Should the Deaf Be Considered an Ethnic Group?

[flip]

That's the point, he gets money because he's disabled as deaf.
Or else if he was just Indian, or any other group, they don't get any SSDI. Just as if you're black, you don't get a reason to get SSDI. Don't you understand? Once you move the disability classification to an ethnicity, it loses the disabled tag. Disabled does not mean ethnicity right now! This is a really basic concept, I'm not understanding how Deaf people don't understand this. If they changed their "Circle in the box" from "Indian-American" to Circle "Deaf", they are no longer classified as Indian American. The disability laws pertain to disabled people in that ethnicity, and it is never everyone in the whole group.

With the constitution of our nation, it deals with the 14th amendment.

Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights.


All ethnicity are currently treated as equal during the basis of any court ruling. Deafness is currently not an ethnicity but rather a disability, there are certain benefits that give disabled people opportunities over normal citizens, and Schedule A is one of these. ADA is another.

Disabled people feel they should have the same the same benefits as a normal citizen, so Schedule A came out for governments and businesses to hire disabled people directly without having to deal with the rest of the prospective applicants. SSDI is for the same disabled group of people, all of these qualifications only require being deaf.

Once you move it to an ethnicity, it is opening a big can of worms. Why is one ethnicity receiving better treatment than another? The hispanic-americans will be asking, "Why does this deaf man receive social security disability income while I can't, and we're both an equally represented ethnicity?" The white-american will be asking the same thing, and all of the races that are citizens in the USA will be questioning why they cannot have the same benefits if the 14th amendment states that all races (ethnicity in this case).

Even in the book, People of the Eye by Richard Pillard, who sparked this issue, he recognizes this as a problem and acknowledges you cannot have both without having a problem come up with it.

Remember, when you move it to an ethnicity, you are bound to lose the 'disabled tag' with it. You will be equally represented with any other ethnicity if the two of you would go to civil or criminal court, and you can't use deafness as an argument of why you should be favored for the court ruling.
Picture a particular case where the Deaf says, "But I couldn't hear the suspect coming very well, I'm Deaf." The defendant may pursue the issue that if you state this, the "hispanic american" should receive equal treatment due to the fact he's another ethnicity, as Hispanic-American. Therefore the judge would have to consider if your point about being deaf was valid - it's not valid anymore, because it's not a disability if it has became an ethnicity.

No I don't understand. Why can't you have both.

Some people claim deafness not is a disability. This does not necessary mean they demand ethnicity.

Pillard don't say that ethnicity and disabilities can't coexist. He says that it's issues including every deaf person in a deaf ethnic group. He also says you will lose something if reject the idea of disability totally.

What you can't have both ways, both rejecting disablility and still get benefits. It's not about both beeing ethnic and disabled.

Often, those who claims ethnicity, rejects disability, and that's perhaps where your idea that you can't be both disabled and ethnic arise from? You also have to remember that not all deaf people thinks those benefits are doing much good, and those people would say, "so" to your worries.

If I didn't miss anything you have written, you haven't explained why one is bound to lose the disabled tag when moving to ethnicity, only what may happen if one rejects disability and claims ethnicity at the same time.

 

[Berry]

Please remember the original purpose of the anecdote: It is to try to explain to hearing parents why their deaf child may very well be a Deaf child and belong to a culture other than their own -- And why the parents should join the Signing community so they can be part of their child's life. I put the anecdote here because I believe it also applies to a discussion of Ethnicity.

In the context of a discussion about deaf society and whether or not deaf people in general should be considered an ethnic group instead of a cultural group based on the commonality of not hearing, I'm not sure where your anecdote points. Are you using it to support a pro-cultural view? Or a pro-ethnicity view?

Once again logic is taking its toll on reason.

The question posed on the thread was not "Whether deaf people in general should be considered an ethnic group instead of a cultural group." The question in fact was, "Should the Deaf (note the capital D) be considered an Ethnic group."

