Dare to comment? Observe the rules!
I prefer to be identity as a d/Deaf person, therefore my primary language must be ASL. One thing is sad that high percent of hearing people think different because they don't accept or understand what the word "d/Deaf" means. If you look for human race, I rather say we should be human as equal - not segregations.
I can mentally hear some "D"eaf people saying "I told you so" to you about deaf people once being treated equally... same as for deaf people in Europe being treated equally until 1880's Milan Conference.
Your article brings up a challenging question... is it more feasible to consider oneself as a RACE first before culture? Yup, Africans say they are black first. KKK says white first. As for religious purposes, Jews say Jews first. Muslims first. So forth...we just happen to be born into a race and a culture surrounding it. BUT... being a Native American is NOT a disability. We deaf people change our disability into a culture. (Yeah, yeah, I can easily imagine the Deaf Pundit and Michele Ketchem's retorts about the definition of d/Deaf culture...but ASL is NOT everything... there are other languages-spoken, signed, and/or written-which are as important as ASL, no more, no less.)
I would be thrilled if a deaf Native American posted a comment, saying to some effect, yes, IASL existed long before ASL came into being and I hope he/she would not mind explaining more about it, how he/she felt about ASL, deaf schools, etc...
But thanks for bringing it up, making us aware of IASL (I know some strongly disagree with you, but you do research and provide bibliography links so you know what you are talking about.)
Dennis, we are equals. Just that many people tend to self-segregate themselves into favored groups. This is plainly seen today such as the cafeteria at Gallaudet University when it comes to mode of communication based on proficiency, status (e.g DoD) or preference. Are there examples of elitism (or do they exist) at the university cafeteria?
Dennis Bacon, you don't make comment to Mike so that he will fix you to accept.
http://www.audism.org/
Human Rights Education Principles
Contextual: human rights are discussed in social contexts relevant to the learners
Skills-oriented: human rights education develops skills, and is linked with literacy, numeracy and decision making skills
Cross-curricular: human rights, as human experience, are relevant to all aspects of learning
Discursive: learning is based on discussion, exchanging ideas and values, understanding human communication
Inclusive: allow all students, regardless of their learning styles/abilities, to participate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B...h?
v=Bn6jBH9bW6g
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/
ed...principles.html
Hi. I have met and known Mark Azure when I was living in the Pacific Northwest in the 90's. He is an amazing person. We shared some college classes, some professional connections and we also attended The Living Enrichment Center now and then, - a New Thought ministry that incorporated a plethora of spiritual and cultural viewpoints and inspirations. I haven't read about him in a while. It's nice to see those quotes from him and to know how he has grown. Beautiful spirit, that one.
My comment on the question of Culture or Deaf first? I believe the answer is as countless as the stars because each person's experience of themselves is unique.
I continue to wonder why it is important to put people into a box? You're either this or that, black or white, Deaf or not, etc., etc. But there are so many shades and shapes and ways of being in between. (I'm sadly guilty of this, too, on occasion, but I'm trying to open my mind and spirit to other possibilities...)
Yes, culture and language and religion and race and heritage and school and family and ability, etc. are important parts of one's identity. But when you peel all those layers off, we're all essentially made of the same stuff. 
~ LaRonda
You made a good comment about why it is important to put people into a box, LaRonda. I wondered about that for a long, long time ever since I was a student at Gallaudet and afterwards. It's either you have to be Deaf in order to be a "member" or you don't. Who really cares? It's the stuff of politics that makes people a bit too narrow-minded nowadays. Maybe it's better to change and adapt to AISL (American Indian Sign Language) usage since it has been around much, much longer (hundreds to perhaps even thousands of years) than ASL. Perhaps it's time for Deaf people to accept AISL-only attitudes and not ASL for a change? A question to chew something on. Just don't get too overly bent with that tongue-in-cheek question, folks.
I'm 'family' first, then me, then friends, deafness comes about 5th place after that, it's a part of me, but not a major part, there's more to life than being deaf, I don't see myself as cultural at all in the deaf sense, I got enough problems already !
If I seem to recall American Indian history correctly, the Plains Indians had this concept that the land they walked on, hunted on, raised their families on belonged to everyone, not to be parceled out and sold as lots, as the white settlers later did.
I'd like to think that the Indians' concept of land as an analogy to what the deaf world can become for all of us deaf, the whole spectrum of deafness, including the Native Indian Deaf with their unique ISL, without this "parceling" out of Deaf culture elitism, as McConnell has referred to it. Just maybe some day we d*eaf will be able to "walk as equals" with the hearing members of our human society.
We can certainly learn some things from our Native American Deaf brothers, if we open our minds and "listen" to them about their trials with communication and the disconnect from their own ethnic cultures.
Who created Native American Indian Sign Language?
Did you see AISL translate to text?
You should take a stand to speak openly with hearing people and you should first get rid of English only to adopt AISL for hearing Native Americans and Deaf.
“I believe that bilingualism is not for all deaf/hh people, including children. It can, however, apply to many deaf/hh children but not so for many others. There is never a one size shoe fits all answer.”
Will AISL fit to deaf American Indian Tribes Grouped by Culture Areas s in one shoe?
It is Deafness elitism
Mike's comment at 10:30 AM:
Wow, you made such a compelling and intelligent argument based on well-researched data! Wow!
Can you cite a source that claim your argument listed below to be true?
"It's either you have to be Deaf in order to be a "member" or you don't"
So, being "deaf" is not a requirement in order to be a part of (ie belong)that "culture" or "world," Brenster?
The Sioux Indian tribes of the past made clear that deafness wasn't a requirement in order to be a part of their Indian culture but rather have a shared blood connection instead. They had the means to communicate regardless if one is deaf or not and everybody (ie Sioux Indians) was seen as equals. This is why many Deaf NAIs see themselves as Indians first and deaf second. The culture and connection were much more important than being Deaf (or deaf in this case for many Indians).
