Should the Deaf Be Considered an Ethnic Group?

flip said:
Yes, it's so. Or, you can belong to both. Sometimes things are true, even if you can't imagine it.
Click to expand...
Then how about all with a certain hair color become an ethnic group? I mean where do we draw the line somewhere?

Maybe it's also a question of that some of the deaf are closer to their family than others.
 
flip said:
...An advice: don't take everything too personal. That's one of the most common mistakes I see parents on this board do.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I'm betting that the hearing parents of deaf children are constantly put on the defensive by both sides.

We only see what happens at AD. But the parents have to deal with school and medical "experts" who try to push the parents in the CI/oral-only direction, in addition to well-meaning but uninformed family members and friends who email them all the latest advancements in hearing restoration. Not everyone they live with agrees with their choices, and some of them let that be known in no uncertain terms.

It's a miracle that any of them even find their way to AD, much less post anything.

A generation ago, most parents wouldn't even have had this much insight and access to both sides of the coin.
 
CSign said:
I wrote that statement bearing in mind that some individuals who are deaf have had a negative experience with a hearing person. Just as some hearing individuals have had a negative experience with an individual who was deaf. So if they choose to perceive that individual as an enemy, I respect that.
I would like to think that people who are hearing are actually not the enemy at all, and want what's best for everyone. I think the negative experiences some have had all go back to the person being uninformed about deafness.
I get tired of reading posts that refer to "hearing people" as if we are the enemy and are incapable of making informed decisions. It gets old fast.
Click to expand...

Note that I said nothing about "parental decision" or "parental choices."
 
flip said:
Most hearing people have proved themselves to be incapable of making totally indepedent "informed decisions". In reality, it's more a luck and go choice than a real informed decision.

I don't care if that makes you tired to read this, and me an enemy of you, because it's a fact. Else you wouldn't get this tired by chanting "parental decision" to deaf ears that don't get what you are talking about.

The idea that some deaf people in this thread look at hearing people as the enemy is truly paranoid. I feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...

You brought the term "parental decision" into play.

I am not one who supports creating a divide. I also do not support stereotyping people for any reason, but particularly stereotyping people who are deaf or those who are hearing.

If you don't see it in the other threads, then you don't see it. I do. I find that it's not helpful in any way and sets the tone in a negative light.

If others want to stereotype, have at it. I just find it counterproductive as most of the hearing individuals on this forum from what I've read do in fact use sign language.
 
flip said:
PFH reasoned his comment in his L1 post.

The "informed choices/decisions" slogan paired with "parental rights/choices/decisions" in deaf education, orgins from the oral camp. I don't expect you to understand the problems caused by oralists today and in the past, but you perhaps need to understand that the slogan is created in a polarized environment and loaded with politics, giving you a specific kind of feedback. Asking people to shut up by telling them to "consider your words before typing them", don't work.

An advice: don't take everything too personal. That's one of the most common mistakes I see parents on this board do.
Click to expand...

Asking someone to consider their words is far different from telling them to "shut up" or "attacking" them as you mentioned in your other post. You said I attacked, which is quite the descriptive word but far from an accurate description of my post. That is why I said, "consider your words" attack in that case was not an appropriate word to use as their was no attack. I would never tell someone to shut up.

I also don't take things personally, I am responding to what I see on this
forum. Responding to something doesn't mean you're taking it personally, nor does it mean a person is being defensive. It means that they have a response to a comment.
 
Side note: I absolutely know and understand the history of Oralism and the fight those who are DHH have endured.

Never at any point in my life have I supported Oralism in any way, shape or form.
 
Many of us here have can speak and have an oral conversation but those of us who were lucky also had access to sign language as well as needed support services in the educational system. There's also many of us did that did not have these things and literally struggled academically and socially leading to issues as adults. I find myself placed in the latter group where I was d/hh and had no access to support services in the education system (aside from grade 2 when I was given an FM system and I did beautifully academically that year making the honor roll only to have that taken away when the other students and parents became jealous of my 'excessive attention'.)

Looking back I was socially awkward because I was not able to pick up on cues that hearing children could. The things I should have learned socially as a pre-teen/teen I had to learn in my early 20s. Even as an adult d/hh there are certain job opportunities I'm afraid to go after because of my lack of hearing and the lack of understanding by the hearing such as working in a fast food restaurant where orders are often spoken across the kitchen. I'm not 'office material' because I've never had an office job aside from my internship during my senior year of high school. Because of my lack of hearing - many see me as 'not as intelligent' or 'can't follow directions' or whatever their reason is. When I worked at Tyson, I was hired in as USDA Helper. When they found out I was d/hh they were going to bump me from that position and move me to a lower-pay grade position. I threw a fit, I told them what accommodations they could provide that were reasonable and I told them to give me a chance. I was put in a position where I could do the job and I did well at it. Many of the USDA Inspectors commented that I was one of the best trimmers they ever worked with. This floored the GMP and supervisor. My lead at the time (before Amanda) was also severe-profound loss of hearing and wore bi-lateral HAs, she had this look on her face like - I told you she could do it if even a chance. After that I think they were jealous a bit that I could do so well despite being d/hh. However I felt like it was an issue for them whenever I tried to sign for other higher pay grade jobs such as QA and OSO as another person was always chosen over me despite having more qualifications for the positions. (I had two years of post-high school education as well as multiple years of poultry experience in various capacities whereas the others had a GED only and had only 1-2 years of poultry experience).

