Should the Deaf Be Considered an Ethnic Group?

[flip]

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.

Thanks for explaining how science uses the term "ethnic".

At wikipedia, ethnic groups, the first sentence is
"An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.". The first thing mentioned as commong in ethnic group is language, at the beginning of the whole article.

You say that language not is a key factor? Are you sure about that?

 

[naisho]

If you are going to use wikipedia to refute your definition of the word, then so be it.. You already knew wikipedia doesn't represent the entire opinion and is edited by people like anyone here or even I can go change what it says.

You missed something important that constitutes your part of the definition.. it is a continuation of the main point, shown in red..
At wikipedia, ethnic groups, the first sentence is
"An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy."

The first word says heritage then branches off language as part of the heritage.

And yes, language is not the key factor that establishes the ethnic group.. You may have misinterpreted the meaning. It means a common language within the area, not that they use a different language.

See a listing of ethnic groups here:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html

Are you sure about that now?

 

[Reba]

See a listing of ethnic groups here:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html

Thanks for the interesting link.

I think one of the most interesting is Pitcairn Island. Talk about a tight-knit group!

 

[Berry]

Using the word "all" imply that only some hearing people are the enemies, not all of them. I'm curious who those few or many hearing enemies are, so I can protect myself?

Those who derive their own feelings of self worth by denigrating and oppressing D/deaf people, their deafness, and signed languages.

This is no different than those who derive their sense of self worth by doing the same things to people of other skin colors, the bodies adipose content, religion, etc.

They tend to come in two forms: One is the Bell subscribers who believe they know what is right for D/deaf people and are going to do it for them whether they want it done or not; and those who believe the world would be a better place if D/deaf people and ASL did not exist at all.

They are both easy to spot.

What is harder to spot are those people who hold ideas that are oppressive and denigrating, but who do not derive their own sense of self worth from those ideas. In their case it is the ideas that are the enemy, not the person.

 

[Berry]

Hearing people have often asked me, "How can a D/deaf person -- My own child, have a different culture than MINE?"

This is the story I relate, told to me by a Deaf man.

He was born of a white, middle class family in a small town. He was the only D/deaf person in town. His great grand father had been the mayor of the town. At that time there was also one D/deaf person in town. He slept underneath the courthouse steps and swept the sidewalks for food. His race, creed, color, religion, or ethnic background are unimportant.

Who do you think the Deaf man related too as a child? His grandfather, the mayor, or the man who lived under the steps?

 

[flip]

If you are going to use wikipedia to refute your definition of the word, then so be it.. You already knew wikipedia doesn't represent the entire opinion and is edited by people like anyone here or even I can go change what it says.

You missed something important that constitutes your part of the definition.. it is a continuation of the main point, shown in red..
At wikipedia, ethnic groups, the first sentence is
"An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy."

The first word says heritage then branches off language as part of the heritage.

And yes, language is not the key factor that establishes the ethnic group.. You may have misinterpreted the meaning. It means a common language within the area, not that they use a different language.

See a listing of ethnic groups here:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html

Are you sure about that now?

You wrote "Check out the ethnic groups on wiki for some examples.". So I did that. When I then ask you about the wiki definition, you instantly put down wikipedia as a source... Ok.

Heritage does not have to be biological, and is not here. As you notice, in the end of the sentence, it says "an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy." Endogamy can be within a social group or class, and also groups that share similar genetic traits.

Nowhere does it say a common language within "the area". You are right it does not necessary mean a different language.

I don't know if you are aware of it, but you are moving the goalpost by first saying "language is not a key factor", then replying to me with "language is not the key factor". I would agree language not necessary is the key factor, but I question your claim it's not a key factor. See the difference?

The CIA list of ethnic groups looks political and sociocultural in a global perspective, and that's what matters for CIA anyway.
Bahamas for example is: black 85%, white 12%, Asian and Hispanic 3% .

I'm not sure about anything.

 

[Reba]

Hearing people have often asked me, "How can a D/deaf person -- My own child, have a different culture than MINE?"

This is the story I relate, told to me by a Deaf man.

He was born of a white, middle class family in a small town. He was the only D/deaf person in town. His great grand father had been the mayor of the town. At that time there was also one D/deaf person in town. He slept underneath the courthouse steps and swept the sidewalks for food. His race, creed, color, religion, or ethnic background are unimportant.