Let's not get too impetuous with your emotions here, Brenster. I'd much rather debate than to deal with people whose emotions and jealousy do the thinking. If you have something to say, say it without the petty personal bylines.
Hmmmm... Carl apparently read your blog, or otherwise he'd not vlog about deaf mind or deaf culture.
Hmmm... I am with Laronda about beneath all the peelings we have, our blood still ran red, our hearts still beat, etc, that all foods become one in our stomachs, etc.
I like the fact that the Native Americans still offered to communicate, using the sign language, no matter how different we were. Deaf and hearing are the same people... which I feel that the "D"eaf people fail to acknowledge (must be deaf, must know ASL, etc...)
The way I see it... people who claim they are "D"eaf first have some insecurity in themselves, so they just assert themselves, as part of surviving in the hearing world in which deafness is one of the misunderstood disabilities.
Life would be easier for all of us if tolerance was practiced toward to all kinds of deaf people, instead of getting angry a lot just because we don't understand so we feel threatened.
Apparently, Karen, though I haven't seen his vlog. *shrugs*
I can only wonder about those who actually had to deal with their loss of ISL and/or their native tongue and culture when they had no real access to them in the first place. Cultural identity is stronger than about their own deafness or being "Deaf." Apparently so according to Mark Azure, a deaf Native American Indian.
So, disability deprives some people to the point that they feel the loss strongly enough to create their cultural ID. Being treated differently is a major factor in setting up a culture, or otherwise we would not be able to accept the loss. Native Americans have long accepted (resigned?) to living on the reservations (tax-free, yeah, living on the income from casinos...), sending their children to USA's schools, etc. As for deaf Native Americans, It is a double blow, because of the influence of the "white man", Native American's languages (spoken/signed) are more or less dwindling to the point of extinct.
I am just trying to see the parallels between the Native Americans and deaf people, in the definition of culture. The tribes in the past had enemies and friends with other tribes, but they still acknowledged that all of them were the same... until white man came along... which to me united the tribes more, to the point of recognizing the Indians from all tribes (diversity in Native Americanism) as one people. So the arrival of white man was a catalyst.
However, as for the deaf culture. There is a lot of hot air being blown over AGBell, CIs, etc.... we are not united; there is diversity in the deaf community but it divides us still. What takes us to be united? I don't want to hear ASL should be the answer to the unity.
Sorry for the winding comment.
Karen,
It is the language that unites or divides us. I'm not talking about ASL, but any language in any society will inevitably cause people to be united or divided. Just what is the language should the Deaf in America use in communicating the message to each other or hearing people?
If the Deaf cannot have its own language, then what is the point of preserving its culture and customs? If ASL isn't the answer to unity, then do tell me, what sort of answer are you looking for?
It's not too surprising that Native Americans consider themselves Native Americans first, and deaf second. Native Americans have very strong cultural bonds.
You will also see that in the majority of other minority groups. It's different for many of us because many of us come from the majority culture here in America which are the whites. So white Deaf will gravitate to the Deaf culture, and identify themselves as Deaf first.
I personally don't identify myself as Deaf first. I identify myself as a human being first.
And by the way, Karen - I agree that ASL isn't everything. It should not be. But ASL is a big part of the core of Deaf culture. I'm sorry you have such a problem with that.
Are you trying to deceive us in Deaf community? Do you think ISL is everything? Karen
Deaf Pundit said “I was raised in a bi-bi environment, thanks to my mother.” and even “I grew up in the Total Communications program”
No, I don't have the problem with ASL; we use ASL at home and we live in Indianapolis where ASL is the norm. I also like talking and hearing with my hearing aids. It is how the deaf culture sets the rules for the admittance into the deaf culture which bothers me somewhat... it is a bit discriminating. Recently my son was asked for the reason why he did not like ISD and he was taken back by the question and he answered he liked ISD just fine, but he preferred talking over signing. The superintendent is trying to introduce oracy as part of bilingual program for deaf children but there is a lot of resistance by the deaf people (especially deaf parents who moved to Indiana; English, for deaf people, should be viewed as a language good for writing and reading... speaking, nope.) I acknowledge that ASL is the core of the Deaf culture... but the Deaf culture makes up a small part of the deaf community which consists of late deafened, CIed, oral deaf people.
spydeaf... read blogs and comments carefully next time... and be my guest in running to Carl tattling to him about me. I think Carl, like Mike, has great ideas and he makes me think, compare, analyze. It is part of learning.
Karen, I didn't comment and put it Carl's blog.
Of the some 30 million deaf Americans today, there are approximately 500,000 to 900,000 deaf individuals (depending on which surveys one wants to believe) who regard themselves as members of the Deaf culture and who use ASL as their primary language. The rest of the d*eaf community are oral deaf/hh/CI's/ late-deafened's/those deaf who use a different sign language such as ISL, so these individuals comprise of a much bigger ratio and use a wide range of communication methods.
These two sides are divided by the D*eaf culture's insistence that in order to be a part of that particular community, one must use ASL as his primary language and that he regards deafness as part of a culture, not a disability. But as some bloggers have pointed out, it's hypocritical for those D*eaf to accept SSI benefits on the basis that deafness is defined as a disability according to the government, yet these individuals turn around to the other d*eaf and say no, I don't have a disability, deafness is part of a certain culture. How does that look to those of us who are d*eaf and also pay taxes which go to SSI?
The d*eaf who employ different communication methods and technology are often told by members of the Deaf culture that they are too "hearing" or "not D*eaf enough". How do you think those d*eaf are going to feel about those kind of remarks?
Oh the irony Ann!!
I've been doing a lot of thinking about this and have come to realize I will not ever be part of Deaf culture.
And I'm fine with that.
I can continue with the ASL, but I'm still going to be the same girl I've always been.