But that's ok, I'm no longer working for them and I'm pursuing higher things such as the completion of my Bachelor's and toying with the idea of going to work for USDA-FSIS under a Schedule A letter to get a waiver for my deaf ear as I can still perform the essential job functions with or without hearing.

People see me as 'different' and I think it's because I have my own behaviors and ways of dealing with the hearing world. People don't understand that there is a large deaf/hh community out there that understands and is willing to help wherever possible. There are many deaf/hh that are not on disability payments and choose to work.

What still irks me is that my dad knows I can do things but he always tells me I should hide my hearing problems for employment reasons like he's ashamed that I was born d/hh. I feel like he specifically chooses not to understand when he's not even in my shoes. My mom is more understanding but not completely understanding. They both feel that I should just get a job at a poultry plant somewhere and just stay there until retirement. It's like if I don't conform to their hearing culture I'm counterculture or that a lot of my struggles are because I'm not trying hard enough.

If you can't hear you can't hear - this shouldn't be the basis for people to believe that the deaf/hh are 'lesser'.
 
CSign said:
You brought the term "parental decision" into play.

I am not one who supports creating a divide. I also do not support stereotyping people for any reason, but particularly stereotyping people who are deaf or those who are hearing.

If you don't see it in the other threads, then you don't see it. I do. I find that it's not helpful in any way and sets the tone in a negative light.

If others want to stereotype, have at it. I just find it counterproductive as most of the hearing individuals on this forum from what I've read do in fact use sign language.
Click to expand...
I think I know what you mean with "some deaf people" stereotyping in other threads, but where you see stereotyping, I see cultural differences and people failing to communicate with each other. The fact that you don't comment it going the opposite direction, by "some hearing people", too, makes your claim appear biased and irrational.

I don't know your views, but there is an alert that goes off once someone pulls the term "informed decisions", though it's nothing personal. Else, I'm sure you are doing a great work beeing a parent, and I, and most people I believe, don't judge or approve people based on if they know ASL or not. That would be insane.
 
Hohtopics said:
Then how about all with a certain hair color become an ethnic group? I mean where do we draw the line somewhere?

Maybe it's also a question of that some of the deaf are closer to their family than others.
Click to expand...
The definition of "ethnic" is not limited to genetics, according to dicitionaries.

It's probably individual like you say. I'm not a scholar, but almost looks like the definition of "ethnic" lacks a clear consensus. This probably influences the debate wether deaf people are ethnic or not.
 
Reba said:
To be fair, I'm betting that the hearing parents of deaf children are constantly put on the defensive by both sides.

We only see what happens at AD. But the parents have to deal with school and medical "experts" who try to push the parents in the CI/oral-only direction, in addition to well-meaning but uninformed family members and friends who email them all the latest advancements in hearing restoration. Not everyone they live with agrees with their choices, and some of them let that be known in no uncertain terms.

It's a miracle that any of them even find their way to AD, much less post anything.

A generation ago, most parents wouldn't even have had this much insight and access to both sides of the coin.
Click to expand...
True. I don't envy them, and hope they get a good time raising their kids inbetween everyone telling them what to do.
 
Something to think about.

How easy are ethnic groups to identify?

Even in the USA, if I go to Chinatown, the barrio, Little Korea, Harlem, Little Italy, etc., I can easily tell which ethnic group lives there by the sights, sounds, and smells. Each area has distinct looks (skin color, clothing, hairstyles, buildings), sounds (music, language being spoken) and smells/tastes (foods and beverages). Digging deeper, one would notice behavioral specifics, too, such as how the people interact with each other (greetings, personal space, courting).

If I travel to various countries, those things would also be noticeable to varying degrees.
 
If a deaf person thinks another person isn't deaf enough to be considered ethnic deaf, how does this work?!?

In ethnic groups right now people can always stay in one without question as long as they can show their bloodlines were from it.
 
special K said:
If a deaf person thinks another person isn't deaf enough to be considered ethnic deaf, how does this work?!?

In ethnic groups right now people can always stay in one without question as long as they can show their bloodlines were from it.
Click to expand...
Good question.

Reminds me of "coconut", a term used when a black person acts like a white. Ethnic on the inside or the outside?
 
Reba said:
To be fair, I'm betting that the hearing parents of deaf children are constantly put on the defensive by both sides.

