The Answers and Wow isn't it cool what AG Bell can do?

Over in another blog a blogger wrote

“…when Patti Durr did not answer questions in relation to the term deafhood within the California Association of the Deaf (CAD) Bylaws,…”

I tried to recall which questions she might have asked that i missed – there were 130 comments – and i tried my best to address her questions over in her thread to which she replied:

Patti, my questions were in #75, #77, and #79. It’s your blog, you chose to respond whichever fashion. Please do not answer these here. They should be answered over at your blog, if you so wish.

I wonder, tho… Does DH teach that deaf people need to be wary of the language of the world at large (English, in America)?

Everyone has a different writing style and I have my own speaking style. Fact is, it’s the way it is.

————
So here are my much wanted answers where they are supposed to be – i guess

enjoy world

——–

NOTE: i have no idea what they are referring to above re: Deafhood and English – perhaps another myth spinning?

2. re: #75
i did answer part one in #95 no.2 but here it is again

my overlooked or insufficient answer:

well where are those minutes from 2005????– that is your own bloody HW not mine – im fine with Deafhood being in the bylaws and i would be thrilled to find out that paddy ladd himself flew to town special to propose its consideration

3. re: #77
my answer:

many folks have commented on a definition of Deafhood and its inclusive nature etc but still you have insisted on spelling it with the lower case and trying to find one type of person who Deafhood might say – nah ain’t part of Deafhood so my question is do you really want to hear our answers or have you already decided what it means.
The way it is pretty much defined with in the OVERALL CAD bylaws is that – wow its good to be Deaf and ASL is cool and if you are hard of hearing, later deafened etc or use diverse communication u are part of CAD

I’m adding now:
THIS IS WHY THE CAD PUT THE WORD HARD OF HEARING IN THE BYLAWS E-L-E-V-E-N TIMES.

Pretty unusual move for folks who are trying to profile and discriminate against non-big D deaf folks, eh?

Please remember that it was theHolism’s letter that stated “We know for a fact that ‘hard of hearing’ term is no longer in the by-laws.”

this does not bother anyone? i really really really can not believe this

WHERE DOES THE BYLAWS SAY ANYWHERE – ORAL FOLKS MUST SIT IN THE BACK OF THE BUS. NON-SIGNERS USE THE DRINKING FOUNTAIN DOWN THE HALL. DEAF OF DEAF FAMILIES CAN ONLY BE OFFICERS? FOLKS WITH CI CAN NOT ENTER?

the AG Bell Association College scholarship requirements
aside from the deafness requirement it states:
Spoken communication must be the student’s primary mode of communication.

So if a person does not have spoken communication at all or as their primary mode of communication they are LEGALLY excluded from this scholarship.

http://www.agbell.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?p=College_scholarship_Awards

They can but CAD can’t.

Under AG Bell chapter membership:
Be part of a network of parents, professionals and adults with hearing loss dedicated to promoting issues relating to hearing loss and spoken language at the local level and gain access to local resources. Find your state chapter or inquire about how you can start an AG Bell chapter in your state.
http://nc.agbell.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=531

They can require folks be “dedicated to promoting issues relating to hearing loss and spoken language” but CAD can not require folks be dedicated to promoting Deafhood?????

Cuz there is a Deafhood foundation???? There are not hearing loss associations, there are no Deafness, Ear Institutes, Spoken Language centers, training programs, academies, certification processes, …

OH my gosh the top banner on the AG Bell site is an add for Bionic Ear but when u click it, it routes you to Advance Bionics

Isnt this the CI company that is facing a class action suit

wow – where is theHolism to perform his duty when you need him????

