When extremism goes after their own sign language interpreters

AFA and others have been demonizing interpreters hired by A.G. Bell while others have produced names and pictures of them. Never mind that Professional Interpreters are bound by a code of professional conduct to provide equal access, remain neutral, and keep confidential, no matter who the clients are. But for any sign language interpreters to show up at the July 18 - 20, 2013 A.G. Bell LSLS Symposium in Los Angeles was met, ironically, with outrage by extremist adherents. Damned if you do produce an interpreter, damned if you don't and not provide that all important communication access.  Interpreters who were hired at the A.G. Bell LSLS Symposium get called as "traitors" and other name bashing. Rick P. and few others on the Facebook discussion were the only few sane, common sense people on board contributing to the discussion.

Folks, as a CODA, a husband of a Deaf woman, an interpreter and a colleague of Mr. LoParo, I can tell you Bob is neither a traitor nor a supporter of AGB. He was there to provide communication access - period. Think about it. If he wasn't there, how would you know what they were really saying? If you depended on his work to know what was being said, then you know he wasn't the message, he was only the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger. Many of us interpret in situations we don't really like. Just because an interpreter takes a job it doesn't mean we support any particular side. In fact, if we did, we shouldn't take the job. I'm sure Bob knew that taking the job would be difficult. I'm also sure he felt that the Deaf people who were there to protest had a right to know what was being said and that's probably why he took the job.

Jen P. interjects:

I am stunned by this witch hunt. I hope you all realize what you are saying when you say you expect interpreters to serve only those with whom they agree. Be very careful what you wish for. We live and act in a political world. We interpret in a neutral one.

Rick P. continues on his with his explanation shedding a bit more light on the misplaced mock outrage.

The reality in this situation is that Mr. LoParo was not paid directly by AGBell. He worked for an interpreting agency that was providing interpreters at the request of the conference. It seems like interpreters are in a no-win situation with this. We see what has happened with Mr. LoParo in this posting. I'm curious what would have happened if no interpreters accepted the job. Would we then be accused of being audist and on AGBell's "side" because there was a lack of communication access? Would we then be accused of intentionally keeping the Deaf community "in the dark"? Personally, I encourage our communities to have a discussion about the situation. I would also warn that some people on this thread are getting close to the legal definition of slander. I would also warn that we are "dividing and conquering" ourselves which plays right into the hands of the oppressor.

And that has been the biggest problem among culturally deaf rabid adherents when it comes to their own "dividing and conquering" within their own culturally deaf community.

Deborah M. makes a salient point on communication access and knowing what's going on at the convention.

I'm just saying that there could be situations where having an interpreter there at AGBell could be good for the Deaf community.

Rather than to attack interpreters for accepting an interpreting job at AG Bell, use them for the benefit of learning and meeting people in the effort to learn from each other the people at the symposium. Rick Pope made an observation about the AFA who was there.

Reading Ms. Jordan's account of the situation at the Omni hotel, it becomes clear that the AFA leader herself was using an interpreter for communication access that ensured her First Amendment rights. She clearly redirected people who were inappropriately trying to interpret.

"Ruthie made it clear that there were ASL certified and qualified interpreters at the rally and at no point should the security or police utilize AG Bell staff members as interpreters."

So, I have to wonder why an interpreter is catching hell from AFA supporters when the interpreter was requested by the AFA leadership. As for the comments about Mr. LoParo's "stone face", he was interpreting in a situation that could have or did involve law enforcement. If Mr. LoParo had greeted people with hugs and other behaviors that are common in the Deaf world, it could have given the impression that he was not impartial. This could have given the AGBers reason to remove him from the situation (I've seen it happen) thus negatively affecting communication access for the ASL-using protestors. Even by the AFA accounts on the website, Mr. LoParo behaved professionally and ensured the AFA leadership had meaningful access to their Constitutional rights. Why, then, is he being excoriated without any comment from the very consumers of his services?

Jen P. offered her perspective as an interpreter who attended a previous AG Bell conference.