It is not an either/or choice in logic. In fact quite the opposite. I cannot conceive of an Ethnic group without a solid cultural/linguistic base. My guess is that culture / language / traditions make up 90% of ethnicity. Without those three things ethnicity is nothing more than genetic heritage -- As in my mailman whose ancestors arrived on Ellis Island in 1900 calls himself "German."

Therefore in my opinion Deaf start out with 90% of the qualifications for ethnicity.

As to what Deaf "should" be considered please remember I am hearing -- And while I feel I have the right to state what I think Deaf "CAN" or "MIGHT" be considered -- I have NO right to state what Deaf SHOULD be considered.

 

[Hohtopics]

I then go on to explain to the hearing parent the fine examples and cultural experiences their child can have by joining the Deaf community -- Successful Deaf people they can look up to, such as Bernard Bragg, Gil Eastman, Clayton Valli, Trix Bruce, and Deaf President of Galladet.

The role modeling doesn't have to be limited to just "Deaf to Deaf", it could also be "deaf to deaf" or even "CI to CI", etc. Beside, wasn't Irving Jordan late deafened himself?

 

[GrendelQ]

Once again logic is taking its toll on reason.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

And you've posted an anecdote that you say is designed to explain to hearing parents why their children -- regardless of their existing culture, language, geography, genetics, heritage -- based only on the physiology of not being 'hearing,' can be considered a different culture than theirs. You add that this applies to the discussion abut ethnicity as well.

I think it's beneficial for a deaf child to be exposed to and, if possible, to accept and be accepted into deaf culture. But I don't believe that such identification with a group equals a change in ethnicity without the elements of heritage or origin.

In the article mentioned by the OP, Harlan Lane spoke about hereditary deaf (specifically American deaf of deaf), culturally deaf people with a common culture that he is examining in his book and other works as possibly -- because of a common heritage -- comprising a separate ethnic group. On this thread, several have proposed that this applies not just to that small set of families, but more broadly, to deaf, regardless of geography, heritage, customs, even language. Are you introducing your anecdote for hearing parents to support this. If not, why? I'm not understanding it in this context.

 

[naisho]

No I don't understand. Why can't you have both.

US Constitution Amendment XIV, Section 1

If I didn't miss anything you have written, you haven't explained why one is bound to lose the disabled tag when moving to ethnicity, only what may happen if one rejects disability and claims ethnicity at the same time.

What you can't have both ways, both rejecting disablility and still get benefits. It's not about both beeing ethnic and disabled.

US Constitution Amendment XIV, Section 1

Pillard don't say that ethnicity and disabilities can't coexist. He says that it's issues including every deaf person in a deaf ethnic group. He also says you will lose something if reject the idea of disability totally.

Often, those who claims ethnicity, rejects disability, and that's perhaps where your idea that you can't be both disabled and ethnic arise from? You also have to remember that not all deaf people thinks those benefits are doing much good, and those people would say, "so" to your worries.

Since every time I say something it is under scrutiny and criticism or the looking for some kind of loophole (I don't represent everyone), I'm going to refer you to Harlan Lane's texts, to which I acquire from my library, instead to see if you want to scrutinize his thoughts of the consequences involved, and see if you have anything to point out to him.

 

[flip]

US Constitution Amendment XIV, Section 1


US Constitution Amendment XIV, Section 1




Since every time I say something it is under scrutiny and criticism or the looking for some kind of loophole (I don't represent everyone), I'm going to refer you to Harlan Lane's texts, to which I acquire from my library, instead to see if you want to scrutinize his thoughts of the consequences involved, and see if you have anything to point out to him.

Ok, I am honestly trying to understand you. It hit me that we perhaps are talking about two different things.

I am asking if deaf people can be classified as ethnic at all, regardless of the disability perspective.

You talk about ethnicity as a tool to get away from the disabled perspective, and it's advantages and disadvantages. This is mentioned in the OP and your third scan from Harlan. Correct me if I'm wrong. In this debate, it don't make sense to have both, as the point is to trade disability with something better.

I fail to see how the debate about trading disability with ethnicity disproves that deaf people can be classifed as ethnic.

