Deaf culture as point of pride? It’s more a curse

Beach girl said:
He was directing his disagreement toward Lane. Does everyone have to agree with Lane, lockstep, in order to "not spread his anger all over a culture?"
Click to expand...

Look at the title...that says a lot.
 
Anyone want to start a pool on the next late deafened person to leave AD in a snit? :P
 
Beach girl said:
And in his life, it's been a curse. Surely he's allowed to have an opinion about his own life?

Do you have more compassion for people who have a loss in their life in other areas and consider their life poorer for it?
Click to expand...

If so, then why use the word "you" ?
 
TXgolfer said:
Are they being bullied??? :)
Click to expand...

No idea. Looks like going both ways to me. Bully, bully back. Vacation and I have been out having fun. Just came back to see this. :wave:

It seems emotions are running high. :lol:

I really want my authorities on Deaf culture to be Deaf. So that leaves me with no place in this conversation.
 
That's a pretty common way that people speak. "Well, you know how it is, I just can't get organized these days," for instance. He could have used "one," but that would sound teddibly British of him, wouldn't it? One wouldn't want to sound non-American, would one? Or should I have used "one" - "Does one have more compassion for others who have suffered a loss...?"

Bottesini, nah, you should be so lucky - I'm not going to leave AD in a snit. ;-)

Look at the title...that says a lot
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the title on Osgood's letter, you can't go by the title; that was undoubtedly put in by the editor of the "letters to the editor" page. The letter-writer doesn't have anything to do with it, normally.

It seems to me that he is being judged and found wanting by people who are two or three generations younger than he is, and who probably have a lot more experience in deaf culture than he would ever be expected to have had, at his age and having lost some or most of his hearing as an adult, not a child.

Plus, anyone age 60 or younger has had a LOT more technology, plus ADA-mandated assistance, available during your working lives than what this man has had; your experiences are much, much different.

To judge his life, based on a handful of sentences, as not being full and satisfying seems really beyond the pale. He is talking about ONE aspect of his life; if he's 85 and still riding the subway in Boston, I'd guess he's still involved in life and is hardly in retreat to the rocking-chair mode, grumbling away.

My dad fought in WWII. He came back minus the sight in one eye and minus most of one thumb and several fingertips, due to having been shot. He didn't go around moaning about it, but I'm sure he would rather have had his complete sight and his complete hand. If someone had written an article saying or implying that he should hope his children were born one-eyed and fingerless, he would have popped a gasket.

If they had said "Well, it's only a loss if you think of it that way," he also would have laughed in your face. Losing the sight of one eye, and the dexterity of his hand, was definitely a loss. It didn't define his life, but it was a loss from what he was before he was shot.

And if someone had accused him of not having a full and satisfying life, that would have been a joke, too, as he was involved in all sorts of activities, was happily married, had 4 kids, etc.

Unfortunately he did die all too young, at age 43, but that could be blamed more on smoking too much, which might or might not have had anything to do with his WWII service.

So I have some sympathy and some understanding for this guy. He sounds like my dad and like others of his generation who came back minus sight, hearing, fingers or limbs, and perhaps like the wounded vets who are returning now. They can deal with loss; they soldier on regardless, live their lives as best they can. But don't tell them they need to join a new culture that is foreign to their current lives, or hope their children will be the same.

To someone who has these losses as an adult, it is just not the same as someone who has lived with it all their lives and made adaptations early on.
 
Beach girl, you don't understand that he is criticized the Deaf community. That is all very well good that you respect him because of his past as a War hero and having a good life before he lost his hearing. If he wanted to say that deafness was a curse, then he should not have thrown the criticizing on the Deaf Culture to the Deaf communities. Being a late deafen individual can be a trying time for him not understanding about deafness and wishing he wanted to hear again. But that is something he had to learn to live with it no matter what the case is. He just use the wrong words to say about the Deaf communities and the Deaf Culture. He is totally against them all together. That is what we are commenting about that.
 
He is against ONE man who wrote ONE article that was published in the paper. Is Lane the be-all and end-all for the entire deaf community? Someone here even said Lane does not speak for her/him. I'm sure, with hundreds of thousands of deaf people in the U.S., you will find others who don't agree with Lane.

This guy who wrote in is one of them. Why is he less entitled to his opinion than others are?

Again, he's 85 years old. He didn't filter his letter through someone else's perceptions of what his feelings SHOULD be; he spoke of his own reality.

It's common enough for people to say "you" when they really mean "I," in a lot of ways. You hear it every day - er, "I" hear it every day - just like that!

Edited to add: Far as we know, he had a good life after he lost his hearing, too. He just disagrees with the assessment that his hearing loss is not really a loss. For him, it certainly is, and it's made his life more difficult. Not necessarily ruined or totally unsatisfying or anything like that, but more difficult.
 
Well, like I said earlier in the thread, it's ignorance that he's exhibiting. They just don't realize it. *shrugs*
 
Beach girl said:
He is against ONE man who wrote ONE article that was published in the paper. Is Lane the be-all and end-all for the entire deaf community? Someone here even said Lane does not speak for her/him. I'm sure, with hundreds of thousands of deaf people in the U.S., you will find others who don't agree with Lane.

This guy who wrote in is one of them. Why is he less entitled to his opinion than others are?

Again, he's 85 years old. He didn't filter his letter through someone else's perceptions of what his feelings SHOULD be; he spoke of his own reality.

