted Deafread because of the "rampant" avdism seen in the aggregator list linking to blogs with attidudes of "avdism"? Right? What about Deaf Village's aggregator site, too? Now, isn't avdism seen in majority of DV's submissions include lots of stuff about how wonderful hearing and speaking is for children, CIs and their marvelous results, all technically defined as the "A"-word in all its mutations  If so then why is DonG's website listed on Deaf Village's aggregator site as seen on DV's blog contributors list? And yet the most recent submission of DonG's in DV was on September 10, 2010 with a total of 24 submissions ever since he boycotted DR over a year ago over a single word.

Regardless, I still think it's rather a petty and trivial thing to boycott over a word when Tayler made clear on why he is unable to institute such a word into Deafread's guidelines.

"Fiver!" - Who is this guy? A threat to Deaf culture??

I received a comment from an unknown commenter today in my blog "Deafhood? No Thanks." A blog piece I did a few months ago. This anonymous person says that he/she is from "within their ranks" of other Deaf people and are on the "inside." Not sure if this is true, bogus, or somebody making an exaggerated claim. You decide. Who is this guy? 

Remember this one? "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers." Especially when they have some support from the Government. Deafhood is not merely a movement, it's a hideous, dangerous and counter-productive ideology. Many of the people associated with Deafhood are mere followers, they really have no idea just how destructive this movement/ideology is. This "thing" has destroyed and alterered terribly the lives of many already, usually those who cannot stand against them and succumb. Among them are young children whose parents unwittingly commit them to deaf schools where those pushing Deaf Culture and Deafhood assimilate them into "Deaf Culture" as a source of raw recruits for future members. Deaf Culture is dying, yet they're trying to revive it. These children are shut out of the usage of speech and hearing as much as they can possibly be, without raising suspicions and creating a conflict with state authorities. Deafhood has expanded it's control of state schools for the deaf and enforces it's Deaf Culture and ASL-only doctrine as the only mode of communication. I have witnessed the repudiation of "SIMCOM" or "Total Communication" where any staff member using this means faced discipline and termination. NO speech is allowed, ASL only! Turn off your voice! The parents of these childern unwittingly placed within those cultures have no idea what their child is being subjected to. The Deaf deny them that right to know, going so far as to use speech during parental visits, but speech ends as soon as the parents are gone!

State lawmakers need to investigate what is going on within government funded schools. These schools do not belong to the Deaf! These schools are publicly funded schools for all of society and have been hijacked.

I am going to stop here but will be posting more in the future. My pseudonym for this forum: Fiver. I fully expect the Deafhood "leadership" to start looking for me now, as I am within their ranks, the most dangerous threat to their plans.

I am: Fiver!

And this person raises an important question from me. Are those things really happening or have happened? Or maybe this is all a sick joke? Plus, I noticed this ominous "warning" this mystery person said: "I am within their ranks, the most dangerous threat to their plans."

When Deaf Clowns Go Bad

In previous blog I discussed cyberbullying and stalking by some people in the deaf community and now would like to touch briefly on "hate crime."

Let's suppose the cyberbullying of deaf people through YouTube, chatrooms, in discussion forums, or even in blogs are the efforts to try and harass a person because he or she doesn't like the person in the first place. Are those examples of a hate crime in action? That depends on the nature of the hate, the context, and resulting response by people who received the brunt of that hate.

Let's look at a recent case of what some people say is an example of a hate crime.

Cyberbullyin is out of control.

For example, take the case of Tyler Clementi. Clementi was an 18-year-old freshman at Rutgers University who jumped from the George Washington Bridge after a video surfaced on the internet featuring Clementi and another male student engaging in sexual acts.

Two students were charged with counts of invasion of privacy but is that really all they deserve? These students should be held accountable for Clementi's death. This can and should be viewed as a hate crime not simply because of the student's sexuality, but because these students targeted that aspect of his life. They were the emotional shove that sent him falling from that bridge.

