Dr. DonG.’s Deafhood Discourses

• QuickTime

by: vPIP	Embed (copy & paste):	close

Transcript:

(Showing vase) That was a gift for my wedding.  I can’t remember who gave it to us, but it was a gift.  My wife and I cherish that present.  We don’t put it carelessly in some place and leave it, we put it in a safe space — in that china cabinet behind me.  A place of honor, where we can look at it and let it bring back memories.  My mom tends to say I never learned proper social etiquette.  I don’t know if she’s right or not, but one thing I do understand: When someone gives you a gift, you don’t take it and say “This looks cheap.  Where did you get it?”  ”I don’t think this is very good” and comment in that vein, or comment about the gift to other people who might report back to the original gift giver.  You don’t want to hurt that person’s feelings, right?

In 1913, George Veditz referred to ASL as “the noblest gift God has given to Deaf people”.  He was right!  ASL IS a gift.  Without that gift, I wouldn’t be here.  I don’t know where I would be, but definitely not here, and not successful.  It took me a long time to realize that ASL is a gift, and now I appreciate it and treasure it.

But I see people out there who mock and belittle ASL, who say SEE is better, who actively HOPE that SEE signs will spread, and they think that SEE should spread and they encourage that spread.  Or worse, they say that SEE IS ASL!  What ridiculousness!  Or they talk negatively about Deaf people who try to preserve ASL, ridiculing them as “Deaf Culture Police” or “ASL Purists” and the like.

I don’t care if you yourself are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or a parent of a Deaf child.  When YOU belittle or insult ASL, when YOU promote SEE, or ridicule people who try to support and promote the improvement of ASL, when YOU spread any kind of linguicism against ASL, YOU are spitting in the face of those Deaf people who gave YOU the gift of ASL.  And worse, you are spitting in the face of those Deaf people who came before you who cherished, supported, and passed on ASL so YOU could have that gift, too.

ASL IS A GIFT!  CHERISH IT!

For YouTube Version, Click Here

• QuickTime

by: vPIP	Embed (copy & paste):	close

Transcript:

In 1904, James L. Smith, who was President of the NAD at that time, said:

“The ememies of the sign language are not confined to those who decry it and call for its abolition entirely. Its most dangerous enemies are in the camp of its friends, in the person who maltreat it and abuse it by misuse. The sign language, properly used, is a language of grace, beauty, and power. But through careless or ignorant use it may become ungraceful, repulsive, and difficult to comprehend. Every one of us should try, both by example and precept, to preserve the grace, beauty, and expressiveness of our gesture language”.

Wow.  That was in 1904, and it was quite a prescient statement!

In the 1960′s, Gerilee Gustason and many other people, many of them Deaf themselves, invented signed English systems.  Those systems have proliferated, causing what we see today: many Deaf people growing up with dysfluent signing.  But was Gustason truly a friend of ASL?  No, she is a friend of English.

But we do have people now who call themselves “friends” of ASL.  For example, this woman , who is Hearing, when I watched her video, she would talk and show a sign here or there.  But her signing looks almost as if she had learned out of a book before making the videos.  The problem with her approach is that it causes people to think that ASL is just English shown through signs, which it is not.  I don’t have to explain to you why that’s wrong.

But worse are people, Deaf and Hearing, who have complete websites which purport to teach ASL and have put in a lot of work into them.  But what do they do and say in their websites?   It is incredible.  For example, Dr. Bill Vicars, who is the owner of Lifeprint/ASL University, which is one of the top-rated Google searches for ASL, has many linguicistic statements about ASL.  For example, if you look at his discussion under the word “TRY”, you will see him say that some people sign TRY with an A handshape, some with an S handshape, or with a T handshape.  He says that many people use the T hanshape, which is true, but is that ASL?  No.  That goes back to SEE (Signing Exact English).  SEE influenced those Deaf people into thinking that is ASL.  Moreover, Bill Vicars says that today, there are people who he calls “Deaf Culture Police” or “Deaf Culture Purists” and that they (we) have “English Letter Phobia” and that we are longing for the “good old days of ‘pure’ ASL”.  Yes, we want to see good ASL to come out into the community, but will we ever go back to to that perfect ideal?  I don’t know.  There is a lot of mixture and contamination in the community now.  But that condescending attitude of perceiving us as simply “wanting the good old days of ASL” disgusts me.  In another statement within that same discussion, he says “I recently saw an ASL instructor signing ‘WORK ROOM’ instead of OFFICE with an O.  I’m not making that up!”  Oh I see.  He views trying to go back to a more ASL sign instead of the initialized forms with OFFICE, APARTMENT, ROOM, DORMROOM, and on and on with such a disdainful attitude!