The two other scans:

The first scan:
Harlan mentions how the society have changed their view on alcholism, child abuse and gays. What this have with deaf ethnicity is something I don't get?

The second scan:
Here Harlan explains a well known idea that it's the society that is disabled, not the disabled individual. A good read for those unfamilar with this concept.

 

[naisho]

That is alright. I noticed a pattern you took in which the debate revolved around everything I mentioned, rather than proving your own personal points to why it should be this way. So far I had not yet seen any input as to why it should, that does not go around my discussion.

The first scan correlates to homosexuality, which refers to the same idea I speak about Gays deserving equal opportunity as an ethnic group if Deafs were to achieve it. (I have mentioned this quite a few times in this topic)

The second scan is towards the Blind culture and their association, and gives surefire reason as to why they could consider themselves as an ethnic group if Deafs were to achieve it. (This was mentioned too)

The third scan is everything legal pertaining to the current issue. I'll be honest and state that I didn't read Lane's book prior to this discussion, after I did, I saw he pointed out the same things I mentioned. I didn't even expect homosexuality and blind to pop in too.

Finally, I talk about the principles of ethnicity in terms of legal issues and genetics, and how it works in reality. I believe socially that Deaf can be construed with the same principles of an ethnic group, but right now I am favoring reality over the basis of conceptualization. It can't work right now. There is too much to change.

This is probably where we differ.

 

[flip]

That is alright. I noticed a pattern you took in which the debate revolved around everything I mentioned, rather than proving your own personal points to why it should be this way. So far I had not yet seen any input as to why it should, that does not go around my discussion.

Ok, I agree with the views of Lane and Pillard. I'm not sure what you mean with "it should be this way". All sources I've found, supports the idea of deaf ethnicity, if that's what you mean. Lane and Pillard explains this topic much better than I do, and I tend to agree with them.

The first scan correlates to homosexuality, which refers to the same idea I speak about Gays deserving equal opportunity as an ethnic group if Deafs were to achieve it. (I have mentioned this quite a few times in this topic)

The scan don't refer to the idea that gays are ethnic like deafs. I've read it twice, and finds no such reference?

The second scan is towards the Blind culture and their association, and gives surefire reason as to why they could consider themselves as an ethnic group if Deafs were to achieve it. (This was mentioned too)

Lane says that blind people can get rid of the disabled term, and deaf people can do the same. Lane don't say that blind people can consider themselves ethnic, or any hint of that. Letting go of a disabilty construction don't necessary make you ethnic.

The third scan is everything legal pertaining to the current issue. I'll be honest and state that I didn't read Lane's book prior to this discussion, after I did, I saw he pointed out the same things I mentioned. I didn't even expect homosexuality and blind to pop in too.

Finally, I talk about the principles of ethnicity in terms of legal issues and genetics, and how it works in reality. I believe socially that Deaf can be construed with the same principles of an ethnic group, but right now I am favoring reality over the basis of conceptualization. It can't work right now. There is too much to change.

This is probably where we differ.

Lane is talking about a lingustic minority construction versus a disabled construction, not ethnicity. Agreeing deaf people is a linguistic minority does not necessary make one agree that deaf people is an ethnic group.

He is arguing that a lingustic minority constructions changes the way we solve problems. This argument does not depend on whether one perceives deaf people as an ethnic group or not, but a linguistic minority or not.

My question is if deaf ethnicity is real or not, not if "it can't work now" or "too much to change". To me, deaf ethnicity looks more real than unreal, though I choose to be careful promoting the whole concept of ethnicity. It's after all a lot of exluding and including, conflicts, and even wars, associated with ethnicity.

I can be wrong, but it sounds like you are more against the idea of favoring a linguistic minority construction instead of a disabled construction, and less the idea of a deaf ethnicity?

