Ella's Flashlight

Maria

Maria

Active Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
10,305
Reaction score
0
What do you think of this ? Do you agree with Ella's version about " deaf-mutes" ? Share your opinions and point of views here. :ty:

Ella's Flashlight
a Deaf mute's search for Deafhood enlightment

Ella’s Flashlight » Reclaiming “Deaf Mute”
 
No, I am more accepting of ALL levels/kinds of deaf folks and for me to go back and re-visit the old Deaf mute concept and bring it to the fore repulses me.
 
First of all, thanks for the link to that site, I didn't know about it and look forward to seeing more from Ella.

I think some of her points are interesting but I don't know if I agree entirely. I don't agree that the derivation of the sign DEAF justifies the use of the term "deaf-mute." However, her points about "deaf-mute" being reclaimed the way other historically oppressed populations have reclaimed negative labels, and also about the use of the term as a specific identifier to distinguish from CODAs, HOH, etc., are well taken.

The problem comes with the part she mentions at the very end. She says the term is not for those ignorant about deafness to use. The problem is, the general public isn't anywhere nearly as aware of Deaf culture as they are of gay culture, black culture, etc. I think it's more or less generally known by now that gay people call themselves "queer" but it's still an insult when straight people do it. However, like I mentioned in the thread about Rinko Kikuchi, the term "deaf-mute" is not recognized by the general hearing public as an insult.

To my way of thinking, there needs to be more awareness of the negative connotations of this term BEFORE Deaf culture can reclaim it. Otherwise, Deaf people who call themselves "deaf-mute" are simply reinforcing the notion that it's a perfectly fine thing to call someone.

And that's my two hearing cents' worth. :)
 
Thanks for the link. That was very interesting.

I agree with Interpretrator that the term deaf-mute, in and of itself is not insulting. The problem is that it has been used by those unfamilar with Deaf culture in a very denigrating and insulting way. I too fear that if it is once again deemed acceptable within the Deaf community, those in the hearing community that remain ignorant of deafness and the culture will assume that it is acceptable for them to use as well.
 
I'm sorry but the beam of Ella's flashlight is too dull for me.

Richard
 
Well I have to say that I think that instead of reclaiming the term, we should come up with a new term. Mute just sounds so old fashioned. We should have a term for those who are Deaf, but don't have oral skills.
 
deafdyke said:
Well I have to say that I think that instead of reclaiming the term, we should come up with a new term. Mute just sounds so old fashioned. We should have a term for those who are Deaf, but don't have oral skills.
Click to expand...

How about non-oral Deaf?
 
deafdyke said:
Well I have to say that I think that instead of reclaiming the term, we should come up with a new term. Mute just sounds so old fashioned. We should have a term for those who are Deaf, but don't have oral skills.
Click to expand...


Ok, do you have any idea what's a new term after you view from Ella's version ? I am curious what do you see inside Ella's version ? Is there somethin' you would like to share your point of view via opinions with us ?

It would be interestin' to see what the deaf community is all about.
 
jillio said:
How about non-oral Deaf?
Click to expand...

That is never going to catch on because the general hearing public mostly is going to have a very different concept of what "non-oral" means.

What's kind of interesting about all this is that Ella fingerspelled M-U-T-E the whole time. If Deaf culture is going reclaim the term "deaf-mute", shouldn't there be a sign for it, or at least turn M-U-T-E into a loan sign?
 
Interpretrator said:
First of all, thanks for the link to that site, I didn't know about it and look forward to seeing more from Ella.

I think some of her points are interesting but I don't know if I agree entirely. I don't agree that the derivation of the sign DEAF justifies the use of the term "deaf-mute." However, her points about "deaf-mute" being reclaimed the way other historically oppressed populations have reclaimed negative labels, and also about the use of the term as a specific identifier to distinguish from CODAs, HOH, etc., are well taken.

The problem comes with the part she mentions at the very end. She says the term is not for those ignorant about deafness to use. The problem is, the general public isn't anywhere nearly as aware of Deaf culture as they are of gay culture, black culture, etc. I think it's more or less generally known by now that gay people call themselves "queer" but it's still an insult when straight people do it. However, like I mentioned in the thread about Rinko Kikuchi, the term "deaf-mute" is not recognized by the general hearing public as an insult.

To my way of thinking, there needs to be more awareness of the negative connotations of this term BEFORE Deaf culture can reclaim it. Otherwise, Deaf people who call themselves "deaf-mute" are simply reinforcing the notion that it's a perfectly fine thing to call someone.