In another example, someone asked about the word “am”. He says “ASL has a sign for ‘am”.  That is NOT ASL!  That, again, is SEE! SEE is NOT ASL!  But again, his view is demeaning towards ASL proponents.  He says “your safest bet is to follow the herd and label that AM sign as ‘English’ and avoid using it around any ‘DCP’ (Deaf Culture Police/ASL purists)”.  That is so awful!

If the “guardians” of ASL won’t guard ASL, who will?  James L. Smith’s words about who the most dangerous enemies of ASL are should include those who spread misinformation, lies, myths, AND linguicism about ASL.

For YouTube version, Click Here

• QuickTime

by: vPIP	Embed (copy & paste):	close

I’m having a “Ridorish moment”.  I want to discuss a comic book.  Not “Green Lantern”, but The Hulk.  The reason is because on Facebook, my friends and I were being silly, having a back and forth, and someone mentioned the Hulk.  That got me thinking back to when I would read the Hulk comic book.  You know in the comic, Bruce Banner turns into the Hulk when he gets angry.  The Hulk is stupid, but he can talk, saying things like “Hulk not like!  Hulk smash!”  Stupid, but he can talk.

Later on, there was a TV series in the ’70s, which was based on the comic book.  In the series, David Banner (they changed his name for TV) becomes the Hulk.  But in the TV series, the Hulk does NOT talk.

You know who played the Hulk in the TV series?  Lou Ferrigno, who is Deaf.  Back then, before I really understood my Deaf identity, I was excited to know that Lou was Deaf like me.  I always watched the show to see him.  The “talky” parts with David Banner were kind of boring for me, but when I saw someone starting to beat him up or push him or argue with him and he would start getting angry, I perked up at that because I knew that soon the Hulk would show up.  I liked the Hulk because of Lou and the fact that he was Deaf also.  When I would see David’s eyes constrict, I would cheer “it’s Hulk time!” and watch him change into the Hulk, with his hair going all raggedy and his clothes bursting at the openings of his shirts and pants (how his pants stayed on, I never understood) and he changed into the Hulk.

Growing up, I never had any strong feelings about Lou.  But later, I was disgusted with him in his role in “King of Queens”.  In that show, he plays himself, but he NEVER mentions anything about his being Deaf or acts Deaf in any way.  For example, I remember one episode where he was bent over doing something and had his back turned to Doug, his neighbor, and turned around immediately to respond to Doug’s greeting.  That puzzled me because Doug hat spoken behind his back, and Lou was able to respond appropriately from that.  That is not acting Deaf.  It is not typical Deaf behavior.  I doubt he can do that in real life.  So that’s why I don’t look at Lou so favorably now.  But that is not my point here.

So, I wonder why in the comic book, the Hulk can talk, but in the TV series, the Hulk never talks, except to say GRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!  I’m thinking it is either:

• The writers found the Hulk would be played by Lou Ferrigno, and assumed that he can’t talk, even though Lou was raised orally and can talk.

OR

• The writers wanted to emphasize the Hulk’s lack of intelligence, so they wrote it so the Hulk can’t or doesn’t talk in order to emphasize his stupidity.  That is, muteness is equated with stupidity.

Either way, that’s audism, right?

For YouTube Version, Click Here

• QuickTime

by: vPIP	Embed (copy & paste):	close

3417 Volta Place…. where’s that?  It’s the Headquarters of the AG Bell Association.  The AGB Association has the money to hire very professional people to do publicity.  Last Monday, the ICED made this announcement:

We:

• Reject all resolutions passed at the ICED Milan Congress in 1880 that denied the inclusion of sign languages in educational programs for Deaf students;
• Acknowledge and sincerely regret the detrimental effects of the Milan conference; and
• Call upon all Nations of the world to remember history and ensure that educational programs accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication.

On July 23, the AGBell Association distributed their newsletter (an electronic newsletter) to their members informing them of different news relating to their mission.  It did include information about the ICED conference.  In the newsletter, it said:

On July 19 at its meeting in Vancouver, Canada, the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf       (ICED) issued a statement to address events that occurred at the 1880 Milan ICED conference which determined that the pure oral approach was the preferred method of instruction for children who are deaf.  According to ICED, “This statement ‘A New Era: Participation and Collaboration’ was introduced to Congress participants as the beginning of a dialogue to promote healing and set the path for future collaboration.”  In part, the statement “calls upon all nations to ensure that educational programs for the Deaf accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication.”

Now look closely at this, especially this sentence:

“…determined that the pure oral approach was the preferred method of instruction for children who are deaf.”

