|
|
Post by shmeep on Mar 21, 2007 11:13:57 GMT -5
Anyone who can get this on PBS tonight should check it out. It sounds really good! TV tonight: ‘Through Deaf Eyes’
Sprawling and ambitious, this documentary tries to summarize the past and present of the hearing-impaired in America. And it does it with lots of stylish touches.
We see the old days, when the deaf were hidden away. We see times when one approach — sign-language or lip-reading, special schools or mainstreaming — was the only one tolerated.
And we see the modern vibrancy. In 1988, students took over the Gallaudet University campus, protesting the fact that the board had chosen a hearing person as president. The students won and Gallaudet had its first deaf president.
There are serious issues here, ranging from cochlear implants to racial bias within the deaf. And there’s fun; we see bits of plays, comedy performances, even a deaf rock band.And here's the announcement for the program I just got from the National Association of the Deaf: An Invitation from
The National Association of the Deaf...
to watch Through Deaf Eyes, tonight, March 21, 2007 on PBS at 9 pm
See why we do what we do...with passion
Contact: Anita B. Farb
Email: www.nad.org/contactus
---
Silver Spring, MD -- The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) is pleased to be an outreach partner for Through Deaf Eyes, the first comprehensive film in deaf history that will be broadcast nationally at 9 p.m. on the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), March 21, 2007. Check local listings for your area.
Through Deaf Eyes is a two-hour documentary exploring nearly 200 years of deaf life in America. The film presents the shared experiences of American history -- family life, education, work, and community connections -- from the perspective of deaf citizens. Interviews include community leaders, historians, and deaf Americans with diverse views on language use, technology and identity. Bringing a deaf cinematic lens to the film are six artistic works by deaf media artists and filmmakers.
The NAD is pleased to be an outreach partner for this important project," said Nancy J. Bloch, chief executive officer. Through Deaf Eyes encourages respect and understanding of the rich history, culture, and contributions of the deaf community. This meshes well with the NAD mission to promote, protect, and preserve the rights and quality of life of deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the United States. Through Deaf Eyes also highlights the work of the NAD since its founding in 1880, and our focus on issues such as American Sign Language in educational settings, employment opportunities for deaf workers, and telecommunications access."
Other outreach partners are the Gallaudet University, the National Technical Institute for the Deaf at Rochester Institute of Technology, and California State University-Northridge. As part of the outreach campaign, numerous local organizations, some in association with their public television stations, will mount events and discussions exploring the issues raised in the film. The schedule for confirmed public screening events can be found at: www.gallaudet.edu/x3669.xml.
The film was inspired by the exhibition History Through Deaf Eyes, curated by Jack R. Gannon at Gallaudet University. Through Deaf Eyes is a production of WETA Washington, D.C. and Florentine Films/Hott Productions in association with Gallaudet University.
Major funding for the documentary was provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS, The Annenberg Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts. Additional funding was provided by Sign Language Associates, and Richard and Gail Elden.My husband has attended all three universities mentioned above: Gallaudet, NTID, and CSUN. All three are known for their Deaf programs. And the guy they mentioned? Jack Gannon? Well, he's a pretty big deal in the Deaf community and sharing his last name tends to make people think we may be related to him in some way. A lot of people who meet me assume I'm some hotshot interpreter from an all Deaf family because I'm a Gannon. I always have to explain that there's no known relationship and that I'm just a Gannon by marriage. Deaf marriage, yes. But different Gannon. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2007 11:48:21 GMT -5
I'll definately try to watch this, shmeep, if not, I will DVR it! My niece (not sure if I ever told you) was born with a hearing impairment - I don't say "deaf" because without hearing aids, she can hear but it sounds very muffled and tunnel-like. She is now an English teacher! The only ASL I know down-pat is the alphabet; I can "spell" to you!
