My Weblog

Response to Kiss-Hand ASL's apology

Hi David,

You are a human being. I knew you meant it like “shuck” or “shoot” I was not offended by your sign but I felt warm by seeing your coming forth to apology for those who took it as profane. I’d do the same if that irritated them.

Let us put this aside, look at the language as cultural/linguistic part. I can understand why Roger Kraft raised this question, even though, he is man of God. I’d like to add a discussion with you all.

The culture of politeness is varied among us in different parts of the world and age (old and new generations) especially the difference between spoken and sign languages that what Roger meant to bring it up for the discussion. For example, there are many ways of how we express in written English that won’t upset American but would irk the Britain, the same words! It is the question of derogatory and to whom.

Maybe the spoken people would use other word for the wasted matter discharging from the bowels like feces, poop, #2, etc. but they don’t bother to change the word of sh*t for other meaning like shuck but they still pronounce the word the same as obscene or sickening thing to look at.

Meanwhile we sign differently like David did, rather subtle or completely different. For instance, (if you will bear for the sake of discussion in linguistic approach, our loving God will permit) you know that we do have the sign for the act of defecating [handshape of A like “thumb up” moves down from the inside of the other hand of the same shape] got it? OK, if we change the shape of dominate hand into #5 but same movement, it means diarrhea that is related to medical condition; it isn’t something to play with it in your hands, all right? Then you saw David using the sign that was different and very universal among us who use ASL, which means, “shuck” nothing else. Look at the sign [the sign of diarrhea became downside up and the subordinate hand changed the shape from “thumb up” to the shape of S like fist. One movement, not repeating like diarrhea and the thumb of #5 doesn’t even go thru inside of the hs ‘S’ not as graphic anymore.

There is more to it like the hearing usually say, “Oh ssss” If you’d see David on the clip again, his mouthing was just like sh… almost said it fully but the second time he signed it again his mouth was like flat E, his teeth shut and frozen for a bit. The equivalence of his 2nd mouthing was “Oh, I am in the trouble…”

Now, here in area of the reception, how we receive the context from a person signing is something else. The hearing people and some deaf signing persons, too, who watch someone like David signing it, they’d see or listen in their head like spoken English for sh*t while others don’t, simply see the meaning visually in their head, not as dirty as the sound, it just meant “shucks”.  It is the matter of different process in the head, for instance, when the signing people, who had never heard the sound of spoken English, read the book or watching a person signing, they’d see the meaning in cognitive way, not heard. Some of us will see the mouth movement in our head when we read the book from the practice of lip-reading, unfortunately but we have overcome it with a much delay.

Those who received David signing and translated them into spoken English in their head, I must say how sorry I am for them being offended. I’d join David with his apology. That is the price of the SimCom.

There are some who have learned ASL and kept their mind trained to listen or see the meaning visually instead of thinking mixed with spoken English. It is hard but they can succeed if they are willing to separate two languages completely with ethnic respect They won’t see David as vulgar if they get right concept. That was why Roger brought up. It is culture related.

If we are step into further discussion about the vulgar signing that we do have in ASL, that would be the other thing. There are many but let us have three 4-letters words or signs: sh*t, f**k, and p*ss. The f and p words are carnal related that God doesn’t appreciate that is sin as we use it outside of the married couples which He sees fit as He planned with purpose as written in the Scripture(s). The married people won’t use the f or p words; they’d use term like making love.

Now, if we sign [making-love] that becomes English phrase, not as ethnic, violating the cultural principle of ASL.  It’d save us from signing vulgar like K + K that would offend some people but it would bother us, hurt if we sign English. We have been suffered from SimCom for the century. Should we sign K+K as natural like the sign for sh*t. If you live on the farm, it is everyday thing.

Now with the moral issue in mind, it became the hard question: should we save ASL or be saved from shamed for being vulgar, offensive for them if they translated into English in their head like those in SimCom. Should we be submissive, yielding our ASL for the fear of God? We sometime end up like between a rock and hard place. He’d pardon us if we don’t mean it vulgarly. He is mercy.

