Do we have a challenge ahead of us to avoid becoming Hearing?

"Beachgirl - I'm confused. Do you think the oral method worked for you or did not work? You often complain about it and think you were mistreated through it, but here you seem to be saying it did work ok, because you "speak very well and enjoy music," etc. Nevertheless, you don't think it's right for deaf children."

Then we agree. Oralism should not be the ONLY approach for deaf kids. You said I often complain and think I was mistreated (and I WAS mistreated), would I say such things if the oral method ONLY was so successful? (as in excluding ASL, socialization with other Deafs who are non-oral).
 
Beach girl said:
StSapphire said:
Do you think with a CI or HA someone is going to benefit much from an oral-only approach? Note - I'm pretty sure (and correct me if I'm wrong, any of the people who initially brought up issues with oralism) that the issue was with oral only, not with a bi-bi approach that allows for acquisition of sound-based languages in concurrently with visual-based languages.
As a late-deafened adult, I guess I qualify as having an "oral-only" approach to life, as I've never learned sign language. I began to lose my hearing around age 30 - 31. HAs were (and are) the wonderful tools that made it possible for me to continue in my chosen career, my chosen life, in many, many ways. With all due respect, sign language would have done nothing for me in the environment I was in. With my HAs, I learned four other languages, lived in various countries using those languages, had English-speaking and non-English speaking friends, and of course my family, and I was able to speak with them and understand them due to my HAs. Without them, it would have been impossible. Even if I had been a whiz at sign language, that wouldn't have helped me one bit.

So - IF a person gets good enough hearing from HAs and/or CIs (and since I don't have one, I admit I don't know that much about how well someone with a CI can hear language) - sure, using oral language, and teaching children how to read and write, might be enough. (Big "IF" there, and I appreciate that for some, HAs and/or CIs might not get people to that point.)

I realize them's fightin' words 'round here. Sorry 'bout that.

Since there are often threads on here about "How do I find the deaf community in such-and-such place?" or "How can I find someone to practice ASL with?", it doesn't look to me like knowing ASL necessarily makes someone's life easier, or allows them to communicate very freely with people around them, unless they live and work very closely with a deaf community. That is not the case for most people.
Click to expand...

The oral-only approach is not about socializing. It is about the educational system and how it is using the children's weakest sense to acquire language, learn information and develop. It is cruel to do that to deaf children.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
kokonut said:
It worked quite well with me.
Click to expand...

That's cool.

May i ask a simple question? What made you go to gallaudet because of? Maybe you did mention it before but i don't recall of that. Since you said it works for you about the oral approach which is cool for me.
 
shel90 said:
The oral-only approach is not about socializing. It is about the educational system and how it is using the children's weakest sense to acquire language, learn information and develop. It is cruel to do that to deaf children.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I am realizing that my reactions to some people on AD is because of my oral-only upbringing having had such an effect on my psyche that anyone advocating the oral-only approach and being dismissive of Deaf people's needs asides from auditory devices really makes me bristle and my fangs descend.

So, I am going to take a deep breath and step back from discussing this topic for a good while.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Exactly. I am realizing that my reactions to some people on AD is because of my oral-only upbringing having had such an effect on my psyche that anyone advocating the oral-only approach and being dismissive of Deaf people's needs asides from auditory devices really makes me bristle and make my fangs descend.

So, I am going to take a deep breath and step back from discussing this topic for a good while.
Click to expand...

Aw, but you're so much fun with your claws and fangs out, lol.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Exactly. I am realizing that my reactions to some people on AD is because of my oral-only upbringing having had such an effect on my psyche that anyone advocating the oral-only approach and being dismissive of Deaf people's needs asides from auditory devices really makes me bristle and make my fangs descend.

So, I am going to take a deep breath and step back from discussing this topic for a good while.
Click to expand...

Oh, it is doing the same to me as well. They just do not understand. and what's worse, I see children get transferred into the program I work at from the oral-only approach who have fell so far behind academically and when they start learning ASL, they gain confidence and get that spark in their eyes. It makes me so angry that they had to suffer for the sake of being "normal" like hearing kids. That and my own personal experience makes me hate that view with a passion which is "these children dont need ASL...they can hear." :roll:
 
DeafCaroline said:
"Beachgirl - I'm confused. Do you think the oral method worked for you or did not work? You often complain about it and think you were mistreated through it, but here you seem to be saying it did work ok, because you "speak very well and enjoy music," etc. Nevertheless, you don't think it's right for deaf children."


