A message to the AGBell Association’s defenders
Many of you continue to protest that the AGBell Association is not the AGBell Association of old, and that we should be leaving them alone. One claim is that AGBell is not against sign language anymore. I have come to a realization that you’re right, and I’ll tell you why here. (This will be my last word on the subject of AGBell… at least for now)
deafchipmunk said,
August 10, 2008 @ 6:44 am
Yes you are very much right. AGBell is very pleased with that. I am very surprised some people have defended AGBell’s reputation and put false friendly ASL face on it. That is really beyond my fathom. AGBell is now getting more and more supporters who blindly believe in AGBell. AGBell plays defenders’ minds.
Now another group is doing the same thing.
Deafchip
hedor said,
August 10, 2008 @ 7:22 am
well, time changed since the past AGBell did horrible to deaf kids from those people who followed AGBell’s philosophy abused them for years. Where was AGBell to stop crazy abuses? Why AGBell allowed this happen? That’s so curel! We wonder will AGBell takes ACTION and help deaf kids who suffered LONG LONG years in oral schools, did not save them from nutcases???
We can work build up to trust AGBell IF they prove us that they encourage sign language for deaf kids who DESIRE for communication!
Anonymous said,
August 10, 2008 @ 7:31 am
could you possibly be more vague and circuitous? please spell out how [who?] is doing AGBell’s work for him. This is such a broad generalization it’s meaningless. AGBell is on the record as supporting deaf children’s rights to learn to speak and hear as well as they can within their abilities. I know you know there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever. It’s also on the record that ASL does not “forbid,” “prohibit,” “oppress,” or otherwise look down on ASL. I have heard, but not personally witness, that they accommodate any deaf person’s communication preferences at their conferences, including an ASL interpreter. The current president of AGBell is an oral deaf man who can sign.
AGBell’s mission is to promote speaking and listening, and they have every right to do that if they want to. Same as NAD, DBC, and other organizations promote ASL, as they have every right to do so. I know you know AGBell and NAD et al can and do coexist peacefully. I’m not ignoring Alexander Graham Bell’s association with the eugenics movement, nor the horrifying consequences of forced oralism on people like Jack Barr and others. Let’s separate the man (Alexander Graham Bell), the organization (AG Bell Assn for the Deaf), and the context of oral schools for the deaf that perpetuated emotional and physical abuse on innocent deaf children. That some individuals pursue their own agendas (money, status, power, etc.) under the auspices of “helping” deaf people does not tarnish an entire organzation. No one is entirely good or entirely bad.
Benno said,
August 10, 2008 @ 8:21 am
How true and how sad.
Chris said,
August 10, 2008 @ 8:39 am
It is sad that some deaf people (crabs) think that hearing (AGBell) are always right regardless and deaf community is wrong to speak up.
The abused victims protect the abusers, a typical trend that have been going on for years with women abused by men but still love and protect them. It’s the weak-minded that needs to be realized.
cnkatz said,
August 10, 2008 @ 9:23 am
Excellent with a big BUT
The mindset behind audism is so ingrained that it takes successive generations to remove it - probably never - just as we are trying to reduce racism from inside us. So hard . . .
For almost two decades, I toil on a “mythology” that has the last 2 chapters on the immediate past, present, and future of the deaf child (the people themselves). We are now entering the Castle Volt (audism) - deaf people into the hearing world and educate and fight “with and against” audism.
I study Castle Volt. I am a member of AGB and read their literature even though at few points, some of their writing nauseate me. I gave a talk/discussion at a teaching training class at the John Tracy Clinic. It is like an enemy spy inside Castle Volt.
You are right only in this respect. They are not against sign language. Some (or few) can sign - the same way AGBell “can” sign - he fingerspells very fluently - probably one of the best fingerspeller. Ballin said that in “A Deaf Mute Howls”.
Inside my bones with the marrow of the gray matter up there, I believe that research into using sign language as a language to use with a spoken language WILL give tremendous boost to language acquisition to newborns until toddlers. With that, AGBell will have to discuss this truth and proclaim it true in their search of the holy grail that all deaf people can speak. (of course, all can open their mouth and vocalize).
