AG Bell's Right to Advocate Oralism Only?

shel90

shel90

Love Makes the World Go Round
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
45,078
Reaction score
323
John F. Egbert-MindField » AGBell’s Right to Advocate Oralism Only…?

AGBell’s Right to Advocate Oralism Only…?
I am one of those successful oral persons that still use oral communication in the society and ALSO I am bilingual. I am fluent in American Sign Language.

I realize that the vast majority of the Deaf people started oral methods at very young age and failed to achieve the ability to speak well enough be understood in the hearing society. Not only that, but the majority of oral deaf children and adults are left out of most conversations unless one on one. Speech does not guarantee that the speaker hears all that is being said. Communication is often one-sided and not natural.

Let me tell you why I will be involved this Saturday, September 29th with International Sign Language Day.

I was at Gallaudet University two months ago and talked to a very important person about my advocation of American Sign Language.

This person got very upset and angry with me because of my advocation of the Deaf’s right to spread the gospel of the importance in American Sign Language and why Deaf Babies should start learning signs at the age of six months as thousands of hearing babies are doing right now in America receiving big benefits/positive results.

This person emphasized me that “AGBELL HAS THE RIGHT TO ADVOCATE ORALISM ONLY!”. His gesture was telling me that I have no right to object AGBell’s self-centered ideology of banning sign language for Deaf babies and use the use of oral only philosophy education.

My good friend, David Eberwein told me to always REFAME of anyone’s self-centered ideology statement.

After this person told me… “AGBELL HAS THE RIGHT TO ADVOCATE ORALISM ONLY!”, I responded by saying “THE DEAF PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ADVOCATE ASL TOO”.

The expression of this person’s face was shocked at my “reframed” respond when I said, “THE DEAF PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ADVOCATE ASL TOO”.

I want to emphasize you that I am not against oralism.

It is the BANNING…, FORBIDDING…, and PREACHING to parents of deaf children that American Sign Language should never be used for their or anyone’s Deaf Babies and deaf children in schools!

Alexander Graham Bell Association and Auditory Verbal Therapy are depriving Deaf babies and school children from natural and healthy acquisition of Sign Language.

This is why I will join with hearing and deaf people this Saturday, September 29th in Minneapolis, Minnesota with my black shirt to tell the world that we don’t want our sign language(ASL) to be destroyed by the self-centered ideology of AGBELL/AVT group that are doing it all over the world right now.

An Unbiased Deaf/Oral Progressive Activist,
John F. Egbert

Posted on September 25th, 2007 by egbertpress
Filed under: Uncategorized


I am gonna wear black that day.
 
Wow! What a powerful letter and powerful motivation.....

About time we stand up, all of us from all corner of the globe, and fight back & show those hearie who think they know the best for deaf people what we're made of!
 
I am truly moved! This is a wonderful letter, and Mr. Egbert really puts everything into perspective. Very well written. Thank you for the post, shel. And Ihave already made the committment that on Saturday the 29th, I will communicate the entire day in Sign. My voice will be silent, but my hands sure won't!
 
Has anyone read Mr. Egbert's book? I haven't and am thinking about ordering it....
 
Tousi said:
Has anyone read Mr. Egbert's book? I haven't and am thinking about ordering it....
Click to expand...

Was thinking of doing the same, Tousi. I have the impression that it would be a very informative read!
 
EXCELLENT EXCELLENT letter. I know that some AG Bell folks aren't too extreme. They are OK with Sign. I do remember hearing that it's not an uncommon sight at AG Bell conferences to see 'terps.
That said there IS a significent percentage of AG Bellers who look down on Sign......who are truely and honestly unambigiously audist in all senses of the term. (in other words not Sweetmind "audist") We really need to get more AG Bell types to understand that we should be on the SAME side....that instead of debating about methodology endlessly, that we need to equipt ALL dhh kids with a full toolbox of tools, so the KIDS themselves can make the decision over whether or not they want to use a particular tool.
 
Tousi said:
Has anyone read Mr. Egbert's book? I haven't and am thinking about ordering it....
Click to expand...

Someone at DeafDC did a book review on it. All I can say is that I think she went a tad too far on the criticism.
 