Chuck Baird

Hearing Loss

Hello Deafreaders, I’d like to share my thoughts with you.

My first time ever seeing the term 'hearing loss' was 3 years ago. I went to see the deaf doctor near Ann Arbor in Michigan. He signed with voice off with me. I asked him if he knew another d(D)eaf doctors around. He wrote me website addy on his Px pad; www.amphl.org  I thought it was cool. It can be any degree of he hearing loss, not necessary as negative like the term of hearing impaired, disabled, or disorder.

There are many sub-groups like, Deaf Elite, Deaf Mutes, Hard of Hearing, Grass rooted, DOD, DOH, Late Deafened, Mainstreamed, Oralists, Former-Oralists, Deaf-Blind, Senior Citizen with Miracles, or any others whether they sign or speak or both. Whatever they want a specific name to label themselves, all could be in one big catalog under the one name, Hearing Loss rather than Hearing Impaired or Disorder. What do you think?

I have tried telling the hearing persons over the counter, paying for Diet Coke (speaking with my fairly voice) " What? I have a hearing loss…" (with my index finger pointing to my ear.) I found their reaction a very neutral. They don't care how much of hearing I lost, recent or been that way since birth.

Back to the Association of Medical Professionals with Hearing Loss (AMPHL) I have browsed the website and looked at several profiles of the (d)Deaf doctors. Most of them were with big D, some could sign ASL fluently in their clips. I have wondered how clever they've chosen a very neutral term.

I thought we might have the best solution with the simple term, the hearing loss. The same definition as deaf or deafness, it could mean hard of hearing, moderate, severe, or profound.

Deaf with small d has become the old name for the sub-group of signers (using ASL or PSE) separated from the other sub-group, the oralists. The big D was coined not very long ago that created a little complicate and more specific.

SHHH (Self Help of Hard of Hearing) was recently changed to the new name for the organization, HLAA (Hearing Loss Association of America). They apparently saw the term of hearing loss and liked it. They probably got tired of labeling themselves HH, oralists, etc. They jumped and claimed the term, the Hearing Loss. The organization is self-encouragement and search for the sense of hearing restored or first time functioned with aid or cochlear impaired.

There was a motion was moved in the NAD business meeting in Desert Spring, CA last summer that we should add HH to the NAD, NADHH. There was heat debated but somehow all motions on that and other things were invalid according to Robert's Rule of Order. I am not quite sure. I was not inside of the meeting but I saw some NADers commenting on issue of adding HH later on in the hall, by adding HH, it would water down the original purpose of founding NAD in the first place. Other comment was made that HH belongs to AGB or HLAA (former SHHH) The NAD should keep with one D but with an open-arm welcoming any HH them to learn the meaning of a big D with respect. They can go back and act like HH with hearing members.

You can see them in many states where the have commissions for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. We don't need to explain why they have to collaborate both, their choice.

Some of you have seen the PBS program, "Through Deaf Eyes" with mixing reactions. I have not seen it yet but I can imagine it by viewing vloggers and reading bloggers on that.

Didn't you know that the original idea of putting on the show was Jack R. Gannon who wrote the book "The Deaf Heritage"? About 10 years ago, he and Jean Lindquist-Bergey and maybe Douglas C. Baynton went to Smithsonian Museum and proposed to have a special exhibition there on the 200 years of community of the signers, the America's most forgotten minority, the unsung heroes. The Museum loved the idea but AGB appeared, objecting the exhibition. It would put them in a bad light or they are the subjects of big lawsuits from medical companies, things like that. The major of Smithsonian's funding was from the taxpayers, the other group involved Oralism must be included. I never forget how I learned that from Jack himself with his disappointing face. A few years later, the exhibition was kicked off for national tour in Smithsonian's, mixed of the Deaf History with the old hearing aids and picture of AGB in it. I was not surprised to read some mixing reactions on the "Through Deaf Eyes." I felt like that Jean Lindquist-Bergey and Larry Hott might have to compromise under too many eyes like I King Jordon, AGB members, and others big incorporates who view us as disabled people and to get more funding for the production; changed to the Deaf life through the technology rather than the first thought of the small group of proudly signers only, the beauty of ASL.