AGBad and all (General Volt) will have to (be forced to) add a significant but small portion of words into their literature that sign language should be used with deaf children learning to speak. It will depend on the deaf child to gradually lose signing depending on the level of their loss and their environments - depending of themselves.
But as our fellow human beings, we look at them as not so bad, of course. DBC and the deaf community gave them a tremendous PR boost - yes, more and more deaf eyes look at them after 100 years of ignoring them. We need to enter AGBell become their friends and at the same time destroy audism to the point they celebrate and use signs to teach speech!
Don, what you said will CONFUSE and confound the deaf community, especially the monolinguals. I will worry how your post here will be understood. If they react to your basic question in a harsh way, good - their mind are fired up therefore more inner reflection and outer discourse on deafhood.
Thank you paddy for writing the white book -
Nancy M. Carroll said,
August 10, 2008 @ 9:27 am
Good point! Unfortunately, it is the victims doing the PR for AGB. I would think that would speak volumes for AGB and its reputation.
I do find it interesting that it is okay for AGB to be specific about their mission of serving a specific group of deaf people. But it is not okay for DBC to be that way. And why the heck not? Colonalization of minds?
Richard Roehm said,
August 10, 2008 @ 10:06 am
What other group? DBC?
Joseph Pietro Riolo said,
August 10, 2008 @ 10:23 am
Nice reverse psychology but it does not work on me.
Most of the responses against the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing were driven by hatred, angry, misconceptions, logical fallacies and revenge. These are what I try to discourage.
I am impressed with the attitude of Dr. Edward M. Gallaudet when he wrote this: “I have not questioned the motives of those whose actions a stern sense of duty to my profession has compelled me to criticise. I am quite ready to believe that those who glory in the name of pure-oralists are sincerely desirous of promoting the welfare of the deaf, and no one is more ready than I to accord all due praise for the many generous things Prof. Bell has devised and done in behalf of this class, the infirmities and disabilities of which first touched his sympathetic heart in the days of his early manhood. For all those whose course I have called in question I have none but kindly personal feelings. It is not them whom I condemn, but simply such acts of theirs as are justly open to the charge of being partisan or unprofessional.” (The last fourth paragraph at http://saveourdeafschools.org/edward_miner_gallaudet_1895.pdf .)
His attitude should be emulated by everyone.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
DrDonG said,
August 10, 2008 @ 10:26 am
CKatz –
I hope this will not confuse and confound, but who knows? Yes, I am trying to get people to thinking about their behavior and what they say and how that reflects on the community and Deafhood.
Nancy — A VERY good question about the contrast in attitudes toward AGB and DBC, and one we should all be thinking about.
Richard — I don’t understand your question. I was talking about those people who defend AGB — no other group. Only thing I can think of is when I reviewed my video, I noticed I made some sign confusions in referent — I initially established AGB on the right but then on a few other times I referred to them on the left. That’s the non-native signer in me — I really need to pay attention to remembering where I established my referents and maintaining my consistency in doing that.
DrDonG said,
August 10, 2008 @ 10:35 am
Joseph P.R. –
Notice that we are speaking out against the ORGANIZATION and the SYSTEM — not necessarily the PEOPLE involved. I think, and I think many of us think similarly, that the Oralists, as represented by AGBell’s members and those working within the “Audio-Industrial Complex” is primarily composed of people who, in their hearts, truly believe that they are doing the right and good thing for Deaf people. But thinking you’re doing the right thing does not necessarily mean that you ARE doing the right thing. People can do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
So, we are basically saying the same thing that EMG did, if you look at his last sentence that you quoted.
