Disqus - Latest Comments for DrDonG

Re: I’m an Anti-Braker

DrDonG — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 14:36:23 -0000

Great pointed satire! Just wish author had found a way to address the new meme going around that the measles outbreak is caused by immigration (presumably of non-vaccinated foreigners). No.... it's caused by STUPID AMERICAN people who refuse to vaccinate their own kids, and are suffering the consequences!

Re: Sign language videos go viral

DrDonG — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 18:39:31 -0000

Teaching one's fiance' some signs in preparation for doing something at their wedding is one thing. Posting videos of a performance is another. However, I am, as a Deaf person, disgusted and appalled at their attitude, fueled by the media attention, of going from merely "cute amateurs" to "professional cultural appropriationists". Having her fiance' who can barely sign making INSTRUCTIONAL videos? Appalling. Renting out studio space to make yet more videos to please their adoring masses? Equally appalling.

They think they're helping us, the Deaf people. They're not. Not with mistranslations of concepts, and the barely intelligible signs Paul produces, let alone the use of sign-supported music in which the music (which is inaccessible to us as Deaf people) is given primary focus, while the signs only serve to support the music. As a result, we are not truly getting "music" -- what we feel from efforts like this is as flat as a topographical map of a mountain. If you want to truly experience the mountain, climb it. Looking at the map does not give you that feel of what it is like to climb it. The same goes with sign-supported music.

I, for one, would like to see them STOP getting all the attention using OUR language and instead, see attention paid to true Deaf performers perform fluent, expressive ASL art which is culturally appropriate and entirely accessible to our eyes and brains.

Re: Naming and (not) Necessity*

DrDonG — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 01:40:34 -0000

NICE! Although you could have gone a bit further in discussing how names influence identity and culture; i.e., Deaf vs. deaf vs. Hearing Impaired vs. hard of hearing, etc....

Yeah, that sign they developed for Hunter definitely reminded me of Reagan's name sign (one of them -- he had a multitude!) But it definitely really does not fit in the rules for name sign development -- but then again, it's developed by SEE people, and SEE does not fit into the rules for LANGUAGE development.....

And, I'd like to see this SEE registry..... hmmmm....

Re: Run Our Way

DrDonG — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:39:30 -0000

I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews.

Re: “Stupid Deaf People”: 2090 Coalition Behaving Badly

DrDonG — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:42:16 -0000

The audism behind the petition emerges!

Re: Not In My Backyard: The Truth About the Fight for a Deaf School’s Future

DrDonG — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:51:56 -0000

This example of NIMBYism is shameful. It's just a SCHOOL! Trying to push the kids into an even more sexual predator-dense area? Those folks ought to be flogged!

Re: Resisting Dialogue: The Bear Hunt Statue at California School For the Deaf, Fremont

DrDonG — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:10:34 -0000

I have mixed feelings about the issue here.

Use of the statue as a logo or mascot? No. I'm with you there. CSD's mascot is an Eagle, and the statue has nothing to do with CSD in that respect.

Was Tilden appropriating Native American culture in doing the statue? I guess so, although he was not trying to portray a specific person or narrative from that culture, just his own vision of how he wanted to portray a struggle between man and nature, according to his words. He did not seem to be intending any sort of demeaning perspective on Native Americans in the work. Clearly, he was a product of his time, and I think we can appreciate the statue for its artistic and cultural/historic merits.

Although Tilden did not intend for the statue to belong to CSD, history is full of examples of artwork having been taken, illegally or semi-legally by others. But if it were to be removed, where would it be moved to?

I think it should remain at CSD -- it is intricately intertwined with CSD's history in the personnnel and the stories behind the statue. It should not be considered a logo or mascot of CSD, but just as a beautiful piece of art, done by a successful Deaf artist who had worked at CSD. But, perhaps, other artwork could be commissioned (with what money?????) to also be placed around CSD's campus to beautify its grounds and provide a counterbalancing element to this.

Re: The Problem of Speaking

DrDonG — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:08:21 -0000

I'm not sure it's so much a "double standard" as it is an understanding of the "unwritten rules" of when it is "allowable" to speak or not. Culturally Deaf people, having grown up in the culture, know these rules from having been in the environment all or most of their lives. People who are just entering the culture, may not know that there are such rules, or they do not fully understand when it is allowable or not.

Re: The Whiplash of Audism

DrDonG — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:34:49 -0000

Thanks, Patti. This post was DEFINITELY trying to make the invisible visible!

Re: The Whiplash of Audism

DrDonG — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:33:18 -0000

Susan -- I took that line of "forget ... that he is Deaf" from AGB's quote.