And that's my two hearing cents' worth. :)
Click to expand...

Right, I agree. And, you are welcome. But, the fact is that I don't like the idea of seein' some hearin' people treat deaf people as 2nd class citizens...oh, just because they are " deaf " and they treat to some deaf people like kids. Gee :roll:
 
Last edited:
Interpretrator said:
That is never going to catch on because the general hearing public mostly is going to have a very different concept of what "non-oral" means.

What's kind of interesting about all this is that Ella fingerspelled M-U-T-E the whole time. If Deaf culture is going reclaim the term "deaf-mute", shouldn't there be a sign for it, or at least turn M-U-T-E into a loan sign?
Click to expand...

Please explain why the general hearing public is going to have a different concept of non-oral. Not that I truly think it would ever catch on--just throwing out a response to dd suggestion.
 
jillio said:
Please explain why the general hearing public is going to have a different concept of non-oral.
Click to expand...

Because "oral" has a sexual subtext. And before you say "no one would think that," believe me, I've gotten questions. I rarely use the terms "oral" or "non-oral" now with people not in the deaf community.

Also, the words "oral" and "aural" are easy to mix up if not pronounced carefully, which would further confuse hearing folk.

I think the deaf community can come up with as many terms as it likes (as in the debate over "deafness"/"deafhood"), but in practical terms, it makes little difference in the hearing community. Those ignorant of Deaf culture's very existence aren't going to care or understand different terms for different deaf identities. I still think there's work to do in reducing "deaf-mute" to "deaf" as used in the hearing community.

I did think about writing to Entertainment Weekly regarding their use of the term "deaf-mute," but I don't wish to speak for the deaf community. Interestingly, this was the same magazine that, in its review of X-Men 3, drew a parallel between the mutants' division over receiving the treatment and the deaf community's debate over CIs. I thought that was pretty enlightened but I guess that doesn't apply to the rest of the magazine. (Probably the reviewer saw Sound and Fury.)
 
Interpretrator said:
I did think about writing to Entertainment Weekly regarding their use of the term "deaf-mute," but I don't wish to speak for the deaf community. Interestingly, this was the same magazine that, in its review of X-Men 3, drew a parallel between the mutants' division over receiving the treatment and the deaf community's debate over CIs. I thought that was pretty enlightened but I guess that doesn't apply to the rest of the magazine. (Probably the reviewer saw Sound and Fury.)
Click to expand...

I once wrote a blog entry on it...

http://banjosworld.blogspot.com/2006/09/x-men-deaf-and-cochlear-implants.html
 
Interpretrator said:
Because "oral" has a sexual subtext. And before you say "no one would think that," believe me, I've gotten questions. I rarely use the terms "oral" or "non-oral" now with people not in the deaf community.

Also, the words "oral" and "aural" are easy to mix up if not pronounced carefully, which would further confuse hearing folk.

I think the deaf community can come up with as many terms as it likes (as in the debate over "deafness"/"deafhood"), but in practical terms, it makes little difference in the hearing community. Those ignorant of Deaf culture's very existence aren't going to care or understand different terms for different deaf identities. I still think there's work to do in reducing "deaf-mute" to "deaf" as used in the hearing community.

I did think about writing to Entertainment Weekly regarding their use of the term "deaf-mute," but I don't wish to speak for the deaf community. Interestingly, this was the same magazine that, in its review of X-Men 3, drew a parallel between the mutants' division over receiving the treatment and the deaf community's debate over CIs. I thought that was pretty enlightened but I guess that doesn't apply to the rest of the magazine. (Probably the reviewer saw Sound and Fury.)
Click to expand...

:ty: I get what you were saying now. Just had a blank spot in my comprehension for a mintue! LOL on the Sound and Fury comment.
 
deafdyke said:
Well I have to say that I think that instead of reclaiming the term, we should come up with a new term. Mute just sounds so old fashioned. We should have a term for those who are Deaf, but don't have oral skills.
Click to expand...

i agree
its a new age and maybe people (hearing) would understand more if its something new cause it show that things can change in terms of how to refer to ones self as did other cultures like blacks, aisans, etc...
 
I think that it should be something different than mute becuse deaf people can communicate in ways they just don't make noise doing it i know the is the def. for mute but i don't think it should be that.
 
Back
Top