The problem is I relate to hearing people on too many levels. I have friends who have been widowed, gone through messy divorces, survived cancer, lost children to drugs, been raped, suffered with other horrible disabilities. . . -- and we've bonded over that-- because being late-deafened is more about loss than about deafness.
I realize a lot of deaf people do not understand that. I know they are wonderfully happy being deaf. I do not think deafness is horrible, but there are certainly things I miss and it did change my life forever.
Maybe I feel more bonded to others who have been through life shattering experiences. I don't consider myself d*eaf first. I'm still me, with deafness.
Kim... I feel bad that you feel that way. Like you, my son is late-deafened. As Ann_C and I have pointed out, the "D"eaf culture is just a SMALL (but powerful) part of the deaf community and I suspect the "D"eaf culture feel threatened by the fact that they had no bridges to the hearing world. You represent the majority, so you and the rest of the majority are the
"D"eaf culture's bridge and I think the "D"eaf protagonists resent this fact.
Yup... you are fine ;o), other than one less sense.
Karen,
That is not true.
Deaf culture does have some bridges to hearing world. After all, Deaf people have to work and live with hearing people! They even have hearing children, and you don't call that a bridge to hearing world?! I don't know what you've been smoking, but there is one thing I do resent the most, the constant misunderstoodings of Deaf culture.
While it is true that Deaf culture has always been small compared to other cultures, but Deaf culture was there from the very beginning. Deaf culture was there before CIs, oralism, and other isms came along. Deaf culture thrived before 1880 Milan Congress occurred.
Thus, Deaf culture already had bridges to hearing world, but after 1880, most of those bridges were burned down, not by us, but hearing extremists. Do you accept that fact? I sure hope so.
The irony here is just wanting. More hearing people are aware about Deaf culture than there were before the Milan. There are more interpreters out there than ever before. We have ADA laws and such. There are captioning requirements. There are universities and community colleges that have ASL as one of the many foreign languages to choose from. You have video relay. You have internet relay. You have certified interpreters in courtroom proceedings. The list is long and continues to grow. In short, more bridges now than ever before the Milan thing. Deaf culture thrives even more than ever today than before the Milan. You have more access and connections to the hearing world.
So, please, people, knock it off with the Milan thing saying Deaf people had it better then or "more bridges" when it wasn't even the case compared to today. Deaf people back then before the Milan had less bridges to the hearing world than today. We have Deaf professionals of every stripe from teachers, professors, dentists, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, people in the professional science, business owners, CEOs, fire fighters and so on. The list continues to grow. This Milan thing is getting really tiring and getting very old with you guys always looking back. Always complaining. And never looking at the plate you have in front of you today getting filled and never looking forward to the future seeing the possibilities grow before you. Just please knock it off about the Milan thing. Stop clinging to the past so much.
You don't see Deaf Native American Indians complaining about how before the white man came (i.e. like "before Milan") they had more access or bridges to their hearing people through ISL. But pretty much lost it all afterwards through the generations of being forced to go to schools and other languages and American culture. No. They are not complaining right now to the extent like you guys are about the Milan thing. Instead, they are looking forward to somehow re-establish their cultural connections as Indians, including ISL. And not look back and whine at every little details about the past. Good gawd, look at the plate you have right now before you! It's filling up!
Knock it off..for once. Please! I hate whiners who use the past as a justification for their complaints today as if they have nothing. Pshaw! Let's not be a "nation of whiners" and get your bootstraps on. Roll up your sleeves and continue to work.
Kim- Everyone is welcome as long as they possess right attitude and respect. Maybe in the end, you still feel more connected with your hearing world and that is really fine. From your blog entries and comments, you seem to display right attitude and respect.
Karen- I thought you emphasize "respect" and what happened? You constantly criticize and insult Deaf people, Deaf culture. What about respect that you mentioned in the past?
Don't tell me that Deaf people started it. Some Deaf people are not nice, but many of them are great people. It's just different personalities. Just like hearing people; some of them really GET IT, but many of them just don't get it.
Mike- Which first, culture or deaf? Well, it depends on individuals, born deaf or hearing, their upbringings, their family heritages, religions, etc. If a Black feels that s/he is Black first, Deaf second, that is wonderful. Some people don't feel that Deaf is part of them and prefer to be part of hearing world, that's fine. What is not fine is when those people who do not want to be part of Deaf world constantly criticize and insult the Deaf culture and ASL, believing that they are better than them, etc.
Well, I still am being optimistic for better relationships with all kinds of deaf people, respecting each other no matter where they stand for.
Well, that's my two-cent worth and PEACE!
Hi Karen,
There's no reason to feel bad. No one gets through life unscathed. Deaf people have life-shattering experiences too. Like I said, deafness isn't the worst thing in the world. Putting it in perspective, it's small compared to some of the things I've supported friends through. It's not the only hardship I've endured either.
What I'm saying is there are people who have never hit a wall who don't know what it's like. Those people tend to be less understanding and less flexible in their world views. Both hearing AND Deaf who have come up against some kind of challenging life experience are more likely to be open to the late-deafened or oral-deaf experiences within their communities.
Whether it's surviving cancer or dealing with a mentally ill child or having some other disability-- all of these things are outside the norm-- that **most** people do not understand until you've been there.
Then you fit into a different class of people; the people who know what it's like to lose something precious, that it can happen in the blink of an eye, and your entire life changes before you just like that--pffffft!
I'm sad for your son. This must be a difficult thing for a child. They don't like to be different.
I believe that the Deaf culture will gain more respect from the d*eaf if it wasn't constantly looking backwards to the Milan Conference and the "idyllic" deaf culture before 1880. The Deaf culture does need to look forward to the future and embrace the big world out there.
McConnell rightly points out that the d/D*eaf have far more accomodations for better communications with the hearing world than ever before, better work/jobs than ever before, better opportunities for education, and an increasing understanding of the deaf community by the hearing than before.
