A "closed society" can also be a "hidden society"

When you have a society where the greater majority of the general population do not even know its existence or even understand its way life like, for example, a society of people with hearing loss. It becomes a "hidden society" no matter what that society is like. It wouldn't matter if that "hidden society" is a Deaf community, deaf and hard of hearing community, a cued speech community or a community of late deafened people. But a "hidden society" can also have a "closed society."  That's when it becomes a double whammy because a "closed society" removes itself even further from the general population and sometimes even from the sub-population.

Certainly I am a part of that "hidden society" of people with hearing loss. So are the people in the Deaf community. So are the people at Gallaudet University. So are the people who are late deafened.  So are the people at AGBell. So are the people with hearing aids. So are the people with cochlear implants. So are the people who sign in ASL, SEE, or use cued speech. So are the people who are oralists. Those are examples of people that live in a "hidden society" because hearing loss is an unseen condition not always readily recognized, seen or necessarily understood by the larger general population.

But out of that "hidden society" is a society that can have an "open society" or "closed society" type. I am for a more "open society" type when it comes to dealing with people with hearing loss rather than for a society that's controlling and restrictive. Diversity of hearing loss and preferred mode of communication are wide ranging among people with hearing loss and does not fit the "closed society' model.  An "open society" is not a culture with a rigid structure and little freedom but rather a society of people that is open, understands the differences and uniqueness of each person with a hearing loss along with greater freedom to do what we do with our choices. Our common bond in our "hidden society" deals with issues on communication access to language, the ability to communicate and to strive for better equality, not about Deaf culture or ASL.

Mystery vlog at ASLrocks

I was looking for a specific video during one of my research that led me to ASLrocks.net and noticed one vlog and the ensuing comments afterwards discussing about a mystery vlog "Trust your leaders about AB 2072? " that somehow showed up on ASLrocks.net. It appears to have been perpetrated by an imposter or imposters because no screen name appeared with that video. Despite Seesmic video beeing down at the time people were reponding by typing in their comments. And if you missed seeing that missing vlog here's a Google cache of that mystery vlog on ASLnet.rocks.

Now, it's not the mystery vlog that caught my eye but the comments elsewhere in other vlogs about the author of the vlog "Trust your leaders about AB 2072?".  I can't say I'm surprised by some of the vitriol but that site certainly has a feel of "members only club mentality" where you are judged by your opinions (e.g. on avdism, "deafhood," Deaf culture, etc) rather than embracing a more open and honest forum discussion for anyone who signs or even talk with captioning (i.e in the main YouTube video and not in Seesmic) on just about anything. This has become a "closed forum discussion" based on an ideology and control versus an "open forum discussion" based more on greater freedom of expression and speech, and inclusiveness. Sounds very familiar doesn't it?

But remember,  no freedom of speech is being violated because it's a privilege to be on a discussion forum rather than a right. The owners can do whatever they want with their website on hosting a forum discussion.

Back to the ensuing comments I noticed in two different vlogs in ASLrocks about the author of the video "Trust your leaders about AB 2072?".  The hate was palpable in several comments rather than to simply agree to disagree. That environment has an air of "if you disagree with us then you are not welcomed here" sort of thing. Not everybody, mind you. Just those that I noticed and a general feeling overall when the two forums are compared.

People do have their reasons and preferences on choosing which video forum they prefer to watch and/or participate in and I respect that. That is their choices. No one is twisting anybody's arm to become a member of either ASLrocks or DVTV video discussion forum. Although with peer pressure it can be a form of arm twisting in this case, especially if people think you are a "traitor" for being a member of one discussion forum and try the guilt method to change your mind. Whatever. But, boy, that "open society" looks better and better every day.

Hike to High Rock Lookout

I reported earlier about my planned trip to High Rock Lookout near Packwood, Washington but those days were rained out if anybody wanted to join. And finally I had a chance to hike on a perfect, gorgeous day with sunny weather, blue skies and warm temperature. Previous hike I chronicled was to Gotchen Creek Meadows on the southern flank slopes of Mt. Adams if you're interested in reading. Enjoy my slideshow that ends with a video shot at the top of High Rock Lookout panning the landscape below me. The fire lookout is still being used today during fire season to watch for signs of forest fires. It is on the National Historic Register when the lookout was built in the 1930s.

