Ag Bell: Public Enemy #1

MaxUFC said:
Wel, maybe he will not do that if he live in present day with learning much about deaf stuffs?. :dunno:

That's what I was going to ask. Did most people know better back then, or was that attitude representative of the time?
 
Deaf Images
You did homework and you are up to the par! Most do not read those books and still are in the dark

Interpretrator
A Journey into the Deaf-World" by Lane, Hoffmeister, and Bahan.

The adoration of people like Lane and Bahan, is simply perpetuating "victim mentality" instead of contructively changing the here and now.

Oh, and yes I have read the book.
 
loml said:
The adoration of people like Lane and Bahan, is simply perpetuating "victim mentality" instead of contructively changing the here and now.

That is a total sidetrack. The question was about Alexander Graham Bell. The portion I quoted discusses a portion of history and quotes his own words. This was not a thread about "how can we constructively change the here and now?"

Kindly point out to me the part of my post where I say "I adore people like Lane and Bahan." As I said, if you would like the primary sources identified in that passage, which were NOT written by Lane and Bahan, I would be more than happy to provide them. History is history and it is perfectly possible to know where one came from without "perpetuating victim mentality." Should I stand up and walk out in a history class when they talk about the struggle for suffrage? Of course not. I think about the oppression and sacrifices that women have had to go through -- and then I honor that by VOTING. It does no one any good to ignore history. Argue and debate about it, though, sure...

And on that notes: yes, it's absolutely true that Bell was a product of the time and place where he lived. I agree that that has to be taken into account when you study history. It makes me a little crazy, for example, when people point out "sexist" attitudes in Shakespearean plays. Context is everything and certainly we know a lot more now than we did then from a scientific standpoint, as well as civil rights having come a long way since then. And eugenics has had a long history in this country; certainly not as extreme as in some other countries, but there was a period of time where it was accepted as a means of improving society.

However, I don't think it's off the mark to say that AGB had some serious issues no matter what century he lived in. His mother and wife were deaf or HOH (sorry I can't remember the specifics) and he had this arguably violent attitude towards deaf people, wanting to pass laws requiring them to be surgically mutilated so that they could not reproduce. That's a lot of denial and possibly self-hatred right there.

(Also please note that whatever I say has nothing to do with the AGB Association. I know very little about them and personally it's none of my business if someone chooses technology and oral methods over signing and Deaf culture.)
 
Deaf Images said:
That is right, however his influence had harmed deaf community for years since 1880.

I do have to point out that the Milan Congress took place in 1880 and even though the American delegates did not vote in favor of making oral language the dominant teaching method for the deaf, it did have a huge effect on deaf education in the U.S. due to Americans (especially in the northeast) still tending to follow Europe's lead, and also due to new immigrants who brought with them the values of their own cultures and countries.

Again, I don't think it excuses him, but he was in fact going along with the popular trend of the time.
 
Kindly point out to me the part of my post where I say "I adore people like Lane and Bahan."
Oh and saying that Lane and Bahan have some good idears or good perspectives isn't idealizing them!
Oh, and criticizing Bell for his idears IS NOT wallowing in victimhood.
He was resposible for audist attitudes that continue even today (look in Volta voices for an article by an oral expert where she criticizes a proposal to have all TODs in California be ASL fluent) If he'd been on the lunatic fringe, nobody would even attack him. BUT, he negatively influenced Deaf education. Even today, a lot of the oral experts out there are extremely audist about oral skills!
 
Oralism Is Fake!

deafdyke said:
Even today, a lot of the oral experts out there are extremely audist about oral skills!


The reason they are audists is because all the $ go into their 401K plans and their pockets. They are laughing their way to the bank!

Oralism is a false facade for audists to control Deaf people!

:whistle:
 
Deaf Images said:
Oralism is a false facade for audists to control Deaf people!

:whistle:

If this is true- how would you explain the numerous sucessfull "oral" deaf individuals that I know and who attended RIT/NTID with me? Most of them also are involved with the deaf community and use ASL. They are happy with their ability to communicate with both cultures - how is that "control?? My best friend was born profoundly deaf. She has near-perfect speech, thanks to her mother being a speech therapist, and is a successful ultrasound technician in a major hospital.