The d*eaf, with their "technology-enhanced" residual hearing, or oral skills, or other communication skills, are the Deaf culture's bridge because they will bring, like it or not, the Deaf culture kicking and screaming into the 21st century. The Deaf culture is facing already the tidal wave of aging Baby Boomers who are/will experience deafness at some point in their lives and do you think these will look back to Milan, much less care a fig about it?
If the Deaf culture really cares about their ASL language and wants to preserve it, it should drop the exclusionary practice of who is Deaf versus d*eaf and the irksome requirement of ASL-only to be a member of a "club". Such exclusion and jumping thru hoops smack of "frat" snobbiness. Just because some d*eaf have "technology-enhanced" residual hearing or oral skills, for example, doesn't mean that they don't encounter exclusion and "misunderstanding" by the hearing world. They know that part all too well, and many of them do not consider themselves "hearing".
Ann
Can you tell me which Which first, culture or deaf?
For people who truly are hoh most don't consider themselves as a hearing person. I don't consider myself as a hearing person although I function very much like a hearing person without too much problems. It's not about "acting" hearing but about using what hearing one has left along with technology help to derive a great many benefit. My preference is talking and listening because I have no real problem in doing that. Some Deaf people just do not understand about my preference. Well, hello. I am hard of hearing. And I am fortunate that the hearing I have I am able to use with positive and constructive benefits.
For people with hearing loss, signing is not always necessary nor needed. Some need it more. Some depend on it exclusively. Others need it on occassion. While many do not need it at all. That's the fact. That's life.
Kim, at least yours was a gradual thing while many people had to deal with sudden and complete loss of hearing, and I can only sympathize with them on their loss. I am just fortunate and blessed with what I have. All people can do is look toward the future when it comes to technology that can help us.
Mike, that is your right to identify yourself whatever you feel is all about you, and use whatever communication mode you feel comfortable with. Your preference to talk and listen like a hearing person is fine. That is your life.
Same true goes to people having right to identify themselves Deaf first, something else second, third and so on. Again, it depends on individuals (just like what I said earlier).
I am just not understanding what is your problem with those who take a pride in their true Deaf identity.
Calling them whiners... In my opinion after reading your blog and others' blogs, some people at both sides are both whiners.
Complaining about how Deaf people excluding and/or rejecting others (which by the way is not quite accurate) and complaining about how Deaf people always looking back in time and needing to look forward are considered as whining as well.
Yes, Deaf people should look forward to future, and THEY DO! If those people pay attention to the positive side of Deaf people, they would notice that. That is too bad that they chose only to focus on the negative side.
At the same time, it is also important to remember important events that happened in the past so that we don't repeat the history. That is why there are plenty of books and textbooks on history!
Sometimes you confuse me. I recalled you saying that you would like for all of us to work together no matter what. The Deaf people feel the same, too. Just respect all differences and work together as a collective group.
"deaf against deaf" is still at work! There is a hope, and I will not give it up!
Ann_C, your comment (below) disturbs me.
"The d*eaf, with their "technology-enhanced" residual hearing, or oral skills, or other communication skills, are the Deaf culture's bridge because they will bring, like it or not, the Deaf culture kicking and screaming into the 21st century."
It is another instance of "Paternalism" - a belief that Deaf people need the help and guidance of hearing people and other deaf people who can hear and speak. The oral-deaf shall not be the bridge between the Deaf world and Hearing world.
It's all about respect.
brenster,
I didn't bring up paternalism, you did. I also didn't say oral deaf as the only bridge, there are other d*eaf who use alternative communication modes as well. Read the comments more carefully. Who said the d*eaf are gonna "help" the Deaf culture?
The fact is the aging Baby Boomers will swell the population of the deaf and will end up redefining deafness in this country. They are not going to settle for just being Deaf and using ASL only. They will take advantage of what technology there is out there to enhance their residual hearing and use any means of communication, including but not exclusively ASL, to stay in the big world. In the meantime the Deaf culture's population will continue to shrink in numbers thru a number of factors that have already been discussed in this blogosphere. I know this can look threatening to a culture that has tried to keep the hearing world out and justifiably so after 1880. However, is ignoring these new trends of an increasing deaf population and rapidly advancing technology going to help the Deaf culture? I think not.
As I understand it, history is there to remind us all not to repeat mistakes. Granted, the deaf culture has won many hard fights, but it will encounter an even harder fight if it continues to stay entrenched in its past. It's not about respect, brenster, it's about the Deaf culture's survival.
Ann_C,
So, what is your interest in this subject? I mean, what interest you about Deaf culture and ASL that you keep on making negative comments about them?
Another thing, you are not accurate about the "ASL-only" requirement to be a member of, as you quoted, the "club." If you can find that rule in the black-and-white print (books, membership by-laws, and such), then I will accept that claim.
Um, I have no problems with those who identify themselves as "Deaf." It's personal decision and identity issue. I've never said otherwise throughout all my bloggings or in forums.
Secondly, it is a fact there exist a certain amount of rejection by some Deaf people against those who are not perceived as "Deaf enough." A very small percentage I might add but it does exist. The percentage could be bigger but then again we're never sure. Such attitudes have been documented. And why do people get defensive about this when there is a certain grain of truth involved? Extremisms exist on both sides of the aisle. Just how much is the real question.
Next, providing facts is not whining. Framing a question is not whining. Asking questions as to why things exist is not whining.
And lastly, I have always respected other people differences and choices when it comes to communication. I've not veered off from that since day one. I've always stressed about making an informed decision whenever a choice is to be made. I never had a problem working with Deaf, deaf or hoh people. Don't mistake my perspectives or opinions as not wanting to work together.