Banjo said:
Someone at DeafDC did a book review on it. All I can say is that I think she went a tad too far on the criticism.
Click to expand...

Oic, a tad too far...was she generally on the mark, tho, Banjo? If yes, that's alright; I will still buy it. Now my gut tells me this about the criticism you mentioned: Egbert should have had an editor. That close?
 
Thanks for that, Banjo, I will read it in the morning. I'm sure Jillio & others would be very interested in reading it, too. GN
 
Yes, thanks for the link, Banjo. Rather than a review, this was more of a critical essay. If she wanted an illustration of whyt he oral only approach doesn't work, it seems to me she has found the perfect illustration in her criticism of Mr. Egberts grammar errors and perceived inability to develop his characters and descriptions fully. This rigid use of English is exactly the consequence of oralism that seems to be ignored in favor of speech skills. His writing is a perfect example of the difficulties. Perhaps this reviewer shouldhave looked less at the surface and used a little insight. It seems to me that she was shown one of the problems with oralism in a very concrete and demonstative way, but she failed to recognize it. Maybe her criticisms were not so founded in Mr. Egbert's writing as in her own ability to develop insight for the message being presented.

However, as this book was written for the general population, perhaps it wouldhave been wise for Mr. Egbert to have used an editor. Most hearing who read this book will not see any deeper than did the reviewer.

That said, I will still order the book, and form my own opinion.

What do you think, Tousi?
 
jillio said:
If she wanted an illustration of whyt he oral only approach doesn't work, it seems to me she has found the perfect illustration in her criticism of Mr. Egberts grammar errors and perceived inability to develop his characters and descriptions fully. This rigid use of English is exactly the consequence of oralism that seems to be ignored in favor of speech skills. His writing is a perfect example of the difficulties.
Click to expand...

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? From the rest of her review, it looks like the problems were not just linguistic, but imaginative as well. Perhaps he's just not a very good writer, for the same reasons that most people aren't good writers. Sturgeon's Law and all that.
 
jillio said:
Yes, thanks for the link, Banjo. Rather than a review, this was more of a critical essay. If she wanted an illustration of whyt he oral only approach doesn't work, it seems to me she has found the perfect illustration in her criticism of Mr. Egberts grammar errors and perceived inability to develop his characters and descriptions fully. This rigid use of English is exactly the consequence of oralism that seems to be ignored in favor of speech skills. His writing is a perfect example of the difficulties. Perhaps this reviewer shouldhave looked less at the surface and used a little insight. It seems to me that she was shown one of the problems with oralism in a very concrete and demonstative way, but she failed to recognize it. Maybe her criticisms were not so founded in Mr. Egbert's writing as in her own ability to develop insight for the message being presented.

However, as this book was written for the general population, perhaps it wouldhave been wise for Mr. Egbert to have used an editor. Most hearing who read this book will not see any deeper than did the reviewer.

That said, I will still order the book, and form my own opinion.

What do you think, Tousi?
Click to expand...

I hear ya, Jillio and you, too, isimi and all I can say is: Wanna bet the poster/reviewer is an articulate deafie? I'm almost sure it was....Banjo, do you know? Not that it makes all that much of a difference but I'm curious.
 
ismi said:
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? From the rest of her review, it looks like the problems were not just linguistic, but imaginative as well. Perhaps he's just not a very good writer, for the same reasons that most people aren't good writers. Sturgeon's Law and all that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps its not the problems with imagination, but the rigid use of the Enlgish language that is seen in so many oral deaf. Resultant from delays in acquisition and manner of learning.
 
Tousi said:
I hear ya, Jillio and you, too, isimi and all I can say is: Wanna bet the poster/reviewer is an articulate deafie? I'm almost sure it was....Banjo, do you know? Not that it makes all that much of a difference but I'm curious.
Click to expand...

If I had to make a guess, I'd say post lingual HOH.
 
Mr. Egberts grammar errors and perceived inability to develop his characters and descriptions fully. This rigid use of English is exactly the consequence of oralism that seems to be ignored in favor of speech skills
Click to expand...
It just goes to show that the gross majority of even "oral sucesses" really don't have a great grasp of the nuances of English.
 
Back
Top