This is oppression and control?
 
Interpretrator said:
I do have to point out that the Milan Congress took place in 1880 and even though the American delegates did not vote in favor of making oral language the dominant teaching method for the deaf, it did have a huge effect on deaf education in the U.S. due to Americans (especially in the northeast) still tending to follow Europe's lead, and also due to new immigrants who brought with them the values of their own cultures and countries.

Again, I don't think it excuses him, but he was in fact going along with the popular trend of the time.
Thank you and that is the case, here's what I posted at DN back in 2002
============================================

I am currently reading the book titled "Understanding Deafness Socially" Edited by Paul C. Higgins, Ph.D. Dept of Sociology at Universty of SC and Jeffery E. Nash, Ph.D. Dept of Sociology at Macalester College in St.Paul, Minn. published by Thomas Book in 1987 by Charles C. Thomas Publisher. ISBN 0-398-05300-6

Anyway, I am in Editor's Introduction to Chapter 6 for "Cultural Conflict in a school for deaf children" in a paragraph under "Education of deaf youth" on Page 123-124. I came across this surprising information that I knew all along and surprised that US didn't adopt the Oral Method as preferred method that International Congress of Milan in 1880 passed. USA didn't adopt at all. Oralism just spread out throughout. Oral method were not manadated at all school at the same time in the same year. It just spread out over the years. So let me quote that from the book about it.

The several hundred-year history of the education of deaf students is marked by controversy concerning the appropriate means of educating deaf children. Should deaf children be educated through oral means– speech, speechreading, and auditory training – or should sign language be the prmary method (Bender, 1981; Lane, 1984; Neisser, 1983)? With the passage of a resolution that the oral method was to be preferred to that of signs at the International Congress of Milan in 1880, all countries except the United States adopted it as the preferred method (Bender, 1981:156). However, even in the United States, oralism spread throughout educational programs for the deaf students. Within the United States in the past 100 years, sign language has not be universally used in educational programs for deaf students. Sign language was primarily used in state residential schools for deaf students, particularly with the older students, many of whom had not been successfully taught through oral means when they were younger. Only since approximately 1970 has there been a growing emphasis on the use of sign language within the classroom; an emphasis on what is often called total communication (Jordan, Gustason, and Rosen, 1979). Yet even with that growing emphasis on sign language, the sign systems used have often been developed by hearing educators in order that they model more closely the oral, English language than does the native sign language of the deaf people (see Woodward, 1982).
(references:
Bender, Ruth E.: The conquest of Deafness. 3rd ed. Danville, Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1981.

Lane, Harlan: When the Mind hears: A History of the Deaf , New York, Random House, 1984

Neisser, Arden: The Other Side of Silence: Sign Language and the Deaf Community in America. ,New York, Knopf, 1983.

Jordan, I.K., Gustason, Gerilee, and Rosen, Roslyn: An update on communication trends at programs for the deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 124: 350-357, 1979

Woodward, James: Some sociolinguistic problems in the implementation of bilingual education for deaf students. In Woodward, james: How you Gonna Get to Heaven if You Can't Talk With Jesus: On Depathologizing Deafness. Silver Spring, T.J. Publishers, 1982, pp.21-50.)


The word in bold is my emphasis.

Boult

============================================
 
Cheri and Webexplorer,

I posted this at DN back in 2002 which has my mention of finding that it was not AGBell that ruined Martha's Vineyard. It was President Grant that attracted tourist and the rest is history...
(please excuse my typo, mis-puncation, missed spacings and mistake so I am pasting as is... See FYI below the quoted text)
EK,
OK, you said ASL is used for signing as in communication right?

BI-BI progam at several deaf schools use ASL as method of instructions for several course including english. They are using ASL to teach English! that's the problem...

As for Martha Vineyward's timeline.. the method of instruction was english becuase their signlanguage was derieved from BSL and native signs. Both hearing and deaf were taught english and MVSL at the same time when growing up. that's why they were isolated on a Island off the mainland. Most people on mainland had no full knowledge of what's going on over there.. till few people had to go there from mainland like a judge or lawyer, that person did bump into a deaf guy and asked for direction, the deaf guy couldn't respond thus peeved this hearing guy and went on and saw another guy who is hearing and griped to him that he (deaf guy ) was rude for not helping him! but that hearing guy didn't tell him that he was deaf.

