In your blog entry, Against ASL and Deaf Culture, you say,
If someone is fluent in ASL, how can using the language show the person biased? I would think if one is against ASL, the person won’t be using this language at all. Would that make more sense?"If I follow your logic (vid.supra), you claim that Alexander Graham Bell (AGB) was not biased against ASL and Deaf Culture as long as he used ASL.
AGB was fluent in the American Sign Language and wanted all deaf people to be monolingualistic. He wanted deaf people to be sterilised in order to end deaf people as a variety of the human race (he was an eugenicist).
Therefore, the claim that Bell or the like was not biased is invalid.
To know more about AGB, see two authoriative books as follows:
- When the Mind Hears, Harlan Lane, 1984, 353ff,
- Deaf Heritage: A Narrative History of Deaf America, Jack R. Gannon (1981), 78ff, , 254
- A Place of Their Own, John Vickers Van Cleve, 1989
13 comments:
amen!
Thank you for clarify this! Happy Thanksgiving!
How can I express my view here in ASL?
Can you set up video comment for me?
Thanks!
Ecnarb
Rather tricky isn't it? Kinda reminded me of a logical fallacy, non sequitur, me think. I believe some form of audism has a role in this nevertheless.
Indeed. An analogy could be raised, but before I raise it, I want to make clear that this isn't intended to be racially incendiary. Most oppressed minorities see this logic, which runs something like this one (which I would like to see left in the past)...
"How can I be racist if I have friends who are Black?" Some of these people would never have approved of their children going into interracial relationships.
There are indeed people who are quite fluent in ASL, and have audistic perspectives of Deaf people.
Shel
We had a posting from a deaf person who came from the deaf school, and cultural area. He met an old school pal who (Like himself), was brought up in the oral tradition mostly.
He was shocked when this friend made the following statement "I only use sign now so I am not going to accomodate the old oral ways... even although I am still able.."
Is this not just plain bad communication manners, and refusing access despite being able, to prove a political point ? Does sign use demand you no longer use whatever other modes you are capable of using too ? Do deaf refuse to watch TV because it is captioned ?
Despite my initial hearing background I use sign to communicate to other deaf as and when I know they use that, I also use my voice and lip-reading to communicate with hearing, why would I refuse to do that ? to promote sign ? am I not promoting the equality of mode usage anyway ?
And, what If I refused to sign to other deaf because of MY oral background when they know I can ? I think they would tend to be offended too !
It is this kind of blind adherence to deaf culture that is killing it.... in essence it destroys bi-linguality too. Should we not ID those deaf who are anti-social and obstructive in some silly and aggressive pursuance of their version of deaf culture ?
I first learned about Alexander Graham Bell's work with the deaf from my father (both of his parents were deaf). Since then I have studied Bell (for over 30 years) and I need to clarify some points.
1. Bell was not fluent in ASL. He knew some phrases but was not fluent. His deaf wife also did not know ASL. She was an excellent lip reader and they used a manual alphabet to communicate when there was not enough light for her to be able to read lips. His mother was also deaf and did not use ASL.
2. Saying that Bell wanted all deaf people to be monolingualistic is misleading. He thought deaf people should speak rather than use sign language in order to be less isolated from their hearing peers.
This belief came about through his work teaching deaf children to speak. In the 1880's he did work for the US government on the national census in determining how many deaf people there were in the country. He found that the numbers were increasing rather than decreasing and realized that that was because deaf children were usually sent to residential schools where they learned ASL and socialized almost solely with other deaf children. AS adults this pattern was maintained. Of course this resulted in more marriages between deaf people and a resulting increase in the number of deaf children being born. Bell thought that if deaf children were taught to speak and went to school with other hearing children this pattern would change. He himself started a "dual kindergarten" in Washington D.C. where deaf and hearing children attended. Classes were separate in order to give time to oral education for the deaf children but during recess and lunch time they played together.
3. Bell NEVER advocated sterilization for deaf people. This is a myth that has been perpetuated over the years. If people would take the time to actually read what Bell himself wrote (there are thousands of pages available at the Library of Congress) they would realize that while some of his ideas have been proven over the years to be impractical and even discriminatory by today's standards, he was sincere in believing that his efforts would make life better for deaf people. From what I have learned about him I believe that in today's world he would heartily advocate both Oral and ASL education for deaf children. Hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy to demonize someone for ideas held in earlier times when attitudes and knowledge were far different form today. In a time when deaf people were still considered "dummies" Bell was an advocate. His efforts went a long way to changing the publics perception of the deaf. He was, for example, responsible for helping Helen Keller find Annie Sullivan and Helen dedicated her autobiography to her and they were lifelong friends. Bell was a generous man with a kind heart and he would be heartbroken today to read some of the things of which he is accused.
I realize this post will immediately be contradicted by posts in which Bell will be heavily criticized once again. My proposition to all of you is, again, read Bell's own words in addition to the books listed by Ms Boutcher. And for a very balanced and revealing portrait of the man, read the recently published "Reluctant Genius" by Charlotte Gray in which Bell is revealed, warts and all, as the man he actually was - not the demon described by some critics or the saint depicted by some admirers.
DeeJay
A correction to my previous post. It should read that Helen Keller dedicated her autobiography to 'him' not 'her'.
Thanks,
DeeJay
Ecnarb:
I have been since yesterday awaiting a word from Tayler Mayer about how to do it on a Blogger's blogpost in that I am not familiar with the Blogger codes. Once I hear from him, I shall let you know.
DJ,
Please see Barb DiGi's long comment in my blogpost, Two AGB Conferences in the Summer of 2009 .
Also I have written more about AG Bell in my previous post so here it is:
my blog
In order to add video comments, I would suggest you to visit disqus.com that you can easily follow step by step instruction that will allow you to embed at given code in your template. Hope you will make it!
my vlog, pls do copy and paste this link: http://www.deafvideo.tv/video/watch/30226/
Post a Comment