Was that really a hate crime or a prank gone bad? Just bad judgement all around and not about hate crime per se? Or is this a blurring of cyberbullying with that of a hate crime in action? Is it a hate crime to go on YouTube in the effort to purposely discredit a person's reputation by providing false information to viewers in a cyberbullying act? Can defamation be hate crime in action?

In California there's a court case in the attempt to connect a cyberbullying case with that of a hate crime. Was it really a "hate crime" that happened? What about the case of Amy Cohen Efron?

I get ostracized and harassed just because of my own opinion and my role as an Editor of DeafRead. As one of the pioneers of Deaf vlogging world, I get cyberbullied just like others. Yes, someone did call my employer about my online activities. This kind of stress caused a trip to emergency room.

Was that a case of a hate crime in action when that person or persons who followed through with his or her hate of Amy by actually calling her employer with the express purpose and malicious intent to cause psychological harm to her and damage her reputation at her place of employment? Was it a hate crime in action because others did not view her to be "Deaf enough" because of her views on certain Deaf-related issues did not agree with other Deaf people's more extreme views? Or was it a simple case of her releationship with Deafread and Tayler who owns Deafread on how he received his own brunt of hate for his opinions regarding avdism and how it was just a cover used by some Deaf people? Where is that line between cyberbulling, hate speech and hate crime?

Also, another question, is the action of sending threatening emails to other people a case of a hate crime in action if the perpetrator uses his or her own "Deaf hierarchy" (culturally deaf status) over others in the effort to "protect" the Deaf status quo in their own Deaf community? In other words attack those in the attempt to falsely report or ruin the reputation of people who do not share the same extreme "Deaf views." Or perhaps this was a case not being "Deaf enough" in the extreme sense?  A case of not jumping onto the "Deaf extremism" bandwagon? Or maybe a case of people who are "professional haters" who rely on false reporting and hyperbole to get his or her way?

But what about reporting a false hate crime that never existed? It does happen. Here's one professor who did just that and got caught. Not only got did he get caught for lying but got caught in a web of hypocrisy using the status as a professor to make the reporting of a "hate crime" sound even more legitimate.

And what about the hypocrisy of people who discuss hate crime while on a soapbox but continue to make vlogs or blogs in the effort to cyberbully other people in the effort to ruin their reputations with false rumors or false information? And yet we see cases where people ended up physically stalking somebody's house for a few days. A manifestation of a cyberbullying action that slowly transitioned into the physical act of stalking a person he or she hates. But sometimes the hypocrisy gets surreal when a person goes back to his or her soapbox on the whole hate crime, hate speech or cyberbullying spiel pretending nothing ever happened?

The question here is the shifting, blurry line of hate speech and cyberbullying with that of a hate crime. Where do you draw that line?

Deaf person says "No such thing as a Deaf culture"

I bringing this up to make up a point. There is this deaf person I know very well who is absolutely fluid and fluent in ASL and has been signing all of his life brings up his own perspective saying that there is no such thing as a "deaf culture" in a recent blog of mine.

Most deaf people have to use ASL because they cannot master English, a language that requires thorough understanding of phonetics. To say ASL is "beautiful" smacks of arrogance. Might as well be French and claim French is beautiful.

The majority of deaf people signing ASL will never master English. It is indeed a last resort language.

There's no deaf cuisine, there is no deaf costume, there is no deaf religion, there is no deaf furniture, so who are we to say there is a deaf " culture?

Would this be arrogance, too? Or maybe this person knows a thing or two and is correct in his observation that there is no such thing as a "Deaf culture"? This person can easily pass as a "Deaf person" and he can make mince meat out of your own arguments if he wanted to.

Now, here's a mysterious person who called him/herself as a "sighted Deaf person" submitted a 2008 article for Deafread "There is no such blind culture" in a rebuttal attempt to my blog, "Deaf culture? Yes. Blind culture? No. Arrogance?" One problem though, there is nothing to rebut in the first place.