Brenster, from the tone of it you seem to mistake my bloggings as hate against ASL or Deaf people, the culture, etc. It's never been like that nor has it been like that. My perspectives are different. Each person's perspective is different from each other. I see things differently which is why I blog on what I blog. I ask a deeper and larger question that people normally do not ask when it comes to my particular brand of blogging. Hence, the occassional outcry calling me "evil" and such. Pretty much means they don't get it thinking I'm out to eradicate Deaf culture. Not so. Call it wishful thinking on their part. Sometimes it's the issue of their own English skill that people continue to misconstrue my perspectives and meanings. Other times its for other reasons. Many people do get it. But if people cannot face the questions I pose in the larger sense without getting emotional, perhaps it is they who need to re-evaluate their own feelings as to why they act that way. Or maybe they just didn't read it carefully enough? Regardles, I've always welcomed discussions and debates, and not personal and petty attacks fitting for a six year old kid. But some people do tend to misread what I write thinking one thing when it wasn't even the case. People do make strange conclusions. It's all about perspective here. Do not mistake my perspective for hate or disrespect. That's the easiest excuse for anyone to make.
Now, when I write I include these links as part of my research to help explain my thinking. The majority of people who read my blogs never bother to check my external links (it shows up in my Sitemeter). If people take the time to read those links I provided along with my bloggings, perhaps they'll get a better understanding on just where I'm getting at and why. But usually th
brenster ..
The first members of Deaf culture were oral deaf students who wanted a better method of communicating - signed language.
In essence, the first "Deaf" people were oral deaf.
Thus, the first "Deaf culture" was comprised of .. oral deaf people, although the goal later was to make that culture become a bit more ASL-centric as time went by.
Still, you wouldn't be Deaf today if there were no deaf people back in the day.
Jesus was a Jew and died a Jew. Many people still think Jesus was a Christian.
The analogy is quite ironic.
:o)
Paotie
Continued...
Now, when I write I include these links as part of my research to help explain my thinking. The majority of people who read my blogs never bother to check my external links (it shows up in my Sitemeter). If people take the time to read those links I provided along with my bloggings, perhaps they'll get a better understanding on just where I'm getting at and why. But usually they don't.
Mike, I appreciate this discussion with you. Thanks, and I did look into links which was why I came up with some follow-up questions. We can agree to disagree and discuss in constructive manner. At least, I heard you out. Your turn.
Paotie, are you sure? (not about Jesus, I already know about that).
Agree to disagree over what? I am not even sure what you're disagreeing with other than your misperception thinking I actually have a problem with those who take a pride in their Deaf identity and such. What is exactly are we disagreeing?
Oh, I actually meant about what you wrote about ASL and Deaf culture, not the latter.
Now that you mentioned that, the answer is undecided. I am somewhat doubtful because (misperception? nope) I haven't seen your writings about ASL and Deaf culture in positive light, yet. I'll wait and see.
To John Egbert... (since you have deleted my two first ever and second comments to your blog last month in my attempts to clarify, correct your errors and explain my thoughts, I'll post my responses here, even though I let you post your comments in here anyway which is a bit ironic considering).
You have taken my comment out of context and shortened my paragraph of thought from this
"So, please, people, knock it off with the Milan thing saying Deaf people had it better then or "more bridges" when it wasn't even the case compared to today. Deaf people back then before the Milan had less bridges to the hearing world than today. We have Deaf professionals of every stripe from teachers, professors, dentists, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, people in the professional science, business owners, CEOs, fire fighters and so on. The list continues to grow. This Milan thing is getting really tiring and getting very old with you guys always looking back. Always complaining. And never looking at the plate you have in front of you today getting filled and never looking forward to the future seeing the possibilities grow before you. Just please knock it off about the Milan thing. Stop clinging to the past so much."
(see my comment - http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=27725#494803 )
to this...
"This Milan thing is getting really tiring and getting very old with you guys always looking back. Always complaining. And never looking at the plate you have in front of you today getting filled and never looking forward to the future seeing the possibilities grow before you. Just please knock it off about the Milan thing. Stop clinging to the past so much."
http://blog.deafread.com/agbellx...-sign-language/
What John did was to purposely use my comment to twist it to suit his agenda which is, well, to try and discredit me. No surprise there, And without providing a link for readers to see for themselves. Is this what dishonest bloggers do? What I was commenting on was about Picard90's use of the pre-Milan era as having more bridges rather than saying today we have even MORE bridges that connect to hearing people. In fact, you could say that the post-Milan era has nearly the same but opposite event with AISL where it has less bridges today than before man, English, ASL and schools for the deaf ever happened. Kind of ironic if one thinks about this. And what is equally interesting is that John refused to read my blog "ASL is destroying ISL" but took my blog title at face value. LoL. A commenter named "C" got it right when he/she read my blog and understood where I was getting at. Many people got it right after reading my blog and read the links. They understood what I was framing my discussion about.
By the way, John, I don't tell people what to think. I tell people my opinions, the facts and my reasonings. The rest is up to them.
The latter of what? You're not being clear.
And why should it matter whether I write about ASL and Deaf culture in a positive light? Did you not see my blog where I discussed aboout my 14 page written research where I posted my results in my blog recently about my reasoning that there are 900,000 to 1 million Deaf people in the U.S. and not 300,000 or 500,000 instead, and that it is growing (ie increasing use of ASL)? Did you not read my blogs about Dummy Hoy? Did you not read about my numerous blogs on Greg Gunderson goal on becoming the first Deaf NASCAR driver over the last year and a half? Did you not read my numerous blogs about Matt Hamill, the first Deaf UFC professional fighter for almost two years? Did you not see my blogs about Deaf, deaf or hoh role models who are "go getters" or "bootstrappers"? Just because I zig when you zag doesn't mean I'm anti-ASL or anti-Deaf culture. I blog what I want to blog that interests me and my thinking. I go for the deeper thinking rather than go about rah-rahing about ASL to no end. Not my style. I'd rather blog about people who are seen as role models whether the person is Deaf, deaf or hoh. Why do I have justify for you, brenster, or anybody else that I must be pro-anything? How long have you been reading my blogs anyway? And have you read all of my blogs at all?
