150 Years on Kendall Green: The Blog

Hello, everyone! I just want to take a moment to check in. First of all, I’m noticing a number of comments. For the most part, they’re great, and I hope more of you will start to feel comfortable with joining in and commenting. I plan to respond and join in as well, once I’ve finished with these posts. That’s my priority right now. Regardless, I encourage you and any readers that are lurking to join in the dialogue. I’m also hoping that conference participants and presenters will also add their thoughts at some point.

However, since we’re on the subject of comments, I want to remind everyone of the house rules. There have been a handful of comments that are inappropriate/irrelevant. I’ve had to delete or moderate them. If you are here to share your thoughts, have a conversation about the history involved, or even debate a historical theory, so much the better. If you are going to make throwaway, one-line attacks or ad hominem assaults on any person’s character, your comment will either end up in moderation or be deleted. This is not something I enjoy doing, but this blog is not a freewheeling, “anything goes” place; it is for everyone, yes, but it is an academic forum first and foremost. As such, there are limits and rules. Please review them.

Finally, I want to mention that while I know some or all of these posts have or will generate a great deal of interest, they are primarily summarizations/transcripts of the work of scholars. They are not verbatim accounts. It has come to my attention that some people are excerpting or linking to this blog and its posts. That is acceptable, as long as you credit me and this blog (it would also be nice if you acknowledged the presenter as well). To do so otherwise is dishonest, and is more commonly known as plagiarism. Please remember to cite your sources and give appropriate credit any time you quote from or reference any material from this blog. Thank you for your time. Now let’s get back to the conference! =)

It’s just 24 hours or so until the conference kicks off. As soon as I receive my final instructions, I’ll be able to share a much more exact approximation of what you can expect. There will definitely be summaries of presentations and papers, as well as the evening events. I’m also hoping to be able to conduct an interview or two, and give you the flavor of the conference, as well as a sense of where the proceedings will lead to after the conference concludes.

In the meantime, I thought I’d ask one final pre-conference question of you, as the audience. So far you’ve been a rather quiet bunch, but I think it’d be fun to hear about what YOU think! After all, the entries I post will be about what *I* think, what the presenters/speakers think, and what the attendees in the conference audience think.

My question: What does Deaf history mean to you?

In just a few days, the fun will begin. I’m not leaving for DC until Tuesday, but I have no doubt presenters and attendees are starting to pack, starting to travel, starting to arrive in our nation’s capital. In the meantime, I’d like to continue to share a few thoughts and questions for you, as we rapidly approach the beginning of this conference.

A lot of times, people think history involves trained historians and researchers, important people with degrees who teach at universities, present papers, and are knowledgeable about everything. But a lot of times, the work they do depends on armchair enthusiasts– those history buffs that collect materials, do research, volunteer at their local museum or history library, and yes, attend conferences such as these. Sometimes they’re just people who are passionate about a particular topic, but other times they’re social studies teachers, genealogists, hobbyists, and other interested individuals who don’t have formal training or education beyond a bachelor’s degree, yet they contribute what they can to the study of history.

Where Deaf history is concerned, these people are rather important. It’s still a small and growing area of study, and the contributions from amateur historians and the average person can shed light on previously unknown topics. Since our history is still relatively young, there are people living today that embody much of that history. That’s where people like you can come in.

What can we do about Deaf history from a local perspective? One idea is to interview older deaf residents in your families, schools, and communities. What was it like growing up? How were they educated, and where? What events did they personally experience? Who did they meet, or know when they were young? Where did they live as adults, and why? What clubs or groups did they belong to– did they found these groups, or participate in leadership roles?

It’s not just personal and local history that can be accomplished through such interviews. At a time when the Deaf blogosphere is debating the origins of signs, it would be interesting to interview older deaf people and capture their regional slang, older versions of signs (think of “car,” “popcorn,” and “train”– these are examples off the top of my head of signs that have changed), and mutations of present-day ASL. For example, anyone who’s ever seen “Love Is Never Silent” remembers Ed Waterstreet’s character, Abel Ryder, using the old two-handed sign for “telephone.” This is just one of the more well-known examples of signs that no longer exist, or have mutated into new incarnations. Thus interviews can accomplish many things: the story of a person’s life, their community, their extended network, and their linguistic knowledge.

Sometimes such interviews don’t even have to focus on deafness– or maybe they do, but in an interesting way. For example, Robert Panara’s humorous recounting of how he got to meet Babe Ruth was an interesting tidbit on the recent program “Through Deaf Eyes.” It related to his personal experience as a deaf person, sure, but it also spoke to the power of public figures and icons in an era long gone.

Interviews are just one way to capture and preserve Deaf history. What else could you do to explore and shape Deaf history on the local level?

Good morning! A week from today, the conference will begin. It will only last three days, but the papers presented will become part of the historical record, and may lead to further articles, research, or may form chapters in a book, or even be the basis of a larger volume or dissertation. I’ve been informed there will be a healthy turnout at the conference itself, and of course, you’ll be joining me through cyberspace and following the proceedings as well!

I thought we’d get the countdown started by opening the floor, so to speak, to some discussions. For today, I’d like to consider the present state of Deaf history. It’s an exciting time– we have a number of historians, both amateur and trained, who are exploring Deaf history in a number of ways. These days, the ranks of amateur historians who are deaf have now swelled as the number of trained Deaf professionals are entering academia. A number of these professionals have earned doctorates or are pursuing doctoral studies. Deaf people are teaching Deaf history at Gallaudet and at CSUN [disclosure: I'm co-teaching the course at CSUN this term]. We’re moving above and beyond the articles in the AAAD and the seminal publication of Deaf Heritage, written by Jack Gannon, these many years ago.

Today, Deaf history has a small but growing number of books, monographs, and other publications. My question to you is this: What areas or subjects do you see a need for further research in? What gaps need to be filled?

I’ll start the ball rolling: So far I see a dearth of published material on the early 20th century. We have a good number of works about the 19th century, and a lot of auto-biographies and contemporary works regarding the second half of the 20th century, but only a handful of books or articles covering a broad swath of the early 20th century.

What about you? Where do you see a need for further research, published material, etc.?