Other people perspective AGAINST C.I. for the Deaf children

[jillio]

In most cases, it will be sign that's more accessible as it's far more visible than English. Personally, if I had a deaf baby I'd want ASL to be her first language and I also don't want her signing like me. I want her to be a native ASLer.

Spoken English is never the most accessable language for a deaf child simply because it is spoken. And English is all its forms is based on its root....spoken language. The MCEs provide a confusing linguistic environment by putting what is intended to be a language communicated through sound into a mode intended to communicted through vision. The auditory system and the visual system receive and process information differently, so that what makes sense auditorily does not always make sense visually and vice versa. Inshort, I agree with you deafskeptic.

A postscript....acquiring ASL as a first langauage does not preclude learning to speak and communicate through an oral L2 language.

 

[flip]

...

A postscript....acquiring ASL as a first langauage does not preclude learning to speak and communicate through an oral L2 language.

This sure makes sense. It's allways interesting to read your replies as I know you have read numerous books, that I barely have heard of.

So I wonder about this: I talked with someone, that told me that the L1 and L2 theory is a bit out of date. The L1/L2 theory was created by linquistics that themselves not are bilingual(not sure if this mean they was not raised bilingual or they never learnt another language). The new trend, is to say that we are mulitilingual. We juggle with different languages all the time and learn everything simultaneous. This is confirmed by Cummins model if I remember right, where one benefits cognitively when learning two languages.

But this confuses me a bit. It sometimes seems that it's two camps among the supporters of bi-bi education, one that speech/english and sign can be learned simultaneous, or ASL first, and then speech/english later. Does it matter if I start to explain deaf children what that and that word mean as early as possible if the child shows interest?

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[deafskeptic]

It's my understanding that ASL is to be the L1 language because it's a much more natural language for most deaf. English will by necessity be the L2 language because it's not as easily accessibable to most deaf. But since that's the main language spoken in the USA, you do need to learn it.


Speech and English is learned separatly from ASL because you can't really speak two languages at the same time. Most deaf, myself included, prefer not to speak and talk at the same time.

 

[jillio]

This sure makes sense. It's allways interesting to read your replies as I know you have read numerous books, that I barely have heard of.

So I wonder about this: I talked with someone, that told me that the L1 and L2 theory is a bit out of date. The L1/L2 theory was created by linquistics that themselves not are bilingual(not sure if this mean they was not raised bilingual or they never learnt another language). The new trend, is to say that we are mulitilingual. We juggle with different languages all the time and learn everything simultaneous. This is confirmed by Cummins model if I remember right, where one benefits cognitively when learning two languages.

But this confuses me a bit. It sometimes seems that it's two camps among the supporters of bi-bi education, one that speech/english and sign can be learned simultaneous, or ASL first, and then speech/english later. Does it matter if I start to explain deaf children what that and that word mean as early as possible if the child shows interest?

Thoughts, anyone?

The theory of multilingualism is based on the concept of an L1 and an L2 language. L1 is the dominant language, while L2 is the non-dominant. Both may be learned to fluency, however one is dominant and is utilised by the bilingual or multilingual individual as the foundation for the learning of all other languages. Even in a home where perhaps three languages are spoken fluently, and a child is exposed to all three equally, there will be a dominant language on which they have based the learning of the other two.

Let's equate it to learning math. Once a child learns simple arithmetic, they can use what they have internalised about the function of addition and subtaction to learning multiplication and division. Those functions can then be applied to learning algebra, and calculus, and trigonometry, and even chemistry, computer science, and cooking. What is the foundation for all of this applied knowledge? Simple arithemtic. An individual working a calculus problem does not go back to " It works this way because 2+2 is the basic principle of addition and to add means to increase." They have internalized that knowledge and it is applied without concscious thought. But at the same time, without knowledge of simple arithmetic and the priciple pf addition, one could not solve a calculus problem.

The same with languages. L1 is the basic arithemetic, and the principles learned and internalized through the dominant language is transferred to the learning of all additional languages. Once one understands that a word is a symbol for representing an object, then one can understand that all words in all languages are symbols for representing objects. The next step is learning that one can use those symbols to communicate basic needs and desires, and that if it can be done in one langauge, it can be done in all language. Then it leads to communication of emotion and of complicated thoughts and concepts. But it is all founded on the discovery with one symbol in one language. If a child first makes the discovery that the sign for "milk" is the symbol that represents the thing they want, then their L1 language is sign. If they discover that the spoken word "milk" is the symbol, then their L1 langauge is English. The discovery that both are symbols can be seconds after the initial discovery, but it doesn't matter that they happen almost simultaneously. One must always come first, and that is what constitutes the beginning of applying what one knows about the L1 language to the L2 language.