Brenster,
I do not mean to be adding fuel to the fire here, and I admit to being extremely naive when it comes to Deaf/deaf culture.
However, as part of my decision to educate myself I checked out a bunch of books on prominent Deaf Americans who have made the history books. I have been surprised by how many were oral and/or late-deafened. Here are a few I assume every Deaf child learns about??--
Cal Rodgers, Juliette Gordon Low, Erastus Smith, Edmund Booth, Donald L. Ballantyne, Regina Olson Hughes spoke four langauges!, Thomas Edison, and -- Robert Weitbrecht didn't feel comfortable around Deaf people who signed at all. I could go on and on. . . I have at least fifteen books on Deaf people here in my home right now.
Additionally, Robert Davila and Marlee Maitlin are both oral. So it would seem if you've become a Deaf hero or achieved some noteworthy success, then it doesn't matter how you communicate?
None of these people feel they were victimized by AGB. Mostly they have been quoted as being happy with their educations because they believed it contributed to their successes.
I do see this as a contradiction of Deaf culture, because here are all these Deaf heroes who functioned orally in the hearing world. Many were late-deafened or educated with AGB at an early age. If the Deaf accept them as part of their culture, then I should be part of that culture as well.
Otherwise cultural acceptance is based on success for some, but not for others. So there's a double standard.
And this double-standard hurts the deaf/Deaf community. How? Because the community is bigger than the Culture and it's getting bigger by the day in three ways. . .
1) statistically 1 of every three people over age 65 becomes deafened. Babyboomers are well on their way to retirement.
2) most hearing parents who have Deaf babies are currently "implanting" their Deaf babies. That isn't going to change.
3) Hearing aids have gotten so much better that children who were once "severely deaf" are now only moderately to "mildy deaf" with hearing aids.
The world is changing! You can't stop it! All this bickering amongst ourselves only causes us to lose clout and it confuses the public about what we deaf/Deaf need. We must learn to work together now for ALL deaf/Deaf people.
brenster ..
No, I'm not sure. The first Deaf people popped out of the womb, already fully functional in American Sign Language in 1880. These first Deaf people were the genesis of Deaf culture - prepackaged to being "Deaf."
One warm day on the east coast, a bunch of Deaf people decided to create a culture of people like them - already born Deaf. This became the basis for a "Deaf culture."
They got together and voted unanimously to omit anyone else not part of that "race" of people. Since lots of Deaf idiots believe deafness or "being Deaf" is a race, oral deaf people are part of the same race, whether you like it or not. It's simple logical reasoning.
So, in essence, your argument amounts to blacks comparing "house" slaves to "field" slaves. To most black people, that comparison is a silly exercise in petty stupidity. Only extremists (such as Al Sharpton) promote the view that certain blacks are "not black enough."
Your logic paints you into the same corner as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Political pimps.
No wonder you deflected blame for the disappearance of ISL on the KKK.
*laughs*
:o)
Paotie
Kim,
Well said.
:o)
Paotie
Kim, rightfully so. It seems like some Deaf people like to run around with their fists in the air "Deaf Power!" That might have been fitting to do 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago but today? I swear, some people actually do that believing as if they're still stuck during the Spanish Inquisition. (see http://www.google.com/search?hl=...22deaf+power%
22 ). A lot has changed in the last 10 years with thanks to technology, educating the public, neutral advocacy work, and better communication options to help narrow that communication gap. Technology is making a difference in people's lives from those with mild hearing loss to profound.
Time to move on using a different tact and thinking. More advocacy and education of ideas that involves everybody without trying to appear too militant.
Kim- yes, you should be part of Deaf culture and you can! Like all types of culture, those are learned - not automatically acquired once one becomes deaf. The common misconception is that Deaf people excluding others which is not truth.
There are four avenues for being a member in the Deaf community, and you can find that in "The Green Books." Just being connected to the Deaf community through at least one of four avenues, however, do not automatically make one a member. Everyone must display right attitude.
For example, maybe I met all four avenues but I don't have right attitude about Deaf community in general (ASL stinks, ASL killing another language, Deaf people are whiners, Deaf idiots and so on). Then why do I even want to be part of Deaf culture if I didn't even want to be part of it?
Lastly, you are not adding any fuel to the fire If you read in my earlier comments, I am all for working together for all types of deaf people as long as we respect each other's diversities, preferences and identities.
Kim is right, the basis of modern deaf culture/History was largely built by late deafened, and who used little sign language, not the born deaf. It is high time our huge input to the deaf culture was recognized for what it is.. and we are still the sole sector of deaf pushing for real integration and acceptances, and for modernizing the deaf communications so they work more effectively. We've certainly little time for that hard core of deaf who are forever negatively whining about CI's, oralism, hearing aids, and God knows whatever else they feel is 'not deaf enough'. I'm sorry if it sounds strong, but it is the reality.
MM
Mine requires no "membership" or "requirements" to "get in." You see, we're all in the same boat and each of us have different needs and preferences when it comes to communication and socialization.
brenster ..
The problem with your logic is that there is a requirement that people have to conform to a certain "attitude" in order to be accepted into Deaf culture. I know LOTS of Deaf people who reject the division between deaf and Deaf, and also feel there's been too much of an ASL-centric focus within many Deaf institutions over the years.
So, they don't have the same "attitude" as you do, and according to you, they're not to be considered, "Deaf."
Boy, sounding awfully selective and exclusive (discriminative) - hardly the "let's all work together" attitude your comments show, even if the context suggests otherwise.
:o)
Paotie
brenster ..