Had this mysterious person understood where my article was going he would've understood that my point was from the point of view of a blind person. In short, who are you or anybody else to say that there is no such thing as blind culture if a blind person believes there is one? Even if another blind person says there is no such thing as a "blind culture" it doesn't negate what other blind people believing that they have a thriving blind culture of their own.  Just as this deaf guy said "so who are we to say there is a deaf culture?" This is exactly what I was getting at in my other recent blog, who are we to say there is no such thing as a blind culture? Would it be arrogant for a Deaf person to deny a group of blind people their reasonings that there is a blind culture? Or would this simply be a case of lack of education or not fully informed? Or perhaps it's true there is no such thing as a blind culture. Just as it could be true that there is no such thing as a Deaf culture according to one deaf guy.

Before ya'll get hot under the collar, re-read what I'm trying to say before you start saying something stupid.

You have to be hard of hearing to understand

It's not just "you have to be deaf to understand" but for me to tell other people it's "you have to be hard of hearing" to understand. The difference is quite pronounced between the two. Which is why I support Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA) which was once known as SHHH (Self Help for Hard of Hearing People).

Yes, even I tell deaf people or those who cannot hear at all or benefit from hearing aids that you have to be "hard of hearing" to understand just as I would tell a hearing person the same thing. Although with my experiences I do understand from a hearing person's point of view as well as a completely deaf person's point of view as well as their experiences since I share many similar experiences between the two.

As a hard of hearing person I stress the importance of using one's own voice especially when it comes to elocution, training of the ear to understand words and sound, the enjoyment of sound, and just being able to take advantage of technology that supports or enhances one's own hearing level.

Some people have it easier as a "hard of hearing" person than others because of the amount of hearing loss, the early exposure to oral and aural approaches, and so on. These things vary from one HH person to the next. For us hard of hearing people we prefer to talk just because it comes naturally and easier for us to do so. For us hard of hearing people we enjoy music and even take up musical instruments for our enjoyment. For us hard of hearing people we enjoy having verbal conversations with people whether it's in in person or even over the phone. Our lifestyle and preferences vastly differ from the lifestyle and preferences of culturally Deaf people. Just because people who are hard of hearing and have preferences does not mean they reject "Deaf culture" but that they have a preference. It does not mean that hard of hearing people do not know sign language when many of them do. It does not mean that some of them are not a part of the Deaf community when they are but whether they are active in that particular community or not is not of anybody's concern.

You see, sometimes you do have to be "hard of hearing" to understand. Not as a deaf person but a person who is able to take advantage of what's hearing is left in the world of sound. It's a labor of love.

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.

The Paotie Complex Response

Intellectual Humor. Especially when it's a dry or wry humor that comes with an intellectual twist makes it even more funny. If you ever listened to Steven Wright's dead-pan comedy skits then you'd might understand how that works when it comes to wry humor. A way of playing with words that many people find riotously funny. Like my own joke I made up a few years ago, "Why do they call it “manual alphabet”? Is it labor intensive or what?" Just not what you say but how the delivery of that joke is made is just as important when it comes to humor.

People generally like humor but not all humors are made equally. And not all humors are humorous to all people, generally so. Just humor me for a moment here. I like people with intellectual humor along with a good philosophy about themselves and about life. Just as I liked some of Barry's own philosophy, outlook on life and his love for nature in his The Holism blog. He find his own brand of humor that suits him and anything that tickles his funny bone just like the rest of us. Though I'm pretty sure he's a fan of the Monopoly game just as I am although I would win. But for Barry he's certainly not of the "Napoleon Complex" variety seeking control as some people would try and say. Rather I see him seeking equilibrium in life more than anything else. He's more grounded than most people would give him credit for. But to say "Napoleon Complex" is regarded as a derogatory social stereotype. An expresssion meant to be personally mean and petty. People who say those things for that just purpose might want to look into their own mirror the next time.

Now, this brings me to this complex condition called, "Paotie Complex Response." It is definitely a knee-jerk response condition. It is an automatic reflex. Sometimes it's a gag type reflex for some people while for others it's like eating succulent Kobe steak. Yummmm. A "Paotie Complex Response" might sound really bad if you're already a paranoid person but then again to be diagnosed with PCR might proved curative and rejuvenating for the more enlightened people. Which condition of PCR do you have?