Who do you think the Deaf man related too as a child? His grandfather, the mayor, or the man who lived under the steps?

His great-grandfather was the mayor. Did the Deaf man even remember meeting his great-grandfather, much less be old enough to know that he was a mayor?

What about the Deaf man's parents and siblings? What happened to them?

I don't know who he related to. If he was a child when the other Deaf person was an adult living under the steps, did they ever meet?

Isn't it possible for two people to relate to each other without becoming an ethnicity?

 

[flip]

Those who derive their own feelings of self worth by denigrating and oppressing D/deaf people, their deafness, and signed languages.

This is no different than those who derive their sense of self worth by doing the same things to people of other skin colors, the bodies adipose content, religion, etc.

They tend to come in two forms: One is the Bell subscribers who believe they know what is right for D/deaf people and are going to do it for them whether they want it done or not; and those who believe the world would be a better place if D/deaf people and ASL did not exist at all.

They are both easy to spot.

What is harder to spot are those people who hold ideas that are oppressive and denigrating, but who do not derive their own sense of self worth from those ideas. In their case it is the ideas that are the enemy, not the person.

Good description!

Those who have oppressive and denigrating ideas, but do not derive their own sense of self worth from those ideas, why do they keep them? That's my million dollar question. Er.. 1 dollar question, in case someone here knows the answer

 

[special K]

I don't feel they are equal in similar.
Wikipedia is good to find fast info. but I would not use it for the only source!

 

[flip]

His great-grandfather was the mayor. Did the Deaf man even remember meeting his great-grandfather, much less be old enough to know that he was a mayor?

What about the Deaf man's parents and siblings? What happened to them?

I don't know who he related to. If he was a child when the other Deaf person was an adult living under the steps, did they ever meet?

Isn't it possible for two people to relate to each other without becoming an ethnicity?

I don't know Berrys stance on ethnicity, but to me, this story show why it's possible to ask if deaf ethnicity is real. This story don't say it not is possible for to people to relate without becoming an ethnicity.

At a larger workplaces, with different ethnic groups, it's common during lunchtime, to see the different ethnic groups at their own table, and if it's deaf people there, deaf people will be one own group. What do we call that?

 

[naisho]

You wrote "Check out the ethnic groups on wiki for some examples.". So I did that. When I then ask you about the wiki definition, you instantly put down wikipedia as a source... Ok.

Heritage does not have to be biological, and is not here. As you notice, in the end of the sentence, it says "an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy." Endogamy can be within a social group or class, and also groups that share similar genetic traits.

Nowhere does it say a common language within "the area". You are right it does not necessary mean a different language.

I don't know if you are aware of it, but you are moving the goalpost by first saying "language is not a key factor", then replying to me with "language is not the key factor". I would agree language not necessary is the key factor, but I question your claim it's not a key factor. See the difference?

The CIA list of ethnic groups looks political and sociocultural in a global perspective, and that's what matters for CIA anyway.
Bahamas for example is: black 85%, white 12%, Asian and Hispanic 3% .

I'm not sure about anything.

I apologize for putting down your wikipedia reference. That is not what I actually meant. I can look hypocritical when I stated to look at the ethnic groups listed there, I don't question any of those ethnic groups are real groups, but I do question the veracity of the wikipedia definition for ethnicity. See my hypocriticalness?

regarding 'a' and 'the', ok, I can understand the nitpick between the word choice.
When I said "language is not a key factor", I am applying it to all current ethnic groups out there, as not all groups speak a same language. (compared with not all groups speak the same language)
When I said "language is not the key factor", it is directly tied with the definition used of ethnicity, as in not all groups speak the same language.

Do you see the context?

I am not sure if the following is semantics issue, but if you want to go into there, here's something I question:
How some of the deaf will receive SSDI payments if this turns into a group? You are moving a disability into an ethnicity.. I am not 110% sure on this, but I don't think the USA gives taxpayer money to a group that is based on a similar ethnicity, other than re-payments to Native Americans for past war and land issues. Moving taxpayer money to pay an equally represented ethincity sounds unlawful and against the basis of the Constitution of the USA.

In other words, I don't think they give welfare money specifically for black people because they qualify just by being black. For D/deaf people right now, they get free money just by being deaf alone. Once you move it from a disability to an ethnicity, they should be equally no different than any other group and therefore lose that privilege of SSDI. This also means no Schedule A, or ADA and such things that pertain to disability services. Do you want to see this affected?

