Language Acquisition For Deaf Children: Reducing The Harms Of Zero Tolerance To The Use Of Alternati

good article
it needs more deep discussion.
deny us our language, deny us our dreams.....
 
True, but for discussion it is a good starter. It is not saying to deny deaf sign nor dreams...
I am a bit shocked at some of the numbers it gives though....
 
its not saying to deny language or dreams
its a critique of denying language
but
when you deny language aquisition the result is denied dreams. and a robbed internal leadership fluent in the language.
its a serious thing
with huge ramifications
thats why they do it

simple really
 
Simple yes, buthe still missing a bit.
Thing is was looking at was the fact that if language acquisition is so important before three and it takes years before the implant can help, why deny sign to deaf childern?
Money, control, and eradication of deaf I do understand, even if I see it as wrong. But a child cannot say what is working and what is not. Read an article not looking good ago about a mother of three who implanted her deaf child because it hurt her not to see he son run up to his father to hug him when he entered the house... yet still can bear lyrics speak and is not give sign...
I have a hard time understanding this issue, a hearing child is encouraged to learn sign to better facilitate communication but a deaf child is denied saying it hinders it? I keep looking for unbiased research that proves this and keep coming to the same question... what logic is this? And the answers keep saying money and control.... but who knows, maybe I am wrong.
 
Jezie said:
Simple yes, buthe still missing a bit.
Thing is was looking at was the fact that if language acquisition is so important before three and it takes years before the implant can help, why deny sign to deaf childern?
Money, control, and eradication of deaf I do understand, even if I see it as wrong. But a child cannot say what is working and what is not. Read an article not looking good ago about a mother of three who implanted her deaf child because it hurt her not to see he son run up to his father to hug him when he entered the house... yet still can bear lyrics speak and is not give sign...
I have a hard time understanding this issue, a hearing child is encouraged to learn sign to better facilitate communication but a deaf child is denied saying it hinders it? I keep looking for unbiased research that proves this and keep coming to the same question... what logic is this? And the answers keep saying money and control.... but who knows, maybe I am wrong.
Click to expand...

the answer to your question on why deny Deaf children language really comes down to the ideology of oralism and the ideological framework of audism.
once you know those and see it through that prism denying us language and by extension an ability to form and cutilvate leaders that are fluent in our language from birth becomes rather clear
its been a corner stone of their philisophy and framework for over 100 years. obviously since milan but even before..
 
Yes I have looked and understand that... yet to hold onto beliefs of 100 and even 2000 years ago is ridiculous if it can and is proven wrong today. Look at how many other beliefs have changed and people became more informed. There has to be a way around this... I do understand how the world works and sadly I am a weird mix of jadedness and nativity when it comes to this... I understand and see it, but at the same time do not get what the big deal is. It is not like deaf are plotting world domination or anything....
 
Jezie said:
Yes I have looked and understand that... yet to hold onto beliefs of 100 and even 2000 years ago is ridiculous if it can and is proven wrong today. Look at how many other beliefs have changed and people became more informed. There has to be a way around this... I do understand how the world works and sadly I am a weird mix of jadedness and nativity when it comes to this... I understand and see it, but at the same time do not get what the big deal is. It is not like deaf are plotting world domination or anything....
Click to expand...

we havnt proven our position. nor could we given the array of power involved.
we resisted. clearly. and still do
but our wishes were not nor could they been taken seriously
the hearie know whats best for us Deaf,
the idea Deaf know whats better for Deaf or we should decide ourselves, was met ussually and still is with scoffs and dismissal.
assimilation is the answer
the rest be damned

once the huge windfall of loot was actually tatsed.
it was over

the rest was just maneuvering.
we kept tot he same approach same agruments.
they completely outclassed us
with teams of well paid lawyers, professional lobberiers in the centers of power, billion dollar multi national companies with a war chest in the millions for advertising and shaping the actual debate and framing the narrative.
we couldn't even come close.

and they new it
because they studied and took stock of our position and our capabilities as we chatted about useless nonsense amongst ourselfs.
aware of the danger, but unable to give an adequate response, especially when things went digital...

once they got technology to catch up with their dreams. that of a world of no Deaf-----they could taste assimilation and went into overdrive by getting gov involvement.
in nations with gov health care the deal was even quicker...

we were and are doomed.

look at the numbers
and tell me im wrong
 
look at this...