First and foremost, what or who is Paotie? Easy, he's the guy behind the green curtain hitting the control buttons and levers while saying "Gawwwrsh!" in a deep, trembling voice. No. Just kidding. Really, who is he? Well, I...don't know. He's just....well.... Paotie. You know. Just...Paotie. That guy with the green moldy couch thingy on his blogsite with a bunch of stale crumbly stuff underneath the cushions. You have to read his old blog pieces in order to understand the humor and the intellect this guy brings to the table. And when he writes a piece, the paranoid, er, upset people usually come out of the woodworks and react irrationally to his writings. Things like.... well, you probably can already imagine it. It ain't pretty!

Because of that some 3 years ago I (and many others) recognized the fact that some people were willing to squelch other people's blogging style on what they should or should not write just because they disagree or don't like? Thin skin anybody?

But to promote or instigate for the limitations on the free exchanges of ideas and concepts just because people happen to not like what’s being discussed sets a dangerous precedence.

Indeed it would set a dangerous precedent. Although by saying "Gawwrsh!" in a humorous way is certainly not harmful. Kicking a stone in mock disappointment is a harmless thing. Saying "DBC sucks!" should not trigger an apoplectic fit except for the most criminally insane people who don't bother to look before leaping. Or by giving an alternative meaning to "deficit thinking" as oppose to those who say it is more about people who do not properly speak of Deaf culture do they get supremely upset when people are told it's really double speak to mean “not Deaf enough." Even that shouldn't be justification to somehow censure the blogger.

Today, even speaking remotely "negatively" on anything Deaf related is almost criminal..... to some of them that is. Not all of them but some of them. Of course, all this is a bit of humorous hyperbole and a stretch there but you get my drift. Yada yada yada. But having an opinion contrary to what other Deaf people say isn't about hating the Deaf community. It's about.... surprise.... having an opinion. And when humor is employed in the whole scheme of things to make a point do some people get all "Deaf-uppity" (word is copyrighted by this blog owner, please send check or cash for literary license use of the word) or, to move toward to a more politically correct word, really, really uptight. So tight the spincter actually disappears inward which will take a proctologist days to find. Spelunking would take on a new meaning here.

Either you have a good case of PCR or you have a bad one. Make the best of your funny bone. Just don't go all freaky on us and fall apart like some zombies. We, "alternative bloggers," do have valid opinions. Just not the mindless ones.....(that was supposed to be a zombie joke...you can laugh now).

My Plan is Working Flawlessly! *rubs hands*

Here's a little video message to some people in the Deaf community and how their paranoia shows everytime they use my "famous quote" thinking its real. Some of you gotten to the point of surreal daftyness thinking my goal is to "destroy" or "hurt" the Deaf community. *laughs* And I'm signing in ASL, too. My advice? Leave your paranoia and conspiracy theories at home. You'll sleep better that way.

The Eugenics of Deaf Indian Sign Language and culture through ASL?

A little thought-provoking exercise here and hold back your tongue lashing and the gnashing of the teeth while you're at it, too.

Read on.

A few years back I did a blog how one kind of American Indian Sign Language (ISL) used by deaf native American Indians was already vanishing (or it may have vanished by now) because, ironically so, young deaf Native American Indians were forced to use or in this case had no recourse but to communicate in ASL at deaf residential schools they were sent to. And by doing so they gradually lost an important identity and Indian heritage when Indian Sign Language was passed on down through generations. A sign language that was used by both deaf and hearing Indians within their own community or tribe. This disappearance was an unplanned but systematic move over time by a predominately white Deaf culture and community where ASL gradually overtook their ISL preferences even though historically many of the signs in ASL today were derived from or have similar signs seen in Native American ISL.

Below is a passage on how ASL (supposedly the 3rd or 4th most popular language in the U.S. - a highly dubious claim.), English (number one language in the U.S.), and American Deaf culture have helped erode the Keresan Pueblo Indian Sign Language (KPISL) in New Mexico into extinction already. A native Indian sign language used by both deaf and hearing Keresan Pueblo indians.