Remember the golden words on any employment form?
"COMPANY NAME does not discriminate or hire against the basis of race, ethnicity, religion (etc).."

The deaf will get even worse opportunities applying for employment when that happens, because Schedule A will be out since it is a hire based on disability.

You can't have both, it's only one or the other.

 

[Reba]

I don't know Berrys stance on ethnicity, but to me, this story show why it's possible to ask if deaf ethnicity is real. This story don't say it not is possible for to people to relate without becoming an ethnicity.

At a larger workplaces, with different ethnic groups, it's common during lunchtime, to see the different ethnic groups at their own table, and if it's deaf people there, deaf people will be one own group. What do we call that?

A clique?

j/k (That would be high school.)

 

[Reba]

...Remember the golden words on any employment form?
"COMPANY NAME does not discriminate or hire against the basis of race, ethnicity, religion (etc)..".

Heh, heh, depends on the company.

How about this one for inclusion?

"It is the policy of the Company, personally subscribed to and supported by us, that there shall be no discrimination in any employment practice against any qualified employee or applicant for employment because of his or her
protected group status, including race, color, gender (including pregnancy,
childbirth and related medical conditions), national origin, religion, creed,
age, marital status, sexual orientation, family care status, medical condition as defined by California law, ancestry, physical or mental disability, or status as a veteran with disabilities, veteran of the Vietnam Era, or other eligible
veteran."
http://gallo.com/PDFs/EqualOpportunityEmployer.pdf

This one's a little shorter:

"It is the policy of Sunoco Logistics to afford equal employment opportunities to all qualified individuals, without regard to their race, color, ancestry, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, physical or mental disability, citizenship status, veteran status, gender identity or expression, or any other characteristic or status that is protected by federal, state or local law."
Equal Employment Opportunity Statement | Sunoco Logistics

This one even includes smokers:

"The University of Kentucky is committed to a policy of providing equal employment opportunities to all candidates regardless of economic or social status and will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, creed, religion, political belief, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, or age. The University does not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of Vietnam-era veteran status, disabled veteran status, or physical or mental disability in regard to any position for which the employee or employment applicant otherwise meets minimum qualifications. The University does not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because the individual is a smoker or nonsmoker, as long as the person complies with the University policy concerning smoking."
Equal Opportunity Statements - University of Kentucky

 

[Berry]

His great-grandfather was the mayor. Did the Deaf man even remember meeting his great-grandfather, much less be old enough to know that he was a mayor?

As he told the story to me I would bet he never met either. His family was proud of the mayor in their family tree. However he was never given the impression he might grow up to be the future mayor like great grand dad.

When he learned about the man under the steps he was assured that in modern times people would have seen he had a better place to live than that.

He knew that had he lived back then he would have lived under the steps. He would not have been mayor and he knew that in the 1920's he would fare little better -- People would make sure he always had food and a real room to sleep in.

What about the Deaf man's parents and siblings? What happened to them?

Nothing happened to them. The question is what happened to him. He left because it is very lonely to be the only D/deaf person in a small town where no one spends time talking to you.

At some point he knew there were D/deaf people in the cities who knew how to talk with their hands. So he went. He knew my friend's Deaf Parents. That is how I met him.

I don't know who he related to. If he was a child when the other Deaf person was an adult living under the steps, did they ever meet?

In psychology is a concept called identification. Most people know it instinctively. The idea is simple. People tend to relate to those people whose experiences most closely resemble their own.

Except for the happenstance of genetics he had no visceral connection to his grandfather. He could not picture himself as a mayor -- But he could picture himself living under the steps and people politely ignoring him.

Isn't it possible for two people to relate to each other without becoming an ethnicity?

This has to be a rhetorical question as no one could entertain it without a tongue in cheek attitude. I do not understand its presence here or what it has to do with the anecdote. It does not seem to be humorous.

The point is not whether they can relate to each other without becoming an ethnicity -- The point is that people can relate to each other so strongly that the bond can be stronger either the ethnicity or the culture they were born to.

 

[Reba]

...This has to be a rhetorical question as no one could entertain it without a tongue in cheek attitude. I do not understand its presence here or what it has to do with the anecdote. It does not seem to be humorous.

The point is not whether they can relate to each other without becoming an ethnicity -- The point is that people can relate to each other so strongly that the bond can be stronger either the ethnicity or the culture they were born to.