“Preferred”?  Interesting turn of phrase.  I went to the original ICED Milan conference and was astounded.  It’s very interesting.  The Milan conference NEVER said “ban” sign language.  I’m serious.  It never said it!   The Milan conference did say “the oral method should be preferred than sign language”.   BUT, what AGBell did not mention was that the following resolutions made at the Milan conference outlined a series of steps on how to remove sign language from the education of the Deaf, and how to promote Oralism for all Deaf people.

AGBell did make mention of ONE sentence from the ICED 2010 resolution overturning the Milan conference.  In it, AGBell did not mention ANYTHING about ICED’s rejection of the Milan resolutions.  Another thing, the ICED said that they “regret and acknowledge the detrimental effects of the Milan resolutions on Deaf people worldwide”.    But did AGBell mention anything about those detrimental effects?  Of course not!  If they were to mention it, it would mean their method is wrong and invalidated!

The one sentence that AGBell did quote, they quoted only part of it.  The other part said to “remember history”.  AGBell doesn’t want to remember history.  Why?  Well, if we are to remember history, we will know all the things that happened to Deaf people as a result of their influence; all the suffering that Deaf people have endured for over 130 years, because of AGBell’s association.

Finally, the 2010 ICED offered a long list of suggestions for the future, including recognizing signed languages, including Deaf people in our own self-governance and education, and referring identified Deaf children and babies to the schools for the Deaf so the schools know about these children, and can be involved in the Early Intervention process.  Did AGBell, in their statement, say anything about this?  ZIP. Why?  It would totally disrupt their goal to achieve total oralism for all Deaf people.

Truly, AGBell are experts at twisting and spinning, spinning, spinning!

(Note: I forgot also to mention that their inclusion of the “all forms of communication” also will be used by them to establish Oralism as “legitimate” — this has already been discussed by me here:

• http://www.deafhooddiscourses.com/?p=703 OR
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pS7zJX5KT4

For YouTube Version: CLICK HERE

• QuickTime

by: vPIP	Embed (copy & paste):	close

After my trip to Las Vegas, my brother and I got into a big fight about his friend’s preference not to have the captions on the TVs in his house.  My brother made a comment to me that I “choose to use my voice only when it suits me”, while at the same time, he referred to my friend who went on the trip as a “great guy who uses his voice so we Hearing can understand everything!”  I discuss a little about the implications of this statement in this vlog.

For YouTube version, CLICK HERE

• QuickTime

by: vPIP	Embed (copy & paste):	close

In 1964, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said “I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it!”  The discussion surrounding pornography has parallels in the current discussion regarding audism.

Warning: This vlog contains graphic sexual imagery and discussion.  Parental and viewer discretion advised.

For YouTube version, Click Here:

• QuickTime

by: vPIP	Embed (copy & paste):	close

My name is Don Grushkin, and I am a dysconscious audist…..

For YouTube version, CLICK HERE

• QuickTime

by: vPIP	Embed (copy & paste):	close

Coming out of my class the other day, I saw this advertisement for a California Proposition in which the sign said “Don’t erase race, erase racism”.  As I thought about what this meant, the implications for how this applied to Deaf people came to me, which I tell you here.

For YouTube version, CLICK HERE

• QuickTime

by: vPIP	Embed (copy & paste):	close

(Transcript of video):

I will admit something I will almost never say…. I’m old.  I can remember the early days of the Feminist movement.  Back then, women would say to men, “That’s sexist!”  Men would respond it was no big thing or that it was just a joke or women were taking everything too seriously and to relax.  But women kept arguing the point.  It was the same thing back during the Civil Rights period, Black people would say to White people “that’s racist, you ofay honky!”  White people would deny it and argue why it wasn’t so.  But since then, laws have been developed protecting women and Blacks, and there are more definitions of what sexism and racism means, and clearly defined examples of what each are.  It all comes from the people who label that behavior, discuss it, and create a common understood definition.

I remember back when I was in Graduate school at Gallaudet — studying School Psychology.  I had the opportunity to be involved in a big research project, traveling and helping with the research under a team of researchers.  It so happened that there was a woman who was involved with that research team — she was also a student at Gallaudet with me at the same time I was.  We’d known each other since we were Freshmen.  She was Jewish like me, and I would flirt a little bit with her, when I would see her I would say “Hi cutie!”  It was nothing serious — we never dated, I never asked her out, I never touched her, it was just some mild flirting.  It was just my “thing” with her — say “Hi cutie!”, we might chat and that was it.  But later, she would say “I’m not cute!  Cut it out!”  I didn’t think she was that mad.  So back to that research project — I had the opportunity to go, but when that woman found out my name was on the list, she went to her boss and objected she didn’t want me to go, she “didn’t feel comfortable” with me.  So my Department Chair, Skip Williams, who was a dwarf and used crutches to get around, he called me into his office and told me that woman didn’t want me to go, that my behavior made her feel uncomfortable, and that it could be considered “sexual harrassment”.  At that time, sexual harrassment was a new concept.  I explained that I was not trying to harrass her, it was just mild flirting at worst.  The end result was that I couldn’t be involved in the research project.  I was mad, and from then on, I never said one other word to her.  If I would see her around, I just looked the other way and went about my business.  Even today, I still don’t consider what I did to be “sexual harrassment”.  But the important thing is that women had set up a definition of what “sexual harrassment” is, and they fleshed out and came to a consensus on it.  Laws were codified and protections given to women against it.  And it came to be applied against me, whether I agreed with it or not.