Clerc's method of instruction was LSF in english order till those kids attended his school from MV because no formal school for deaf on island. AFTER that things all changed becuase those kids graduated AND stayed on mainland even going thru suffering, oppression, or whatever the topic starter call it. why not those GO BACK to MV??

I posted my finding somwhere in DN that what if Clerc and Gallaudet didn't form a deaf school, maybe we will be seeing a expanded mentality from MV to shore of mainland of US! but it wouldn't matter eitehr way.. because it was the President Roosevelt that took a vacation on MV a first time for those people on the island which attracted lot of tourist and reporters thus tarnished the gene pool there.. so it was no longer a isolated community anymore.. Tourist overwhelmed those community.. what can you do?

Why not those kind of community occur on Hawaii at all since they do have deaf native populations! but not isolated enough..

B
At that time I was not able to correct my mistake since the thread on DN was closed in 2002. The correction in my statement is that it should be President Grant not President Roosevelt that took a vacation there.

I was trying to find the article that I saw back in 2002 about AG Bell being there before President Grant touched MV thus ending the isolation there. So I couldn't remember which site I came across back then but I google and found this;Deafness on Martha's Vineyard

Bell
Bell began his work on the island in 1883, and did extensive pedigree research but found nothing because Mendelian genetics was unknown at the time. Bell didn't understand why deaf parents sometimes had hearing children or why hearing parents sometimes had deaf children, but believed deaf people should not marry - this resulted in the practice of sterilization of deaf people in America, which continued into the twentieth century. Bell, who is renowned for his oralist beliefs, told the Royal Commission in England that sign language could not be used to help mix deaf and hearing people. He stated that only deaf people could use sign language amongst themselves, despite having seen evidence to the contrary on Martha's Vineyard.

End of an Era
The recessive deafness began to end on Martha's Vineyard for a number of reasons. After the 1840s, people were drawn to California, and during that decade 14 deaf children were born in Chilmark, which had a population of about 350. Thirty years later, the town's population was about the same, but only one deaf child was born there. The deafness also ended because the gene pools on the island finally expanded. After children started attending school in Hartford, some married classmates from there. Even if the newlyweds returned to the island, the classmate's deafness was not caused by the recessive genetics. In the late nineteenth century, "summer people" began vacationing on Martha's Vineyard after former President Grant had visited there, and Portuguese immigrants also began settling on the island. Members of the island community began marrying these off-Islanders, further expanding the gene pool. After 1900, modern conveniences, mass communication, and summer visitors - most of whom brought different attitudes about the deaf, though some did learn sign language - greatly upset the island's social patterns. At the turn of the century, there were 15 deaf people alive on the island, but by 1925 there were only four. By 1945 only Katie West survived, and she died in 1952; the sign language used on the island died out by the 1970s. In 1980 there were four deaf people on the island, none of whom had the hereditary deafness.
 
neecy,having oral skills doesn't make you oral.From what I undy, DeafImages, isn't anti-oral skills......he's anti-oral only. A lot of the parents and schools in St. L where he is, are VERY VERY oral-only....they aren't "Oh Little Smashley can have another tool in her toolbox" they are more "Oh we want a kid who communicates with NO SPECIAL tools! (ie cued speech, sign etc)
 
deafdyke said:
neecy,having oral skills doesn't make you oral.From what I undy, DeafImages, isn't anti-oral skills......he's anti-oral only. A lot of the parents and schools in St. L where he is, are VERY VERY oral-only....they aren't "Oh Little Smashley can have another tool in her toolbox" they are more "Oh we want a kid who communicates with NO SPECIAL tools! (ie cued speech, sign etc)

Okay that I understand (and disagree with.) I think that educators (and parents) should give a child all the tools possible so they can find out what works best for them (be it cued speech, sign, speech training, CI, etc). I don't support the "oral only" mode either.
 