Then we agree. Oralism should not be the ONLY approach for deaf kids. You said I often complain and think I was mistreated (and I WAS mistreated), would I say such things if the oral method ONLY was so successful? (as in excluding ASL, socialization with other Deafs who are non-oral).
Click to expand...

I think BG is saying she thinks Oral-only should be an option for parents. Not that Oral-only should not be an option. (Double negatives, hooray!)
 
DeafCaroline said:
Oralism still means the same thing today as it did back in the 1900s. It means to teach the Deaf how to speak. As GrendelQ said, her daughter didn't need to be taught how to speak for she's learning it naturally. So, she's not subjected to it.

Oralism is directed to those who do not have enough hearing, with or without auditory devices, to acquire speech, in part or full, on their own. And USUALLY, not always, this approach includes keeping the deaf child apart from non-oral Deafs and deaf community. It fails to address their psychosocial needs. Journey into the Deaf World explains this very well.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Exactly. I am realizing that my reactions to some people on AD is because of my oral-only upbringing having had such an effect on my psyche that anyone advocating the oral-only approach and being dismissive of Deaf people's needs asides from auditory devices really makes me bristle and my fangs descend.

So, I am going to take a deep breath and step back from discussing this topic for a good while.
Click to expand...

shel90 said:
Oh, it is doing the same to me as well. They just do not understand. and what's worse, I see children get transferred into the program I work at from the oral-only approach who have fell so far behind academically and when they start learning ASL, they gain confidence and get that spark in their eyes. It makes me so angry that they had to suffer for the sake of being "normal" like hearing kids. That and my own personal experience makes me hate that view with a passion which is "these children dont need ASL...they can hear." :roll:
Click to expand...

I have the same total opinion, I am just too timid to roar so much, ya know?
 
Frisky Feline said:
That's cool.

May i ask a simple question? What made you go to gallaudet because of? Maybe you did mention it before but i don't recall of that. Since you said it works for you about the oral approach which is cool for me.
Click to expand...

Just curiosity. I thought it'd be a good experience. Spent three years at Gally while I also attended Univ of George Washington at the same time. And then went on to Univ. of Idaho to get my M.S. degree for the next 5 years after that.
 
kokonut said:
Just curiosity. I thought it'd be a good experience. Spent three years at Gally while I also attended Univ of George Washington at the same time. And then went on to Univ. of Idaho to get my M.S. degree for the next 5 years after that.
Click to expand...

exaclty what made you curious about gallaudet? people do tell me why they were curious of going to gallaudet but you haven't mention why? yes I am curious. lol
 
Berry said:
The Deaf Community, and those who understand, value, and support the Deaf Community, believe that it has much of value to offer to the world and society as a whole. They believe the social values exemplified by the Deaf Community are important and should not be lost. They believe that signed languages are beautiful and should never be extinguished.

They realize that when D/deaf people become hearing people everything they value and love about the Deaf Communities and the signed languages used by them will disappear forever. Valuable, important ways of life will be gone forever. Every thing they stood for, every thing they believed in -- Including equality and respect for differences -- Will be gone. Forever.

Looked at from this viewpoint the simple fact is yes! The Cochlear Implant is an instrument of genocide to the Deaf Community.

If you can understand the validity of this viewpoint then we can have a meaningful conversation.

.
Click to expand...

kokonut said:
Yet, there are Deaf people who wear cochlear implants.
Click to expand...

Berry said:
Non sequitur.
Click to expand...

kokonut said:
Not so. Unless you are saying a Deaf person cannot or should not wear a cochlear implant? The two are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is that what you are saying in the bolded answers of yours have nothing to do with my original post. They are as relevant as if I were to say, (Which in fact I do say) The way of life of the plains indians was destroyed by two technological innovations: The gun and the train.

And you reply:

Plains Indians use guns and ride trains.

Both statements are true -- But they have nothing to do with each other.

Or if I were to say the technological invention of the automobile and airplane radically altered and to many virtually destroyed the culture and way of life of the cowboy.

And you reply:

Cowboys drive cars and fly airplanes.

Both statements are true -- But they have nothing to do with each other.

We could go through the same routine about the indigenous tribes of the Amazon.

And I am sure there are more.

They are all non sequiturs.
 
Berry said:
What I am saying is that what you are saying in the bolded answers of yours have nothing to do with my original post. They are as relevant as if I were to say, (Which in fact I do say) The way of life of the plains indians was destroyed by two technological innovations: The gun and the train.

And you reply:

Plains Indians use guns and ride trains.

Both statements are true -- But they have nothing to do with each other.

Or if I were to say the technological invention of the automobile and airplane radically altered and to many virtually destroyed the culture and way of life of the cowboy.