John Mans said,
August 10, 2008 @ 11:03 am
You have an EXCELLENT POINT to EDUCATE them. Everyone should know that would not struggle to pull the root out, which was only one year old. They can not pull the root out, which was over one hundred years old. It is good enough to keep them to defend the aged of tree. The tree’s root already take over some people’s mind then feed them by diseased of gene. I applaud AGB’s PR, who is a very good job for getting you to bow and defend to AGB but unfortunately, AGB does not pay you at all. AGB owns you as pet.
I am so shocked to see some Deaf people are willing to put into sugar coat by themselves. I think that sugar coats (people) are not really understand Deaf, ASL, and Deaf culture, which were belonged to Deafhood. The sugar coats tend to attack the white cells, which were protected the system of body. The white cells are no longer in the body to lead to collapsed. What are sugar coats to get a benefit after bodied of decomposition? Nothing at all… Right!! Now, What is your point to fight against Deaf people, who have Deafhood and support DBC?
Which is best for Deaf baby? Oral or ASL
#1 DBC’s mission = Promote “ASL”
# 2 AGB’s mission = Promote ” Hear stong and talk strong”
Which one, do you really support to educate to the hearing parents of Deaf child? # 1 or #2
If you support # 1 then please to help and defend DBC.
Now, it is time to remove your sugar coat.
MM said,
August 10, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
I doubt there is wholesale support for A G Bell and oralism, and against ASL, but there is support, for free choice. No one going into the oral system today doesn’t know exactly what to expect from it. Once that choice has been made I think the DBC will just keep getting opposition from people to those that attack choice once it is made, it will be nothing to do with pro-sign or pro-oralism stances, it’s about CHOICES.
In the UK I argue bitterly on many fronts of the abandoning of these status quos. Since I don’t believe either ‘dedicated’ systems actually work to the deaf child’s benefit. The signing side has got too political for education to get a look in, and I do not think an educational system for a deaf child should start on the basis of anything, but how will the system equip a deaf child for the life, and the world it has to live in ?
NOTHING else matters….There are good aspects to sign, there are negative aspects to it, there are good aspects for oralism, and bad ones too, what we need to do is weed out those negative aspects and do the best for the deaf child. If you are an adult this makes no difference you had a bad experience, because it is NOT about you.
It will mean a few cultural areas and oral areas will have to dump a lot of their perspectives first, face hard decisions, the lion sleeps with the lamb…. I ask Don G what comes first ? ASL ? or the deaf child ? In Britain it is widely mooted deaf prefer socializing before an education, as a priority. COMMUNICATION surely comes before any of it… ? and effective communication that doesn’t restrict you to one area of life from day one, why give deaf children wings, and there is nowhere for them to fly ?
We DO live in a hearing/speaking world, we cannot change that, we have to find ways and means for the deaf child to bridge that, because they have to live and work in it. Laws have limited effectiveness, when the chips are down it is you, and a hearing person, I make no apologies for saying deaf need to find a way to bridge that gap themselves. Laws of access ONLY open doors, once through, you are on your own again… The more strings the deaf child has to its bow, the more opportunity it has, you can’t live on idealism, it doesn’t pay the rent.
Joseph Pietro Riolo said,
August 10, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Well, I don’t know if what you wrote is an accurate representation of what is happening in the Deaf world. For example, didn’t you just wrote last Friday that as you learned more about Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, you lose respect for him and that we should stop revering his name? I am not interested in finding faults in you and I am willing to give you the full benefit of doubt.
Again, I am encouraging all of us to take the high road regarding the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. If we have any accusation against it, it needs to be well grounded and well reasoned, void of any hatred, angry or revenge. For example, the accusation saying that it did not support ASL conflicts with the interpreting service that it provided for its conferences. Also, the accusation is not entirely logical. We don’t operate in binary thinking. We don’t operate in either-or thinking. Just because it does not provide resources for ASL as an option for deaf babies does not necessarily mean that it is against ASL. Passivity is not always equal to active opposition. As another example, just because Deaf Bilingual Coalition does not provide resources for oralism or AVT as an option for deaf babies does not necessarily mean that it is against oralism or AVT. We can’t assume that just because an organization is silent or passive on a position means that it is against that position. This is one reason why I criticized some of the accusations against the association.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
mcconnell said,
August 10, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
I guess it never occurred to anyone that perhaps DrDonG is also helping AGBell by way of attacking them in his vlogs in the attempt to minimize other people’s attack of AGBell by justifying for them their reason for doing so? Just asking questions here. Playing the victim does get a bit old, understandable though, but does nothing if the goal is to help educate hearing parents on the choices about ASL for their heaf/hh children. Technology makes a stronger case than does ASL but in order to have equal footing one needs to lessen these frontal attacks against AGBell and such. It won’t win the hearts of hearing parents and will only increase the stigma and myths about Deaf people and ASL. Congrats.