Conversely, if a deaf child is not in an environment that allows for this discovery, and must be taught through directed activity that langauge is system of symbols that represent the thing, then they become language delayed. A deaf child who is restricted to an oral only environment is impeded in taking in the peripheral information that allows for acquisition and internalization of the rules and functions of language. Their cognitive processes are restricted in the fluid ability to generalize what they know.

 

[flip]

The theory of multilingualism is based on the concept of an L1 and an L2 language. L1 is the dominant language, while L2 is the non-dominant. Both may be learned to fluency, however one is dominant and is utilised by the bilingual or multilingual individual as the foundation for the learning of all other languages. Even in a home where perhaps three languages are spoken fluently, and a child is exposed to all three equally, there will be a dominant language on which they have based the learning of the other two.

Let's equate it to learning math. Once a child learns simple arithmetic, they can use what they have internalised about the function of addition and subtaction to learning multiplication and division. Those functions can then be applied to learning algebra, and calculus, and trigonometry, and even chemistry, computer science, and cooking. What is the foundation for all of this applied knowledge? Simple arithemtic. An individual working a calculus problem does not go back to " It works this way because 2+2 is the basic principle of addition and to add means to increase." They have internalized that knowledge and it is applied without concscious thought. But at the same time, without knowledge of simple arithmetic and the priciple pf addition, one could not solve a calculus problem.

The same with languages. L1 is the basic arithemetic, and the principles learned and internalized through the dominant language is transferred to the learning of all additional languages. Once one understands that a word is a symbol for representing an object, then one can understand that all words in all languages are symbols for representing objects. The next step is learning that one can use those symbols to communicate basic needs and desires, and that if it can be done in one langauge, it can be done in all language. Then it leads to communication of emotion and of complicated thoughts and concepts. But it is all founded on the discovery with one symbol in one language. If a child first makes the discovery that the sign for "milk" is the symbol that represents the thing they want, then their L1 language is sign. If they discover that the spoken word "milk" is the symbol, then their L1 langauge is English. The discovery that both are symbols can be seconds after the initial discovery, but it doesn't matter that they happen almost simultaneously. One must always come first, and that is what constitutes the beginning of applying what one knows about the L1 language to the L2 language.

Conversely, if a deaf child is not in an environment that allows for this discovery, and must be taught through directed activity that langauge is system of symbols that represent the thing, then they become language delayed. A deaf child who is restricted to an oral only environment is impeded in taking in the peripheral information that allows for acquisition and internalization of the rules and functions of language. Their cognitive processes are restricted in the fluid ability to generalize what they know.

Thanks for the explaination. I can relate very much to this concept from my experience. It sounds like L1 is excatly the same as the inner voice from Vygotsky.

Some cases still puzzles me. For example I know of two deaf imigrants, who are brothers. They speak a foreign language at home, and the family does not know sign language. With other deaf people, they use sign language. But the fascinating thing, is that when they talk with each other, they sometimes use sign language, and sometimes they speak to each other in their spoken foreign language(can be they do it to say something private to each other). They are weak in writing and reading compared to their peers, though they are still young. I say this because I wonder if this can be due to a weak development of a specific L1. They both have been exposured to sign language since the age of three-four. Their communicative skills are good.

I wonder:
What are their L1? Can it be that their L1 consist of two languages, one at home and one at school? Perhaps there is a way to measure what their L1 is, if it only can be one?

I can't imagine myself having an inner voice in two different languages, though I don't know what other people are capable of!

 

[flip]

It's my understanding that ASL is to be the L1 language because it's a much more natural language for most deaf. English will by necessity be the L2 language because it's not as easily accessibable to most deaf. But since that's the main language spoken in the USA, you do need to learn it.


Speech and English is learned separatly from ASL because you can't really speak two languages at the same time. Most deaf, myself included, prefer not to speak and talk at the same time.

This is a good description of my language development!

