Respect for all

Hey Jackie...read this letter from AGBell and why the discrimination against the signing Deaf community continues...u feel that we discriminate against oralists.. They are the ones who are making false statements like these.....


January 31, 2008
Ms. Julie Hamp Senior Vice President
PepsiCo Communications
700 Anderson Hill Road Purchase, NY 10577
Dear. Ms. Hamp,
On behalf of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG Bell), we are writing in regards to the airing of your upcoming Super Bowl commercial highlighting deaf characters. Established in 1890, AG Bell is the only national organization dedicated to supporting children and adults who are deaf or hard of hearing who use spoken language and hearing technology to communicate in mainstream society.
Although we appreciate Pepsi’s efforts to encourage new promotional ideas from your rank-and-file employees and your willingness to celebrate diversity, we would be remiss if we did not call your attention to the fact that your advertisement offers a limited view of the deaf community. Since you have chosen the Super Bowl as the forum to launch this campaign, and because of Pepsi’s size and stature, we feel a responsibility to offer our perspective on this somewhat misleading stereotype presented in your advertisement.
We trust you understand that deaf and hard of hearing individuals are a diverse group and therefore do not fit into a single, distinct culture. Your advertisement perpetuates a common myth that all people who are deaf can only communicate using sign language and are, therefore, isolated from the rest of society. In fact, today’s hearing technology, coupled with early screening identification and intervention, has led to incredible advances in listening and spoken language skill development. Of the more than 30 million Americans who live with hearing loss, the majority use spoken language as their primary mode of communication.
We would also like to remind you that with the amount of money Pepsi will spend on just one 60 second spot to air during the Super Bowl, you could help an untold number of families obtain hearing aids and other professional services that are costly and in many cases not covered by medical insurance. We would be very willing to work with Pepsi to develop some creative ideas to promote other facets of the deaf community and to highlight positive role models who have met the challenges of this condition and thrived using spoken language. In addition, we invite and encourage your participation at our 2008 convention to be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, June 27-30; the largest gathering of families with deaf and hard of hearing children in the world.
Your continued involvement in this issue would go a long way to educate the public about this oftentimes invisible condition and promote appreciation for those individuals that go above and beyond to overcome the absence of something many of us take for granted – the miracle of sound.
Sincerely,

Signing deaf people are not isolated. If they are, I havent met them and I literally have met thousands of deaf people in the 10 years I have been involved in the Deaf community.

Their statement about deafness as "this condition" is a strong medical viewpoint of deafness and the way it is stated, it is a bad thing. They make deafness into a negative thing therefore making the parents see it as a terrible thing when it doesnt have to be. So the parents transfer that negative view to their deaf children making them feel negative about themselves. U can deny it all u want..I have seen it professionally, personally, and here on AD when new members come in this forum sharing their experiences of dealing with their parents' denial about their deafness.


Many deaf people who grew up using spoken language didnt "thrive" from it. I was one of them. Instead, my self-esteem was practically zip so I engaged in self-destructive behaviors so I could fill in the empty feeling I had due to having no full connection with anyone because everyone used spoken language. Despite developing good spoken language skills, I felt isolated.


This is why many of us dont respect an organization like that or the people who support it.

BTW..AGBell, himself, encouraged the sterilization of deaf people so an organization with his name doesn't deserve respect. They just keep continuing with the lies and false statements about the Deaf community.

That is how many of us felt when u said stuff about ASL in your old posts especially in the CART thread when u first joined here. Many of us reacted strongly to your posts. What do u expect?

To many of us, ASL literally saved our lives from despair and depression, language deprivation, and from feeling completely isolated (as much as AGBell denies that) from being in all-hearing environment 24/7.

Anyone who comes in here and makes all these false statements about ASL or Deaf signers will not be respected immediately. Many of us continue to face discrimination and oppression out there in the hearing world so AD is a place for us to connect with each other. For people to come in here spouting the oralist philosophy along with lies or disrespect towards ASL (or any other sign languages) is not going to be warmly welcomed by many of us.

Some people will respect you, Jackie, and some people will not. I know that there are some people who do not respect me cuz of my stand on the oral-only philosophy. So what? That's life, but to make false statements about us just because we dont agree with your philosophy is going too far. I dont see any of us going around making false statements about u but u and Rick continue to do so. Come on, this is silly.