#79 Gamas question related to “why isn’t disability enough”

my answer cuz some folks would like to define themselves not by what they can’t do but rather by what they can do and what makes them unique as a cultural and linguistic minority

so the term “negro” and “colored” were legal terms and maybe the term racism wasn’t so much but some Black folks got together and got busy doing some marching and they got busy doing some peaceful sit ins and they got busy doing some affirmation and they got busy doing some examining of the unexamined and they found out – hey we can call ourselves African-American!

sure some folks said:
– dont rock the boat negro is just fine
– some said I dont know nothing about Africa – do not call me African-American
– some said not African-American geez it should be Afro-American
– and some said Black is beautiful

If ya all want to define yourselves as disabled and part of deafness that is your right. If you all want to be seen as disabled and your rights to always be framed around disability rights vs. human and linguistic rights that is your right BUT by insisting that Deafhood can not be part of bylaws or foundations, or organizations you are actually practicing discrimination and exclusion.

by the way i checked some other minority / cultural groups bylaws and they have phrases like – members will subscribe to the mission of the organization and the mission of the organization is about preserving and promoting their human, linguistic, cultural and social rights i.e. womanhood for the NOW, Black power for the NAACP and Deafhood for CAD

Hmmm im starting to think we need to lobby for the NAD to include Deafhood in its mission

big thanks for all this dialogue – i think i see the path now

much peace

patti

Advertisements

32 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. gamas
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 05:40:50

    I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You have shown your true colors. If I had met ANY bloggers or Vloggers out there in the real world, I would NEVER have had to debate in my mind whether they are friend or foe. 🙂

    True colors, you have shown, indeed. I feel sorry for you.

  2. Jeffrey
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 05:57:09

    Gamas,

    I find you to be quite amazing!

    You speak of true colors when you have never once revealed your true self.

    You speak of true colors when you have never used a true name.

    You speak of true colors when you have never shown your face.

    You speak of true colors when you have defined hypocrisy.

    You are a sure one to talk.

    So again,…let me ask you:

    Who are you?
    Where is your face?
    What’s there to be afraid of?

    funny you,… you are amazing!

    Yours truly,
    Jeffrey

    P.S. How come the phrase, “I feel sorry for you”, makes me think of when I was in middle school?

    *scratchin’ me head*

  3. Deafchip
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 06:05:42

    Patti,

    Excellent article/response… Yes I have shared your concern about people who refuse to see other sides but continue to attack our real concerns out there.

    Deafchip

  4. brenster-
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 06:44:02

    Gamma, aka, Candy – you asked for Patti’s responses and she gave you hers. In turn, you threw insults at her?!?!? Would you rather she be untruthful in her responses to your questions the way you wanted them answered? (it’s a rhetorical question, btw).

    Patti truly shows her real colors? She has already shown her true colors, if you see her in her vlogs, she’s very colorful (red, white, brown, blue, orange, green, etc).

    You? You have several fake names, and no colors!

    I echo what TheDeafJeff said above!

    You are amazing!

  5. brenster-
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 06:52:48

    Patti-

    I share the same puzzlement you have about why the folks on another side has so much objection about CAD’s bylaws over ONE TERM: “Deafhood” when AG Bell practices exclusion by requiring its members to promote oralism, nowhere it says about respecting people with various “communication modes” and respecting ASL as a true language.

    I share the same puzzlement you have about why the folks on another side are OK with theHolism’s intentional false statements about CAD, why they are OK with him targeting organizations in which PERSON X is involved, why they are OK with the witch hunt on the PERSON X, why they are OK with libelous and personal slanders about PERSON X.

    It looks like they really, really want to see that PERSON X to really go down so much that they would go at any lengths including hurting the rest of us in the process.

    They are really a piece of work!

  6. the one and only ridor
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 10:18:20

    Bravo, Jeffra! My bet is that Gamas (Gina or Candy) won’t respond to that.

    Always hiding and dishing her opinions upon us all from afar.

    R-

  7. Deafchip
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 11:12:37

    Brenster, excellent comment and I agree with you based on gamma’s response… Just want to attack no matter how good or not. That is really sad…

    Jeff,

    Two Thumbs UP or should I add, Two Big Toes UP!

    Deafchip

  8. Dianrez
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 11:41:24

    The questions Gamas proposes are revealing: she sees Deafhood as a flawed concept of what is actually a disability. Perhaps she doesn’t understand what the culturally Deaf lifestyle is like.

    Treat this type of person as an uninformed outsider…address her questions directly and simply as possible.

    #75: Who can be part of Deafhood?
    You already answered this, Gamas: “any one that is deaf and hard of hearing regardless…” This includes oral deaf, too. In addition, since the customary mode is ASL in CAD meetings, oral deaf might be more comfortable using AGBell for their needs, but are still welcome at CAD nevertheless.