I worked at the AGB Conference in Milwaukee in 2008, as an ASL interpreter and as an oral interpreter. I shall not discuss assignment specifics due to confidentiality. I am, however, compelled to say that AG Bell conferences are gathering places for a diverse assemblage of people, many of whom are deaf and, through no fault of their own, grew up deprived of access to a natural, visual language. Every last one of these individuals has the right to attend this or any other event, the right to discuss educational, social, linguistic and medical concerns with others who also face the same issues. They have the right to access language and information and the right to the interpreting or captioning services of their choosing. All of the attendees had an opportunity during the conference to either use or to see ASL interpreters at work. I am proud of the service I provided for these deaf individuals. I did not make the decision to work at this conference lightly or easily or without a lot of reflective and deliberate thought. Nobody has the right or authority to tell me which deaf people are (or ARE NOT) worthy of interpreting services, or in which contexts they may be served. The interpreters at these conferences are not conspirators with the enemy. They are not oralists or audists. They are performing the same professional, confidential and impartial services they provide to anyone else in the deaf/Deaf communities. You want to find out what happens if interpreters stop interpreting AG Bell conferences? It’s an interesting thought-experiment, but why stop there? Should VRS interpreters disconnect a call every time someone makes a comment in a phone conversation that is oppressive, hateful, rude, illegal, or distasteful? Do deaf people not have the human right to make their own mistakes, to deceive and be deceived, to have views that lie outside the mainstream? Should hearing interpreters decide who has the right to services based on a person’s religion, race, sexual orientation, political views, affiliations and memberships? Be careful of what you wish for. And please cease and desist with this intolerable and defamatory witch hunt. All of your energies are much better spent against your enemies than against your allies.

She further re-iterates the danger of blacklisting and choosing for the interpreters based on an ideological condition.

Patti, if one truly believes that the conference attendees have the right to equal access, it follows (for me) that as a professional, if I am qualified for the work and able to execute my duties with impartiality, then I need not recuse myself. I am not supporting an organization or an "ism". I am serving people. Actual people, not abstract stereotypes or cultural villains. The thinking on this thread has been very black and white. This setting is approved for interpreters, this setting is bad. This interpreter is good. This one is blacklisted. It is this kind of black and white thinking that rules the AG Bell roost. Signing is bad and talking is good. Activism can be polluted by extremism. I am not an AG Bell supporter. I support open communication between deaf and hearing people. I will not be intimidated by extremist thinking into believing that somebody else should do the work that I believe should be done and done well. It's not a great analogy, but some lawyers defend criminals because they believe in citizens rights to a fair defense. I believe in communication access. My conscience is clear.

The latest FB discussion is an interesting read on how extremism can get out of control. It's also an example of a slippery slope in action in the attempt to try and control interpreters on who they should or should not interpret for purely on ideological and selfish motives. And at the same time fall prey to their own paranoia. A move that would guarantee shooting oneself in the foot each and every time.

California Dept of Education Position Statement on Language Access

California Department of Education has recently posted on May 3rd (final paper on March 4) a position statement on language access of deaf and hard of hearing children in California.

In support of California EC 56000.5, the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights, this document provides clarification for the CDEs position supporting the right of children to have access to a complete language, visual or spoken, as appropriate, from birth.

Note the "or" in "visual or spoken" which means that deaf children has the right to have access to spoken language, visual language, or both rather than just on visual language alone.  It's interesting that they didn't say sign language but visual language instead (see the yellow highlight below).

There's more.

Believes that children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing have the right to receive appropriate services that will provide them with exposure to fully accessible natural languages – American Sign Language (ASL), and spoken English (or other spoken language).

Accepts and respects all languages.

Accepts and respects all communication tools (i.e., Cued Speech, Signing Exact English, Conceptually Accurate Signed English, Sign Supported Speech, Simultaneous Communication).

Accepts and respects all educational approaches in the education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing children (i.e., ASL/English Bilingual, Listening and Spoken Language, and Total Communication).

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to receive comprehensive information about the language opportunities available to them.

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to receive comprehensive information about the communication tools available to them.

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are born Deaf or Hard of Hearing to receive comprehensive information about the educational approaches in the education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing children.