|
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Mar 21, 2007 12:11:53 GMT -5
I don't say "deaf" because without hearing aids, she can hear but it sounds very muffled and tunnel-like. She sounds hard of hearing to me. Probably has a moderate hearing loss. Can she distinguish language without her hearing aids? The definition of "Deaf" is complicated. It has both a physical and a cultural definition. Physically, it can mean anyone who can't distinguish language with or without hearing aids. Culturally, it's anyone with a hearing loss who identifies him/herself as being a part of the Deaf community and who uses ASL. My husband has a severe to profound hearing loss, but it's in an unusual range so he can hear high sounds better than low (usually it's the opposite) so as a result, he can distinguish quite a bit of speech with his hearing aids on if the environmental conditions are right. It also means he has better speech than nearly any other Deaf person with his degree of hearing loss because consonant sounds are in the higher range while vowels are in the lower range so since he can hear consonants, he can gather more information through his ears than one might expect. He's still pretty Deaf, though. People in the Deaf community will usually say Deaf or hard of hearing but are really insulted by the term hearing impaired. I cringe when people say that. It's an example of people trying to be so PC that they actually insult people by not just using the proper name. People who label themselves "hearing impaired" tend to speak and don't like to use sign and they might not have as serious a hearing loss as those who call themselves "Deaf." I don't know many of them because those aren't really the Deaf people who would be requesting my services. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2007 12:32:35 GMT -5
I don't say "deaf" because without hearing aids, she can hear but it sounds very muffled and tunnel-like. She sounds hard of hearing to me. Probably has a moderate hearing loss. Can she distinguish language without her hearing aids? The definition of "Deaf" is complicated. It has both a physical and a cultural definition. Physically, it can mean anyone who can't distinguish language with or without hearing aids. Culturally, it's anyone with a hearing loss who identifies him/herself as being a part of the Deaf community and who uses ASL. My husband has a severe to profound hearing loss, but it's in an unusual range so he can hear high sounds better than low (usually it's the opposite) so as a result, he can distinguish quite a bit of speech with his hearing aids on if the environmental conditions are right. It also means he has better speech than nearly any other Deaf person with his degree of hearing loss because consonant sounds are in the higher range while vowels are in the lower range so since he can hear consonants, he can gather more information through his ears than one might expect. He's still pretty Deaf, though. People in the Deaf community will usually say Deaf or hard of hearing but are really insulted by the term hearing impaired. I cringe when people say that. It's an example of people trying to be so PC that they actually insult people by not just using the proper name. People who label themselves "hearing impaired" tend to speak and don't like to use sign and they might not have as serious a hearing loss as those who call themselves "Deaf." I don't know many of them because those aren't really the Deaf people who would be requesting my services. Well, to start with, it's *she* who says hearing impaired for whatever reason. You're right about being PC, though - yet, what choice do we have, really? No matter what we say, we get slammed for it. I don't quite understand what you mean by "distinguish language," but when it comes to her speech, it appears a little different - "monotone" if you will - when I concentrate on it. But I never really did, since she was born this way and we're all used to it; and she never had to sign since she's been reading lips since childhood. Anything else, I haven't a clue. |
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Mar 21, 2007 12:58:02 GMT -5
Well, to start with, it's *she* who says hearing impaired for whatever reason. You're right about being PC, though - yet, what choice do we have, really? No matter what we say, we get slammed for it. I don't quite understand what you mean by "distinguish language," but when it comes to her speech, it appears a little different - "monotone" if you will - when I concentrate on it. But I never really did, since she was born this way and we're all used to it; and she never had to sign since she's been reading lips since childhood. Anything else, I haven't a clue. When a person self identifies as hearing impaired, I completely respect that choice and would pick up that terminology when referring to that person because everyone has the right to label themselves in whatever way makes them comfortable. Her label just means she is not a member of the "Deaf" community for whatever reason. Maybe she isn't deaf enough to feel much of a tug in that direction or maybe she is so adept at lipreading and getting by in that way that she would have nothing to say to a bunch of true Deaffies. I wasn't making a judgment on you for referring to a hearing impairment and I'm sorry if it came off that way. My beef with the term comes when people automatically label all Deaf people as being hearing impaired even when the Deaf people in question are proud of their Deaf identity and wish to use that as a label. It's a pet peeve of mine. I will say "Deaf" and a person will say "hearing impaired" right back, as if "Deaf" is a bad word. It drives me crazy. People should just pay attention to what people call themselves and go with that. It's the safest thing to do. Or if in doubt, it's always okay to ask. And about distinguishing speech...I just mean that speech occurs at a certain range of the audiological spectrum so many people who can hear environmental sounds and even the sound of a human voice can not make out any words. If a person without hearing aids is able to hear actual words in the sound of a voice, that means their hearing loss is moderate at worst and I wouldn't categorize such a person as being Deaf--unless that person got involved with Deaf culture and took up signing. In such a case, that person would be more culturally Deaf than physically deaf. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2007 13:11:31 GMT -5