Be sure to click on the YouTube screen and enlarge to fullscreen. Also, be sure to view it in high definition. It's more spectactular that way.

Enjoy!

Benson Hall fire...a comment and and a suggestion

I wrote a blog about how I experienced the many false fire alarms in 1988 when I was a freshman and how there were immature deaf/Deaf students at the time making a mess of things for the rest of the general student population. Now in the Buff and Blue article it reports two suspicious fires in the garbage chutes of Benson Hall. Now, there could be one or more perpetrators in pulling the fire alarms and it could be the same perpetrator(s) who started the fires. Until the investigation is over or the perps caught we won't really know. But Gallaudet University is offering a paltry $600 dollar reward "for information leading to the apprehension of the person(s) responsible for the fires." How much is Gallaudet University's PR worth? How much is Gallaudet University's image worth? Is it worth $600 in the hope it'd be enough to get people to talk? Or would it be a better offer a reward of, say, $2000 dollars?

Now, imagine this. You have a string of false alarms in Benson Hall perpetrated by an unknown person or persons. And then you have two suspicious fires as well. And then you have Gallaudet University come out and say, "Here's a $600 dollar reward for any information leading to the apprehension of the person(s) responsible for the fires." I know Gallaudet University is serious about this but is $600 dollars enough to get people to talk? After all, we're talking about potential lives at stake, not to mention possible injuries if the next fire alarm or fire happen again at one of the dormitories on the Gallaudet campus. I don't think $600 dollars is enough to hopefully get some names. I may be wrong but I think it's a paltry reward amount considering the potential seriousness down the road if somebody gets seriously injured or killed because of a fire.

Gallaudet University's irresponsibility over a play

This caught my attention even though this happened some 5 months ago. Gallaudet’s Theatre Arts Department hosted a play, under the direction of assistant professor Ethan Sinnott, which tries to reinterpret the life of Jesus Christ by portraying him and his disciples as gay. Now, this is not about their message they are trying to impart but rather the irresponsible use of a "religious theme" in the effort to "repaint" a historical religious figure. Not only was this irresponsible but it smacks of hypocrisy as well. Instead of using the image of Jesus Christ in the play why not use image of Mohammed instead to deliver the same message of tolerance? Just to make an obvious point here. But, of course, they wouldn't dare do that or else they get the full fatwa delivered to them rather quickly. Oh, wait, they did get a fatwa in the U.K since Muslims regard Jesus as a messenger of God, and revere his mother, the Virgin Mary. In short, blasphemy.  Yet they used the image of Jesus Christ because it was "easy picking" since you don't expect as much of an outrage via through death threats, arrests, or capital punishment through religious decrees.  Issuing decrees of arrest or execution is going way overboard, in my opinion, but I'm sure you get the picture now.

No one should have the right to use government funds or use institutions and be accessory on allowing plays to be portrayed of that nature, especially when Gallaudet University gets 70% of its funding from the Federal government. Now, it'd be interesting to ask the president of Gallaudet if he would actually approve the same play but it would use Mohammed instead. The answer would be a very predictable one, of course, you'd already know that. And you know why, too. What Gallaudet University did was in poor taste and irresponible at the same time.

There are better ways to discuss taboo subjects about tolerance but this certainly is not one of them. I believe there are room for mature discourses but not in such a way when hypocrisy could be cut two ways here.

Erroneous and dishonest blogging by CAM

I "supported" the AB2072 bill predicated on the fact it was supposed to help inform parents make an informed decision regarding their deaf children identified with hearing loss. And that was the aim of this bill. But during the whole legislative process of adding new amendment after new amendment it became increasingly convuluted as I have said before near the end of the whole process. The bill was important that it also gave greater recognition to ASL as I have said repeatedly in my blogs and that it'd be a plus for pro-ASL organizations for a legislative body to recognize ASL as a language on paper for the first time. But with the increasing complexity added to the bill through amendments I made my point on August 26, 2010 about the bill in my blog the bill's diverging from its original intent (i.e. all communication options) when I published CAA's letter to Tony Mendoza for all to see:

All in all, the continual adding of admendments and other changes in the bill in order to placate Deaf protesters' demands have gotten to the point where their actions have helped vulgarized the bill's original intent. Even the protesters were still not satisfied. From the gist of it legislators seemed to have lost sight for the rest of the children who are mostly hard of hearing or have a hearing loss only in one ear that audiologists frequently diagnose than those who are profoundly deaf. That's what seems to be missing here.