dog food said,
August 10, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
I love that blue wallpaper in the back of the room.
Personally, what you’re trying to say about us all being PR for AGBell is pure speculation. How do we know that there has been active training? Where did you came to that conclusion besides from commenters?
If you think about it; this vlog/blog of yours is actively promoting AGBell. You’re giving every one of these “supporters” a chance to bombard you for your way of thinking.
ive never heard of AGBell until i came on DeafRead. I’ve been in a Deaf school, went to RIT, and never heard of AGBell. Its hard to say that i’ve been trained to PR for agbell when all i am is expressing my disagreement with your position which you hold so fiercely.
Do you have a dog? i like that little red ball.
RLM said,
August 10, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Dr. Don G and everyone else,
That is purely a “plausability denial” among deaf defenders of the AGBell.
Same thing with people defending the Catholic Church from the sexual abuses scandals
and past ‘Inquisitions” actions.
People begin to subscribe to the revisionist interpretation of the Catholic Church’s “Inquistions”
to help out non-Chrisitans from being persecuted. Why there were already the documented tortures of
non-Christians to force them to convert to the Christianity. Or really the work of Protestantism to damage the Catholic Church’s image and reputation.
Who is right?
Joseph Pietro Riolo have to remmy that Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet created the “Normal Department” to deny the future deaf graduates to be the educator of the deaf for more than 50 years. EMG could be in a compromising position since EMG secretly was a closeted gay himself. Who know?
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
DrDonG said,
August 10, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
MM –
I don’t think anyone is against “free choice”. However, AGB doesn’t allow parents to make INFORMED “free” choices. They have established a monolithic system which bars a lot of access to making that INFORMED free choice for parents. Even in their website, although they mention sign language and ASL, they only give token reference to it and their phrasing subtly conveys the message that sign language is not as “viable” as speech and that it is only for a limited few who can’t “do any better”.
Yes, there are a FEW positive aspects to oralism, but there are many MORE positive aspects to signing. Andsigning provides access to COMMUNICATION much quicker than oralism does, and it does NOT preclude learning to speak. So to answer your question, the Deaf child definitely comes first. We want to give those children those wings to fly as effortlessly as they can, just like Hearing children have the opportunity to. Signing gives ALL Deaf children the same opportunity to learn and communicate without a struggle as their Hearing peers get. That’s all we’ve been trying to say and ask for.
Signing allows us to bridge those gaps you speak of — to learn to speak as well (if we can) or through reading and writing (which we all can). Why is there all this opposition to giving Deaf children that opportunity?
DrDonG said,
August 10, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
Joseph P.R. –
I think, given the opportunity to educate parents, the DBC would tell parents about the advantages of Oralism and AVT, but they would definitely make sure to inform parents of all the disadvantages of it as well, so parents could see that the cons (and they are there) outweigh the pros. AGB (and others in the audio-industrial complex), to my knowledge has never provided true or full information about sign language — they present only half-truths, lies or misstatements, or omit information harmful to their mission of recruiting parents to utilize their methods.
DrDonG said,
August 10, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
Dog Food –
That “wallpaper” is actually a paint pattern. But the flowers above it is a wallpaper border. And yes, I do have a dog.
