AD lacks any member who would known as an expert in the fields of structural anthropology, ethnolinguistics and/or anthropological linguistics. However, it has been held by these experts that ancient civilizations without any written language, and therefore no reading, were restricted in their culture development due to the ability to mass communicate. This simple means that until written language came about one generation could not share learned ideas with a future generation. Recognized are cave drawings and picture writing, which in themselves lead to a written language. Even today there are civilizations without a written language, and we all know how oppressed these are compared to others in the United Nations. Those who are experts in the fields always say that the more developed a language is, and they do include reading and writing into their equation, the more advance the civilization.
Again, though, nobody is advocating in favor of ASL entirely by itself. ASL is being advocated as a replacement/alternative for
spoken English. To the best of my knowledge, nobody is trying to convince the parents of a newly born deaf child to teach the child ASL and
nothing else, which is what you're acting like some people are doing.
Jillio ask the question: "Who teaches ASL only?" To me that is beside the point here, as you can go back and read that I'm focus on those who communicate in ASL-only. This seems to be a difficult idea for most to understand. However, I'm not "picking on" ASL-only deaf. I'm only acknowledging they exist. Here in Houston with its large deaf population, I would say 15% of the deaf I socialize with are ASL-only. One of the ways I know is because our monthly ASL social, Latino social and other socials are held at sit down restaurants. You can identify the ASL-only deaf by the fact there can not read the menu and need help, which I among others provide.
Within the U.S.A.hearing population would you be willing to agree with me that 15% can not read nor write? I think the percent is close but can offer no proof.
That's very likely due to their parents and education system not teaching them
any language early in life.
A question for you. Which of the following scenarios do you think is more likely? (Note to jillio and shel - I know the answer, I want to see if rolling is
actually claiming what he seems very much to be claiming.)
1) Among ASL users there is a higher illiteracy rate than non-ASL users because the acquisition of ASL as your first language inhibits the development of other written/read languages, such as English.
2) Among ASL users there is a higher illiteracy rate than non-ASL users because parents and the education system attempt to teach reading and writing to ASL users the same way they try to teach non-ASL users, which is less effective for ASL users.
3) Among ASL users there is a higher illiteracy rate than non-ASL users because of some other reason than those mentioned in #1 or #2.
Depending on your answer, there are tests that could determine whether that's actually the case or not, which are not subject to personal biases. Let me know if you're willing to look at those.
Now moving on to fault. Yes, it can be said for both deaf and hearing that the education system is lacking, however, I live in a "no excuse" world that I set my responsibility on ME. If for some reason I'm lacking in any area, I get busy and do what is necessary.
So... you're blaming the victims now? How large of you.
Which, once again, brings me back to fault. Granted young children, hearing and deaf, were deprived but in the U.S.A. today there are many rectifications (I'll quickly admit more for the hearing than for the deaf) and those who choose to ignore the rectifications are at fault and have only themself to blame.
More victim blaming. If you're harmed, then it's your own fault.
Re-read my post, please. I posted of my experience here in Houston and the number would be close to 15% who communicate in ASL-only. Perhaps you don't know of any and perhaps you don't know of any hearing people who can't read/write, however, as posted, I've met plenty. Is it your position that all deaf and hearing know how to read/write?
See my questions above.
For the child/minor it would be the responsibility of the parent(s) but you already knew that. For the adult, it would be their own responsibility. The rectifications are out there and, no excuse, the deaf/hearing person can get busy finding them and using them.
Even more victim blaming.
It will always be a proven fact that people who can not read/write will be oppressed. Those deaf you refere to as not being oppressed are NOT ASL-only, they know how to read/write, which in turn means they have learn a second language, English (our their mothers tongue). Hearing people who speak and THAT IS ALL, are as Shel90 says, oppressed. People who use ASL and THAT IS ALL are oppressed.
Oppression is the actions of outside forces pushing those with less options than them back down. Illiteracy is oppression if options which are available to others are withheld to you, generally for reasons outside of your control (such as being born deaf).
to be illiterate or not, then bringing that up in the middle of a conversation about language acquisition certainly makes it seem as though you think that certain methods of language acquisition directly affect literacy, which is not the case.
My parents did the best they could at the time, and in retrospect, they were wrong to think that the oral-only approach was the way to go. I am still paying for it today in a lot of ways but have come to accept it as my bad luck. My parents made an "informed decision" at the time, and what was wrong then is still wrong now. Today so many parents are deluged with "expert opinions" but the one thing they have in common is that they come from hearing people. 