My question was neither rhetorical nor meant to be humorous. I'm serious.

I understand how the Deaf people in your story could identify with each other. I asked my question because it seems to me that people can identify or relate to each other because of common experiences or situations but that doesn't mean they make up an ethnic group.

Since the topic of this thread is about ethnic groups, I don't understand how the presence of a question about ethnic groups doesn't fit in this thread.

 

[Berry]

Using the word "all" imply that only some hearing people are the enemies, not all of them. I'm curious who those few or many hearing enemies are, so I can protect myself?

Those who derive their own feelings of self worth by denigrating and oppressing D/deaf people, their deafness, and signed languages.

This is no different than those who derive their sense of self worth by doing the same things to people of other skin colors, the bodies adipose content, religion, etc.

They tend to come in two forms: One is the Bell subscribers who believe they know what is right for D/deaf people and are going to do it for them whether they want it done or not; and those who believe the world would be a better place if D/deaf people and ASL did not exist at all.

They are both easy to spot.

What is harder to spot are those people who hold ideas that are oppressive and denigrating, but who do not derive their own sense of self worth from those ideas. In their case it is the ideas that are the enemy, not the person.

Good description!

Those who have oppressive and denigrating ideas, but do not derive their own sense of self worth from those ideas, why do they keep them? That's my million dollar question. Er.. 1 dollar question, in case someone here knows the answer

Unfortunately I do have an answer. Not one I particularly like, partly because it flies in the face of a society that likes to think of itself as at least literate. In school no one is taught to question their assumptions. Instead the are taught conformity. If you are taught to question in school those questions are aimed at understanding and learning that which is being taught -- No where is the student taught to question the assumptions held either by themselves or the writer of the book or the teacher of the lesson.

one succinct definition of culture is "Those shared convictions/assumptions that are accepted so deeply that no one even thinks of questioning them."

People around them believed it, maybe someone they respected said it, and that settles it.

Or to put it another way, "Pure damn laziness."

 

[Berry]

My question was neither rhetorical nor meant to be humorous. I'm serious.

I understand how the Deaf people in your story could identify with each other. I asked my question because it seems to me that people can identify or relate to each other because of common experiences or situations but that doesn't mean they make up an ethnic group.

Since the topic of this thread is about ethnic groups, I don't understand how the presence of a question about ethnic groups doesn't fit in this thread.

To me that stated in bold is obvious. Of course they can.

The point of the story is not to exclude that which is not stated. The point of the story is that there are distinct grounds for considering Deaf to be an ethnic group.

As to identification without ethnicity let me tell you of my own history, though I may have related it before. I look white but I have a lot of Native American Indian blood. I am neither. I am a halfbreed.

One of my many times removed great grandmother's was kidnapped from her tribe and sold on the auction block as a slave.

When a black man whose great grandmother was a slave and a white man whose great grandfather owned slaves are in the same room -- Whom do you believe I feel a greater connection/identification with?

It would be one stretch to consider we now make up an ethnicity.

The question to resolve then is "At what point does identification equal an ethnicity?"

But the first question I would suggest, and the one I have no idea how to tackle is, "Would being considered an ethnicity be an advantage or a disadvantage to D/deaf people."

Fortunately other people are beginning to discuss this question in this thread.

 

[BecLak]

So, N....

What does it do when I put in the census DEAF as race?

I see it like this: You can be African-American, German American etc; Australian Greek, Australian Italian, First Australians etc. sooo....you can be American Deaf, Australian Deaf, Asian Deaf, European Deaf etc.

Same thing......or you can even go further and say African American Deaf etc.

 

[Steinhauer]

But wouldn't that be like saying that all who use spoken languages comprise one ethnic group?

Depends on the spoken language. Are creole speaking people in an ethnic group?

 

[flip]

But wouldn't that be like saying that all who use spoken languages comprise one ethnic group?

Depends on the spoken language. Are creole speaking people in an ethnic group?

According to the CIA ethnic group list, Bahamas is: black 85%, white 12%, Asian and Hispanic 3% .

Now, are black people an ethnic group? Yes, on Bahamas.

I've seen people curious about how many deaf people there are at Gallaudet University, and people are also interested knowing how many hearing people it is. Like 80 percent deaf and 20 percent hearing. One could question if this is ethnicity based on spoken and signed languages.