And you reply:

Cowboys drive cars and fly airplanes.

Both statements are true -- But they have nothing to do with each other.

We could go through the same routine about the indigenous tribes of the Amazon.

And I am sure there are more.

They are all non sequiturs.
Click to expand...

Let me repost what I said earlier.

My point was in reference to your quote "Looked at from this viewpoint the simple fact is yes! The Cochlear Implant is an instrument of genocide to the Deaf Community." Agreed. I didn't make myself clear when I said, "Yet, there are Deaf people who wear cochlear implants." In other words, there's a bit of a conundrum about the genocide part when there are, in fact, Deaf people with both cochlear implants and hearing aids.
 
kokonut said:
Let me repost what I said earlier.

My point was in reference to your quote "Looked at from this viewpoint the simple fact is yes! The Cochlear Implant is an instrument of genocide to the Deaf Community." Agreed. I didn't make myself clear when I said, "Yet, there are Deaf people who wear cochlear implants." In other words, there's a bit of a conundrum about the genocide part when there are, in fact, Deaf people with both cochlear implants and hearing aids.
Click to expand...

I think that is because the Deaf communities are both resilient and flexible in its definitions, interpretations, and acceptances of others yet at the same time have wide variations between them.

One community might accept me as Deaf even though I am hearing, because of my attitudes.

Another might reject someone who can hear using a cochlear implant, or even see someone with an implant as a traitor.

Standards for acceptance by different groups is normal. I was once fired from dish washing job because I said I did not like football. To him not liking football was UnAmerican and he didn't want anything but REAL Americans working for him.

Yet I was seen as a war mongering jingoist when I was against Bill Clinton's cutting back the military and closing Fort Ord.

There is NO conundrum. There is only point of view. Every person has one. You get a bunch of people together who have the same one you develop some sort of community.

The question is not whether a point of view, of an individual or a group, is right or wrong, good or bad. The question is can you see it as legitimate. You do not even have to agree with it.

For instance I would reject the AG Bell concept as legitimate even if I had never heard of a Deaf individual.

Why?

Because I believe it is fundamentally wrong for any one, for any reason, to make decisions for another human being.

So the question remains: Can you see how a Deaf person who is proud of being Deaf, who loves their culture and their way of life, and loves ASL, can see Cochlear Implants as one step closer to genocide of the Deaf World?
 
Berry said:
I think that is because the Deaf communities are both resilient and flexible in its definitions, interpretations, and acceptances of others yet at the same time have wide variations between them.

One community might accept me as Deaf even though I am hearing, because of my attitudes.

Another might reject someone who can hear using a cochlear implant, or even see someone with an implant as a traitor.

Standards for acceptance by different groups is normal. I was once fired from dish washing job because I said I did not like football. To him not liking football was UnAmerican and he didn't want anything but REAL Americans working for him.

Yet I was seen as a war mongering jingoist when I was against Bill Clinton's cutting back the military and closing Fort Ord.

There is NO conundrum. There is only point of view. Every person has one. You get a bunch of people together who have the same one you develop some sort of community.

The question is not whether a point of view, of an individual or a group, is right or wrong, good or bad. The question is can you see it as legitimate. You do not even have to agree with it.

For instance I would reject the AG Bell concept as legitimate even if I had never heard of a Deaf individual.

Why?

Because I believe it is fundamentally wrong for any one, for any reason, to make decisions for another human being.

So the question remains: Can you see how a Deaf person who is proud of being Deaf, who loves their culture and their way of life, and loves ASL, can see Cochlear Implants as one step closer to genocide of the Deaf World?
Click to expand...

My comment about genocide back there was to drive a point, if you haven't gotten it by now, about this conundrum of Deaf people wearing cochlear implants. There is no genocide going on as far I'm concerned. Just a term to make it sound scary envisioning the killing fields of Cambodia. It's hyperbole on steroids. I see no evidence of such "genocide" occurring. This was the same sort of knee jerk responses back in the 1970s on how hearing aids would be the death of the Deaf world. Did it happen? No. And certainly, it IS a conundrum. It's a head-scratcher. It is certainly a legitimate question here on my part concerning claims of "genocide" but at the same token we have a bunch of Deaf people wearing cochlear implants.

Tell you what, why don't you take a tour on the campus of Gallaudet University and bring your clipboard with you and make a tally on the number of students who are wearing cochlear implants. You might be surprised at the number you find. And while you're at it, count those who wear hearing aids, too.

Neither cochlear implants nor hearing aids will cause the Deaf world to crumble. They're a resilient bunch. And they continue to grow. Show me where that isn't true.
 
Back
Top