Well, to start with, it's *she* who says hearing impaired for whatever reason. You're right about being PC, though - yet, what choice do we have, really? No matter what we say, we get slammed for it. I don't quite understand what you mean by "distinguish language," but when it comes to her speech, it appears a little different - "monotone" if you will - when I concentrate on it. But I never really did, since she was born this way and we're all used to it; and she never had to sign since she's been reading lips since childhood. Anything else, I haven't a clue. When a person self identifies as hearing impaired, I completely respect that choice and would pick up that terminology when referring to that person because everyone has the right to label themselves in whatever way makes them comfortable. Her label just means she is not a member of the "Deaf" community for whatever reason. Maybe she isn't deaf enough to feel much of a tug in that direction or maybe she is so adept at lipreading and getting by in that way that she would have nothing to say to a bunch of true Deaffies. I wasn't making a judgment on you for referring to a hearing impairment and I'm sorry if it came off that way. No, no. Didn't take it that way at all - just clarifying. Like we always said my father was "visually impaired" rather than "blind" - his preference, I guess.  My beef with the term comes when people automatically label all Deaf people as being hearing impaired even when the Deaf people in question are proud of their Deaf identity and wish to use that as a label. It's a pet peeve of mine. I will say "Deaf" and a person will say "hearing impaired" right back, as if "Deaf" is a bad word. It drives me crazy. People should just pay attention to what people call themselves and go with that. It's the safest thing to do. Or if in doubt, it's always okay to ask. And about distinguishing speech...I just mean that speech occurs at a certain range of the audiological spectrum so many people who can hear environmental sounds and even the sound of a human voice can not make out any words. If a person without hearing aids is able to hear actual words in the sound of a voice, that means their hearing loss is moderate at worst and I wouldn't categorize such a person as being Deaf--unless that person got involved with Deaf culture and took up signing. In such a case, that person would be more culturally Deaf than physically deaf. Hmmm......totally haven't a clue. All I know is born this way and must wear hearing aids. Makes me want to totally know now. |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Mar 21, 2007 14:55:22 GMT -5
Thanks for the information about this program, shmeep! My PBS station is showing it next Monday. I'll be interested to learn what you think about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by anna on Mar 21, 2007 18:05:09 GMT -5
I hope that I am not hijacking the thread here, but the discussion above made me think of something else I had seen in the past couple of days. I have excerpted some of it below. I would be interested to see Shmeep's take on this. "Is this anything?" as David Letterman would say. Or is it just several people on both sides of the issue being cranky and insensitive?
==================
Campus for Deaf, Blind Opposed
Monday, March 19, 2007
Simone Sebastian
The Columbus Dispatch
Alumni are fighting a plan to create a single campus for the state schools for the deaf and the blind, saying mingling their student bodies will create safety and social problems. . . .
Members of the deaf-alumni association fear that merging the campuses will compromise deaf students’ self-esteem and conviction that deafness is not a handicap. "I don’t feel I have a disability. Many deaf people don’t," Huebner said. "If you add another handicap (at the school) ... they’ll have no identity, no self-esteem."
That’s not an issue for the blind, said Barbara Pierce, president of the National Federation of the Blind’s Ohio division. "There’s a deaf culture in a way that there’s not a blindness culture," she said.
Harlan Lane, a professor and author on deaf culture from Northeastern University in Boston, said government institutions started separating deaf people and blind people in the 19th century because of the stark differences in their needs. But economic constraints have reversed that trend. Now, about 12 schools in the United States teach blind students and deaf students on the same campus, school officials said.
Lane said that is an affront to deaf culture. "Their deaf world has its own customs, own values," he said. "They don’t see it as a disability, so to put them with a group that does see themselves as having a disability ... it cuts very deep."
School administrators say the plan makes economic sense. Buildings at both schools are deteriorating, they said, and the project will construct new ones and include state-of-the-art technology. The combined campus also will allow officials to merge services such as maintenance, food and custodians. . . .
=================
Stephen Kusisto, writer and professor in the Disabilities Studies program at Ohio State University (and a blind person), responded in his blog:
. . . Some deaf people do not see deafness as a disability; they see "it" as a culture. The reasoning is sound: deafness has its corresponding and entirely original sign language. If everybody learned sign language, the reasoning goes, then deafness wouldn't be a disability at all. It would just be another form of human difference like, say, being French or Latvian is a form of cultural diversity .
Proponents of the above view are as various in their temperaments and their respective emotional intelligences as any other artificially created human group--if you collected all the taxi drivers in New York City you'd have around 20,000 citizens who hail from every ethnic and national group on earth and who hold distinct views on just about any issue you could imagine.