Recognize the "accepts and respects all languages" and the communication tools?

Remember when president Hurtwitz re-iterated the key point on what ICED issued a global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication" in the education of deaf and hard of hearing people.

Remember AB2072?

Yeah.

Captioned Viral Videos

Rarely has viral videos on YouTube ever been captioned simply because the originator of the video didn't take the time to include captions.

VIRAL videos may be good for sharing ideas and spreading funny foreign pop hits, but they are also leaving millions of deaf and hearing impaired people out of the loop. 

Online video is becoming a more ubiquitous part of American life. Netflix videos made up one-third of online data used in the United States last year. YouTube expects 90 per cent of online traffic to be video in the next few years. By 2016, Cisco estimates, 1.2 million minutes of video will be streamed or downloaded every second. 

That video explosion has been great for small-film and TV producers, who are able to reach an audience without a big studio budget, and fans of niche programming. But in some ways, it has left the deaf and hard-of-hearing community starting from scratch after years of advocating for captions on traditional television.

Forget YouTube's speech-recognition software since most times it simply doesn't work well and you get a bunch of garbled nonsense captions, especially when background noise or music interferes with the speech-recognition process. So much for inclusion but they are certainly trying their best. But should a Federal or company's regulation be done to ensure that these independent videos uploaded by hearing John Qs be captioned or else it cannot be uploaded at all? Which is better? By force via regulatory fiat or by gradual educational awareness by making captioning fun and popular?  I'd say the latter is better. Otherwise if it's the former by regulatory force then I'm sure people would like to see it be equally done for deaf people who upload their signing videos without captions as well. That's the idea. Provide open communication access to hearing, deaf and hard of hearing people with different languages whether it's by sign or speech. Just because you're deaf doesn't supersede hearing people's need on wanting to see what's being said in signed videos.

Be a positive role model when it comes to uploading your video by including captions whether the video is in voice or by sign. Others will soon get it and start including captions.

Unapproachable Deaf People?

Are deaf and hard of hearing people really that "unapproachable" simply because they have a different way of communicating? In some ways I'd say "yes" and in some ways I'd say "no." That would depend on the context of a situation. Let me give you one "unapproachable" example and that would be the Deafhood Foundation organization.  On the outside they look to be very "approachable" but at closer inspection one would began to realize they are quite the opposite. The foundation's mission is:

"....dedicated to achieving economic and social justice for all Deaf people." 

 Now, note the capital letter "D"eaf in their mission statement as they are attempting to convey that word to mean all people with hearing loss, deaf and hard of hearing. But the problem is that the term "Deaf" with the upper case "D" has always denoted to mean culturally deaf people. According to Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) 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.

Some organizations even attempted to change that very definition by inserting "Deaf" into their own bylaws without giving any real definition to it and could easily be construed to mean only culturally deaf people. Over the last three decades Deaf (culturally deaf) people have made it a point that they "own" that word and for it to mean explicitly one thing, a group that uses ASL and have a culture. Nothing more. Nothing less.

But what is obvious here is that 98% of the deaf and hard of hearing population who do not know sign language, who are not affiliated with Deaf culture, and have other preferred means to communicate such as speaking, using Cued speech, listening and speaking, or preferring the use of Signing Exact English, for example. We still have an extremely large majority deaf and hard of hearing population that simply do not sign and they certainly are not "Deaf" people.

Deafhood Foundation is far from approachable because on their main web page it may look inviting except that their Gratitude video is only limited to those who know sign language which leaves the rest of  99.96% of the U.S. population out. So much for "social justice" when they've been demanding that "hearing people" ought to include captioning in their speaking videos. The irony is palpable here. With a signing video there is no way to approach the remaining U.S. audience if captioning isn't being used to convey their message. Not some social gabbing amongst Deaf people but a message they are trying to convey and put out for all to see.  Their own message largely resonates only to those within their own Deaf group rather than to the rest of the 98% of the population of people with hearing loss which numbers around 36,000,000 people. That's a lot of people to ignore when trying to put out a message of unity, acceptance and communication accessibility.