CAM gets it wrong in her recent blog about me.

Candy (Gina Sutton) and Mike McConnell verbally supported this bill saying parents should have full access to information but yet were perfectly okay with the original bill minimizing the information on ASL which was expected of them as they are supporters of oralism.

My "verbal support" of the bill was based on as long as parents make an informed decision regarding all communication options (which includes ASL) then I have no problem with their decisions. This has been my stance for years if you had bothered to do any proper research. The bill's intent was to inform parents of all communication options available. I applauded that ASL was included later on in the bill. Nothing was said about minimizing the information on ASL. In fact, I pointed out that information available to parents should be made equally so in an unbiased manner of all communication options (i.e. visual, auditory and language options) on August 10, 2010.

In other words, this pamphlet MUST provide benefits and risks for the ASL option as well as for any options described in it. And in an unbiased manner, too. It'd be foolish and folly to think that ASL will be excluded from the risk part if every other options must describe the benefits and risks when everything is of equal weight and value in terms of information provided for the parents....in an unbiased manner.

Also, CAM, where did I say that I said that governor Schwarzenegger did the right thing? That's rather puzzling if not dishonest coming from you to say that. Making things up are you? All I did was that I outlined the governor's reasons for not supporting the bill and that his reasons aligned closely to that of CAA's reasons for dropping their support against the bill in my most recent blog about the veto. In my blogs I understood some of CAA's points on why they withdrew their support for the bill. I haven't even pointed out whether I supported the governor's veto or not. Either you are not reading my blogs right, you have not read them at all or that you are purposely making things up along the way for whatever reasons. In this case about Arnold you are making things up.There is no back-pedaling on my part since I've made no statement about Arnold's veto.

Until you provide the links on exactly what I said and where it'd be best to properly make your arguments based on those actual facts and comments rather than make things up along the way as you are wont to do. Until you do your recent blog has no standing, truth or validity regarding me or my blogs.

Hooked on Visual Phonics - cued speech

Recently there has been another little round of huffiness over a recent article on cued speech written in the Washington Post. Either some people feel threatened by the title "Cued Speech Could Gain Popularity Among Deaf" or the fact that the article said about the similarity of cued speech to that of sign language (ASL) in the subtitle, "An alternate form of sign language could be gaining momentum in the deaf community."

Not knowing the full distinction between the two the writer is correct about the similarity and that it uses hand gestures as part of the communication package. Though I don't think the writer was attempting to equate cued speech as the equivalent of ASL as a language.

Here below is an excerpt in one of my blog I did on that subject back in 2006.

Cued speech or more appropriately Cued English is now believed to be the best source of visual language support for the spoken English language and it’s ability to identify idiomatic expressions and nuances. The main purpose of Cued Speech is not for speech purposes but for literacy.

You can read the rest of what I've written about cued speech back in 2006. Lots of information and explaination on what cued speech is about.

Also, you can watch four YouTube videos of native cuers with two subjects being an ASL signer. Those videos were blogged back in 2008 and be sure to watch the fourth video at the bottom in my blog.

And here's a recent article written in the Washington Post a few days ago about about cued speech highlighting the first known family to exclusively use cued speech for their deaf kids and not ASL or any signing methods at home.

Born deaf to deaf parents, identical twins Lola and Ella Scher of Rockville learned from the beginning to talk with their hands. When they were 9 months old, they produced their first word: shoe.

If they had used American Sign Language, or ASL, they would have said "shoe" by tapping their fists together twice. But their parents used a different form of communication, cued speech. So they taught each girl to make an "L" shape with her right hand, touching her index finger to her chin. That wasn't a symbol, like the ASL gesture; instead, it signaled how the word sounds in spoken English. They would have used the same gesture to say "shoo!"