 

[naisho]

Ok, I agree with the views of Lane and Pillard. I'm not sure what you mean with "it should be this way". All sources I've found, supports the idea of deaf ethnicity, if that's what you mean. Lane and Pillard explains this topic much better than I do, and I tend to agree with them.
The scan don't refer to the idea that gays are ethnic like deafs. I've read it twice, and finds no such reference?Lane says that blind people can get rid of the disabled term, and deaf people can do the same. Lane don't say that blind people can consider themselves ethnic, or any hint of that. Letting go of a disabilty construction don't necessary make you ethnic.Lane is talking about a lingustic minority construction versus a disabled construction, not ethnicity. Agreeing deaf people is a linguistic minority does not necessary make one agree that deaf people is an ethnic group.

He is arguing that a lingustic minority constructions changes the way we solve problems. This argument does not depend on whether one perceives deaf people as an ethnic group or not, but a linguistic minority or not.

My question is if deaf ethnicity is real or not, not if "it can't work now" or "too much to change". To me, deaf ethnicity looks more real than unreal, though I choose to be careful promoting the whole concept of ethnicity. It's after all a lot of exluding and including, conflicts, and even wars, associated with ethnicity.

I can be wrong, but it sounds like you are more against the idea of favoring a linguistic minority construction instead of a disabled construction, and less the idea of a deaf ethnicity?

What do you mean by me saying "It should be this way"? What are you referring to?


You should step up a bit from focusing your thoughts on the surface of the pool. Why is Lane bringing homosexuality and blindness into the issue? Why can't he leave them out and focus on talking about Deafness alone?

You see, if you can follow the reading between the lines and think about it for a second, the ideas being construed, past examples of homosexuality and blindness are being used to achieve argument for Deafness. Why mention Gays/Lesbians and Blindness at all if they don't have anything to do with the subject? Do you not see that they are being used as examples to support a larger point (Deafness). He should have no reason to state the Gays nor Blindness, because he's writing a book on deafness. Obviously, you can see Lane is using them to reinforce a point.

So tell me, your opinion, why can't Blind people and Gay people also get an ethnic title if Deaf can?

I'm not sure what you are achieving to when you are trying to separate linguistic minorities from ethnicity. What is different to you? Can you clarify further?

The purpose when reading the summary provided by the Open University debate, is to realize what are the potential factors that needs to be changed about our current state of society in order to drop Deafness as a second class and move it up as equality in the nation. To me, it serves the same purpose as bringing up an ethnic argument, and what are the consequences involved in order to achieve it.

I am not going to state whether I agree with anything or disagree with anyone in the thread or even Pillard and Lane, I only challenge discussions pro and cons for a honest debate. Agreement doesn't bring the end, it brings opinions what is right and wrong to those that answer. Agreement should be left up to the authority who have the power to make decisions and judgment, such as a grand jury and judge for one. And I don't have such authority, but I do have the power to challenge and provoke ideas.

 

[flip]

What do you mean by me saying "It should be this way"? What are you referring to?

Post 187:"I noticed a pattern you took in which the debate revolved around everything I mentioned, rather than proving your own personal points to why it should be this way.". Don't know what "this way" is. In the next post, quoted here, you also write "Why mention Gays/Lesbians and Blindness at all if they don't have anything to do with the subject?" I don't know what you mean with "subject"?

You should step up a bit from focusing your thoughts on the surface of the pool. Why is Lane bringing homosexuality and blindness into the issue? Why can't he leave them out and focus on talking about Deafness alone?

You see, if you can follow the reading between the lines and think about it for a second, the ideas being construed, past examples of homosexuality and blindness are being used to achieve argument for Deafness. Why mention Gays/Lesbians and Blindness at all if they don't have anything to do with the subject? Do you not see that they are being used as examples to support a larger point (Deafness). He should have no reason to state the Gays nor Blindness, because he's writing a book on deafness. Obviously, you can see Lane is using them to reinforce a point.

Lane also mentions alcholics and child abusers on the same page. Using your arguments, Lane or you also believe they are ethnic groups? Gays are mentioned as a group that earlier were labeled as sinners, and now are labeled as a minority. A minority does not equal ethnicity. Lane mentions this as an example of changing constructions, like he do when he talk about alcholics, child abusers and blinds.