I’m not saying that you’re actually “working” for AGB, but you are in effect, “working for” AGB when you are defending them so much. And you don’t have to have heard of AGB to promote their agenda, because you have learned their agenda through other means, such as Oral schools, media, parents, etc. AGB has spread their agenda so widely through our society that people don’t realize they’re maintaining AGB’s primacy in the Deaf education system.
DrDonG said,
August 10, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
RLM –
EMG created the “Normal” training program for Deaf graduates, but too quickly, AGB managed to get Deaf people blocked out of entering the Normal schools or teaching at schools for the Deaf. This was achieved through the establishment of the Council on Education of the Deaf (CED) which established pro-Oralist standards for future teachers of the Deaf that virtually prevented Deaf people from becoming teachers of the Deaf.
I don’t think EMG’s possible closeted gay status had anything to do with it. I think he just fell into the trap of trying to compromise with AGB’s views until he ended up getting compromised out almost entirely. He compromised with the Combined Method, with saying signs might be used too much, and I’m sure probably some other things that I don’t know about yet.
From your old MSSD peer said,
August 10, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
Hi DrDonG!
Good to see you in your numerous vlog subvmissions from time to time, your suggested subjects to discuss often is of great interest and valid, and now I think it’s time for me to tell you who I am as one of your great fans.
I do remember you very well from the old MSSD days…and what I vividly remember about you is that you were one of the smartest MSSD students. Not too surprised you went all the way to get a Ph.D
I gave you my email address in this response (so please kindly contact me via my personal email address and I want to ask you a very, very, very simple question).
Thank you.
e said,
August 10, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
While I do not question your knowledge, but can you please add citations to your assertions, especially in #21. As someone with a doctoral degree, you should know that by now…
In any case, I am very interested to read more about this so I would be sure to check them out.
e said,
August 10, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
Dr. Dong:
Can you point me to where on its website does the DBC organization discuss oralism? Even a token reference with a link to AGBell’s website?
reader said,
August 10, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Hi,
You know, I’ve been reading a book, “Hand, Heart, Mind” written by Lou Ann Walker. She mentions a lot about AGB and EMG and their friendship, in the beginning, they were good friends, even EMG offered AGB a teaching position at Gallaudet. He also requested Gallaudet to bestow a honorary doctorate on AGB. That year, AGB was wishy-washy about what he wanted to educate deaf students and wasn’t completely truthful to EMG.
Over the time, Bell started to lean more on oralism and thought that deaf teachers should not teach deaf students. EMG and Bell’s relationship soured and the final test in their friendship occurred when EMG went to Congress to ask for funding to set up teaching training program. Bell demanded that the money should not be used to pay for this program which embarrassed and upset EMG and the Congress turned down his request. In turn, Bell had the nerve to ask a senator to donate money to set up a program for teachers to teach the oralism method at Gallaudet. EMG then took the money and turned around and went ahead and established a teaching training program. Both of these two men became increasingly distrustful of each other, their friendship destroyed and they were no longer speaking to each other.
It is really sad at how this turned out simply. Had they turned into real good friends, this history would not have happened and maybe the oralism and ASL would have come together. Bell was trying to gain attention to overpower EMG and the struggles between these two coda men had a sad ending.
DrDonG said,
August 10, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
E –
I’m sure you understand the v/blog format is a different form of discourse than doing a research paper. If you want citations for my points, I’ll be happy to, where I can. However, be aware that many times, it is something that I came across here or there, but now cannot remember exactly where I found that tidbit. I should have kept better records of such information, but… mea culpa!
As for the DBC, I’ll take a look around. You could contact DBC yourself to ask them. I’m sure they’d be happy to provide the information to you.
MSSD Peer:
Hi! I remember you well too. I’ll contact you by email.