    #77: Gamas, if you wish, you can go directly to CAD and ask to examine their minutes yourself to find out who proposed including the term “Deafhood” in the bylaws.

    Since the word means different things to different people, inserting a glossary would be a good idea.

    In Paddy Ladd’s definition, it means deaf peoples’ seeking self-development and actualization as Deaf people.

    #79: “Disability” is a medical term and is not used by Deaf people. Here in the bylaws of a social/cultural group, the word is meaningless and inappropriate.

  9. Ann_C
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 12:15:49

    dianrez,

    Gamas is from a DoD family(a culturally Deaf one at that), has a hearing loss, and she is hardly an “uninformed outsider”.

    She is not a CAD member because she doesn’t live in CA, therefore she wouldn’t be able to obtain the meeting minutes unless some CAD member offered the mails in which the meeting minutes are published to her. One cannot obtain them via CAD’s website, I know, been there and tried that.

  10. gama
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 14:55:12

    Ann is right, I’m not an uninformed outsider. I’ve always had a broader view of the world at large and never saw myself as limiting due to my being hoh and neither did my deaf family, a culturally deaf family that is. I don’t like to go around telling people that I’m dod, because I want to be treated without bias.

    With the disability notion, I’m bringing up questions that people take for granted the services and monies they get under disability provisions, not to mention falling under the protections of ADA laws, for one. We are disabled, and as a result, we have gotten assistance such as DVR support (for me I got a full ride to college on taxpayer’s money) as a result of being hoh which falls under disability. ADA falls under disabilities. Deaf people get SSI and SSDI based on disabilities. And, instead of focusing on the medical term, acknowledge that this special group of disabled people do have a rich history that involves a culture of their own unlike ethnic groups. We are disabled, like it or not. Otherwise, I’d think that those who believes that they are not disabled should not have any business getting SSI or SSDI nor getting other services or fall under the protection of mandates that defines us as disabled. Who are we kidding? Seriously. And again, if anyone does not agree..so be it. Don’t get all hyped up about it.

  11. gama
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 15:08:21

    Dianrez, you said that the word disability is not recognized by (capital d) deaf people. My question now is, where do you get that from? I know many deaf people do acknowledge that they are disabled, technically. They may not like the term but they acknowledge that. And, there are those that denies it too. Because of our disability, we have laws that protects us, we have mandates that provides us with services etc.

    One good example: Interpreters. Hispanic or other ethnic groups of people are not afforded free interpreting services because they choose to NOT learn English, therefore they have to pay for their own interpreters. It’s the law, in my state it is. But, deaf and hoh people are not able learn to hear, they are disabled, therefore the law says the courts have to provide them with an interpreter.

    It’s not because of a cultural factor but the fact that they are disabled. Maybe there’s some underlying issues with some deaf people who find that being disabled is a dirty word when it shouldn’t be??? But, if we see ourselves as a person first, none of that really matters.

  12. Shel
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 15:57:30

    Gamas…

    We do see ourselves as persons first… the problem is that we ARE viewed as disabled.

    That “disability” is often the FIRST thing Hearing people of ALL stripes notice. They see us as persons UNTIL they find out we’re deaf. THEN that view changes.

    Until we get rid of the medical label, people WILL always focus on the medical aspect.

    Did you know that there was once a time in US history that Hispanic children who spoke Spanish, but did not speak English were considered disabled…upon the basis of their lack of command of the English language?

    We all can agree that Spanish speaking people in the USA are not disabled, and yet they got slapped with this label once upon a time?

    Likewise, we got slapped with the medical label yet we are NOT disabled. We are so labelled in the eyes of the majority because we are DIFFERENT from them.

    We gotta jettison that medical label. Once that happens, people will not focus on the medical term because we are not tagged with it.

    Verstehen sie? Comprendo, amiga? 🙂

    Shel

  13. gama
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 16:24:16

    Shel,

    Perhaps we should have deaf people taken out of the American DISABILITIES Act, SSI, SSDI, DVR, and any/all assistances, services, mandates that are afforded to us because of “disabilities” since we are not disabled and perhaps that will help people view us as not being disabled anymore? As long as we fall under that, we will always be seen as disabled.