Grace Consacro and Steve Scher had grown up using cued speech, and they taught it to their twins, now 5, and their deaf son, Max, who is 3. In May, the National Cued Speech Association recognized the family for its dedication to cueing.

"As far as we know, we're the only family [in the country] that uses cued speech exclusively," said Consacro, 34, who teaches both cued speech and ASL at Flower Valley Elementary School in Rockville. (note by Kokonut Pundit, she does not teach ASL - see Washington Post error correction).

This mother of two deaf twins made an important point about cued speech.

"It's not intended to be anything more than an aid to learn a language,"

There you go. An aid to help develop language. In this case, the English language even though cued speech can be used and adapted to with any spoken language throughout the world.

Another advantage of cued speech for deaf/hh children is to allow a relatively smooth transition into the hearing world. The article ends with a very profound remark from the same mother who uses cued speech.

Sometimes, the Scher-Consacro twins misinterpret or mispronounce words; but they can now follow conversations and speak very much like hearing children.

"My kids are deaf," Consacro said. "They have the miracle of the technology of cochlear implants, [and] they have the language from their dad and I cueing - it just works."

It just works. Just as I have said before, the power of hearing technology helps make oralism (oral-auditory) a very powerful draw due to its continuing successes. Oralism cannot be "stamped out" in favor of ASL. So, it's a matter of time until cued speech finally takes off nationwide on such a large scale. You can thank Gallaudet University for helping facilitate the start of cued speech.

Here's your chance to learn more about cued speech in a video below.

A quick analysis on the vetoed AB2072 bill

After reading the governor's letter on why he choose to veto the AB2072 bill I noticed three things he mentioned why.

1. The formation of an advisory committee would possibly be a duplicative work of other state programs.

2. The use of advisory committee would be quite biased.

3. And lastly use of an advisory committee would represent a significant workload which will require fiscal resources that the state is already short on.

In one paragraph near the end he stated that there are other resources and efforts being done by state agencies and departments that already try and get the information out to the parents with children identified with hearing loss. In fact, the CAA pointed this out in a letter to Tony Mendoza as seen in the first page, fifth paragraph:

Additionally, existing Health and Safety Code, Article 6.5 Section 124119.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 106, related to newborn and infant hearing screening, already provides for the dissemination of this information to parents. The Federal government already sponsors unbiased brochures, which are updated annually, by professionals in the area of communication options for the deaf and hard of hearing. These brochures can be provided to Californians at no cost. Further, there is really no reason, in our view, for such a broad expansion of this program in these difficult times.

This letter is very similar to the governor's own responses for his reason on vetoing the bill. Despite that, with the state continuing budget cuts will likely affect state organizations that are funded and supported through state grants in order to continue with their operations. With the governor vetoing the AB2072 bill means that ASL will not be recognized as a language in the state of California. And because of that pro-ASL deaf organizations who rely on state grants to help work with children and parents with hearing loss may be at risk. Had a similar bill to that of AB2072 with the inclusion of ASL that gets signed by the governor would have undoubtedly raise in recognizing ASL as a language and thereby have a greater chance of surviving any fiscal cuts via through grants to those organizations in California.  So, who really got hurt here?

Deaf lies, videos and squeaky beds

I just had a horrible, horrible discovery. I had the speaker sound on my laptop cranked up and boy did I hear a lot more sound which turned out to be a bit more, um, too  "revealing" for the ear, so to speak. What I was hearing certainly sounded exactly what it sounded like. I wished the guy who told me didn't do that when he strongly suggested that I go and listen to a "certain" deaf vlog did I realize what I was listening to. Even though those particular vlogs I avoid like the plague. Not even interested in them. But with my friend's insistence he told me to go and listen to it and turn up the volume. I cranked up my laptop's speaker, not bothering to watch the horrid video, and suddenly I can hear the unmistakeable sound of, well, um, two hacky sacks slapping rhythmically against something for about 22 seconds and then from there on you can hear the rhythmic squeaking of a bed that vary in intensity and speed for over 2 minutes. You get the picture. Either this has happened for real or somebody is playing a very loud, um, happy movie. But happy movie it ain't. Get somebody who can hear and ask him or her to listen to it. And see what they say and perhaps confirm it. Figure it out yourselves. I shall not name who, what or where. Make sure your hearing kids are not around, too.