AgBell went too far with its protest to the Pepsi Commercial. It is a hot topic within the deaf community and of course many people are angry. We grew up being told that we cant do this or that and now AGBell is saying we cant have a signing Pepsi commercial? Society has made stereotypes about us and we have dealt with it and AGBell is whinnning about the commercial creating a stereotype about all deaf people signing. So FUCKING what. We deserve this recognization as tooo often in the past, deaf people who have beautiful speech were used as model in the media as "successful" ones and signing deaf people were seen or shown by the media in a negative light. Finally, we are being portrayed in a postive and humorous light. AgBell needs to take a chill pill.

U brought up about Mexicans being stereotyped and I agree with u...now can u try to see how the Deaf community feels about organizations like AGBell or oralists who are so extreme?

:gpost::gpost::gpost:

But to draw parallels requires critical thinking skills.:dunno2: Seems to be a skill in short supply in the oralist camp.
 
Some of parents and authority figures still do as of today. *Shudders at thoughts of abuse*

To believe that it doesn't still happen today is nothing short of being in extreme denial. The letter from A.G. Bell regarding signing deaf that was made public only a few days ago serves to prove that the same attitudes still exist. AVT, where the mouth is covered so a child is not permitted to speech read, or refusing to respond to a child who is communicating in sign until they use their voice is just as abusive as slapping a child's hand. It is the intent, not the method.
 
Something I have also thought about: Pure oralist professionals have no shame at being responsible for the failure rate (how about 75%--my guess) their single minded, one way only approach causes.

Exactly, Tousi. They focus on the 1 success while ignoring the cost that 10 have paid. I find that willingness to sacrifice so many for the 1 that they can hold up as a poster child objectionable. But it illustrates where their concerns lie. They are more concerned with making themselves appear to be magnanimous than with the well being of children.
 
flip - Please refrain from making statements regarding me that you do not know personally to be true.

Given the fact that you have posted on a public message board, and have stated your opinions thus opening yourself up to others forming an opinion based on what you have to say, I would say that we all personally know our assessments to be true. Just because you don't like what others personally know to be true doesn't mean it isn't valid.
 
Do u see any of us criticizing the other ADers on this forum who do not know sign language? Anyone criticize those members who dont know sign language? We are always welcoming them. I think u are trippin'.

The chill pill is sitting by my desk, I am thinking of giving it to u instead cuz I feel totally calm.

Frankly, shel, I don't have a problem with my son reading or responding to anything on this board. I am confident in the fact that he was raised to be secure enough in his identity, and free thinking enough to be able withstand any of these comments. I knew from the beginning that I would not be able to shelter him all of his life, and therefore, gave him the skills he needed to stay strong despite the discrimination in this world, and to not allow other's ignorance to affect his belief in his abilities or his value.

I am also proud that he sees that he is responsible for his education at this point, and places priority on that, and does not want to be distracted. There will be plenty of time for him to chat with others on this forum in the future.
 
To believe that it doesn't still happen today is nothing short of being in extreme denial. The letter from A.G. Bell regarding signing deaf that was made public only a few days ago serves to prove that the same attitudes still exist. AVT, where the mouth is covered so a child is not permitted to speech read, or refusing to respond to a child who is communicating in sign until they use their voice is just as abusive as slapping a child's hand. It is the intent, not the method.


These oralists who do that to signing deaf children better wish that I am not around to see that or there will be hell to pay from me. I will make a scene right there if I ever see something like that.

The child is trying to reach out and to neglect that is giving the message to the child that he or she is not loved nor cared for. I DO NOT TOLERATE that!!!!! Respond to the child whether the child is using spoken or sign language but DO NOT EVER IGNORE THE CHILD like that!
 
These oralists who do that to signing deaf children better wish that I am not around to see that or there will be hell to pay from me. I will make a scene right there if I ever see something like that.

The child is trying to reach out and to neglect that is giving the message to the child that he or she is not loved nor cared for. I DO NOT TOLERATE that!!!!! Respond to the child whether the child is using spoken or sign language but DO NOT EVER IGNORE THE CHILD like that!

Exactly. That is a very damaging message to give a child. "You will never be good enough until you do it my way. You have to speak to be accepted. Love is conditional on speaking. You will not be responded to if you don't act like a hearing child." That is the messages these kids are given. It is beyond me why people can't see the damage this does to a child's emotional and psychological development.
 