    I asked my CODA son if deaf people are disabled, his answer is yes. To him it isn’t a bad thing, and to many hearing people, it isn’t a bad thing but to many deaf people it is. I have encountered more hearing people who think deaf people and their culture is cool. They think we’re one of the coolest people from the “disabled group”.

    Maybe the problem lies with how picky the deaf people are with labels. We have created so much as it is. 😉

    Obviously, there will never be a consensus on this topic.

    To each its own.

  14. Shel
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 17:53:03

    Gamas,

    We COULD have Deaf people (note the capitalization) taken out of ADA… and placed under the Affirmative Action and similar social services that other minorities benefit from, but with the understanding that linguistic minorities have the right to access to information through interpreters and technology (such as VRS, captioning, TTYs, etc), be they Hispanic, Asian, and other non-English speaking groups.

    One problem is that USA is notoriously monolingual so you Deaf Americans have more than one strike against you… disability view and the view that English as the supreme language… the only one worth spending money teaching and learning.

    The Black community needed Affirmative Actions to get a foot into employment positions they might not have had a chance previously in the then racism-soaked system in the USA. Women needed Affirmative Action for the same reason. Native Americans also needed the same legal protection. Ditto for Asian and Hispanic people. If these ethnic groups, who are NOT disabled, needed protection from active discriminatory practices, so do the Deaf people surely.

    What sort of social services do immigrants in the USA receive?

    I know that in Canada, for immigrant children whose language is NOT English, they receive social support, INCLUDING interpreter-assisted homework clubs, for example. This isn’t social support for disabled children, but for linguistic minority children. Adult immigrants receive social supports as well, and they are not disabled. Interpreters are available for them too. Yet, they aren’t lumped into the category of disability.

    Food for thought, hmmm?

  15. gama
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 20:47:11

    Shel,

    Why do you have to rub in the capital d to me when you know I don’t subscribe to it? I don’t berate you for using it and I don’t expect you to berate me for not using it either. Let it be. This is me and that is you. That comment says a lot about where this is going. 😉

  16. Dianrez
    Oct 09, 2009 @ 22:32:44

    The discussion between Gamas and Shel is certainly fascinating and brings up many valuable points.

    In the community of d/Deaf citizens there is room for everyone including their varied concepts of self.

    HOH and oral deaf are often not considered in Deafhood or “Deaf, not disabled”. This is mainly because they do not want to be included in that group, or because they do not feel comfortable being described from a sociological viewpoint. They would rather be considered as part of the larger hearing society with aids.

    On the other hand, Deaf people don’t want to be described as having a disability because they consider themselves a socio-linguistic group. They reject the medical viewpoint since it offers little help at their level of hearing.

    That shouldn’t be a problem except that the larger hearing society has imposed limitations on us and requires us to jump hoops in order to get around these limitations. We are faced with a maze of special education, vocational rehabilitation, SSI, SSD, and the like simply to obtain the same things as hearing people obtain. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just get rid of all that and have total access to education, information, and services as free of discrimination as everyone else?

    People who jump on concepts due to their self-image not being supported by them need to look beyond themselves…does it help the cause?

    Does it bring together people for positive results?

    Does it add new tools for making one’s way in society?

    Or does criticizing it add to the controversy and division before it has had a chance to be tested?

    This doesn’t mean we all have to agree to any one concept. Just find or establish a group that promotes the concept that one is most comfortable in…there are many and the world is big enough to have a choice. All that touch on d/Deaf people will fit under an umbrella as having similar basic needs.

  17. Shel
    Oct 10, 2009 @ 04:43:21

    Gamas, I was not berating you for using d/D. I was emphasizing the fact that we are a people, and the use of d/D is a divisive concept.

    We are a people, even though we may disagree among ourselves. One commenter… I believe it was Brenster?(folks, correct me if I’m wrong)… said that’s like using b/B, or j/Jew to refer to the people in the Black community and the Jewish community respectively. And we know there are divisions in the communities. Not everyone agrees on what it means to be Black, nor what it means to be Jewish, yet they belong to an ethnic group.

    I view us as a people, whether you disagree or not.