As for "approachable" deaf and hard of hearing people (i.e.. everybody with a hearing loss), they are increasingly using technology to allow themselves to become more approachable by giving them the ability to converse and interact with hearing people in a variety of ways.  Lately I have noticed that more and more deaf/hh people are using captioning technology to include with their own personal videos, this is true among a rising number of Deaf people taking advantage of that technology to spread their message to the rest of the English using U.S. population by using the captioned English language.  A good example of that (i.e. signing deaf) is Barry Sewell's latest video about John Yeh on conveying his message to the rest of the U.S. audience. Another approachable example would be the people who run HLAA whose own donation had already hit the million dollar mark last month since starting in January.

It's not just captioning technology but other technologies like face to face communication technology, and internet relay technology. Something that would allow the ability to interact easily with people and make them approachable. It's not about the competition of ideologies but about acceptance and understanding when it comes to accessible communication for all.

In the end the question becomes are you Frieda, the lovable, vain, unapproachable perhaps angry deaf person or are you one of those people who find a way to make themselves approachable as possible without the need to be so ungainly politically correct?

Dr. Gallaudet praised the oral and auditory teaching method.

Interesting stuff about Dr. Gallaudet.

Dr. Gallaudet acknowledged the power of hearing when it came to education and teaching people with hearing loss. He explained to the Royal Commission of the United Kingdom on the Condition of the Blind, the Deaf and Dumb (as reported in the 1892 Volta Bureau report) on commending the successful use of the aural and oral teaching method despite the availability of the manual method at the time.

Segment 13.147 - 13.152 from the Commission notes, Dr. Gallaudet detailed on how he exhibited a young boy the example of on the power of hearing to the National Academy of Sciences which gave him further insight and understanding on the power of using residual hearing for teaching and developing a language. Dr. Gallaudet acknowledged that success to the Royal Commission despite the crude"technological" approach that was available to them at the time. So successful was the use of this boy's residual hearing by using a particular method of teaching ensured his language success to carry on appropriate conversations with hearing people.

Dr. Gallaudet:
A third method which we are now practising in America with some exceedingly interesting results may be spoken of as the aural or auricular method. A very considerable percentage of those who are classed in the community as deaf-mutes have a degree of hearing which makes it entirely possible that they may be educated through the ear. The percentage is put variously at from 12 to 25 per cent., which even at the lowest figure is a large percentage of the whole number. The first movement in reference to the aural teaching of the deaf was made in Nebraska four years ago, and it was found in that institution that the percentage was quite large of those who were capable of being taught by the ear. I saw in that institution a little more than two years ago a class which was being taught entirely upon this method, and the process of teaching was an exceedingly interesting one. The class consisted, perhaps, of 11 or 12 pupils. There had been a careful examination of the amount of hearing possessed by each of these pupils, and that pupil who heard the least was placed at the teacher's right hand, the one who had a little more hearing was placed next, and the one who had a little more further on, while the one who had the greatest amount of hearing was furthest removed from the teacher. The teacher then in a voice elevated above the ordinary tone was able to dictate to those pupils, and they had all of them been actually taught to use that hearing which they possessed, which prior to the instruction was not supposed to have been sufficient to be made available at all as a means of instruction. In other words, those pupils were gradually ceasing to be deaf-mutes; they were speaking very well, and they were hearing as well as persons whom we call hard of-hearing persons. The result would be that, having come to the school under the legal appellation of "deaf-mutes," they would go out of the school not deaf-mutes at all.

The Commission (LORD EGERTON OF TATTON):
How is that result attained?