Exactly. That is a very damaging message to give a child. "You will never be good enough until you do it my way. You have to speak to be accepted. Love is conditional on speaking. You will not be responded to if you don't act like a hearing child." That is the messages these kids are given. It is beyond me why people can't see the damage this does to a child's emotional and psychological development.


:rl::rl::rl::rl:
 
:rl::rl::rl::rl:

Yeppers. I will continue to speak out agianst practices such as this that refuse to see chidlren as holistic beings and sacrifice their well being for the sake of speech. There is nothing wrong with allowing a child the opportunity to develop speech skills. But to place them in an environment that gives them the message that their entire worth is based on their ability to speak is destructive to that child. And those messages are communicated not by what we tell our children, but how we react to our children. To tell a child that "I don't mind if you want to learn some sign" is not enough if we don't demonstrate to them that we are willing to embrace it, as well. Something as simple as responding only in voice to a child's signs communicates to that child that speech is preferred and superior. People fail to see the unspoken messages they communicate. Unless you are willing to make the effort to act on what you say, what you say has no meaning.
 
Mod Note


*shrugs* C'mon folks, there's no need to lash out against one another, via accusations and more-- It's getting really tiring and above all, sets a variety of moods that anyone that comes in to 'read' and may eventually be turned off and leave. Keep this up...such actions as banishment will take place in order to bring about peaceable solutions whereas it's better to 'agree to disagree' than to aim fiery darts at one another. As for the need to aim these fiery darts, do it elsewhere, not here. It's an old adage implying: "Mine way is better than your way" and top it off with lots of disrespect, AD doesn't need these type of postings either.

Therefore, thread's closed--unsure at this time whether it'll be done permanently or not.



Peace out--
~RR
 
Mod Note:


Giving this thread another chance to breathe and new life--however, if it continues to escalate in a manner that inhibits belittling, not respecting the views of others, etc., thread will then be permanently closed and possibly any actions implemented to all those involved or contributed to the closure of thread.




~RR
 
Thank you RR, I promise not to get into argument nor even direct a comment to a person that loves to get under my skin.
 
My advise - eat a blizzard it makes you happy. I suggest snickers blizzard in not small but huge size.
 
from the usual anti-ci crowd
Rick, can't you understand that almost NO ONE here is anti-CI? Most of us realize that it's a helpful thing for those kids who get very little to no benifit from HAs. I just don't understand why when those of us who aren't totally gung-ho for CI, express concerns about them, we're attacked and called "anti-CI"
 
Rick, can't you understand that almost NO ONE here is anti-CI? Most of us realize that it's a helpful thing for those kids who get very little to no benifit from HAs. I just don't understand why when those of us who aren't totally gung-ho for CI, express concerns about them, we're attacked and called "anti-CI"

Yes, that's crazy how they label people as anti-CI while they are not. This proves how much Rick48 and other people identify CI with oralism, and how tight the connections between those two subjects are to some parents here.

What's true, is that I am one of probably less than 10 people that have declared them anti-CI on this forum, and I am proud of it as it makes me unique :D
 
My advise - eat a blizzard it makes you happy. I suggest snickers blizzard in not small but huge size.

Can you image it it is way to cold out here in sunn California to get eating ice cream and way too many calories on top of that. I was driving to work on Thursday and it was snowing not alot but it was snow, never happens when first time it was snowig on the freeway.
 
Rick, can't you understand that almost NO ONE here is anti-CI? Most of us realize that it's a helpful thing for those kids who get very little to no benifit from HAs. I just don't understand why when those of us who aren't totally gung-ho for CI, express concerns about them, we're attacked and called "anti-CI"


I agree somewhat you say. However, I've read some posts that the facts aren't true, and they spread around that CI is no good. That pisses me off that they're spreading stuff that aren't even true.

They would say stuff like, CI should never be implanted on children, CI sucks, Poor to those people who were ex-CIers, etc...then they don't back up their facts. There are posts that says "Why implant kids? Accept their deafness? who cares HA doesn't help. Use ASL. Don't use oral methods. CI destroys Deaf culture, etc" among those lines. THOSE people I call anti-ci because they won't accept the fact that CI is helpful for SOME people. I've always said that CI is not for everyone, and it's all based on personal choices (majority about parents implanting their children)

I'm sorry for those people who did not do the research beforehand (like many parents who implanted their children and thinking that they will be hearing, or adults with high expectations, etc), or the implant didn't work for them for various reasons (lack of training, bad surgery, bad implant, or as simple as it just doesn't work for them).