"Cochlear implantation has become the standard of care, so much so that in developed countries around 80% of deaf children are implanted, and in some places the figure is even higher"
Sign languages. Edited by: Brentari D. 2010, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

no kiddin......



"While many studies of the language and psycho-social development of implanted children conclude that cochlear implants are valuable, other studies of implanted children's language skills in daily communication beyond speech skills within a laboratory setting reveal that an alarmingly large percentage of implanted children are not receiving sufficient benefits and continue to demonstrate weakness in language competence. A closer examination of these studies finds that a significant number of these children do not communicate with ease in a speech-only environment even after years of rehabilitative training"
Gantz BJ, Tyler RS, Woodworth GG, Tye-Murray N, Fyauf-Bertschy H: Results of multichannel cochlear implants in congenital and acquired prelingually deafened children: Five-year follow-up. Am J Otol. 1994, 15 (2): 1-7.
13 more cites for this.

they dont tell the parents this before drill do they?

and....

"Sign language, on the other hand, is accessible to all deaf children, even to the deaf-blind child since there are tactile versions of sign language [35]. Yet many deaf children are raised in a strictly speaking environment and are not offered sign language until after the age of five or not ever"
Curtiss S: Language as a cognitive system: its independence and selective vulnerability. Noam Chomsky: Critical Assessments: 4. Edited by: Otero C. 1994, London: Routledge, 211-255...

monsters!!!!


and

"Frequently, they will urge parents to keep the child away from sign, offering the paradoxical justification that signing will be so "easy" that the child will lose motivation to learn to speak, and that the child can always learn a sign language later precisely because it is so easy "
Wrigley O: The Politics of Deafness: Family Handbook on Adult Hearing Loss. 1997, Washington: Gallaudet University Press

the very ones tasked with drilling a hole in your babies head...damn...


and

"This advice to avoid sign language is comprehensive and extends through both home and school"
Krausneker V: The protection and promotion of sign languages and the rights of their users in Council of Europe member states: Needs analysis. 2008, Strasbourg, FR: Council of Europe, Available online by Googling the title

now they are in your home.....

"Sometimes, families are encouraged or actually required to sign an agreement to this effect"
White T: The Deaf World: Audiologic considerations. 2008,

chilling......

heres more....


"40% to 74% of patients experience post-operative vertigo that can last for years"
87. Steenerson RL, Cronin GW, Gary LB: Vertigo after cochlear implantation. Otology Neurotology. 2001, 22: 842-843. 10.1097/00129492-200111000-00021.

yet the drill turns....

and

"Further, while in the early days of implantation children were not considered candidates unless it was clear that they were receiving very little language input auditorily, today children are implanted even when they recognize up to 30% of sentence material [92]. Since 30% is a better recognition rate than many children have post implantation, these children actually might be losing ground with respect to speech skills."
92. Tobin H: Rehabilitation Research and Development Service: Practical Hearing Aid Selection and Fitting. 1995, Baltimore: Department of Veterans Affairs

this is madness....
they keep expanding the market, based on snake charms, allowing them to get their paws on more of our children to drill into in the hopes of assimilation......
the numbers are frankly
scary


"No study has yet shown that a congenitally deaf child learns spoken language by means of the implant so that he/she can cope with normal communication outside the "
laboratory"
Priesler G: Cochlear Implants in Deaf Children. Council of europe. Committee on the Rehabilitation and Integration of People with Disabilities. 2001, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing,

as the drill turns......
 
It's all about who has the power...like other disenfranchised group...
 
and the rush to assimilate those who are deemed broken, sick in need of cure..

we have the cure.
its sign!!
 
if one is deemed broken, then it's ok to fix them....
but if someone believes they're whole the way they are, the question becomes the ideology that insists they're not <whole>
that is a threat to the ideology
 
dogmom said:
if one is deemed broken, then it's ok to fix them....
but if someone believes they're whole the way they are, the question becomes the ideology that insists they're not <whole>
that is a threat to the ideology
Click to expand...

indeed.
and its that ideology along with its framework that needs to constantly challenged...
frankly we need to become as good as agbell ha sin getting the truth out there..to oppose their lies..
 
Back
Top