This entry’s title,”AGBell rejects plaque honoring him”, is an imaginary newspaper headline, had Alexander Graham Bell been alive in 1979.
Bell would not have wanted the honor, the plaque, the NTID building named after him. The plaque’s inscription could not have stated it any better, that his work in deaf education was his true passion, however, for the simple reason that NTID did and does not embody his communication philosophy, Bell is rolling in his grave steaming mad.
Alexander Graham Bell abandoned his eugenics movement, but he never abandoned his efforts to stop anything that encouraged deaf people to continue using sign language. NTID would have been one of these.
NTID, with complete absurdity, honors him. NTID is honoring someone who doesn’t want to be honored by NTID. Bell would have cringed under his breath–then spoke out about how terrible it was that such an institution existed, tarnishing the very name of the school that wishes to honor him. The irony!
We’d be doing him a favor by re-naming the building! Seriously, he’d be one happy fellow. As would I.
Email This Post
Posted on December 19th, 2007 by tayler
December 19th, 2007 8:05 am
Hi there,
I did not know AG Bell gave up his eugenics movement. Can you tell me what happened?
Thanks
deafchip
December 19th, 2007 8:55 am
He’s pissed that it’s at NTID rather at Gallaudet. IJK beats him to it, LOL.
December 19th, 2007 11:32 am
That’s too bad!! Luck enough that our government made decisions that any kind of Deaf student can go, instead of pure oralists alone!! Reason? Ahem, NTID needed the government’s money, lol… (grants).
Then AGBell ought be mad at the US government instead!
deafk
December 19th, 2007 1:53 pm
Deafchip, Bell giving up eugenics is an interesting story in itself. Maybe you’ve inspired me to make it into its own entry.
Stay posted!
December 19th, 2007 2:11 pm
About AGBell abandoning eugenics is a new information for me, too…
Curious how he gave them up…thanks. deafk
December 19th, 2007 5:07 pm
It did not occur to me that he had to give up to pursue his Eugenics movement at one point since I thought he was actively involved until his death. I was wondering if the invention of the phone (that he had claimed) was the main cause of distraction? Or that he was being challenged by certain individuals who were against Eugenics? Or that he just realized that this movement was getting nowhere? Boy, you surely caused my curiosity driving madly!! I hope someone can answer this question!
December 19th, 2007 5:35 pm
It is my understanding from a book, “Silcion Valley” in 1994 (?) that Bell experimented on CI in the New York lab. The experiment was abandoned for some reason or other. He also wrote a proposal to Congress to sterilise deaf people, but Congress ignored his proposal (other researchers say that Congress disposed of the paper). He was the FIRST man to experiment with cloning sheep on his farm in Newfoundland, Canada. (The SECOND man to experiment was Ian Wilmoth in Scotland and successfully cloned on a sheep named Dolly. ) Actually, Bell discouraged deaf people from marrying one another vigorously all his life. If one said that Bell was kind in some way, I would second because he encouraged his descendants TO HIRE deaf people to work at the National Geographic Society that he and his father-in-law Hubbard had founded. Five deaf women and I were hired as clerks in the Editorial Department of the NGS.
December 19th, 2007 5:56 pm
@Jean
AGBell wasn’t a geneticist. He did not experiment with cloning. He however had a hobby of breeding livestock.
The “Bell” that experimented with “CI in the New York lab” is most likely Bell Labs, not AGBell himself.
Yes, AGBell submitted a proposal to sterilize deaf people, but it wasn’t to Congress. It was to the National Academy of Sciences in 1883. The paper was titled “Memoir upon the formation of a deaf variety of the human race“.
Yes, AGBell fought to forbid deaf people from intermarriage until his death.
December 19th, 2007 8:50 pm
Tayler,
If you are planning to write an article about AGB, I thought you might be interested in reading pp. 265-68 and 353-375 in Harlan Lane’s book, “When the Mind Hears” (1984).
Whereas Clerc looked at deaf people as a social diability as well as a linguistic minority, Bell regarded deaf people as “deviance” and this “deviance” must be stopped as a variety of human race because it could result in a concern of race suicide in USA, pp.356-359). Bell was a strict believer of monolingualism, p. 341. For eugenics, see pp. 353-361.
I would also recommend John Van Cleve’s book, “A Place of Their Own” (1989).
February 11th, 2008 9:16 am
Good post! Well written!
Send this to Alan Hurwitz?!