*high five!* Yeah, we need to encourage parents to give their dhh kids a FULL WHOLE toolbox. Glad to hear that there's another person on board with me.....some people who've really mastered oral skills, can be so high and mighty sometimes.
 
yes I know a bunch...

deafdyke said:
*high five!* Yeah, we need to encourage parents to give their dhh kids a FULL WHOLE toolbox. Glad to hear that there's another person on board with me.....some people who've really mastered oral skills, can be so high and mighty sometimes.


:laugh2:

I know a certain person who is always supporting oralism. My grandmother told me when that person visited my home. She said to me, "Oh my goodness! Did you hear his voice?" I told her no as I could not hear at all. She said that his voice sounded like two sandpapers rubbing together.

How can they keep that person around as that can be a poor poster child for their program?

It is a mjaor embarrassment!

:dunno:
 
deafdyke said:
"Oh Little Smashley can have another tool in her toolbox"

Out of all the horrible things you can do to your deaf kid, I think naming it "Little Smashley" has to be the worst.
 
bwhahahahahahahahahaha.......it's just me making fun of the designer names some kids are given!
 
Boult - Thanks for your information. I recalled Katie West in the newspaper. I never had a chance to find a deaf person on the island. I was busy and driving around, and it was such a nice weather on my day. I really thought that MV is smaller than Nantucket Island so I was wrong about that. I am surprised about President Grant visited there. President Clinton went to Nantucket Island with his family several times visiting old friends. Although, I would not want to live on an island because of the hurricanes.
 
I gotta love this person named Deaf images.. You are absoultely right about Alexander G. Bell. Thank you for upbringing about it. I have said it all along for a long time.

Thank you for being here. ;)

I dont have to say anything much right now after all your comment is very well said.

Good job! Deaf images
 
I never had a chance to find a deaf person on the island.

It s the last time a deaf man was the only one on the MV island in 1920 after all Deaf people moved out and get a good education that is where Deaf school in Conn had established. Thats a big difference from Laurence Clerc who was the first Deaf teacher in American School for the Deaf in the past that had been destroyed by AGB because he got all kind of money and had his own power to take over ASL.

Anyway, I have had met a eldery guy who was 90 years old and totally deaf. He cannot speak that he couldnt help it.. He wrote a real beautiful english written.. Thats is a proven to me all the way.

ASLers as native sign language from the past that was very successful for d/Deaf people s English Written that was so beautiful. It had already showed that Deaf people did it until oral method only destroy many of us with English written.

Laurent Clerc realized it s impossible to make deaf students to learn Signed English only because it s more natural for deaf people to use ASL as native sign language. Thats why he taught ASL then SIGNED English for them to understand it better. No wonder there were many Deaf teachers that disappeared nowadays. sighs.. Because it s too much sticky situation from oral method rules only and hearing Board of Education who doesnt know nothing about deaf people s needs.

And whats more Laurent Clerc refused to speak because he was slapped by hearing teacher was angry at him for saying a wrong pronoun word. So I dont blame him for that. Now I feel that I m wasting my time to learn how to speak all those years after all hearing people dont want to bother to spend more time to communicate with me or many deafies in a long normal conversation as usual..

Many deafies dont even realized it because they dont bother to understand in Deaf history or Hearing people did not educate them in deaf oral school or mainstream That is a big problem going on in the past and todays. It s still the same old shyte negative attitude about our Deaf community / ASL/ and many others that works for all of us deafies..


Thank you! ;)
Sweetmind
 
Laurent Clerc was born in a small village near Lyons, France, on December 26, 1785. .

Sweetmind
Laurent Clerc realized it s impossible to make deaf students to learn Signed English only because it s more natural for deaf people to use ASL as native sign language. Thats why he taught ASL then SIGNED English for them to understand it better



History of Signed English
SEE first appeared in 1972. Its popularity grew as both schools and parents found it a useful tool for instructing deaf children in English. An article, "A history of seeing essential english (SEE I)" in the American Annals of the Deaf, vol 141 No. 1, pp. 29-33, gives more background



http://deafness.about.com/cs/signfeats2/a/signedenglish.htm
 
Interpretrator
That is a total sidetrack.
History is history and it is perfectly possible to know where one came from without "perpetuating victim mentality."


I do not believe that the goal Lane, Bahan,and Hoffmeister have is to enlighten people with history.
 
Back
Top