I guess we are in age of compromising, merging, like the America, the Melting Pot. So I thought the term hearing loss is nothing wrong. We can keep Deafhood, big or small D, HH, and Deaf, Mute whatever we want. Not you but it is up to them, their free choice.

I wonder what if they'd change the name; Texas School for the Children with the Hearing Loss. Would they scream or sign wildly with no, "No way, don't mess with Texas!"

cb

EAR-LIPS

Hello DeafReaders,

I have typed and submitted my comment responding to Ella’s reclaiming Deaf Mute way back. It was much delayed responding to that so I don’t know if many have read this in very bottom of comment column. It was reason why I just set up my weblog so I can post my sharing as fresh. I am working on my format and soon setting up my vlog.

I want to repeat the important about what Gil Eastman shared with me. I will re-edit it more concise.

By the way, Barb. Nice wrapped up on Veditz and others’ parts on the film. You won the game, “Beat the Clock” [wink] Sure, like you said, there is more as why, how, and when the sign, EAR-CLOSE, appeared. It is not like one has said, “Case closed.” It is always interesting for analyzing and discussion. If they get tired with it, they can slip. But again, you are wonderful as always.

I don’t have a doctorate in English or Linguistic. You may disagree but here is my comment to Ella’s, repeated for the last time. Short version.

Before the infamous Milan Conference, everyone _ deaf and hearing, used ASL while shut their mouths or seal lips. They were taught or trained not to mouth the words when they signed. Mouthing was a bad manner, ungraceful. It was true; I have researched and found it in the article as said by the former hearing superintendent of Illinois School for the Deaf, Dr. Gillette who confronted Abraham Graham Bell in the heavy debates whether or not the Deaf should be taught orally. The source was from the book, “ A Place of Their Own” by John V. Van Cleve and Barry A. Crouch.

One day, when I was in Gallaudet University Archive for the same research for my mural project now hanged in The Learning Center in Farmingham, MA, late Gilbert Eastman walked in during his break from the TV studio doing the Deaf Mosaic as host with heavy makeup on his face. He excitedly shared with us in the room his theory apparently just appeared in his head how we got the sign for Deaf. [EAR-MOUTH] It was in 1994

His theory: In the early 19th century, the Deaf schools used to have the names like Ohio Institute for the Deaf and Dumb. Dumb meant not speaking, unable to speak, or no voice before it evolved the meaning like stupidity or fool. The sign for Dumb or Mute was the index finger on the lips like you see Veditz on the film. The orientation of the finger was not like you see the picture of nurse or librarian on the wall signing ‘Ssh’ but George and others had their fingers front toward to lips. Interesting.

So Gil continued saying, they used to sign Deaf and Dumb [index finger pointing ear while shaking head for no or don’t + AND + index finger on lips] Years later, they dropped the sign for ‘and’ for a better and natural flow. We have the sign almost unchanged ever since. Of course, the word of dumb removed from paper or sign later on. Why? That is the question that applied our current discussion. There was a more than one reason I am sure, not just that not as fool or unable to learn but also they noticed that some Deaf could learn to speak. The rest is “War of Methods” like Jack Gannon titled it in his book.

Today, we sign Deaf [EAR-CHEEK or CORNER of CHIN] That is OK; we have evolved the sign over 90 years. That is a long time, interesting.

I found the nice black and white photo of lovely Gallaudet female student in the turn of century as a model showing the sign like Veditz’s finger on lips. On the bottom of picture the ink was written, “Silence” When I saw it I was moved. I selected it for the mural along 200 other pictures around the room. I will post the picture in my weblog.

Like old saying, silence is golden; one can say more by being silent.

cb

Whoa!