It's okay if people don't like CI because of personal choices, personal beliefs, etc, I have no problem with that, and I will not call you anti-CI. You can talk about why you don't like CI, and if it's a false belief, or false fact, it most likely will be attacked.

Sometimes I think of this subject as pro-choice, Pro-life. Pro life have their reasons why they are against abortion, and they back up their facts (which are true). Pro-Choice back up their facts as well. This battle won't win. same thing for Pro-CI, Anti-CI - the battle won't win. However, if both sides realize that "this exists", we can learn from both sides. I did not realize how many people out there that the CI doesn't work for them until I looked through this site or heard from others, but then I discovered the reason WHY it didn't work for them.

The one issue that bothers me the most is that some people will say, "See! Implant didn't work for him because HIS PARENTS FORCED CI!" Having the CI does not "fail" because of the force from the parents. Yes, there's some users that do not want to use their CI because they blame their parents forcing them to have CI, but it doesn't mean that the CI doesn't work anymore....it was a personal choice for this person not to have CI. I hope I'm making some sense in this statement...
It doesn't make me any more Pro-CI, or less Anti-CI. I am against CI for several reasons, and I'm an advocate for CI for several reasons.

Does that help clarify things a little bit? Mind you, this is from MY observation.
 
I agree somewhat you say. However, I've read some posts that the facts aren't true, and they spread around that CI is no good. That pisses me off that they're spreading stuff that aren't even true.

They would say stuff like, CI should never be implanted on children, CI sucks, Poor to those people who were ex-CIers, etc...then they don't back up their facts. There are posts that says "Why implant kids? Accept their deafness? who cares HA doesn't help. Use ASL. Don't use oral methods. CI destroys Deaf culture, etc" among those lines. THOSE people I call anti-ci because they won't accept the fact that CI is helpful for SOME people. I've always said that CI is not for everyone, and it's all based on personal choices (majority about parents implanting their children)

I'm sorry for those people who did not do the research beforehand (like many parents who implanted their children and thinking that they will be hearing, or adults with high expectations, etc), or the implant didn't work for them for various reasons (lack of training, bad surgery, bad implant, or as simple as it just doesn't work for them).

It's okay if people don't like CI because of personal choices, personal beliefs, etc, I have no problem with that, and I will not call you anti-CI. You can talk about why you don't like CI, and if it's a false belief, or false fact, it most likely will be attacked.

Sometimes I think of this subject as pro-choice, Pro-life. Pro life have their reasons why they are against abortion, and they back up their facts (which are true). Pro-Choice back up their facts as well. This battle won't win. same thing for Pro-CI, Anti-CI - the battle won't win. However, if both sides realize that "this exists", we can learn from both sides. I did not realize how many people out there that the CI doesn't work for them until I looked through this site or heard from others, but then I discovered the reason WHY it didn't work for them.

The one issue that bothers me the most is that some people will say, "See! Implant didn't work for him because HIS PARENTS FORCED CI!" Having the CI does not "fail" because of the force from the parents. Yes, there's some users that do not want to use their CI because they blame their parents forcing them to have CI, but it doesn't mean that the CI doesn't work anymore....it was a personal choice for this person not to have CI. I hope I'm making some sense in this statement...
It doesn't make me any more Pro-CI, or less Anti-CI. I am against CI for several reasons, and I'm an advocate for CI for several reasons.

Does that help clarify things a little bit? Mind you, this is from MY observation.

I think you have some very good observation and very respectful.
 
Rick, can't you understand that almost NO ONE here is anti-CI? Most of us realize that it's a helpful thing for those kids who get very little to no benifit from HAs. I just don't understand why when those of us who aren't totally gung-ho for CI, express concerns about them, we're attacked and called "anti-CI"

RR just opens this thread back up and asks not to have it go down the usual route and here you are starting just in as usual.

Sorry, I am taking my hackey sack and going home and then out to have a blizzard.

Go find someone else to have your circular argument with.
 
Back
Top