A valuable tip for the deaf folks out there whenever you videotape yourselves. Please, please! turn off your microphone first! Nobody want to hear these sordid grunting noises, the slapping of hacky sacks, squeaky bed sounds, the groaning or screams of torture sound (in no particular order) emanating from your video. Check it once, check it twice, make sure your microphone is off before you even began video-taping yourselves for your vlogs.

Now, I need to go and take a shower. Once is enough.

The immaturity of some deaf people

The first time in my life did I realize that there are some people who are simply immature for what they do or have done that disrupts the lives of other people. What I'm talking about is my experience at Gallaudet University where I first stayed at Benson Hall dormitory building which is located in the center of the campus. A dorm whose building was mostly occupied by incoming freshman students. What got me and others our ire was the fact that over the course of a year there were perhaps several d/Deaf people who disrupted the entire Benson Hall dormitory building of some perhaps 200 people or so by pulling the fire alarm at 2 AM in the morning. Sometimes on rare occassions a fire alarm would go off twice in a single night forcing the still sleepy and tired occupants of Benson Hall outside into the cold night while firemen with their blaring fire trucks would come and investigate the building. Not only was I embarrassed for the fire personnel to do that on a regular basis it was also a continuing safety hazard by forcing hundreds of people out of a building because of false fire alarms pulled by cranks.  This was an embarrassing and maddening scene that I come to experience so much in a single semester while living in that dormitory. The constant false fire alarms disrupted many students sleep impacting their education throughout the day because they couldn't get enough sleep. And it wasn't just Benson Hall but other dormitories as well that experienced the false fire alarm problem such as Peet Hall, Ballard West and Ballard North dormitories which consisted of mostly the younger students (e.g. freshman, sophomore). Although I believe Benson Hall was the worst of all dormitories. While at Carlin Hall and Clerc Hall they generally have more matured students who were either juniors, seniors or graduates. I certainly don't remember much about Carlin Hall experiencing false fire alarms, perhaps one or two, at least I got my sleep over there.

Not only was Benson Hall that bad with the false fire alarms but it was bad on a morning after a night of students partying on Friday and Saturday nights would I find vomit in the elevator, the stairwells, outside near the entrances, sometimes on a wall smeared with vomit, and one or two students strewn about in the dormitory lounge area still passed out. In fact, one morning I came across a passed out male student lying face down in his own vomit on the floor in the dormitory lounge area on the second floor of Benson Hall where I stayed. It was simply a disgusting scene to experience almost every weekend. And then, of course, you have a trash problem as well.

With Gallaudet University you had your good and bad things about it. But those false fire alarms were nothing to sneeze at since it was a regular occurrence at Benson Hall back in 1988. It was a classic case of how immature people behave.  It was as if back then d/Deaf people simply accepted that as part of their "community of culture." They just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh, well, those things happen." I would just shake my head and simply say "That's not acceptable." It was one of those experiences I had while basically living in a closed off society on the campus of Gallaudet University did I get to see some of the prevailing attitudes people had at the time. It was a revelatory time for me.

ADDENDUM: Looks like things have not changed at Benson Hall as reported in the Buff and Blue newspaper written today about the problems of false fire alarms pulled by immature cranks.

A "hand wave" to Karen Putz

I've been meaning to blog this after what my wife told me what happened in Chicago during her high school reunion at John Hersey High School meeting up with her former deaf classmates. It's the same high school where both my wife and Marlee Matlin went at the same time and they both knew each other as well. But Marlee wasn't there. Oh well. When my wife went to register Karen Putz, who was at table, recognized the name "McConnell" and inquired if she was married to me. She said "Yes" and soon Karen's face lit up in surprise and inquired if I was around. She shook her head saying "No" saying that I didn't come due to a previous conflict. Karen then explained to my wife how she enjoy reading my blogs. In fact, she also interviewed me for the Hands and Voices article a few years back just a fyi for ya'll.  And now, I'd like to take this opportunity to send a long awaited "hand wave" back at her for the kind words she parted with my wife. And, oh, I do enjoy reading Karen Putz's blogs as well, especially the barefooted ones.