I was perhaps a bit unclear, but I was trying to ask if there are more than one explaination about how bilingualism work, as some cases puzzles me, though they can be explained with L1/L2. And also someone told me that mulitilingualism is the latest trend in the field of linquistsics, as the older linquistcs often have limited knowledge with bilingualism(rich white men raised monolingual with english). But forgot to ask who they have this from and names/books.

 

[jillio]

Thanks for the explaination. I can relate very much to this concept from my experience. It sounds like L1 is excatly the same as the inner voice from Vygotsky.

Some cases still puzzles me. For example I know of two deaf imigrants, who are brothers. They speak a foreign language at home, and the family does not know sign language. With other deaf people, they use sign language. But the fascinating thing, is that when they talk with each other, they sometimes use sign language, and sometimes they speak to each other in their spoken foreign language(can be they do it to say something private to each other). They are weak in writing and reading compared to their peers, though they are still young. I say this because I wonder if this can be due to a weak development of a specific L1. They both have been exposured to sign language since the age of three-four. Their communicative skills are good.

I wonder:
What are their L1? Can it be that their L1 consist of two languages, one at home and one at school? Perhaps there is a way to measure what their L1 is, if it only can be one?

I can't imagine myself having an inner voice in two different languages, though I don't know what other people are capable of!

Their L1 language is the one used at home, because that is the one they have been exposed to from birth. However, because it was an oral langauge, and they are deaf, they have suffered delays that affect the way they are able to use language. That is why early exposure to a fully accessable L1 langauge is so important. It is difficult to transfer language use to reading and writing unless L1 acquisition has occured properly. While they may communicate well, they do not know how to "play" with language, and are no doubt stilted in its use. The L1 language will be the one that they first connected the symbolic function to.

 

[deafdyke]

Babyblue, I totally agree. I think the gross majority of orally trained kids should be exposed to ASL early on. Like I'm glad that there are some oral programs where the tracking is good, and if a kid doesn't show flair with oral skills, they are referred to TC programs. However oral programs still have the mentality that ASL is "speshal needs" and not a "real language"
Imagine the change if bi-bi/TC programs presented themselves as producing kids who are BILINGAL.

 

[flip]

Their L1 language is the one used at home, because that is the one they have been exposed to from birth. However, because it was an oral langauge, and they are deaf, they have suffered delays that affect the way they are able to use language. That is why early exposure to a fully accessable L1 langauge is so important. It is difficult to transfer language use to reading and writing unless L1 acquisition has occured properly. While they may communicate well, they do not know how to "play" with language, and are no doubt stilted in its use. The L1 language will be the one that they first connected the symbolic function to.

Ok, this is very interesting to me! Two questions

Do we know if it matters and how much, when parents use something that is more PSE than ASL early? I have the situation of most deaf students in mind, with hearing parents who often do not have impressive skills in ASL, but do fairly well with PSE.

Are there any books dicussing this specifically, deaf people and early language, you can recommend?

 

[jillio]

Ok, this is very interesting to me! Two questions

Do we know if it matters and how much, when parents use something that is more PSE than ASL early? I have the situation of most deaf students in mind, with hearing parents who often do not have impressive skills in ASL, but do fairly well with PSE.

Are there any books dicussing this specifically, deaf people and early language, you can recommend?

Research has shown that even if parents are using more of a PSE, a deaf child will intuit the ASL structure, and actually use more ASL than PSE. So while it might make acquisition a bit more difficult, because the langauge being presented is visual, the deaf child's brain will compensate in processing. Even when the models are less than fluent, the child will develop greater fluency than the models.

Sound and Sign is a great book to start with. It is an older book, but it explains the language development very well.

 

[flip]

Research has shown that even if parents are using more of a PSE, a deaf child will intuit the ASL structure, and actually use more ASL than PSE. So while it might make acquisition a bit more difficult, because the langauge being presented is visual, the deaf child's brain will compensate in processing. Even when the models are less than fluent, the child will develop greater fluency than the models.

Sound and Sign is a great book to start with. It is an older book, but it explains the language development very well.

Ok, thanks again! Wonder if I have to start to study some masters degree in this as questions just keep on poppin' up when I study the use of language among the diversity of deaf people we got

 

[jillio]

Ok, thanks again! Wonder if I have to start to study some masters degree in this as questions just keep on poppin' up when I study the use of language among the diversity of deaf people we got

Go for it! You've already got a head start from all the info you have studied on your own! And YW.