But some of the people who hold the "deafness is a culture, not a disability" viewpoint are remarkable for their disdain both for other deaf or hard of hearing people and for people who have other kinds of disabilities. . . .
I believe in the broadest possible sense that in most cases "no one" should be thought of as having a disability. If you give people the proper tools and opportunities most "disabilities" are merely structural or architectural or attitudinal. That's my general view of the matter. . . .
But contempt by a small group of deaf activists for their historical relationship to the "disability" word is now in many instances misdirected by those same activists toward disdain for others who have physical impairments. One is reminded of the ranking that has taken place within other historically marginalized groups: the hierarchy of "blackness" as a social scale within the African-American community comes to mind; the initial unwillingness of "wave one" feminists to include working class or ethnic women in their cause; even today on university campuses one sees how the discussion of "diversity" in higher education often leaves out disabled people. . . .
Contempt for the blind emerges in this instance with the force of a geyser. The reasoning works like this: deaf people are not disabled; to put them into a facility where they would have to share space with people who really are disabled would be demeaning to deaf students.
My response to this is that specialized schools for people with disabilities should quite likely no longer be necessary if we are serious in America about making public education accessible to every student.
But let's leave that issue for the moment.
My real feeling is that if deaf people are not disabled and are essentially a cultural group, then why should they have a [specialized] school that's funded by the public? I think this is a fair question. The public doesn't fund specialized schools for kids who want to learn French or Latvian, as noble as those pursuits might be. Why should deaf people have any public funding at all if they don't have a disability and if they don't even want to be seen in the same place as those who do have disabilities?
The answer to this question is that of course deafness is a disability. You can decide later in life that you are unwilling to be a member of any group that would have you, as Groucho Marx once famously said, but that's an adult position. Learning sign language and alternate technologies is an important, even crucial thing for deaf children, just as learning Braille or computer skills or orientation and mobility skills is central for blind children.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dreamfire on Mar 21, 2007 19:46:48 GMT -5
Wow, that's some pretty interesting and heavy information and opnion, thanks for sharing those articles Anna. I had never come across the concept of a deaf culture that considered itself non-disabled.
My thoughts on such things are probably less valid than others who are or who work with or have family who live with conditions such as blindness or deafness.
|
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Mar 22, 2007 7:53:47 GMT -5
Wow, anna. Very interesting articles. And of course you're not hijacking the thread. It's all part of the big issue here.
My take, as I read these, is that nothing in Deaf Culture is easy. There are controversies and complicated issues that make no since to anyone on the outside everywhere you turn. My head doesn't spin very often, but thinking too hard about all the different sides of these issues can just about do it.
Is Deafness a disability? Of course. Depending on the situation. My husband is disabled in a hearing group, but is popular and looked up to in a Deaf group. Kenina and her husband went to a Deaf party with me once and they were the people who were "disabled" in that setting, since they needed the interpretation (although Kenina signs a little). The disability disappears when they are together as a group so I can see how they view their culture as a whole as not being disabled. But there are people at my work who can't even have a simple conversation with a coworker without calling me to interpret so the inconvenience of the disability shows up at such moments.
Then there is this excellent point from one of anna's articles:
Yes, they do seem to be trying to say they don't have a disability while accepting funding because they are disabled. They really seem to be trying to have it both ways. But I can see the point of not mixing the Deaf with the blind. It has nothing to do with the word "disability" to me. I think it's just that there are not two groups who would have less in common. Deaf people and blind people generally make each other very nervous. Sharing a campus would be awkward at best. But...the student population in both environments is decreasing rapidly these days and they may have to go to extreme measures in order to keep these institutions afloat. Still, I believe it's more appropriate to mainstream blind students than it is Deaf students. If there's one blind kid in an entire school, it's fine as long as he is getting specialized help on the side. He can communicate and participate just fine. A Deaf student, on the other hand, is far more isolated and can never fully assimilate into a hearing setting, even with an interpreter. I know. I worked at a high school with 25 Deaf students and even with that large number and with 400 hearing students taking sign language classes right there on campus, many of the Deaf children were still pretty isolated when they were in classes without their Deaf friends. Deaf schools are a deeply-embedded part of Deaf Culture (my husband went to one in high school and it was the first time he was social and happy in his life) so messing with that will undoubtedly be threatening to the Deaf World as a whole.
Heh. Harlan Lane, the guy quoted in the first article, wrote some of my Deaf Culture text books. Brilliant man.