Now, some of you say audism has no definitions and you can’t force it on people without that.  But the thing is, women started setting up definitions of sexism before laws came into place to enforce those definitions.  Same thing with Blacks.  They established definitions of racism before the laws were put into place to give protections against racism.  From those explanations of racism and sexism, people engaged in a common discourse about those topics, and became aware and enlightened about those topics and the common understanding of these terms were expanded upon with more knowledge and discussion.  It’s the same thing with audism.  We have to establish a standard understanding of what audism is regardless of whether it is codified into law or not, to start more awareness and understanding and discussion toward enlightenment.  And then it WILL get codified into law later.

But if WE don’t establish that “golden standard” now, who will?  And when?

For YouTube Version, Click Here:

• QuickTime

by: vPIP	Embed (copy & paste):	close

(Transcript of video)

Last week, I announced that audism should not be considered acceptable, and gave Tayler one week to change his “R-list” to include audism within that list.  That hasn’t happened.  Our society recognizes certain groups as minorities that have been historically oppressed and has created laws establishing protections for these groups against discrimination on the basis of racism, sexism, heterosexism, anti-semitism, ethnicity, and so on.  The reason we have these laws is because our society recognizes that everyone has the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” be becoming all that we can be and want to be, without being told that we’re wrong for wanting to be that way.

Businesses recognize and apply policies protecting these groups because they want their customers to feel happy and safe, so that they will come back and buy more of their products.

Audism is all around us.  Even a professional journal like the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education thinks nothing of publishing articles saying Deaf people should want to be like Hearing people, and it is not a problem if Deaf people become Hearing or Deaf culture becomes assimilated into Hearing culture.  That is audism. But there are no protections for Deaf people against audism.

DeafRead and DeafVideo.TV are businesses.  Tayler set them up as businesses, to earn money, as his goal.  That is fine.  I applaud him for his entrepeneurship.  There is nothing wrong with that.  How does he earn money from DR and DVTV as a business?  When people go to his sites, this creates “hits”, and the more “hits” these sites get, the more profits he earns.  When people post vlogs and blogs that are audist, and people click on those vlogs, Tayler earns profits from those “hits”.  Therefore, Tayler is directly profiting from audism.

But Tayler’s business model is a failing business model.  Look at DeafRead.  It was a thriving place where many vlogs and blogs were posted and a lot of discussion was happening.  And now, it’s a virtual “ghost town”.  People are basically posting only second-hand information; almost no vlogs or blogs are showing up at DeafRead anymore.  We’re now seeing more “walkouts” at DVTV, for basically the same reasons.  People are not feeling happy or safe, not able to “be all they can be or want to be without being told they’re wrong for wanting to be that way”, within those particular websites (DR & DVTV).

I have long since been speaking against audism.  I have taken a stand against audism.  I believe that if you “talk the talk”, you must “walk the walk”.  Audism hurts, and it hurts worse when it comes from one of our own.  But it hurts worst when one of our own allows it AND profits from it.

That is the reason that I feel I can no longer be involved in DVTV, if audism is allowed to continue.  I cannot let someone directly profit from audism.  It’s bad enough when Hearing people, like at Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, profit from audism, but we Deaf should not allow it, we should not accept it.

If you know me, you know I don’t like to “quit”.  I feel I must continue to fight on.  But I don’t feel I am  ”quitting”.  I will not be involved with DVTV, but I will still be around, through my website www.deafhooddiscourses.com and in YouTube under the username “DrDonGCSUS”.  I look forward to continuing the fight against audism and raising Deaf awareness at those sites, but not in DVTV, until the R-list is changed.  I will now be asking Tayler to remove my account from DeafRead and DVTV.

I also want to mention that I, and some other Deaf people, have been working for over a year to create a new “aggregator” website where there will be formal rules against racism, sexism, gender, etc., including audism and linguicism.  Unfortunately, I cannot tell you exactly when it will be ready; we are still working on a few technical issues. But for now, you can see me and other vloggers on YouTube and their own websites, and keep watching me for the announcement very soon!