You were correct, Barb. Did Veditz actually signed EAR-CLOSE? That is a good question. I took it for granted from reading the post by ASL Commnunity Joural on yesrterday morning, March 15 that Paticia said, "Yes, Veditz signed DEAF-CLOSE. She'd check it again when she is back.

I do have full set of the films on VHS as gift from Deaf Media, Inc. way back. They are in one of the boxes stored back in my studio. I'll have to look for them. I will let you know. It is  avery long, two full tapes something like 90 minutes each but I can fast-forward to Veditz's part. They are mesmerized. Like I said, I wished I could travel back on the time machine, dressing up in suit and straw flat hat and mingling them in the picnic, one of the days during the NAD convention. Most of them were filmed outside. I figured the lighing indoor for fliming was very expensive, tho.

I will be back with you after seeing the tape again. I believe here is an excerpt of Veditz's on film somewhere on internet if you can't wait.

Whether he used EAR-CLOSE or not, the rest of my post last night was pretty much true for me except a few like having something to do with “Ephphata” that is my theory. In any old language, it is hard to find for fact what is the orgin of the word or sign but it is fun as we can analyze.

Another question, could he speak well in his old age regard the less he was post lingual. Their speech often faded away over years _ no hearing aid or cohlear implant at that time. But look at his speech translated by Carol Padden, he was very much against oralism. He knew and could forsee it like the Gallaudet Protest recently.

George Veditz/Deaf-close

 Remember that George Verdiz was post lingual (born hearing but lost hearing later in his teen) He could speak well. He taught at Colorado School for the Deaf. Maybe that justify Carl’s saying that many deaf teachers lost the job from teaching positions unless they could speak well.

He was seventh president of NAD in 1904 and re-elected thru 1910. All previous presidents were post lingual as well.

I am not saying that they were oralist, audist, or racist. I know the fact that they all had deaf wives. They embraced their deaf fellows and fought their rights as deaf persons, especially the education of the deaf facing the dwindling due to the new trend called Pure Oralism brought from the Europe, began around 1860 and again, the infamous 1880 Milan Conference Resolution.

I think at that time, the signing Deaf-close was formal and Deaf- mouth was informal yet the oldest. I believe Deaf-close was introduced later for use in the churches, had something to do with “Ephphata” (according to the Gospel of Mark, when Jesus did miracle on deaf man, said one word, “ephphata.” (ear open). They could have said, as they remained deaf....fine; therefore, their ears were still closed.

Later, like in Carl’s argument that in the 50 years between 1880 and 1930, the school administrators told the deaf teachers like Veditz to use the sign Deaf-close, I am sure that lot of them have mingled with deaf folks in deaf clubs or state associations, used the sign Deaf-mouth.

Veditz signed Deaf-close on the film. He was smart as politician. The administrators would see the films or he’d lose the job as teacher. That is my theory. Yet, see how he sealed his lips all the way.

Interesting facts about Veditz, he could speak German almost fluently. His parents were German immigrants in Baltimore. His father had important job I forgot what it was.

Since his hearing lost, he went straight to Maryland School for the Deaf. And then he attended Gallaudet College, not long after they changed the name from National College for the Deaf and Dumb.

He was genius and led an interesting life.

According to Merv Garretson thru Steve Weiner, Merv was boy attending the Colorado School for the Deaf, he remembered Veditz as teacher. He used cut the grass on his yard. He saw the guy from the next-door came to ask him on the yard if he had the famous German book translated in English. George said, “Sure, I have a copy of book.  He went in the house and brought him the book. The neighbor was shocked; the book was original copy from Germany.

Another interesting fact was that he was chess masterful.

There was famous chess champion from Russia who came America touring the cities playing chess with who ever wanted to challenge him, earned the money from the admission like the typical barn storming, Mark Twain lecturing, etc. He usually played against 10 players at the same time and always won all games, not once defeated. He went to Colorado Spring and he declared he’d against 20 players. Veditz was one of them. Result; 19 wins and 1 draw. Who was it with the 1 draw? George.

I am still researching about him as one of the 7 portraits commissioned for CSD. Thought you might like to know little more about him.