It's common enough for people to say "you" when they really mean "I," in a lot of ways. You hear it every day - er, "I" hear it every day - just like that!

Edited to add: Far as we know, he had a good life after he lost his hearing, too. He just disagrees with the assessment that his hearing loss is not really a loss. For him, it certainly is, and it's made his life more difficult. Not necessarily ruined or totally unsatisfying or anything like that, but more difficult.
Click to expand...

What if he said Black culture as a point of pride? It is more a curse?
 
But he didn't.

What if he'd said red-headedness was a curse? You can make up a lot of stuff that is not what he was talking about.
 
Beach girl said:
But he didn't.

What if he'd said red-headedness was a curse? You can make up a lot of stuff that is not what he was talking about.
Click to expand...

Red-headedness is not a culture.


The point is that he is saying that Deaf culture is a curse. That is not for him to judge on a whole community. He was wrong.
 
Beach girl said:
That's a pretty common way that people speak. "Well, you know how it is, I just can't get organized these days," for instance. He could have used "one," but that would sound teddibly British of him, wouldn't it? One wouldn't want to sound non-American, would one? Or should I have used "one" - "Does one have more compassion for others who have suffered a loss...?"

Bottesini, nah, you should be so lucky - I'm not going to leave AD in a snit. ;-)



If you're talking about the title on Osgood's letter, you can't go by the title; that was undoubtedly put in by the editor of the "letters to the editor" page. The letter-writer doesn't have anything to do with it, normally.

It seems to me that he is being judged and found wanting by people who are two or three generations younger than he is, and who probably have a lot more experience in deaf culture than he would ever be expected to have had, at his age and having lost some or most of his hearing as an adult, not a child.

Plus, anyone age 60 or younger has had a LOT more technology, plus ADA-mandated assistance, available during your working lives than what this man has had; your experiences are much, much different.

To judge his life, based on a handful of sentences, as not being full and satisfying seems really beyond the pale. He is talking about ONE aspect of his life; if he's 85 and still riding the subway in Boston, I'd guess he's still involved in life and is hardly in retreat to the rocking-chair mode, grumbling away.

My dad fought in WWII. He came back minus the sight in one eye and minus most of one thumb and several fingertips, due to having been shot. He didn't go around moaning about it, but I'm sure he would rather have had his complete sight and his complete hand. If someone had written an article saying or implying that he should hope his children were born one-eyed and fingerless, he would have popped a gasket.

If they had said "Well, it's only a loss if you think of it that way," he also would have laughed in your face. Losing the sight of one eye, and the dexterity of his hand, was definitely a loss. It didn't define his life, but it was a loss from what he was before he was shot.

And if someone had accused him of not having a full and satisfying life, that would have been a joke, too, as he was involved in all sorts of activities, was happily married, had 4 kids, etc.

Unfortunately he did die all too young, at age 43, but that could be blamed more on smoking too much, which might or might not have had anything to do with his WWII service.

So I have some sympathy and some understanding for this guy. He sounds like my dad and like others of his generation who came back minus sight, hearing, fingers or limbs, and perhaps like the wounded vets who are returning now. They can deal with loss; they soldier on regardless, live their lives as best they can. But don't tell them they need to join a new culture that is foreign to their current lives, or hope their children will be the same.

To someone who has these losses as an adult, it is just not the same as someone who has lived with it all their lives and made adaptations early on.
Click to expand...

Why would one be expected to have more experience in Deaf Culture being 2 or 3 generations younger? Deaf Culture was much more prevalent and close knit 2 or 3 generations ago than it is now.

We are all well aware that those who are late deafened have different issues than those who are prelingually deaf. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't pay attention to the very healthy coping mechanisms developed by those who have lived with deafness all their lives. After all, who has more experience with deafness: one who has lived with it all their lives, or one who has recently become deaf? When one belittles the existence of Deaf Culture, or the values contained therein, that is exactly what one is doing. Don't be surprised when it is met with objection.
 
Beach girl said:
He is against ONE man who wrote ONE article that was published in the paper. Is Lane the be-all and end-all for the entire deaf community? Someone here even said Lane does not speak for her/him. I'm sure, with hundreds of thousands of deaf people in the U.S., you will find others who don't agree with Lane.

This guy who wrote in is one of them. Why is he less entitled to his opinion than others are?

Again, he's 85 years old. He didn't filter his letter through someone else's perceptions of what his feelings SHOULD be; he spoke of his own reality.

It's common enough for people to say "you" when they really mean "I," in a lot of ways. You hear it every day - er, "I" hear it every day - just like that!

Edited to add: Far as we know, he had a good life after he lost his hearing, too. He just disagrees with the assessment that his hearing loss is not really a loss. For him, it certainly is, and it's made his life more difficult. Not necessarily ruined or totally unsatisfying or anything like that, but more difficult.
Click to expand...

It still doesnt make it right for him to criticize a whole community for his bitterness.
 
An ancient warrior harboring these kinds of bitter thoughts is always alone in any crowd. I feel sorry for him.
 
He said not one word about the community. He mentioned the condition of his deafness.

As long as we're dealing in hypotheticals here: if a woman longed for a child, hoped for a child, dearly wanted to have children, and suffered miscarriage after miscarriage and felt sad and sorry about it, would you tell her "just get over it, dear, it's not really a loss, it's all in your perception. You should join the culture of the child-free."

Or would you have some compassion for her?

Just as a hypothetical, of course...
 
Back
Top