  18. patti
    Oct 10, 2009 @ 06:07:16

    again – thank u both for ur valiant effort to educate what are academically accepted practices that have been in place for about the past 30-40 years (I.e. the lower case d to be pathological view of being deaf and D to be the cultural linguistic view of being Deaf)

    my guess is that when Woodward proposed the distinction he never envisioned that some Deaf folks would be arguing for the right to be called deaf (a pathological / infirmity model) but these are strange days while the 2nd wave or oralism is upon us and the resurgence is trying to resurrect itself – we r definitely gonna have some clashes folks

    when i first entered the Deaf-World (see Lane, Bahan, and Hoffmeister) many folks told me that deaf folks were 30 years behind the majority

    and i was like what

    and then over the years i realized why that number 30 years – oh that is about 1 generation

    Leon Davis (of disbilities studies) has said that the challenge that plagues the Deaf community is that it is typically one-generation thick

    some folks DoD or DoH have been socialized to believe they are purely a disabled creature and most work within that framework

    even disability studies largely rejects the disability framework and is working hard to debunk and reconstruct it – most all will say it is a social construct and usually a damaging one

    so the Disability Studies folks who have adopted the label disabled oft say “i am disabled here / see / feel me ROAR and I won’t take it ANYMORE”

    see A.D.A.P.T. for some kick@#$$ peaceful activism

    re: are Deaf only a cultural / linguistic people or are they BOTH – see Lane’s article where he is advocating for Deaf as Ethnicity and Baynton’s where he is advocating for a Deaf as disabled due to societal construct and Deaf as cultural / linguistic minority

    both GREAT articles – Deaf Studies Today 2005 conference proceedings

    for folks who fully want to subscribe to a disability model while at the same time getting cochlear implants to rectify and overcome this disability – many of them have hit problems with getting coverage for additional services later because the CI’s “are so good now that they are only Deaf when they sleep” vs the “i still need an CART and an oral interpreter and…” kinda contradict each other

    there are lots of contradictions and they might be based on the premise / philosophy of “i want my cake and to eat it too”

    peace

    patti

  19. Shel
    Oct 10, 2009 @ 06:22:15

    One more thing: if we are to be recognized as a social and linguistic minority in the same vein as the Black and Jewish communities, we cannot continue to use the d/D concept as that concept is heavily dependent on the audiogram measurement of us. The audiogram is one of the foundations upon which the disability view is set. To break away from that disability view and moved from the ADA umbrella and under the Affirmative Action umbrella, we need to start viewing ourselves as a people.
    Hence, the capital letter D to apply to all of us. It doesn’t matter what the audiogram says about us, or even if we use audiograms at all.

    Also, we should consider ceasing to allow audiograms to influence our definition of ourselves as Deaf. I don’t care how much degree of “deafness” a person has. That is a device imposed upon us by the majority… especially the audists to modify and mold us into the image deemed best by society at large.

  20. Linda Slovick
    Oct 10, 2009 @ 14:38:33

    I am puzzled as to Gamas’ anger, but figure that I probably have stepped into some longer-term dispute or something…

    I DO know that Social Security no longer considers me disabled, even though they are happy to acknowledge that I am VERY PROBABLY still, what they call “medically disabled” by my deafness. I would need to PROVE the medical condition still exists, if I were ever to re-apply again.

    Apparently financial need is also required rather than just deafness to make me “disabled”.

    Until I have financial need, my deafness is not enough, and is considered as though it stopped existing in the interim!

    Hope this observation doesn’t make anybody madder, but am not sure why folks are mad in the first place.

    SO MUCH of that around! Makes the environment chilly for those of us just watching and trying to figure out what even might help…

    Seems to me that everybody is hoping for the anger to die down, but even the people hoping can’t really seem to get off the merry-go-round.

    Confused as to how things can possibly improve from same-ol-same-ol…

  21. Shel
    Oct 10, 2009 @ 15:06:36

    Linda, that’s interesting. They don’t perceive you as disabled probably because you used to be hearing… it’s kind of complicated really. This is only speculation on my part. When you became deafened, you were already “fully functional” if that makes sense?

    As for the anger and the merry-go-round thing… yes it’s been going on for almost three years… after much controversy, people are nursing grievances and hurts from past slugfests.

  22. Linda Slovick
    Oct 10, 2009 @ 17:12:01

    They don’t perceive me as disabled, yes, but they also don’t perceive YOU as disabled either, unless you are currently receiving benefits.