KPISL is not much used among the pueblo’s younger generation owing to their learning school English, ASL, or signs that follow the spoken English word order. Before the 1990s, American Indian Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing tribal members usually left home to attend a residential school for the deaf located far away. At the school, there was usually no formal instruction of American Indian or American Indian culture and signs; only Deaf culture and ASL were taught, leading many American Indian students to join the “Deaf World.” After graduation, the students had to make difficult decisions about where and how to establish themselves: on the pueblos with hearing families and friends, in urban areas with other Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing people, or in border towns with limited access to both groups.

English has now become the dominant language for many Pueblo Indians. Its use, as well as continued contact with and influences of the dominant culture, has served to erode some of the traditions and values of the Pueblo Indian culture. As a result, KPISL, a valuable piece of American Indian heritage, may be slipping into extinction as well.

Now, I'm curious.

Has Mr. Edwin Black actually discussed native American Indian tribes and their culture throughout the U.S. and how they were essentially but systematically "eliminated" in favor of having them integrate into a predominately white culture and English language at his lecture in California to willing Deaf audience? Did he also discuss the eradication of the Keresan Pueblo Indian Sign Language with the help of a predominantly white Deaf culture in favor of ASL along with English, too? Noticed the eerie similarity?

A challenge to the great Mr. Edwin Black, the "eugenics expert."

If you truly think ASL, the Deaf community and culture are in danger of going "extinct" or "eradicated" anytime soon by means of eugenics then best pay attention to the plight of KPISL first which was pushed aside in favor of ASL, English and, ironically, by a pre-dominantly white Deaf culture world. For all we know now it's probably an extinct Indian sign language and Deaf/hearing Indian culture by now a la the "Martha Vineyard" of the southwest. After all, you are the proclaimed "eugenics expert" and should have no problem in writing the next few eugenics articles on Indian Sign Languages used by deaf Native American Indian people and how such a language disappeared in favor of ASL. This is almost exactly how our English language and culture helped nearly destroy North American Indians’ own heritage, language and culture by forcing them to learn English and have them assimilate into American culture in order for them to “survive.” Not quite the Spanish Inquistion led by the great and cruel Torquemada. Yet they did survive and many of these North American Indian culture and heritage remain intact, even growing allowing them to pass on their heritage to the next generation. The forcing of Deaf North American Indians use ASL away from ISL could be seen as doing the same selfish act. And end up abandoning their own ISL for the sake of integration with the rest of the Deaf culture and community. The irony is overwhelming here considering what has happened with the Keresan Pueblo Indian Sign Language and the eugenics lip service on the so-called quickly disappearing Deaf culture, community and ASL.

What is rather disengenuous is to use emotionally laden words by Mr. Black such as "Eugenics – From California to Auschwitz, Implications for the Deaf Community" in the effort to appeal to emotions from the people of California. That's really reaching, not to mention doing the whole nine yards using Godwin's Law.

Now, folks. I could be wrong. Perhaps Mr. Edwin Black is truly concerned about the plight of a disappearing Deaf community, sign language and culture which has grown from few tens of thousands during the Martha Vineyard era of the mid- 1800s to now probably close to a million Deaf people in the United States today. General rule of thumb of my own is that the Deaf population accounts about 1/33rd of the current general population size and apply that ratio to any population year but it probably becomes an increasingly rough estimate going further back in time. With nearly a million Deaf people today using the 3rd most popular language in the United States I suppose all that is considered a vanishing act to Mr. Black for his podium thumping lectures on eugenics. Maybe he's seeing this an opportunity to push his books and stir his name into this pot of mess and gain a bit of notoriety and name reconition in the process? Free publicity I suppose. Who knows what his real agenda and feelings are but it's rather curious to use eugenics as a mean to help stop the AB2072 bill and put it out of existence. All in all this bill is a good bill and it will pass. As for the title of my blog? I'm making a point here if that's of any help.

AG Bell on AB2072

The AB 2072 bill is about choices, obviously. It discusses that parents of newborns with hearing loss get information that covers,

American Sign Language(ASL), Total Communication, Cued Speech, and Listening and Spoken Language communication options for children with hearing loss, including, but not limited to, information about deaf and hard-of-hearing organizations, agencies and early intervention centers, and educational programs.