One more thing: your definition of Deaf culture as outlined in these comments tend to reflect a desire to create a cult since you apparently expect all Deaf in your definition of Deaf culture to have the same "attitude".
Cult.
Culture.
Hmmm .. the KKK is a cult.
:o)
Paotie
McConnell ..
In today's newspaper, I saw a few half-page advertisements for hearing aids with large headlines stating, "Improve your hearing!"
Once upon a time, Miracle Ear ads were mostly found in the black and white classified ad section of the National Enquirer tabloid magazine. Nowadays, I see marketing everywhere for those experiencing hearing loss - especially Baby Boomers.
Excellent article, once again.
:o)
Paotie
Paotie, twist all you want.
Mike, don't misinterpret the "avenues" as "requirements." This study just pointed out factors that led people (anyone, deaf, hearing, late-deafened, anyone) to come to Deaf clubs. What I said in last comment was directed to Kim, and if she is interested in further discussion, I'll gladly elaborate elsewhere.
Brenster. Did you ever noticed how I put mine in quotes such as "members," "requirements", and "get in"? Although there's a bit of a salient truth in those quotes. There's no misinterpretation on my part. Which is why I said "member" in my comment two days ago as well. There's a bit of truth in everything I write nowadays and some people just get into an apoplectic fit over that.
Mike, clearly, this is going to nowhere.
I understood what you meant by "avenues." IOn my part, I made my clarifications on where I was going with by pointing out my use of quotes.
That's all.
Kim, you did not throw any fuel to any fire... instead you stated the facts and I appreciated it. That is what the blogs should be about... open for discussion, not mud sludging.
Come to think of, the deaf dentist I know from Rochester, NY, started out as oral. Two deaf medical doctors... started out as oral. The deaf lawyer is oral also. So forth. I am not putting everyone down, but think about it...
Hmmmm... regarding Paotie's comment about the avenues. I have not read "The Green Books" (or is this an expression? ha) and I recall my eagerness to jump into the deaf culture, when I entered NTID. Again after finding out my kids had hearing loss. Now, with experiences I have, I am more... hmmm... at the stage that I say, gimmie a break, stop beating around the bushes about the definition of culture, what is deaf enough, what is not deaf enough, etc. I shake my head over some commenters and bloggers who are out to discredit other bloggers, etc... but it is all part of freedom of speech, soooo...
I am all for the bridge building, healing, etc... but it needs to be done more "unconditionally"... not on conditions (like ASL, Milan Conference, etc.) Past is past. Mike tried to point out the unconditional acceptance of Native Americans, search for healing...for us to model after in some ways. I thought Mike's blog was very well-written.
Happy Thanksgiving... we should be thankful for what we HAVE, not bicker about what we DON'T HAVE.
Karen ..
Actually, I didn't say anything about any avenues, or even green books.
But a green book would fit nicely next to the Green Couch.
:o)
Have a great and safe Thanksgiving, everybody.
Paotie
Good points Karen! I wanted to say just one last thing. It's unusual to find a culture or community where everyone has the same attitude towards **any** issue. I might be wrong, but I can't think of a culture like that. Cults and religions--yes. Cultures--no.
On the one hand, I can understand why the ASL issue is so important to Brenster and others. Since I am part of the late-deafened community I realize these people-- many of them do have the "wrong" attitude. They haven't accepted their deafness, the have so many misconceptions about the Deaf, while they themselves don't even realize they ARE Deaf.
On the other hand-- it's not their faults. The NAD doesn't do any outreach into the late-deafened community to help them adjust. These people are LOST souls.
If you all want others to accept Deaf, ASL and have the right attitude, how about getting out there and accepting them into your community with open arms?
Show them how ASL will help them when they're floundering around in the hearing world feeling isolated?
Teach them HOW to be Deaf.
BE A FRIEND.
Many of us could benefit from learning ASL before we qualify for Cochlear Implants. A lot of us really don't like the idea of surgery. It aint easy finding your way out there surrounded by hearing people who don't understand, who push and push you to get better hearing aids and/or a CI--thinking this will all make it better-- when in fact you know that music will still sound like shit and your risk of losing more hearing is somewhat high, and you may or may not understand speech better.
Paotie... oops, Brenster said it, not you... sorry I read it wrong.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Karen
Greetings brothers and sisters. The name is Berry Tadodaho. I discovered your blog and thought I should advise everybody about Mark Azure and James Woodenlegs. They both claimed to be Spiritual Leaders and practiced sacred Spiritual Ceremonies for numerous years.
In essence they both fooled a lot of people into believing that they were true Spiritual Leaders and practiced bad medicine. Earlier this year I contacted and spoke to their respective tribal leaders in North Cheyenne and Rose Bud Reservation. Respective Leaders and Elders from both reservations responded by saying they did not recognize Mark Azure and James Woodenlegs as Spritual Leaders and stated that they both have never practiced among their people and did not earn the respective positions as Spiritual Leaders among their people. In their words, both James and Mark are self appointed Spiritual Leaders, thus creating bad medicine. Bad medicine happens when and if one practice spiritual ceremonies without merits and authority. Intertribal Deaf Council became aware of this problem but yet they choose to ignore it because they were raking in fund raising money as an organization, in which they humilated and sold Native America's religion. The same is true for IDC's sole woman spiritual leader, Teresa Norris, who's Mark Azure's sweetheart. She is not recognized as Spiritual Leader by her respective tribe back at home but yet she claims to be Spiritual Leader. IDC continues to support and fuel bad medicine by recognizing her as Spiritual Leader, defying the leaders of her respective Tribe.