    I’m just both cringing and laughing at the idea that my deafness disappears in between times, so needs to be PROVED each time.

    Something about the deafness certainly still causes ME trouble in the hearing world!

    Apparently, tho, deafness itself is NOT considered to be a disability until you need money for the discrimination that ensues.

    The disability model sucks! Gives us status we DON’T need, and doesn’t give us the status we DO!

    Still, it would be nice if we could get the hearing world to recognize that the deafness doesn’t disappear when they don’t notice it anymore…

    Seems to me that the whole philosophy of AGBell, device makers and the non-deaf-centered deafness helpers in general is to make the deafness disappear from the hearing world’s notice!

    That we still notice the disparity in treatment, no matter!

    Just my opinion…

  23. DT
    Oct 11, 2009 @ 09:40:00

    Interesting stuff, folks….why, after all these decades, deafness continues to baffle the majority of the hearing world, most notably how that ignorance emanates from Federal and State governments, is beyond me. On the one hand, the Feds instituted programs like SSD & it’s applicable variations is a round-about admission that society has oppressed us; thus, the provision of these “reparations” and all the while instituting the ADA which I liken to a collander! And on the other hand, States like Wisconsin, for example, passing a requirement that all insurance companies licensed and operating in that State must provide cochlear implants to deaf beings if one is so desired in order for that State to thereby proclaim that they will be freer from the burden of having to support such people. Oh, if only they knew the reality! Well, down the road, they shall, they shall!! And this sad saga will continue.

  24. DT
    Oct 11, 2009 @ 09:43:50

    Linda S., please allow me to make a small interjection regarding device makers. Seen from their eyes, the invention of devices to help people stems from an act of altruism. I know this doesn’t help matters but I wanted to point that out.

  25. pdurr
    Oct 11, 2009 @ 10:38:44

    DT u made me think of how when the fed govt was gonna give Deaf and Blind folks tax exemptions, Deaf leaders said “thanks but no thanks – we can pay federal taxes. We can work” so today Blind folks are exempt but Deaf people are not.

    If today such an offer was made maybe many deaf or Deaf or whatever we r calling us all today would say – yes bring it on – exempt me yes.

    Re: Altruism – is this also rooted in benevolence and paternalism?

    Veditz asked Bell if he could do for the eye what he had done for the ear (re: telephone) by inventing a television type of telephone

    this was LONG before TV was even around

    that kind of altruism would have been welcome me think

    peace

    patti

  26. DT
    Oct 11, 2009 @ 11:37:18

    Patti, thanks for the response. As for the altruism angle, I was speaking of the individual inventor as doing his/her work from a position of pure, unadulterated altruism. You probably can make a good case for the “benevolence and paternalism” angle of which you speak. I stopped at the inventor and there’s the abyss in front of me, wherein there are all too many valid points we have covered over decades from both sides of the aisle and I think I touched on that some at # 23. You mentioned TV/AgBell; well, the TV and other wonderful technological advances are the order of the day now and we are still stuck in the quagmire….there’s too much of this, especially from within which we need to cease and expend energy where it can count. Peace, girl…..

  27. Dianrez
    Oct 11, 2009 @ 11:55:13

    Some weeks ago, I read that Alexander G Bell did have notes for a television way back in his day.

    However, he apparently did not devote as much time or thought to it as he did the telephone.

    A matter of personal priorities, that he thought hearing was more useful and more valuable than seeing?

    One wonders, as he was closely allied with oral-deaf (deafened at age 14) Thomas Edison, inventor of the light bulb. Did they discuss it among themselves?

    Another note: Canada has a nonrefundable tax credit for deaf people. Last year it was a credit of about $7,000 against taxes owing on income. For most deaf workers, this has the effect of canceling their income tax.
    What is the American NAD doing in this area?

  28. DT
    Oct 12, 2009 @ 00:28:35

    Dianrez, I’ve heard that he stole the invention of the telephone from some Italian guy….