We only see what happens at AD. But the parents have to deal with school and medical "experts" who try to push the parents in the CI/oral-only direction, in addition to well-meaning but uninformed family members and friends who email them all the latest advancements in hearing restoration. Not everyone they live with agrees with their choices, and some of them let that be known in no uncertain terms.

It's a miracle that any of them even find their way to AD, much less post anything.

A generation ago, most parents wouldn't even have had this much insight and access to both sides of the coin.
Click to expand...
That's a good point. Cause they didn't even have the internet back then when my parents were raising me as a deaf kid. And I could see that there were probably more pros to it. Cause it enabled them to raise me as they saw fit and went according to my own skills, desires and talents. And didn't have to be swayed by according to the way other deaf adults thought I should be raised.
 
flip said:
The definition of "ethnic" is not limited to genetics, according to dicitionaries.

It's probably individual like you say. I'm not a scholar, but almost looks like the definition of "ethnic" lacks a clear consensus. This probably influences the debate wether deaf people are ethnic or not.
Click to expand...

You should specify what definition you're using, then. If you mean a sociologically/biologically scientific definition of "ethnicity" then yes, genetics is a required part (in addition to the cultural part).

Dictionaries merely define words as they're used, however, rather than being a sole and pure arbiter of the veracity of it. If people can't agree on the definition of a term, then they're probably trying to sneak in some additional meaning that isn't explicitly defined in the definition they're using.
 
StSapphire said:
You should specify what definition you're using, then. If you mean a sociologically/biologically scientific definition of "ethnicity" then yes, genetics is a required part (in addition to the cultural part).

Dictionaries merely define words as they're used, however, rather than being a sole and pure arbiter of the veracity of it. If people can't agree on the definition of a term, then they're probably trying to sneak in some additional meaning that isn't explicitly defined in the definition they're using.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is perhaps why it's so hard to get anywhere when using the term ethnic, even if it's applicable.

To make this more complicated, there are no clear definitions of race or culture. As a sociologist/biologist, one learn the limits of those terms. Genetics have learned us that terms like "species" can be misleading and confusing. If you travel by car through the world, you will notice that the swift from one race to another isn't clear.

It looks like it's a lot of culture/politics/history in the word "ethnic", even if one argue that one use a biological definition.

But, hey, I'm not a scholar, just making guesses here.
 
flip said:
Yes, this is perhaps why it's so hard to get anywhere when using the term ethnic, even if it's applicable.

To make this more complicated, there are no clear definitions of race or culture. As a sociologist/biologist, one learn the limits of those terms. Genetics have learned us that terms like "species" can be misleading and confusing. If you travel by car through the world, you will notice that the swift from one race to another isn't clear.
Click to expand...

I am both, and I see it from both arenas.
The true definition in the biology field of ethnicity is used to classify "differences between humans". Differences between humans as where they are identified by people through DNA nucleotides.

See an example study from Stanford here where the word ethnicity is explicitly used to define biological differences between humans. In this particular case, it makes mention to G6PD, glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase, which is an enzyme responsible for ATP and energy synthesis in cells as it travels through the bloodstream. The particular article focuses on a deficiency that explicitly affects certain 'ethnicities', which in this case, are the Italian blood-related persons because their body does not produce enough of it compared to a human from another region. These are just a few of the problems you'll find out from time to time that affects a person from one region moreso than another, because of a genetic issue.

Socially, and in some cases sociologically, ethnicity is generally defined by the culture in that group, because the types of humans (as in color, or race, whichever you call it) that share something in common. Which is why you have some people who are thinking ethnicity just means the culture, and pride to it. True american patriots feel united through the 4th of July, for the same reasons olympic gold medalists feel a sense of relatedness when their national anthem plays after their win.

Yet, during the 4th of july, blacks and whites can equally feel a sense of patriotism even though it applies to the "white colonists" more specifically. Asians and hispanics are less likely to feel that sense of union, simply because they don't have the heritage associated with it. Which in a boundary like this, it applies to the social realm.

In the legal world today, the biological definition almost always takes over the social definition. I'm pretty sure you won't find any hospital willing to change it on their forms. In the social world, whatever goes, no one is going to judge you based on what you personally feel aligned with. It has less prevalence than the bio definition when we are not speaking in legal terms, so that is why whatever goes in that arena.

Language is not a key factor, as there many ethnic groups that consider themselves different from another group, yet speak the same language. Check out the ethnic groups on wiki for some examples.
 
flip said:
But, hey, I'm not a scholar, just making guesses here.
Click to expand...

Any person may assume an article like the original website posted in the first post is generally catered towards the educational society than it is a social blog/opinion post.

The author (in the original article) is trying to establish claims on the legal level and is addressing people formally. It is only fair to dispute it legally because that is the general method in legal issues. No one without common sense will argue "I think I am ethnic because I feel so!" because anecdotes like these don't pertain when we are addressing something that can potentially change the world, evidence is required to back it up before saying it.
 
Back
Top