By now going to the Heat cafe for breakfast was routine, and one could see many more Deaf in the cafe. I sat down with the Deaf Finnish group, to catch up talks with the lovely Kaisa of whom I had met in Finland. We all walked to Humboldt University, to the same auditorium where the speakers would be.

The first of 9 speakers was the keynote speaker, Dr. Carol Padden of University of California, San Diego. Her lecture was entitled "History and Genetics: Stories of Deaf People", and this title didn't do her lecture justice. Padden wove a fascinating history of how we became Deaf from 1825 on. She picked her own family as a case history: her father's parents, her father, her older brother were all "born Deaf", and she and her mother "became Deaf" through illness. She told how in the old days Deaf schools had records of how Deaf became that way: born Deaf, became Deaf through: fright, illness, fell off horse...seems silly, she said, but then that was what was on those school records in 1825. By 1953, through Silent Worker articles, Padden found that the reasons that caused deafness continued to be the same as in 1825. However, in 2006 the reasons have become narrower: only by genetic deafness or real serious illness. The reasons have changed face, Padden stated, which leads to a new line of thinking: so maybe more of us are really Deaf from genetics? She discussed how Deaf people differ in their thinking about Deaf genes from scientists - for Deaf people, they talk about relatives and family who are Deaf; wonder about marrying Deaf people who have Deaf genes and maybe having Deaf children; and so forth. For scientists, Deaf genes are a disorder, trait and as a research aid.

So, Padden's point in all of this is that she believes that genetic engineering, testing and so forth will change the face of Deaf future. She pointed out that Deaf family stories may change, Deaf people may make genetic choices and Deaf people will know what caused their deafness. She believes that we the Deaf must stay up to date with information coming out of the genetic research field, if we are to protect our Deaf future. After Padden's speech, strong comments were made:

Rabbi Fred Friedman of USA: "I don't like the way this is going. I fear that if the genetics field knows who has the Deaf marker, they will use this information against us. The U.S. government may take advantage of this information, like the Nazis did with the Jews."

Flip DelMonte of Holland: "Just a thought: if Deaf parents choose a Deaf child, then the Deaf child grows up. What if that Deaf child finds out the parents chose that child to be Deaf, and that child really wants to be hearing? That could be psychologically damaging. So, I believe natural process is better than genetic engineering!"

Jochen Muhs of Germany: "I agree with all, and this is a very sticky business. But we must know what is going on, in order to do something about it."

Whew, eh?

The second speaker was Dr. Paddy Ladd, none other than Mr. Deafhood himself! His lecture was entitled, "Deafhood and Future Directions of Deaf History Research". He made a dramatic entrance: wearing a suit, but with long hair and earrings, a blue ribbon in the name of Deaf like the red ribbon for AIDS and announced he was lighting a candle in the memory of the late Bernard Mottez. So very Paddy indeed. He then proceeded with his lecture by stating what he will discuss: review the past 25 years of Deaf History research, identify its weakness and propose future direction of Deaf History research. He identified the past 25 years as the first wave of Deaf History research titled "Deaf Resurgence". He thanked Jack Gannon and Harlan Lane for spearheading the start of Deaf History research to new heights. He basically believes that this period of research covered histories of Deaf individuals, institutions, national history and so forth. However, he said there were weaknesses in this period: Deaf communities, Deaf thoughts/beliefs, Deaf philosophy and more about Deaf women - all of which were seldom mentioned. So in the next second wave of Deaf History research, he stated, we should cover these topics plus sign language patterns over the ages, variety of Deaf peoples and so forth - this would be called Deaf Reconstruction, he said. The next part of his speech was quite enthralling: why we should have "Deafhood" readings. He pointed out the 19th century Deaf French banquets where the Deaf French would discuss their own Deaf philosophy. Paddy gave a good example of this Deaf French thought: "Massieu and Clerc felt that there were two groups of languages - natural and artificial. Natural languages belonged to the Deaf and the savages. Artificial languages belonged to the hearing people. They believed that language was linked to Deaf biology. This was why Deaf people were more of a global group; they were the Sign Language peoples. Therefore, they were among the First Nation people, those who believed that they belonged to Earth, not vice versa." These are mind-boggling as well as thought-provoking, eh? I could see that most people in the auditorium were grinning. Only Paddy could go off on a tangent like this and have people smile. He ended his lecture with this quote, "Deafhood History is within us all."

The third speaker was a Deaf woman named Teresa Blankmeyer Burke who is affiliated with Gallaudet. She will get her PhD from University of New Mexico soon. Her lecture was entitled "Ethics, Genetics and Deaf Perspectives" - Burke was very academic in her presentation, but I noticed there was some confusion in the translating process with the two interpreters on stage - so sometimes it looked like she supported the philosophies she was talking about. She was presenting these arguments for the sole purpose to make us think and defend ourselves against it. What she was basically saying is there are several essays that argue against the Deaf "out there", and we need to be aware of these arguments. For example, she pointed out an essay that wrote about how genetical nanotechnology will greatly reduce numbers of the Deaf.  Another essay probed the question of genetic selection versus genetic design - is there a moral harm in these processes? There were also essays on eugenics, she stated, and they referred to a duty to race, a duty to society. Burke hoped that in the future one of us will write essays to dispute these theories.

The fourth speaker was one of our own CSUN's Deaf professors, Jordan Eickman, who spoke about "Tracing Deafhood: Exploring the Origins and Spread of Deaf Cultural Identity".  Eickman explained the key concepts of Deafhood and Deaf Community Pillar. Most of us knew what Deafhood was, but Deaf Community Pillar? Eickman explained that Deaf Community Pillar is basically a foundation upon which four groups sit on: 1) schools for the Deaf, 2) Deaf Clubs, 3) Deaf Sports groups and 4) Deaf National Association. Deaf Community Pillars maintained the existence of the Deaf community and served educational, social and political purposes. Thus, Deaf Community Pillars influence Deaf identity. This was where Deafhood came in: the actualization of Deaf identity. Eickman posed a rhetorical question: what can we learn from these areas of Deaf Community Pillars, now grouped together as Deafhood geography? Eickman suggested that we learn the locations of where the stronger areas were or the weaker areas were. These locations would become a visual geographic impact, in which one can see where the Deaf-centered leadership was, the use of sign language, and where pro-Deaf rights legislation takes place. Eickman showed maps on his power-point presentation, especially those in England - a "before and after" map. He also showed a map of Germany, showing where the Deaf Community Pillars were. Eickman admitted that he has not finished doing research. It would have been powerful to show the map of Germany before 1940 and after 1940, because I believe it would show how much damage Hitler had done to Deaf Germany. Even though this subject warranted more research, Eickman was off to a start.

The fifth speaker was Pfarrer Hans-Jurgen Stepf, a hearing German man. His lecture was about "Hitler's sterilization program and genetic research today". He started with Hitler's master plan before 1933 - with a belief in a duty to race - specifically the Aryan race. Therefore, Deaf people had to go! On February 28th, 1933 Hitler's Sterilization Act was passed before legislation. He went on and on about this Sterilization Act, genetic research and so forth. However, Stepf believed that there is a very fine line between Hitler's Sterilization Act and today's genetic selection - both aimed at cleaning up the disorders among humanity. Interesting thought, eh?

The sixth speaker was Mark Zaurov, leading a panel of Deaf Germans who had been either sterilized or were witnesses to the enforced sterilization: Fridolin Wasserkampf, Kurt Eisenblatter and Harald Wieckert.  Zaurov first explained about the Sterilization Act, and then introduced to us Fridolin Wasserkampf who had been sterilized. Wasserkampf then told his story: "When I was a young boy at the school for the Deaf, the teacher told us about the new Deaf Hitler Youth group. He made it sound like Boy Scouts. We were so excited that we all wanted to join. We did not know what it truly meant. Soon after my church told me I need to go to the hospital and have a small operation for our Fatherland. They did not tell me this operation would cause me not to have kids. I thought I was doing a great duty for Fatherland. When I got a bit older, I even wanted to join the war. They told me I could not do that, and I got mad. I was not even mad about the operation that made me sick for a few days. When the war was over, I still did not understand what happened to me until many years later in the 1950's. Understand, I am not depressed that I can't have kids - I am more depressed that we lost so many Deaf Jews." 

Zaurov then introduced us to Kurt Eisenblatter, another victim of the Sterilization Act. Eisenblatter was very animated when he told his story, and I found out why later - he helped found the Deaf Berlin theatre group! No wonder...back to his story: "My father worked for the Zoo here in Berlin. He was also in the Resistance. For this reason the SS came in one night and took us all - my father, mother, one brother and me.  They found my father's hidden documents, and my father and mother were sentenced to five years in prison. My hard of hearing brother and my Deaf sister were sterilized, but I wasn't because I was younger, they were waiting for the right time. I went back to school and was very depressed at the thought of not seeing my parents for a long time. I knew I had to follow orders; otherwise I would end up like my father. I hated to salute "Seig Heil", because sometimes one had to hold up the salute - I'd get tired, and my arm would fall on someone's shoulder and someone would kick my butt to put my arm back up! I also saw many Jewish stores and synagogues burned down. I knew I had to keep my mouth shut. 

Another animated Deaf German, Harald Weickert, was introduced by Zaurov as another victim of this so-called Act. Weickert's hands flew the moment Zaurov said his name: "I agree with Kurt about what happened, but I want to add something else - when we went to our schools for the Deaf, the teachers wanted us to write our family trees! That is how the Nazis found many Deaf people. My mother and father were Deaf, and my father had to be sterilized too. So was I, and I did not understand. My mother was so upset that she couldn't tell me why. Now I know. Also, many of our schools were in sign language by 1932 - when Hitler became Chancellor they all turned to the oral system. I did not like that at all!"

There were three more speakers after this, but then I've had a long day - I still feel this is quite important to share - ALL of what I've learned. More to come tomorrow - those three speakers, plus Day 4 of DHI conference. Good night and kisses from good ole' Los Angeles.