Fried brains and yummy desserts

I'm sure you've heard of the expression when someone get their "brain fried" or how "he must've fried his brain." It's when one takes too much of something, like drugs or too much academia in this case, that have rendered a person's brain to a much lower functioning level without the person ever knowing it. Sometimes "analysis paralysis" has this effect, too, which can become a case of "terminological inexactitude." The expression "terminological inexactitude" was coined by Winston Churchill which is basically a play on words by calling to the misapplication of labels and the danger or damage that can be done by doing so.  Kind of like a deaf person calling another deaf person an "avdist" when it's entirely ridiculous to even say that thinking the guy must've fried his brain for saying that. The "avdist" term would be totally bogus and misapplied. Here's another example of a "fried brain" syndrome.  One other example would be for a person to go through the whole armchair analysis over a certain group of deaf/hh bloggers and vloggers and ultimately conclude the reason they do their blogs or vlogs the way they do was because they feel that the Deaf community and culture have "rejected" them.  This sort of conclusion would be plumbing the depth of extreme silliness. I suppose, figuratively speaking, somebody must've "fried his brain" for even to conclude that (insert laugh track).

Ready for some yummy desserts?

The ridiculousness goes beyond the pale whenever Deaf people try to determine whether the feeling of "rejection" by the Deaf community and culture have occurred for other people. Here's why it's silly to try and do that armchair analysis. There's an expression "different strokes for different folks" which means there are different people who like to do things differently or live in different ways within their own community. In this case deaf/hh people do things differently in different communities and how they participate and interract in the Deaf, deaf/hh and hearing communities. We all should recognize that.

This should be about how people value and respect other people opinions, even when they bring up tough questions or discuss certain "taboo" subjects. The "frying of one's own brain" would be to try and justify one's own conclusion thinking how people write is a sign of feeling of rejection by the Deaf community at large. Which would be patently funny in the attempt at academia here. Rather there are certain number of people or group of people within a certain segment of the Deaf community that rejects those Deaf, deaf and hh bloggers and vloggers because of what they write.  Despite that many Deaf people have on the other hand welcomed and embraced those bloggers and vloggers.

Hmmm... a conundrum pie here. Done with your fried brains? Here's my slice.

For all intent and purposes Barry (The Holism) and Errigo are seen as "Deaf people" (bear with me so I can make a point here). Two very different backgrounds and upbringings who are fluent in ASL. Yet they have many Deaf, deaf, hh and hearing friends and supporters within the Deaf, deaf/hh, and hearing communities. Do you think they feel "rejected" by the Deaf community? No. It'd be funny to even say that. Rather it is quite correct to say that there are certain segments within the Deaf community who do reject Barry and Errigo outright simply because of their opinions in their blogs and vlogs. Opinions, viewpoints, and perspectives that do go against the grain of many Deaf people. This goes the same for me.

I don't feel rejected by the Deaf community as a whole based on the comments and the conversations I've had with Deaf people over the years. Heck, I walk on the campus of Gallaudet University and I certainly do not feel "rejected" by the Deaf community whenever I talk and interact with Deaf professors, students and other people who know or recognize me. I certainly do not feel "rejected" by the Deaf community whenever my Deaf wife and I go and visit Deaf events like Deaf Nation or other similar events. Or when we meet up with our Deaf friends and so on. I certainly do not feel rejected when I read DVTV responses to my videos and how I interact with them. I certainly did not feel "rejected" by the Deaf community when I used my voice in my speech in front of a live internet (Deaf) audience and the people who sat before me at Gallaudet University's first ever vlog/blog panel discussion a few years back. Does it really matter on this whole Deaf community rejection thing? In a word, no. Not one bit. But the reality is that there are some Deaf people who have categorically rejected me and other Deaf people for various reasons. And that's fine. That's life. Easy as apple pie I'd say. The Deaf community as anybody should know is a mixed bag out there. It's an impossible task to please everybody because everybody has an opinion on things.