Thanks for the nice words!

Re: The Whiplash of Audism

DrDonG — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:52:07 -0000

Hi Chris --

This is partly about that. But a large part of what I was going for (hence the "whiplash" part of the title) is the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" aspect that occurs to those of us in Hearing families. I don't know if I managed to convey that well here, but that's what I wanted to get across.

Re: THE NAD, THE AFA, AND TWO BELLS

DrDonG — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 00:12:52 -0000

JPR --

I don't understand why you keep harping on Deaf people/organization's stating that sign language is a basic right of Deaf children to have and tying that into a supposed removal of Parent's rights to choose, when ORAL organizations, such as AGB are loudly and vociferously proclaiming that speech is a "right" of Deaf children, and you never say ONCE anything about AGB and these other Oral organizations' supposed removal of Parent's rights?

THINK ABOUT IT!

Re: THE NAD, THE AFA, AND TWO BELLS

DrDonG — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 02:06:23 -0000

I also like the article. Like Michele, I also disagree with the use of the word "defaced" since no actual marring, marking, or other type of damage to the sign occurred. At worst, you could say "temporarily but impermanently defaced".

I also have something of a problem, as a linguist, with you saying "ASL and its dialects and/or pidgins". ASL does have dialects, but there are no real established "pidgin" of ASL. There is a highly variable range of English contact upon ASL by a wide variety of users, but as you know, this comes from the lack of respect for ASL and instruction of ASL in our educational settings.

Re: In Which I Call Out The National Association Of The Deaf

DrDonG — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:03:10 -0000

You know, I'm REALLY tired of willfully ignorant people like you taking somebody else's word for it that AFA or any other Deaf organization's engaging in their Constitutionally-protected right of Freedom of Speech to protest against the activities and policies of other organizations that have actively and willfully harmed generations of Deaf children and adults as a "militant" endeavor. What did they do that was so "militant"? They waved a few signs (placards) around. They gave a few speeches. They held a candlelight vigil. Oh, they put some painter's tape over a sign on the building. Have you ever used painter's tape? The stuff is DESIGNED to be removed easily. At the worst, it left a VERY SLIGHT bit of stickum (doubtful) on the sign. That could be easily removed with rubbing alcohol. This HARDLY counts as "defacement".

Secondly, have you seen ANY of the videos produced by AFA? Did they look like a wild-eyed mob to you? If they did, I would suggest you get a new prescription for glasses.

Finally, I note that you have published this in The Daily Kos. I understand the Daily Kos to be a liberal website. I am suprised that the Daily Kos published your rant against AFA and NAD, since your perspective presented here is decidedly Conservative and mainstream -- supporting the status quo.

If you really want to see "ASL supported and promoted", why don't YOU do this and advocate for this, instead of trying to tear down organizations that ARE doing this AND challenging the status quo?

Re: Deaf Progressivism: An Open Letter To AG Bell Association (closed-captioned)

DrDonG — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:12:39 -0000

Center school in itself is not an oralist or audist term. It is used (by some who work in such schools) because schools for the Deaf are not all residential. I first learned this term (from a supervisor working at a school for the Deaf) in the late '80s.

But I would agree with you that they probably were deliberately choosing NOT to use the term "school for the Deaf", because they don't want to acknowledge their existence.

Re: Deaf Progressivism: An Open Letter To AG Bell Association (closed-captioned)

DrDonG — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:08:05 -0000

"Center School" is a term which covers residential schools (can also be Day school) -- basically it refers to any school that aggregates Deaf from a large region into a central ("center") place where they can get the critical mass, language, socialization, etc. rather than mainstreamed. It is not the traditional term but it does refer to any school specifically aimed at educating the Deaf.

Re: A Visual Language Manifesto

DrDonG — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:03:51 -0000

We know that the CI does NOT provide "real" sound, as Hearing people perceive it. We also know that the CI does NOT always work the way it is supposed to. We also know that it takes a certain level of cognition, communicative ability, and understanding in order to "map" a CI, and in the very young children that are implanted, these qualities are absent. Therefore, it can be assumed that in many cases, the CI is NOT being properly "mapped" for optimal input. As a result, we can also assume that in many cases, Deaf children are NOT gaining adequate (let alone complete) auditory and linguistic input through their CI. So, just like non-implanted Deaf people, we can assume that the oculocentric pathway offers the most opportunity for full, complete linguistic and cognitive input for Deaf children with CI. THAT is what Bobby is trying to say, I think.