 

[GalaxyAngel]

Angel wrote:
I'm sorry but I disagree with this video, first I would like to add it wouldnt matter whether its a hearing aid or a cochlear implants you still have to take it off when you're in the water so this doesn't make any difference and second, the only reason why many deaf people choose to have cochlear implants is because they're no longer benefit these hearing aids, wants to hear more and I don't have anything against that.

The video keep stopping and playing, so I didn't get a chance to view the whole video.

I understand, matter of your situation disagree w/this video. As My strongly point of view quite agree more w/this video because as my concern this future will come fade Deaf people and no longer Deaf Community because of their lost identifty true color themselves. I've learned it lot not pretty insight because future will be Deaf Community gone reason CI-young children are not allowed use Sign Langauges all over the countries and their goal teaching them (children) must learn their speak and speech not even think about read or else.. Is effective improve their speech and what about Reading and langauages ? Is Evidence anything soild case ? Show me?
I don't care about other people's pov proof their child is successes.. The parent are pressure on their child because parent's dream wanted have child is perfect speak and speech.. not even think twice about Education.. Likely eg Shel's comment previous other thread.. I cannot remmy where which one Shel's comment quite powerful concern about the Deaf School education will be no longer and getting increased Ci-children population and no longer sign languages.. I'm very surprised about my province is increased popluation school not allow children learn sign languages only SPEAK AND ORAL. My gosh.. How Children will find their own true identify?

vallee's wrote:
4. M.J. Bienvenu - several points upset me
a. compared implants to the Holocaust's
b. robbed of self-esteem
c. failure in hearing world

I only have problem with one word, Holocaust. My great grandfather and my grandfather left Nazi Germany. I had family die during the Holocaust, so it is just the use of the word.

I don't want to get into an arguement, just please respect the fact that I grew up hearing first hand Holocaust accounts.

I do agree w/you but other tiny things disagree..
My statement... I do feel that way yes somewhat, as far My concern about the future Deaf becoming no longer... Not alikely compared implants to the Holocaust's BUT not part of holocaust. Sort of no exist.

Cheri's wrote: I understand how you feel, I don't like all negative labels on anyone just because one doesn't like cochlear implants.
You got to remember that we (deafies) were labeled too in negatives-- pronounced us "deaf and dumb", How we were incapable of being taught, of learning, and how we don't have any reasonable thinking skills.

I have little disagree w/you.. Do you allow Doctor tell everyone best implanted for children and help better speak future? Do you have anything proof as pure evidence solid.. not coming from PARENT'S POV OR COMMENT..
Yes, That was very long time ago, Old Fashion era tend called Deaf and Dumb.. Now Future era will say.. ? (Yay, No more Deaf, CI-CHILDREN now? It will called label them? what your pov ?

Shel's wrote:
However, about sel-esteem and failure in the hearing world..I do agree with her to a degree.

Fact, Yes. I've learned it lot from VLOG issues "SIGN LANGUAGES WILL NO LONGER IN THE FUTURE AROUND THE INTERNATIONAL". Made me cry and upset.. as far My concern about the future Deaf Children will be no longer knowledge about Sign Languages and losing their self-esteem too. School want to be forcing them learn speak and speech and that what hearing parent are expecting be their child perfect!.. What they are expecting to?

deafskeptic's wrote:
I think it's because so many people who implant CIs in their children have no intention of letting their child learn sign or have contact with other deaf. I've seen quite a few posts from Parents with children who have CIs state that they're glad their child isn't part of the Deaf community.

Yes.. True, Hearing Parents are not want their child part of Deaf Community! They want their child part of Hearing world.. The child will feel bad and none self-esteem.

Deafdyke's wrote:
Oh that's very true.........but just wait til rick48 comes around.
deafskeptic, I think that a lot of those parents are very in denial about their kid's hearing issues. Like they have the attitude that if a kid doesn't "need" ASL or other special things (like Braille) the kid can be "normal"

Hell no way.. Child will not be going normal.. If suppose rick48 think that best for child no need ASL or else.. I'll break their neck or poke their eyes off.. how Rick48 feel and want see it.. force use Braille! Just wait and see if Rick48's comment next? (chuckles)

Deafskeptic's wrote:
Yep. I have the feeling Cloggy is in denial about the reality of Lotte's hearing issues despite the evidence around him; witness her language delays even if she's catching up..