Reader,
I haven’t read that book yet (or even heard of it). Thanks for sharing. I knew some of that information from Winefeld’s “Never the Twain shall meet”, but this sounds much more detailed than that one! Will have to look for it and read it. History is full of strange twists… if one thing had not happened, all our lives would be different for that one thing today….
reader said,
August 10, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
Sorry I hit the send button wayy too soon, what I was trying to say is that its important for us to divulge into the history of oralism and ASL and see where the problems occurred. Did the problems occur because these two men were codas, they were trying to “help” the deaf community in their own way, were their egos inflated, or what. I see that EMG tried his damnest hard to make sure AGB was welcomed, he even offered him a honorary doctorate, and a teaching position. Yet what happened? Did AGB take advantage of EMG’s friendship or was he simply being misunderstood? I think those two men caused all of these conflicts that led the road of the separation of oralism and ASL. Don, do you know a lot about their history and if so, maybe you can answer my questions. Thanks
DrDonG said,
August 10, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
OOOOH. Good follow-up question there, Reader. I’m going to have to think on that before I can tell you what I think from what I do know about them. But I do see a lesson to be learned from them that can easily translate to what is happening today….
JD said,
August 11, 2008 @ 3:40 am
I want to let you know your vlogs are greatly appreciated.
RLM said,
August 11, 2008 @ 7:35 am
Don G,
Yea, you could be absolutely right about EMG not being blackmailed about his closeted gay status led to the creation of “Normal Department” at the National Deaf-Mute College (Gallaudet College/University). Reader said perfectly what the pure schemer AGB himself was.
Reader Said,
Great book recommendation about Lou Ann Walker’s “Hand, Heart, Mind”. That is very first time, I know about this book. Many thanks!
I would be fascinated to find out why AGB turned 360o degree on his philisophy for the education of the deaf. Everything could point out to AGB’s wife, Madell Bell to keep AGB in the line from exploring the workable educational approachs for the deaf youngsters to acquire the highest literary skills and ability to merge into the society at large.
Thanks to everyone leaving comments. I really enjoy all your comments including response from Dr. DonG.
RLM
DrDonG said,
August 11, 2008 @ 10:07 am
JD - Thanks. Positive feedback is always nice to see.
RLM –
I don’t think AGB ever “turned 360 degrees”. I think he always had those attitudes that speech was superior. He learned from his father who was an elocutionist (teaching people how to speak “properly”) that speech is most important. As a teenager, he even taught his dog how to “speak”! (The story is in “Never the Twain Shall Meet”, I think).
I think AGB was what we today would call “paternalistic”. He wasn’t above being friends with Deaf people, and could communicate with them in their language, but he definitely did not feel that Deaf people were his true equals, because they did not use spoken language. This is why he banned sign language and wanted to try to prevent more Deaf people from being born (even though he KNEW Deaf-Deaf marriages did not produce a high percentage of Deaf births — E.A. Fay had already done the research several years before showing that — and he knew that many people became deaf after birth from illnesses and accidents).
I’m sure also that AGB developed his attitudes from his mother, who was also Deaf, but late-deafened, so therefore, oral and preferred to interact with Hearing people. It is said that men tend to “marry” their mothers, so it is no surprise that he married Mabel, who had a similar background and orientation as his mother.
DrDonG said,
August 11, 2008 @ 10:32 am
Reader,
It is clear that these two men were CODAs and their experiences as such did influence their thinking about Deaf people growing up. AGB had an oral mother who did not socialize with Deaf at all, and EMG had a signing Deaf mother and grew up with Deaf kids while his father taught at ASD. Both were trying to help the Deaf community as they saw best. (see my response to RLM above for a bit more information related to your question)
AGB and EMG were friends at first — it was more of a friendly rivalry — they disagreed, but they were trying to convince the other why they were right and the other was wrong — much like I have been doing with MM and he has been doing with me —
I think EMG saw the growing strength of oralism as proposed by AGB and tried to suggest compromises so that sign language instruction would be saved, because he knew that is what works. EMG tried to keep an open mind about oralism, and went to Europe to study oralism as practiced there, but came back unimpressed as he could see through the deceptive practices the oralists employed to “show” that it “worked”.
I don’t remember what, if anything, was the “turning point” in their relationship. I think they just became frustrated with the other’s stubbornness and in their “debates” they used stronger language and harsher ways of trying to make their points (much as I may have been doing here) until the relationship degenerated into enmity.