  29. patti
    Oct 13, 2009 @ 17:13:07

    see the book The Telephone Gambit by Set Shulman – awesome book

    pretty much digs up many smoking guns that Bell engaged in plagiarism and theft

    re: the inventor of the cochlear implant – name please as kinda contested about WHO was the first inventor etc

    Re: Edison he is reported to have told Ford that he preferred being Deaf as it allowed him to focus on his inventions / experiments. He spoke but followed business meetings and such by having his secretary tap out all the spoken words in morse code on his leg

    oy

    re: NAD and tax credit – no idea.

    peace

    patti

  30. DT
    Oct 13, 2009 @ 18:39:39

    http://www.ask.com/bar?q=Graeme+Clark+the+Inventor+Born&page=1&qsrc=6&ab=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fgnt%2Fprofiles%2FTranscripts%2Fs1117832.htm

    Altho, attempts at making crude implants dates back over a century ago, this guy in the above URL is widely considered the Father of the CI. Reading this, it is obvious that he doesn’t/didn’t have motives I hear some folks scream about.

  31. patti
    Oct 14, 2009 @ 05:34:05

    HI DT

    Link didnt work for me but seeing Graeme Clark in the address showed that it was the gentleman i thought u were thinking of

    this is what he is quoted as saying in a recent article:

    Professor Clark, founding director of La Trobe University’s Centre for Bionic Ear and Neurosensory Research, said diagnosis before the age of 12 months was critical. “The new legislation will then enable severe to profoundly deaf children to compete with their hearing peers on a normal footing,” said Professor Clark. “In Sweden, 95 per cent of profoundly deaf children have a cochlear implant.”

    Professor Clark said every year in Australia 100 children needed an implant. “Last year there were 70 new recipients. That means 30 deaf children — 30 per cent — did not have an implant when they needed one.”

    http://www.4hearingloss.com/archives/2009/07/implants_incite.html

    I’ve read some where else that Dr. Clark is advocating for 100% Cochlear implanting of infants in Australia

    I understand why you view his works to be altruistic. My read of it given his financial and professional investment in CI and his patronizing view of a cultural and linguistic minority leaves me with grave concerns.

    Research has proven that the earlier children are exposed to a fully, natural and accessible language the better. So if his heart is really set on giving Deaf infants language, he would also advocate for their having sign language as part of their daily diet as just as we see with hearing infants, it poses no risk to them physically, mentally or emotionally and in fact has proven to enhance their communicative, emotive, and mental facilities.

    There is a lot of social darwinism and exclusionary practices in Dr. Clark’s rhetoric and in the CI / AVT industry.

    So if you are truly hearing folks scream – u might want to listen a bit for what they are truly saying.

    Is it cool that natural sign languages are being ENDANGERED? is it cool that a culture is being ENDANGERED?

    haven’t we “been there, done that” before with the first wave of ORALISM – almost all the schools went ORAL ONLY because that was seen as progress, as survival of the fittest in the “hearing world,” etc and the results were:
    1. some could master oral skills and some could not
    2. some resisted oral skills and some did not
    3. many ended up semi-lingual in both the spoken language of their country AND the natural sign language of their country
    4. the lovely 4th grade reading level etc
    5. Orally raised deaf folks still sought out and joined Deaf organizations, communities, and married Deaf signing partners.

    The big thing with the bi-bi approach is – IS IT ETHICAL TO BE EXCLUDING A NATURAL SIGN LANGUAGE FROM A DEAF INFANT AND CHILD’S LIFE?

    Should they have to constantly be trained, programmed, conditioned to even be able to say momma when a simple hand movement (found on the wee hands of hearing infants all over the globe) does just fine?

    So yes some folks are screaming because they deserve to be heard and it ain’t cool to advocate for linguistic and cultural genocide

    i have yet to see any organization, centre, dept, grassroots group, etc that advocates for the full EXCLUSION of speaking or listening. I have yet to see any organization, centre, dept, grassroots group, etc that advocates for the surgical removal or severing of hearing nerves in hearing infants in order for them to “function in a Deaf world”

    I have seen a “shout out” for bilingualism-biculturalism

    thanks for your comment

    much peace

    patti

  32. patti
    Oct 14, 2009 @ 05:38:47

    after i tried copying and pasting DT’s link instead of clicking i got routed to this direct link – ill assume it was the same one s/he intended to post so here it is:

    http://www.abc.net.au/gnt/profiles/Transcripts/s1117832.htm

    peace

    patti

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: