SV: The Amsterdam Manifest

[Greftegreff, Irene]

The manifesto states that "One main problem is that there has been  no full
access to academic discourse for the Deaf participants. This has partly to
do with the selection of official languages that were declared for the
conference." No explanation given. Exactly what was the policy of the
organisers, and why do the writers think that things did not work out, I
wonder? If I were one of the organisers of the conference, I would like to
have known!

This manifesto is not good news for research assistants and students from
countries outside GB and the US, because the proposed "solution" is for
everyone to learn ASL or BSL before they attend an international conference.
There is is a real conflict of interest between Deaf and Deaf, which is
obliterated by accessibility rhetoric on behalf of the group as a whole and
a call for a lingua franca or two as a cure-all. I can readily believe that
this manifesto is the outcome of a pavement meeting outside the conference;
a difficult matter dealt with by consensus.

It's a tragedy that Deaf researchers are not better organized than this.
Does anyone else feel like doing something about it?

I question the claim that BSL is "widely understood by Deaf scientists from
around the world". I have noticed is that BSL has been suggested a candidate
for an European "lingua franca", but that is not the same thing, not at all.

The following may be true for a lot of countries, e.g. the US: "Participants
who bring their own interpreters can afford to do so only because they are
receiving grants or have salaried jobs."  I'm happy to report that Norwegian
students can bring their own interpreters, all expenses covered by the Govt.

So I didn't fritter away the organizers' money in a financially ineffective
way at the TISLR in Washington.

Irene
(but I have, at other conferences...)