One thing about your point — no one person can be responsible for an entire society’s change, unless that person has assumed a dictatorship role. AGB was definitely a leader for oralism, but he basically rode the changing tide of society’s views to make his way dominant (read “Forbidden Signs” by Baynton — an excellent book on the differences in society before 1870 - 1880 and after and how those changes supported or worked against oralism and manualism — also, there is another book I haven’t read yet talking about the Eugenics movement and how that influenced AGB and the oralist movement too, but I can’t remember the title of it now).
Also, the conflict between manualism and oralism was always there — Lane did a paper in a book titled something like “New perspectives on sign language research” edited by Wilcox (I think — I’ll have to check the title when I get back to my office in Sept.) where he shows how oralism and manualism keep rising and falling. As I showed in my previous vlog on “How the Deaf community came to be divided“, technology provided an additional boost to oralism — if it were not for the technology, Bell’s oralism might not have lasted so long, since people would have seen it did not work much quicker, just like the other times.
cnkatz said,
August 11, 2008 @ 10:34 am
DonG,
I am so proud of this post, commenters and of you. And grateful that the “new kind” of discourse is finally available for the deaf community, and so public - and that anyone anywhere on the planet with internet access can see this. Amazing.
A big 5-hand slap to you -
reader said,
August 11, 2008 @ 10:46 am
That’s interesting, Don. Ill have to read more books on this subject, I’m just fascinated at how this war between oralism and ASL started and if there is any way we can stop and end this war for now and on…. and that hearing parents won’t have to make so agonizing choices for their deaf child. The deaf child and the hearing parents are the ones that get the double whammy if they make the wrong choice and it isn’t fair to them. Sigh!
DrDonG said,
August 11, 2008 @ 11:20 am
Great, Reader! It is SO important for us to know our history and understand how it has influenced us today and to see what has been tried in the past, so we don’t repeat the mistakes and try the same things again, with the same results, but to learn from those mistakes and try something new that might work, or see what did work in the past, and continue to use that. I get so frustrated with those people who say “the past is the past and no use digging it up”!
The more we all learn about our history, maybe SOMEBODY will come up with the “magic bullet”.
MM said,
August 11, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
It’s a pity because Samuel Heinicke (the father of oralism), and le abbey le épée’ (father of sign language !), were communicating to each other, but for Milan, deaf education would probably be a lot different today, perhaps a happier married version of both modes…. when the talking stopped, the shouting started….. the rest really is history…
Chris said,
August 11, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
MM
As for Milan 1880, they should have adopted speech program along with sign language rather than throw away sign language and try oral only which made it worse.
Will the Deaf people get their language back that was taken away. 100 years of stigma about sign language as a no - no for the deaf people is really thick. A lot of work to do to normalize deaf people’s interaction communication skills.
The One and Only Ridor said,
August 11, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
How pathetically true! DrDonG, you said it all. AgBELL is laughing all the way to the bank while we bicker with each other. Quite amazing, is it?
R-
DrDonG said,
August 11, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
Ridor:
Yep! AGB makes hundreds of thousands or millions off our Deaf bodies and what do they give back to us as Deaf people? Almost nothing! Those people who defend AGB are being used by AGB twice: first as children and now as free PR for AGB….
BTW, welcome back! I’m not a frequent reader of your blog, at least not since UFG, but when I want a gossip fix, you’re the man to go to! And you do make for “interesting” conversations…
Brian Riley said,
August 12, 2008 @ 4:29 am
I am convinced that the pro-signing people have already won in the longstanding conflict with Oralism. I think the turning point was the victory in the UFG protest 2 years ago. The only problem is that the people who run the AG Bell Association are not smart enough to realize that they have already lost. So we’re going to watch an interesting spectacle in the next 10 to 15 years as they gradually realize what has already happened. Someone already pointed out the the tide had already turned in the deaf education literature several years ago.