And that documentary last night was amazing! I hope some of you caught it. I loved watching it with my husband because he recognized about 90% of the Deaf people interviewed. Most of them are professors or students at Gallaudet and some are just people who are well-known in the Deaf Community. I recognized a few from my sign language videotapes from college and from Deaf Theatre, but several of the people interviewed were my husband's professors so that was pretty exciting.
|
|
|
|
Post by inuvik on Mar 22, 2007 10:14:30 GMT -5
I don't know much about deafness, admittedly. My thoughts aren't about culture but are just on a practical level.
If both campuses have decreasing populations, aging buildings, etc. , it makes sense to share. Couldn't they share a campus without having much to do with each other? Perhaps they could be in separate buildings and have separate classes. But they could share resources like the gym, libraries, and maybe even cafeterias. This might be a solution that would save money and not interfere with the deaf culture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Mar 22, 2007 12:30:39 GMT -5
Sounds like a great documentary And the guy they mentioned? Jack Gannon? Well, he's a pretty big deal in the Deaf community and sharing his last name tends to make people think we may be related to him in some way. A lot of people who meet me assume I'm some hotshot interpreter from an all Deaf family because I'm a Gannon. I always have to explain that there's no known relationship and that I'm just a Gannon by marriage. Deaf marriage, yes. But different Gannon. That name actually sounds familiar to me, maybe I have heard of him somewhere down the line.... Still, I believe it's more appropriate to mainstream blind students than it is Deaf students. If there's one blind kid in an entire school, it's fine as long as he is getting specialized help on the side. He can communicate and participate just fine. A Deaf student, on the other hand, is far more isolated and can never fully assimilate into a hearing setting, even with an interpreter. I know. So do I!!! As far as I know blind kids in Denmark goes to mainstream schools and since this is a small country we don't have any Highschools or Universities with special programs for students with disabilities. We do have specialized schools for deaf kids till they finish 9th. grade, after that they attend mainstream highschools or trade schools or whatever they choose to do, with an interpreter. Like Shmeep said, they are isolated, even with interpreters. I know too. Harlan Lane is a very wise man  The Deaf culture doesn't in general distinguish between disabled or not disabled but between Deaf or Hearing. This is difficult to understand for most hearing people, disabled or not, and I believe that's the problem here. I also believe that it can be very offensive to people who are disabled, that a group, they believe are disabled too, don't see themselves as disabled, Stephen Kusisto, the guy who wrote the blog, surely is. I have no idea if this is true, but I can surely understand why he feels that the deaf culture shows disdain for other disabilities, by not wanting to label themselves as disabled. He does have a point. However you can't really compare students who wants to learn French or Latvian to Deaf students. If you want to learn French or Latvian (or English ) you do that by choice, Deaf people don't sign by choice it's their natural way of communication. As for the shared campus, I can see your point, Inuvik, and I don't see why that couldn't work. But again, the issue is, that whether you have deaf students on a campus with blind students or students with other disabilities or so-called "normal" students the problems are the same for the Deaf students. They have problems communicating with the rest of the students. Maybe these problems are even bigger with blind students. If you can see, you can read body-language, understand gestures and pointing and you can exchange written notes with a Deaf person and communicate on some level, but all that is not possible with someone blind. That means that the two groups of students will be even more isolated from each other. Take care and keep smiling - Chris |
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Mar 22, 2007 12:50:45 GMT -5
I was hoping you would weigh in, Chris! Thank you. In case you are interested in the DVD, it will soon be available for purchase. I plan to buy it because it's an amazing compilation of too many aspects of Deaf Culture and history to even sort out in my own mind right now. What amazes me while talking to you about this stuff, Chris, is how similar our views are about just about everything relating to Deaf Culture and interpreting. It blows my mind when I stop to consider that you aren't even functioning in English and ASL at your job, and yet the same issues arise and the same opinions come to be formed somehow. I just might have to give you karma for that. Just because. I mean...I was taught repeatedly during my training that language=culture, but we are from different languages and cultures and our sign languages are different as well but...the same kind of culture is there too and that's really cool. And I think you're right about merging the deaf/blind schools. It would be nice to save money, but if a Deaf school has to merge with anyone, why not just lump it on to a hearing school? I mean, Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in New York has the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) attached to it. It's an all Deaf program under a larger hearing school and the Deaf students are able to venture out and take some mainstream classes when their needs aren't being met at NTID. I think that's a pretty good model. Why can't they have a Deaf school tacked onto a public school like that? Just wondering. But the residential aspect of it would be a problem. It's just sticky no matter what you do when it comes to most issues within the Deaf Community. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Mar 22, 2007 13:53:39 GMT -5