The problem is that those who oppose this bill often spend more time going after AGBell and other similar organizations rather than to focus and promote ASL itself. AGBell has a position paper written up some 5 years ago on their position on ASL.

AG Bell acknowledges that a chosen approach depends on culture, family interests, and desired communication outcome. AG Bell believes that the language and communication approach chosen should be based on an informed decision made by the child’s parents/family and based on their own unique circumstances.

With respect to American Sign Language (ASL), AG Bell acknowledges ASL as a language in and of itself. AG Bell also recognizes ASL’s importance in Deaf culture as a unique feature, and a language that many take pride in learning. AG Bell does not believe that ASL should be prohibited or restricted as a choice, nor does AG Bell advocate against learning ASL as part of a child’s overall development if that is what the child’s parents desire.

Regardless of chosen language or communication approach, AG Bell believes that families should have early access to professionals with specialized education and training in the desired language or communication method."

Again, it's about parental choice but parents need to be informed of all communication options, including ASL, the educational choices and the many services and advocacy groups on hearing loss that are available to the parents. AGBell believes in choices and believes that the AB2072 bill is about that in a letter to Tony Mendoza.

AG Bell believes that the language and communication approach chosen should be based on an informed decision made by the child's parents/family and based on their own unique circumstances. Regardless of chosen language or communication approach, families should have early access to professionals with specialized education and training in the desired language or communication outcome.

AG Bell believes it is important that organizations that advocate for or work with individuals with hearing loss work together to broaden health care providers' understanding of all communication methods so that upon identification, unbaised information about all options can be made available to parents and their children.

Senator Elaine K. Alquist who is the chair in the Senate Health Committee wrote up an analysis (on June 9, 2010) on the AB2072 bill, deafness, the issues involved, and about the deaf culture and community. This analysis has a firm grasp of everything. Senator Elaine K. Alquist makes a conclusion and recommendation to the committee (note the bolded portion):

Both supporters and opposition to this bill agree that any information provided to parents of deaf children should be unbiased, based on scientific facts, and come from a reliable, neutral third-party source. To address this, the committee suggests amendments to require that either DDS or CDE develop or approve the use of standardized, objective pamphlet of information about communication options for children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, that is sufficient to allow the child's parents to make an informed decision. This information shall be decided upon by the department in conjunction with a stakeholder panel, comprised of representatives of the various communication options. The cost for developing the pamphlet and conducting the stakeholder panel shall be covered through the development of an additional state fund to accept private donations for this purpose. The provisions of the bill shall only be made operative after sufficient funds have been collected to cover necessary expenses.

Both parties agree that information ought to be in an unbiased format and that stakeholders in each of the communication option shall be a part of helping the development of this pamphlet for parents of newborn babies diagnosed with a hearing loss.

No conspiracy theories.

No AGBell boogie monster under the bed.

No Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies in the attempt to label this bill and Tony Mendoza.

And none of the eugenics stuff that Edwin Black erroneously tried to infer about the Deaf community and culture's own future.

Just a straight up bill that is designed to help parents make an informed decision regarding their child diagnosed with a hearing loss.

If you disagree, disagree on the merit of the argument itself and not about trying to concoct some "end of the world" scenario here. The bill does include ASL as one of the many communication options whether used alone or in conjunction with other options. So, that is an important step. The ASL community will still have a stake in this once this bill is signed by the governor which, ironically so, at one time played a deaf and mute hit-man for a mob in a 1973 movie "The Long Goodbye."

Avdism

I decided to write the word "avdism" from now on after seeing the Holism blog on the subject. The "v" letter replaces the "u" letter. The original word has been abused too much using it as a weapon of choice much like the word "racism" was used in order to play the race card when there were none to be had in the first place. This not only proves damaging but does nothing to help the situation. "Avdism" has increasingly become an insidious word lately. I'd much rather focus on the inequalities and discriminations rather than become enamored over a single word or two hoping it'd be recognized and placed in a dictionary. I'll also include "avdist" into my own personal "dictionary" seeing that I'm the inventer of those words.