DrDonG said,
August 12, 2008 @ 6:45 am
Brian,
Lane, as I pointed out earlier, has shown a fairly cyclical pattern of dominance and repression of one method over the other for several centuries. I agree that we are now entering a period of support for the manualist philosophy, but we are experiencing counter-forces which are threatening that support and recognition for ASL and other natural sign languages, such as Cochlear Implants, AVT (which is really nothing new, just repackaged). The important thing is for us to continue to document why ASL works and how having a Deaf community benefits us as Deaf people and as part of a global society so that the counter-forces do not gain long-term traction. It is premature at this time to say we have “won”. But I am hopeful (and at the same time, sometimes pessimistic) that we are on the way to having a clear-cut “win”.
FloridaGirl said,
August 12, 2008 @ 7:25 am
Barry Sewell
“Hocokan is a Lakota term for a complete circle, medicine wheel and wholeness.”
Hocoka
“When Council Fires were held or when a band or group made camp, the open space at the center of the circled tipis was called hocoka”
http://brokenchains.us/AITPRF/test-answers.html
DrDonG said,
August 12, 2008 @ 8:05 am
Fla. Girl:
I’m confused. What does Hocokan have to do with the discussion we have been having here?
FloridaGirl said,
August 12, 2008 @ 8:14 am
Shame on you, Barry Sewell who has been began spreading the word of hocokan, which is familiar with the circle, on Deafread. Where did you get the idea about the word of hocokan? Don’t get me wrong. Don’t give me to point wrongly the finger at Native American tradition because I truly respect them.
I have to do research about the fact that Hocoka is the correct spelling, not hocokan.
“The hocoka, or medicine wheel, forms the basis for Lakota psychology, philosophy, spirituality, and culture. Each quadrant has a specific meaning and together they create the balance necessary for a healthy life and world.”
DrDonG, I want you to continue vlog to go publicly to the Deaf audience because your vlog is very good. (Sorry To Confuse You (With The Truth!)
PS. I studied Mayan (Indian) people’s culture, which is different from Native American’s culture.
FloridaGirl said,
August 12, 2008 @ 8:27 am
Dr Don
I checked on whether Dr hocokan had made comments in your blog, but he didn’t show up here when I made a mistake. I thought that Dr hocokan’s comment appeared here, but I found that other topic “We all have been abused by Oralism!”
Brian Riley said,
August 12, 2008 @ 9:07 am
Don,
Remember that Stokoe’s work is one of a kind work that put us in a new phase of historical progress. This is no longer a see-saw contest between the Oralists and the Manualists. Also, both the DPN and UFG protests were unlike anything that had happened before.
Check out this Modern Language Association report to see how there was been an explosion of interest in hearing students studying ASL. See especially PDF page 14 where it shows a 432% growth in enrollment in ASL classes between 1998 and 2002:
http://www.mla.org/pdf/06enrollmentsurvey_final.pdf
Also, I don’t think the advent of cochlear implants is really going to impact the fact that the philosophy of bilingualism for deaf children has made tremendous, tremendous strides. I think that hearing parents are eventually going to get the right information (especially now that the Internet is available) and they will not be fooled by the CI companies or AG Bell. They will realize that deaf kids need to be bilingual, regardless of whatever hearing devices come into play.
This is no longer a contest between “Oralists and Manualists”, really.
I think that it is now a contest between truth and fiction. Truth is on our side.
MM said,
August 12, 2008 @ 9:46 am
It is the space between I assume, that was common to all ?
cnkatz said,
August 12, 2008 @ 10:55 am
Brian Riley,
Your points made my heart smile and mind nodding.
The deaf community has begun the war Stokoe made with a small lightfire. The progress is still too slow. Human societies moves and changes slowly. We have made great strides yet we will not sit back and think its over - much more work need to be done. Federal govt recognize ASL as language and placed on census. All deaf children have easy access to sign language and (ALL-TC) at school, if not at home. AGBad declare that, with research, young deaf children will learn to talk better if used sign language etc etc etc.
Our “war” has just begun and more work to be done.