As for the "legal" argument, the only thing to look at is: Is the child given the opportunity to gain FULL linguistic input and development? If the child is not, and is not showing signs of achieving linguistic and cognitive development (barring neurological issues), then we can say that the Deaf child has the RIGHT to develop language and cognitive development on a schedule commensurate with their Hearing peers. No more "just one more year, and maybe they'll catch up". That is BS, and it results in FAILURE on too many fronts. Let's stop abetting FAILURE and start advocating for SUCCESS!

Re: “JUST GO ELSEWHERE:” Netflix, Deafhood, and why separate water fountains still apply

DrDonG — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:11:40 -0000

Given that there are scripts that have already been written for most of these shows/movies, and that they have had PLENTY of time to do it and incur less cost, yes, the cost is minimal.

Re: “JUST GO ELSEWHERE:” Netflix, Deafhood, and why separate water fountains still apply

DrDonG — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:20:09 -0000

VERY GOOD article, on a number of fronts! I'm definitely going to share this one!

Re: A Guide to the Maternal Reflective Method

DrDonG — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:38:14 -0000

"A living, spoken language for Deaf children can help improve communication as a whole"? Natural signed languages are not "living and spoken (uttered)"? And Deaf people can communicate just FINE in writing and signs without NEEDING to speak!

Again, the emphasis on SPEAKING is highly misplaced!

Re: A Guide to the Maternal Reflective Method

DrDonG — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 20:31:00 -0000

For that matter, how is the child supposed to use writing as a tool for developing communication skills without a language foundation established first? In addition, writing to communicate full ideas does not develop until around 8 or 9 years old, and even then this skill is highly undeveloped compared to spoken/signed language.

I am also disturbed by the emphasis on speech here -- you seem to be attempting to suggest that sign language is an invalid form of communication and in the long run, not necessary or important for Deaf children to learn in comparison to speech. We have seen a too-long history of this emphasis of speech over sign and the sad results that come with this.

Re: Starbucks and Accessibility… Welcome Back to the Madness, Madness, Madness…

DrDonG — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 19:56:00 -0000

I agree with you, Chris. That table is clearly intended for mobility-impaired people, or MAYBE blind people also, who, as you suggest, might know only that table is where they could navigate to. But Deaf people? Pfffft! We are certainly NOT mobility-impaired (for most of us) and we certainly can SEE what tables are open (unless we're blind as well, then go back to the first sentence).

I agree the big problem is that Deaf people got lumped under that "disability" umbrella, and some people have internalized that message all too well.

Re: An Open Letter to Marlee Matlin

DrDonG — Thu, 26 May 2011 12:10:24 -0000

At the same time, Miss Kat's Mom seems to have gone over to the side of fetishizing the implant -- she advocates for it MUCH more than ASL, and now, she seems to be indicating that her daughter is speaking instead of signing more (predominantly? Only?).... why? I can only speculate it is because of Mom's subtle cues to Kat that Mom would prefer Kat to speak instead of sign ... perhaps those cues are unconscious, but I would BET that Kat is receiving them, nonetheless.

Re: An Open Letter to Marlee Matlin

DrDonG — Wed, 25 May 2011 23:33:17 -0000

What if she had picked a charity like DeafHope or ADWAS -- an organization that directly HELPS people, like victims of domestic violence/abuse while still remaining Deaf-centered? Certainly people can relate to that just as well as Starkey!

Re: Six Ring Ring: Random Thoughts on Metaphor and Music in Signed Language

DrDonG — Wed, 11 May 2011 00:28:35 -0000

@Michele_Westfall -- let's try a slightly different thought experiment -- let's imagine that there is actually a world like "Eyeth" -- you know, where everybody is Deaf there. Do you think those Eyethpeople would call themselves "Deaf"? No, because being Deaf would not be salient to their experience or perspective. Instead, they would likely have their own name for themselves. What that would be, I don't know.

That's the point Joseph is trying to bring up -- although we have the sign that has been translated into English (and other spoken languages) as "Deaf", this is a label that has been slapped on to us by people who are not of us. Does this label truly describe who we are and how we think of ourselves? Or is this label basically medicalized in of itself -- "those who are not Hearing"; "those whose ears are broken"?

Perhapes it is the case that the sign translated as "Deaf" really has a whole other set of meanings, originally. Or, we CAN develop a new sign and term to describe ourselves that will help Hearing people stop looking at us as a medical pathology and instead start looking at us as a cultural and ethnic group, one that we are proud to be part of, and one that if they should happen to become like us, might not react in horror at the thought.

@Joseph
-- the sign "Qywdgph" -- could this not be translated as "handtalk"? And we could be collectively known as "handtalkers"?