Dr. Gallaudet:
The process I can describe a little more fully by reference to the result of a very interesting experiment which we tried in the primary school connected with our college at Washington. In that primary school we try a good many experiments, and we do what we can to develop various methods. The children come in at the age of seven, and they continue in the school for eight or nine years. We had a boy who entered before we began to teach articulation. He was accredited to us as a deaf-mute from one year of age. He lost his hearing in infancy before he learnt to speak; he was absolutely dumb, and the degree of hearing that he possessed was not supposed to be of any account at all. He was registered as hearing slightly very loud noises. Not long after he entered we began teaching him speech, and he was taught to articulate. His progress was only moderate; his success was so imperfect that after a year's effort it was almost decided to give up attempting to teach him any further, but his teacher discovered, purely accidentally, that in uttering a word when the boy's face was turned away from him the boy reproduced the sound. With the use of the hearing tube it was presently discovered that the boy could repeat the vowel sounds and many of the consonant sounds without difficulty; he could repeat words the meaning of which he did not in the least degree understand. The teacher then at once began to educate his hearing. This degree of hearing which the boy possessed had never been enough for him to hold any conversation with members of his family or with any person at an ordinary distance from him.

The Commission:
Was the speaking tube that was used an ordinary speaking tube?

Dr. Gallaudet:
Yes, a flexible speaking tube. Within two years after that time I exhibited this boy before the National Academy of Sciences at Washington, and talked with him through the tube without difficulty, and today he has advanced far enough to be a student in our college; he is a young man full of promise, and he hears well enough to be able to sit by the side of either of you gentlemen and carry on a conversation with you through the tube.

The Commission:
The fact is that his power of hearing had been overlooked?

Dr. Gallaudet:
Just so.

The Commission:
There was no extra mechanism in the tube?

Dr. Gallaudet:
No. The result in that case shows that a very small amount of hearing, untrained to be useful, has existed in hundreds of deaf persons who have gone on through life dumb and hard of hearing, and classed as deaf, whereas they might, under this aural or auricular method of instruction, have been taken entirely out of the category of deaf-mutes.

The Commission:
Is there any medical inspection of these children before they enter school, and is any attempt made by the doctors to improve the hearing if the passages have become clogged by cold or disease?

Dr. Gallaudet:
Yes, in all our better schools there is a careful medical inspection of the children as they enter; it is usually the case that all means have been exhausted to benefit the hearing by the parents and friends of the children before they are brought to the institution. An examination by the medical man exhibits that fact. There are a few instances where the hearing by medical treatment has been improved, but they are very few. I commend this auricular method to all who are interested in the education of the deaf as one deserving of very great attention, because, if we take the number of the deaf who are capable of being taught aurally as amounting to 10 per cent, only, it is conferring upon them a great boon to teach them aurally; it is a greater boon even than giving them the power of imperfect speech.

Now, imagine with today's technology on hearing aids and cochlear implants, and how much of  a boon they would bring. Of course, there are no one shoe size fits all here. Each to his or her own on how one is taught and raised, and, of course, an informed parents' own decision on how it would be done for their child with a hearing loss.

Who ever thought that Dr. Gallaudet would trot out a boy to the National Academy of Sciences (see bolded red color words above) and hold him up as an example of a successful product of an oral and auditory teaching approach to gain a language?

ADDENDUM: In 1886 according to the Royal Commission report (see excerpt above in red bold letters), Edward Miner Gallaudet acknowledged the importance of listening and speaking. This acknowledgment came six years after the famous Milan Conference in 1880.

In 1880, there was an international conference of deaf educators, the Second International Congress on Education of the Deaf. At this conference, held September 6-11, 1880, a declaration was made that oral education was better than manual (sign) education. A resolution was passed banning sign language. The only countries opposed to the ban were the United States (represented by Edward Miner Gallaudet, Rev. Thomas Gallaudet, Issac Peet, James Denison, and Charles Stoddard) and Britain. The sign supporters tried, but failed, to get their voices heard.

How come this was never brought up whenever people used the old Milan Conference argument? Did E.M. Gallaudet handed in his own head on a platter when he trotted that deaf boy out to the National Academy of Sciences about his remarkable speaking and listening ability via the "tubes"? Did the Deaf community ever find out about this or was this tidbit of information was purposely withheld and not discussed when E.M. Gallaudet practically fawned over the deaf boy as being able to speak quite well and hear some, and be able to carry a conversation with a hearing person by show casing him in front of the National Academy of Sciences?

Ah ha....I see. I see. Hmmm. Hmmm. *nods my head*

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?

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.