I was hoping you would weigh in, Chris! How could I not In case you are interested in the DVD, it will soon be available for purchase. Thank you, maybe I will.  What amazes me while talking to you about this stuff, Chris, is how similar our views are about just about everything relating to Deaf Culture and interpreting. It blows my mind when I stop to consider that you aren't even functioning in English and ASL at your job, and yet the same issues arise and the same opinions come to be formed somehow. I just might have to give you karma for that. Just because. I mean...I was taught repeatedly during my training that language=culture, but we are from different languages and cultures and our sign languages are different as well but...the same kind of culture is there too and that's really cool. I know!! I think I have to karma you for the exact same reasons  It is amazing that in spite of the cultural differences there are probably even more similarities between us when it comes to Deaf Culture and interpreting. if a Deaf school has to merge with anyone, why not just lump it on to a hearing school? I think that's a pretty good model. Why can't they have a Deaf school tacked onto a public school like that? Just wondering. That's what we do here. We have three Schools for the Deaf and then there are three or four hearing schools that have a Deaf School attached to them. I think that the ideal is, that the Deaf kids can have some interaction with the hearing kids as well but I'm not sure that happens a lot. I think the deaf kids pretty much keep by themselves, but I honestly don't know, I don't have much experience in that area. But the residential aspect of it would be a problem. Again, I'm not sure, but I think they have deaf kids to live nearby the school in a residential setting while the Hearing kids live by their families without any problems. Nowadays most Deaf kids live with their families too and go back and forth to school everyday by Taxi and only a few live at the school. Most of the kids who live at their school do so because of some problem at their home or because the child has some additional problems. But it's different in the US of course, some kids will have to live away from their family simply due to long distances, right? It's just sticky no matter what you do when it comes to most issues within the Deaf Community. The Deaf community is like nothing else I have ever heard of!!! You can't help but loving it and hating it at the same time - Chris |
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Mar 22, 2007 14:14:04 GMT -5
But it's different in the US of course, some kids will have to live away from their family simply due to long distances, right? Quite right. It's possible for kids in the area to attend day classes at the residential schools, but since there is generally one Deaf school (if that) per state and since some states are quite large, it's often impossible for the children to go home each night. California has two Deaf schools, one in Fremont (near San Francisco) and one in Riverside (Southern California). My husband went to the one in Riverside, which was an hour or two from where he lived and he came home on weekends. It was great because he had limited communication at home and few friends who lived near him so he was always happy to go to school. He has a friend who lived in Santa Maria (up above Santa Barbara--it's the town where Michael Jackson had his most recent trial) and since he was roughly between the two schools, the state paid to have him flown in and out of school every week. That same guy was a groomsman in our wedding and then, when he married one of his interpreters, my husband was in his wedding--along with Joe Anderson, who was "Cole" in Mr. Holland's Opus (the teen-aged "Cole") so that was a fun weekend. The marriage only lasted a couple of months, though. Too bad. It's just sticky no matter what you do when it comes to most issues within the Deaf Community. The Deaf community is like nothing else I have ever heard of!!! You can't help but loving it and hating it at the same time So true. My problem is that I can usually see so many sides of each issue. I'm basically against putting a cochlear implant into an infant's head, but I can understand why people do it. I'm all for keeping ASL pure, but I think the die-hards need to be more inclusive of other people. In the documentary, Marlee Matlin spoke of how the Deaf community turned on her when she spoke at the Oscars and how shocking that had been for her. Then a Deaf person recalled how excited everyone had been at the thought of a Deaf person presenting an Oscar in ASL and how disappointed they all were when she started to speak and...I saw both sides of that as well. Yes, it would have been great for her to have better represented Deaf Culture, but she is also a person who is capable of decent speech and she has every right to use her voice any time she wants to. See how confusing this all becomes? But if we love/hate Deaf Culture, Deaf people love/hate interpreters too. I'm sure it's the same in Denmark. They respect us and even admire us at times. They think we're smart and they appreciate what we do for them. Sometimes they want to be our best friend. But...there's always something else there. They hate to need us and often resent that they can't communicate freely without us so that resentment will spill over into the relationship at times and it makes interpreters have to be very careful and sensitive to it at all times. I try to keep it all in perspective when I sense it, realizing that the frustration is not directed at me, but some Deaf people give off a fairly strong vibe of it while others are completely placid and lovely all the time. I just follow the cues the Deaf consumer gives me and try to stay as neutral as possible whenever the situation calls for it. |
|