I think this whole "analysis" attempt to try and determine whether the feeling of "rejection" by the Deaf community as a whole probably boils down to perhaps some people are simply peeved about missing out on a Monopoly game I had earlier thinking it was a real thing? Or perhaps it's about their own insecurity and inadequacy regarding their own academia background do they try and do the whole arm chair psychology bit to appear more, um, "authentic"? I don't know. But certainly this "fried brain syndrome" is getting out of hand here.

So, how was your dessert? I hope you liked it.

A video tribute to John Tracy Clinic

Here's a special video thanks to the John Tracy Clinic where I am a successful product of their oral-auditory program.  This a candid and frank video about my background in my oralism upbringing which made me for who I am today. Without it I wouldn't be where I am today.

Deafhood - religion like?

Recently over the last few days based on comments I received in my blogs I had the realization about how some people follow "deafhood" to such an extreme. How extreme? That depends. One commenter named "Kim" had this to say about "Deaf culture" in one of my most recent blog where she discussed "deafhood" and religion:

Language and religion are definitely huge. While we can't say that Deaf people have their own separate religion, their fervent belief in the Deafhood experience almost seems like a religion sometimes.

There it is. Religion and "deafhood" in the same sentence. So that got me thinking.

Kim soon clarified the next day on what she meant by what she said earlier.

Judging by v/blog posts (and comments) it seems like there's this strong fanatical, almost religious-like movement of Paddy Ladd worshippers who spout passages from his book like it's the Holy Bible of Deaf existence. So when people like Mike here ask questions, such as "is there a Deaf culture," there is a tendency among those "few" to over react, and sometimes they accuse him (and others) of not being Deaf since he doesn't seem to believe the right thing.

Candy also followed up about the whole oralism thing segueing into "deafhood" in that same blog.

This one need to be documented and published in the deaf blog as part of deaf history of deafhood and how they really are taking Paddy Ladd's colonialism too far. I suggest you all view Ella's comment number 41 in ASLrocks. It is a must viewing to see how delusional this deafhood thinking is. There is this evidence right there that indicates that dh is all about going after this oralism system rather than a personal journey to find one's deaf center.

Is there a conflict of interest here regarding certain "deafhood leaders"?

Let's look behind Curtain #1 about the Deafhood Foundation and you'll find a familiar name as who those board members are, and quickly you'll get to the "Vision" part where it says:

The Deafhood Foundation will provide financial, educational and social opportunities to end the economic exploitation of Deaf people. The Foundation aims to free the world from a*dism and recreate a society where everyone experiences full humanity and celebrates Sign Language.

So, this "deafhood" isn't about celebrating individual's own identity and personal journey wherever it goes even if it means identifying and embracing oralism and excluding ASL but about the attempt to wipe out oralism, avdism and have sign language to take its place instead according to one "deafhood leader"? Even though oralism has shown to be beneficial in many cases (even I have benefitted tremendously from it, too):

Deaf individuals who use Oralism have "proficiency with spoken language and . . . have an average reading ability . . . of thirteen to fourteen-year-old levels, which is approximately double the national average for all children who are deaf" (Stone 2). Furthermore, programs using Oralism generally have strong academic curricula resulting in high achievement levels and more students who go on to complete secondary or higher education programs (Schwartz 167-168). This also results in "more social, educational, and work opportunities . . . [and] to a more fulfilling and independent adult lifestyle" (168). With such results, it can be understood why those who value education truly approve of Oralism. These benefits of Oralism allow deaf individuals to reap the educational benefits and equal opportunities that people such as Mary Wollstonecraft strived to obtain and society, particularly the Oralists, continue to cherish.

It is obvious that oralism has its own benefits and that many deaf and hard of hearing people have benefitted tremendously from that. I understand that there are those who fell between the cracks and how beneficial signing is on an emotional and social level. But that's beside the point here. If people simply cannot leave alone the philosophical concept of what a personal journey of a deaf or hh person is like but instead use it as foundation to push their own ideology while espousing for the "death of oralism" and so on certainly does give it a religion-like feel. A fanactical-like following.