Worse yet, there is currently active and robust petition and boycott among pure breed deaf native americans, led by Native Circle who have agreed to boycott IDC's conference and gatherings in the future. The majority of deaf native americans do not feel that IDC represent them any longer. Currently they are distributing mesages to everybody with hope to botcott against Eagle VRS and IDC for as long as they choose to use false Spiritual Leaders and Medicine Men and humilate their native culture and religion. IDC leaders have pushed full breek natives away and shifted itself toward mixed breed organization representing blacks and whites. Visit www.DeafNative.com and take a look at their galleries and pictures. You will see nothing but abundance of whites and blacks wannabes and very few full blooded native amiercnans. They have robbed and stole the organization away from Native Americans just as they did it for so many years.
I spend majority of my time visiting reservations in different States whereas I'd meet with deaf native americans. They are equally as upset with IDC because they feel that IDC are ignoring them. They hold annual conference and gatherings at fancy hotels and convention centers, making it financially impossible for them to participate. It has become an elite club for wealthy few. The organization raises funds in the name of deaf native americans but yet does
Interesting.
I just want to know one thing: why is it so important to discredit people these days?
Strangely, I couldn't help but wonder how much of the above post is fiction or overblown imagination, or if it was really sincere in truthfulness.
Lots of petty issues and nothing substantiated. "The IDC was gonna act on this, but didn't cos of the money" just doesn't cut it for me.
Sounds like someone has a personal vendetta against Mr. Azure.
*shrugs*
:o)
Paotie
Could be. Maybe not. What I'm interested in is the quote "pure breed deaf native americans." Exactly what does that mean? 100% Native Americans only? Or 1/2? 1/4? or 1/8? I have heard that being 1/8 (or 1/4) Indian qualifies one to receive some of the profit sharing from their Indian casino on their reservation.
Regarding Mr. Tadodaho's comment, there is not much info on the IDC itself and what it is supposed to do for the Native American Deaf, nor much on its goals and whether the organization has accomplished some of those goals. What does spirituality or pure blood have to do with deaf issues? Seems to me the commenter has an ax to grind.
You have to be able to prove your indian roots. Sometimes this is difficult to do. I know-- because I've researched my family tree extensively. For example, my great-grandmother was born in a town that was an indian reseravation when she was born. Before the Catholics converted her family, her mothers name "Hashlick" rhymed with the Catholic name given to her at baptism Anglique. Can I prove any of this? No! Indians weren't counted in the census. Most people were "birthed" at home. The only family records exist in a Bible and a Catholic priest's book of "Catholic" families in the area. The area was widely known to be Metis-- meaning Indians and half-breeds who "converted" to Catholicism in the backwoods but continued to practice their sinful Indian ways too. White women didn't live there. Most of the Indian women were involved with French trappers, who took their lovers last names at the insistence of the priest. In the Indian culture of that area, women and children took their mother's last names. Because they were all given French names after baptism, they appear to be French families on the books, but they're not. This is pretty much how it was in the midwest for a few hundred years. Most of us come from mixed families.
But it's difficult to prove, since Indians didn't tend to record anything on paper.
Kim,
I understand about proving Indian blood, whether 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 or full blood. Sometimes proof is elusive, when there is a mixed heritage and no formal written records. I have a niece and nephew who are 1/8th Cherokee.
As long as a Native American Deaf can prove he is of Indian descent, regardless of the "percentage", and wishes to remain/return to his native culture, then he qualifies for the benefits that the IDC is trying to accomplish for the Native American Deaf. The commenter Tadodaho seems focused on this "pure breed" business, false Spiritual Leaders, and bad medicine and very little on the IDC. The person seems to have some personal agenda of trying to discredit people, namely Mark Azure and James Woodenlegs, at least that's how it appears to me.
Unfortunately, Barry did tell the truth about Mark Azure, his girlfriend Teresa Norris and James Woodenleg.
Unfortunately for you, Mark Azure's tribe did confirm that Mark Azure was not recognized by them as a spiritual leader because he did not get training with them.
Let me point out that Teresa Norris is not even enrolled with the Chippewa Tribe therefore she did not grow up on the reservation. She did not have training with spiritual business either.
But it does not mean Teresa is a bad, evil person. I do not think she is, but, unfortunately, she made a mistake by making herself a spiritual leader.
It's understandable that she was not raised in an Indian community so she did not know any better.
But you need to watch out for Mark Azure. He himself told me that he was abused by his father when he was growing up. He made the choice not to have children.
Now suppose you somehow offend Mark in a way that is not intended to be, Mark can hold an ugly grudge against you without making the effort to communicate with you in order to find out where communication went wrong or what upset him.
Communication is important but he is weak in that area. He does like to revenge people and take them by surprise. That's Mark's way. Be careful with him. He is not as sincere that he seems to be. Be aware of the black path that he is on.
Yes, Mark Azure is enrolled with his tribe. But the problem is that he was not trained in the spiritual ways of his tribe.
His tribe leaders had confirmed to Barry that he is not recognized by them especailly as a spiritual leader. Mark should have never made himself a spiritual leader.
James Woodenleg is enrolled with his tribe in Montana. Deaf people look up to him as a spiritual man in the deaf community.
James's tribe did confirm to Barry that James was not recognized by hearing native community as a spiritual leader. Only the deaf white community recognized him as a spiritual leader.
There are other IDC members who have mental problems that you need to watch out for. One example is Terry Lee Vinson or TV for short.
She has a short fused temper and she is not even enrolled with the Comanche Tribe. She tends to push away many deaf mixed bloods if their skin color is not darker enough or if their hair color is too light or if they are not enrolled. Hey, she herself is NOT even enrolled. To push away the mixed bloods because of skin color or eye color or blood amount is NOT the Indian way.
TV has a bad reputation: she likes to fool people by pretending to be someone else when sending emails. For example, she used my friend Jimmy Benjamin's email account to send one message to me asking a question.
When I read it, I knew the message was not from Jimmy even though the email was sent from his yahoo email account.
Jimmy emailed me many, many times and his English skills were very, very limited.
Expressing himself in English is very hard for him but he always tried his
Commenting by HaloScan