Yes, I beleive. What more, Cloggy is his own breath speak it out himself proof about his daughter succed! *ahem* (cough) He's pressuring on his daughter. Wait and see If his daughter is improving her languages and can read?

Myself, I've been there in Hearing School when I was young.. Teacher forcing me speak speech everyday and not much educational learning... I was not happy this school..
I refused go back school and complain everyday.. My parent gave it up and send me Deaf School finally I'm very happy and can communication with other Deaf Children by ASL.. Amazing learned it lot picked up Educational and ASL same time.. I felt so good.. I can recognized myself.. true identity! Never forget that long years back! I did blunt to my parent, why you're forcing me speak speech and wanted me perfect child? I'm very happy being I'm Deaf!

Okay, For example: I got a hearing baby.. er um.. I decide remove hearing sounds my baby's ear inner. I want this child is DEAF. What Hearing people feel ? They would flip their mind and angry against me! OF COURSE!
What more.. Miracle Creation baby is inside me.. building up dna... After Birthing baby is beautiful.. Just natural. Just baby! But Hearing parent got a Deaf Baby.. and very upsetting and crying... Don't know what do with Deaf Baby.. I do not want that baby.. Can you fix my baby become Hearing.. DOCTOR can fix your baby become hear.. solution CI.. Oh aww.. come on Hearing Parent aren't willing up to challenge with Deaf Child..? Seek for easy way out ?
Hearing parent is happy with ci-baby BUT... they have to pay their own expense battery and etc etc... will they happy?
*cough*

I'm not here rude 'bout this..
This is my pov feelings!

 

[Buffalo]

4. M.J. Bienvenu - several points upset me
a. compared implants to the Holocaust's
b. robbed of self-esteem
c. failure in hearing world

I only have problem with one word, Holocaust. My great grandfather and my grandfather left Nazi Germany. I had family die during the Holocaust, so it is just the use of the word.

I don't want to get into an arguement, just please respect the fact that I grew up hearing first hand Holocaust accounts.

I don't want to get into an agrument either. I do see that Holocaust is terrible as there are people who was bent on getting rid of Jewish people from Earth. There are people who are bent on getting rid of deaf people even in USA thus I can see the parallel lives between the Jewish people and the deaf people. China Weighs Using Sterilization and Abortions to Stop 'Abnormal' Births - New York Times China might be still doing this now? The deaf people in USA now have trouble getting a job and getting promotion and still do. Did you know that the sterilization of the deaf people and other disablities was legal until '70s and early '80s (Oregon removed the eugenics law in 1983) Eugenics Apologies . I wonder how many sterilized deaf people are walking around wondering why they don't have any children.

 

[deafdyke]

You know.........from what I understand the debate in deaf ed seems to be over which language should be the level 1 language. I know research has indicated that most "oral" kids DO eventually pick up ASL. I really really do think that early intervention should exclusively focus on exposing the kid to a variety of methods, so that the kid chooses what their L-1 language is gonna be. But then again, I do know that the reason why that isn't common pratice is b/c oral experts are deathly afraid that not too many kids would choose oral only.

 

[vallee]

I don't want to get into an agrument either. I do see that Holocaust is terrible as there are people who was bent on getting rid of Jewish people from Earth. There are people who are bent on getting rid of deaf people even in USA thus I can see the parallel lives between the Jewish people and the deaf people. China Weighs Using Sterilization and Abortions to Stop 'Abnormal' Births - New York Times China might be still doing this now? The deaf people in USA now have trouble getting a job and getting promotion and still do. Did you know that the sterilization of the deaf people and other disablities was legal until '70s and early '80s (Oregon removed the eugenics law in 1983) Eugenics Apologies . I wonder how many sterilized deaf people are walking around wondering why they don't have any children.

I won't agrue. Maybe my personal connection with the Holocaust, gives me a different attitude.

As for deaf people, I am deaf. I have an advanced college degree, a job, gotten promotions, and I have a child(one my choice).

 

[rick48]

I don't want to get into an agrument either. I do see that Holocaust is terrible as there are people who was bent on getting rid of Jewish people from Earth. There are people who are bent on getting rid of deaf people even in USA thus I can see the parallel lives between the Jewish people and the deaf people. China Weighs Using Sterilization and Abortions to Stop 'Abnormal' Births - New York Times China might be still doing this now? The deaf people in USA now have trouble getting a job and getting promotion and still do. Did you know that the sterilization of the deaf people and other disablities was legal until '70s and early '80s (Oregon removed the eugenics law in 1983) Eugenics Apologies . I wonder how many sterilized deaf people are walking around wondering why they don't have any children.