If this continues then this whole "deafhood" thing will simply stay within the Deaf community circle that is mostly accepted by some Deaf people rather than seeing it accepted by the rest of the hearing loss population that is 33 times bigger than the Deaf population of some perhaps 900,000 Deaf people.  This acceptance by the bigger population will never happen if this fanaticism continues. This is the perception of what many people would probably see whether they're hearing, deaf or hh who happen to come across this whole "deafhood" drama. Especially seeing how some "leaders" and other "followers" would prop up this "deafhood journey" under the guise of a friendly non-profit Deaf organization while in the background advocate for the "death of oralism," use of ad hominems, harrassment (see Tayler Mayer's example who is the owner of Deafread) and such. No wonder other groups like "Deafhood? No Thanks" cropped up recently as a response to this whole mess.

Many people do cherish the free and independent thinking regarding the many hearing loss issues out there and recognize the fact that there is no one shoe size fits all when it comes to addressing hearing loss, modes of communication, education and language development. Especially in a period of time when technology has been a boon to help address communication, educational and language developments owing to the simple fact is that hearing loss range from mild to profound. The diversity is large and mixed out there.

As a closing, I liked what Kim said in my blog "You have to be hard of hearing to understand":

People like Ella can never understand what it's like to be me. I experienced a life time of hearing before my hearing began to decline. Those experiences made me who I am. Naturally I still identify with hearing people.

Through HLAA and ALDA, I am part of a growing, thriving, powerful mostly oral deaf community, and we don't care what Ella thinks.

And you know what?  Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA) would certainly look to be the better organization to join when it comes to advocacy and support in a more neutral manner rather than wade into chest deep the hypocrisy, the conflict of interests, unprofessionalism, rogue followers and petty politics. And I'm certain people wouldn't want to be a part of an organization or group of people that has a religion-like feel to it seeing how some use an inquisition-like process whenever one states a view opposite of somebody else's opinion. And then there comes the auto de fe.

This whole thing simply doesn't feel right.

Anonymous comments no longer allowed!!

I agree with what Tayler is doing. He feels he has no choice. I can imagine all the crap he had to endure seeing all those anonymous comments by deaf cowards who are a bunch of thumb-sucking anal retentative babies in the effort to demean, attack and perhaps even threaten him to some extent through anonymous commenting. Anonymous comments meant to demean and attack Tayler for what he's done with Deafread and DVTV are rather petty. Even petty still to attack him for his own personal opinions. I'd rather see a face or at least a real name to go with the comments but I still do allow anonymous comments to go through my blog today even though some of them are from those who are cowards. Still, I let them through. Normally I'd allow them to go through instead of deleting them which is a rare thing I do. At least I can have some examples of what an anonymous coward looks like in my comment sections when I do my next "Best and Worst Responses" for 2010 as I have done in 2007. My favorite comment for "Best and Worst Responses" in 2007?

“Another eye opener is the claim that 40 percent of my blogs were about him. Now, I've done 1068 blogs in over two years. If I did 40 percent, that would be 427 blogs!! LoL! The guy is really bad at math.”

Yeah, not only delusional but really, really bad at math.

Heh.

Deaf and hard of hearing awareness at Disneyland

Source


At least Disneyland has the right frame of mind to include ALL people with hearing loss to enjoy what the park has to offer for improved communication performances and simply just not those who are Deaf and know ASL. The people at Six Flags actually excluded those who do not know sign language. Unreal. Six Flags' own "Deaf and Hard of Hearing Awareness Day" was hardly anything but accomodating to the rest of the non-signers (or even those who just started learning) had they actually attended thinking they'd be accomodated.

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.

Silence? Don't bet on it.

Ever since the "news" broke out it caught a lot of deaf people's attention and we all know why. I or anybody else do not need to explain why. If you already know the history then there's nothing more to tell. Regardless of a person's background everybody is innocent until proven guilty as I have said before. But ever since the release was announced a few days ago many people were betting whether this person would be humbled by all that experience and be a better person. Most seem to be saying it wouldn't be the case. I wonder what the odds maker at Las Vegas would say? A 10 to 1 odd? A 100 to 1 odd? 10,000 to 1 odd? Never? I guess we'll have to wait and see but according to many people they seem to be saying "keep your money" instead. That is, don't bet on it. Sometimes there is certain but important key event that can be seen as a signal in a person's life. It's up to the person to recognize that and decide which fork in the road to take. But if ego is any indicator then that path will be the same path as before. A path that goes nowhere.