The Selma Of The Deaf Analysis

“The Selma of the Deaf:” A Historical Analysis

In the words of Maya Angelou, “history, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.” This statement is rich, as it discusses an emotional of experience, which cannot be emulated by ‘textbook-history’, but also mentions one of the most commonly perceived purposes of ‘textbook-history’: that history ought to be studied and preserved for the benefit of mankind in order to avoid repeating past mistakes. This is a valid reason; however, history is also a valuable format for teaching about the human condition, cultivating an appreciation and understanding of the present, and analyzing patterns to better predict the future. Essentially, history

Hlibok’s childhood, in which he described his experience growing up in a deaf household. Quickly, the conversation shifted to Hlibok’s early schooling experience having begun his education at Lexington school for the deaf, but transferring, at the age of six, to a hearing school. He explained that, “the experience was horrible…there was no communication, no interpreters, [and] no note-takers” (Sibarium_ _ _) so, after bringing his mother to witness the classroom, he returned to the Lexington school. He clarified that, despite his deaf household and schooling, he was not sheltered from the hearing world, nor were all of his experiences with hearing people as bad as his first three months of first grade. Hlibok then recounted his decision to “go to Gallaudet and also take classes at George Washington University in engineering” (Sibarium_ _ _) so he could continue pursuing engineering, but still attend the prestigious deaf school. He went on to discuss his earliest memory of wanting to be a lawyer; having mentioned that he changed his major. In that discussion, he described the discouragement he received when he was young for desiring to study law, “because in the 1970’s there were very few interpreters and even less that could interpret for lawyers” (Sibarium_ _ _). The interview transitioned into the immediate context of the event, in which he described the attitude towards the university president as relatively positive, but “there was no strong attitude. It was more internal” (Sibarium _ _ _). He went on discuss his role as the Student Body Government president and the early advocacy for a deaf president with which he assisted. Hlibok then elaborated on an instance in which he obtained the attention of the students in the cafeteria and “got people thinking that it was time now to get a deaf president” (Sibarium _ _ _). The interviewed proceeded with a conversation about the “ducks”, a group of Gallaudet