I agree that it is best not to argue the Holocaust issue but let us not lose sight for one moment that the comparison of the cochlear implant for children to the Holocaust by Bienvenu was intentional and designed to invoke the most negative images imaginable.

We all agree that the Holocaust, the political and social agenda of Adolph Hitler and his Nazi regime, led to the mass murder of millions of people. Hitler, if not the most reviled man in history, was at the very least the most reviled man of the 20th Century. What Bienvenu and her supporters are asking us to do is to suspend reality and rational thinking and to compare children receiving cochlear implants with the mass extermination of millions on an unprecedented scale. Such a comparison is not only fallacious but demeaning not just to those who lost their lives in the Holocaust or to their loved ones but to all of mankind.

It is an extremely poor choice to use as a comparison and in my opinion used by Bienvenu not to engender any productive discussion but rather to further divide and polarize people.

You say that there are those in the US who want to "get rid of the deaf", what exactly do you mean by that? Who are they? Can you name one person, one organization in the United States that advocates your allegation?

Rick

 

[vallee]

I agree that it is best not to argue the Holocaust issue but let us not lose sight for one moment that the comparison of the cochlear implant for children to the Holocaust by Bienvenu was intentional and designed to invoke the most negative images imaginable.

We all agree that the Holocaust, the political and social agenda of Adolph Hitler and his Nazi regime, led to the mass murder of millions of people. Hitler, if not the most reviled man in history, was at the very least the most reviled man of the 20th Century. What Bienvenu and her supporters are asking us to do is to suspend reality and rational thinking and to compare children receiving cochlear implants with the mass extermination of millions on an unprecedented scale. Such a comparison is not only fallacious but demeaning not just to those who lost their lives in the Holocaust or to their loved ones but to all of mankind.

It is an extremely poor choice to use as a comparison and in my opinion used by Bienvenu not to engender any productive discussion but rather to further divide and polarize people.

You say that there are those in the US who want to "get rid of the deaf", what exactly do you mean by that? Who are they? Can you name one person, one organization in the United States that advocates your allegation?

Rick

Thank you for your posting. You created the words I couldn't because of emotions. All I see are visions of my Grandfather telling about his childhood in Germany. The events and details and most importantly the fear and sadness in his eyes.

 

[Kalista]

Galaxy Angel

Your perceptive is beautiful !! It is very sad a lot of parents out there did not look up at the Deaf Community instead of the professional and FDA. They need to check both of two side instead of one side with doctors.

When I visited Deaf school and saw little children have their scar on their heads, I feel like that I was waking up from my graveyard to see this society become more and more inhuman children. Out of the space took those children other planets and implant the meal in their heads and drop them off to this planet. That is how, I feel to see those innocence Deaf children. They did not ask for change their true identifies. It makes me, I want to stay in my graveyard due to scare out there to see human become bionic.

 

[jillio]

Thank you for your posting. You created the words I couldn't because of emotions. All I see are visions of my Grandfather telling about his childhood in Germany. The events and details and most importantly the fear and sadness in his eyes.

While I certainly understand your feelings, vallee, as I also have family members who experienced the Halocaust. Ethnocide and genocide, no matter the numbers involved, the means employed to accomplish it, and the populations involved, is still ethnocide and genocide. My Jewish relatives and friends are much more sensitive to, and outraged by, any form of ethnocide and genocide perpetrated against any population as a result of their experience. They use the horror of the Halocaust not as a way to bury history, but to apply it to the future to insure that nothing like this is ever perpetrated against any population, and as a foudation for speaking out against personal judgements of worth made against any group of people based on ethnic origins, social group, or disability. They easily see the connections in the school of thought that leads to actions related to ethnic superiority, and are not offended by the comparisons. Because they are Jewish, and because of the painful history of the Halocaust, they are very sensitive to violations of civil rights perpetrated against any group. I admire them for being able to both recognize the horror of the Halocaust, and to have the strength to move beyond it by using that painful history to motivate them to work for the common good of all oppressed groups.

The Halocaust is only one of the most publicized efforts at genocide. The events in Africa against the Tsutis is a more recent one and just as horrific. A.G. Bell's philosophy of soft eugenics is another one, not quite as recent, but just as important.