I don't expect Lane to make us read between the lines, because that's of low academic standards if that's needed. I don't know what you read between his lines, so hard to make responds if you don't elaborate what you read between the lines.

So tell me, your opinion, why can't Blind people and Gay people also get an ethnic title if Deaf can?

It's several answers to that question, and you have already been provided with the language answer. Another one is that gays and blinds themselves never have said they are an ethnic group, while deaf people have. That's the main reason why I don't even play with the idea that gays and blinds are ethnic groups.

Many deaf people can relate to the idea that they belong to a deaf ethnic group. Are you saying that those deaf people are wrong or have false ideas? Just curious.

I'm not sure what you are achieving to when you are trying to separate linguistic minorities from ethnicity. What is different to you? Can you clarify further?

The purpose when reading the summary provided by the Open University debate, is to realize what are the potential factors that needs to be changed about our current state of society in order to drop Deafness as a second class and move it up as equality in the nation. To me, it serves the same purpose as bringing up an ethnic argument, and what are the consequences involved in order to achieve it.

I am not going to state whether I agree with anything or disagree with anyone in the thread or even Pillard and Lane, I only challenge discussions pro and cons for a honest debate. Agreement doesn't bring the end, it brings opinions what is right and wrong to those that answer. Agreement should be left up to the authority who have the power to make decisions and judgment, such as a grand jury and judge for one. And I don't have such authority, but I do have the power to challenge and provoke ideas.

Ethnicity is a loaded word, including heritage, culture, ideology, religion, ancestry and endogamy. Linguistic minority is a much less loaded term, focusing on the language only, even if we know what language can do. The term lingustic minority is less open to interpretations and various kind of classifying, than ethnicity. For example, a parent that know ASL will recognize the idea of their kid beeing a member of a linguistic minority more easily than belonging to a deaf ethnicity. You can check the minority language page on wikipedia, if you thrust wikipedia. Ethnicity is not mentioned.

The reason I said what I believe in and agree with, is to make it clear what my stance is, and also to clarify what I am asking about, and why. This to avoid the impression that I am just finding loopholes and breaking down arguments for no reason.

 

[Berry]

While this conversation is both interesting and stimulating it is growing more cumbersome than I have the time to devote to it.

However I will try to give answers to those who questioned me, and read the comments of others to see what they are thinking. As soon as I can.

 

[jillio]

Once again logic is taking its toll on reason.

The question posed on the thread was not "Whether deaf people in general should be considered an ethnic group instead of a cultural group." The question in fact was, "Should the Deaf (note the capital D) be considered an Ethnic group."

It is not an either/or choice in logic. In fact quite the opposite. I cannot conceive of an Ethnic group without a solid cultural/linguistic base. My guess is that culture / language / traditions make up 90% of ethnicity. Without those three things ethnicity is nothing more than genetic heritage -- As in my mailman whose ancestors arrived on Ellis Island in 1900 calls himself "German."

Therefore in my opinion Deaf start out with 90% of the qualifications for ethnicity.

As to what Deaf "should" be considered please remember I am hearing -- And while I feel I have the right to state what I think Deaf "CAN" or "MIGHT" be considered -- I have NO right to state what Deaf SHOULD be considered.

Very true. And, in that vein, it would appear that the Deaf could very easily be classified as an ethnic group. Unfortunately, at least here in the states, one sees ethnicity as being dependent upon a bloodline or genetic inheritence. One only need take a look at cross cultural adoption studies to understand that genetics is a very small part of that which is encompassed by ethnicity. Without cultural values and linguistic commonalities, bloodlines are nothing in determining the way that ethnicity impacts one's life.

 

[Berry]

The role modeling doesn't have to be limited to just "Deaf to Deaf", it could also be "deaf to deaf" or even "CI to CI", etc. Beside, wasn't Irving Jordan late deafened himself?

True, true, true, and true.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

And you've posted an anecdote that you say is designed to explain to hearing parents why their children -- regardless of their existing culture, language, geography, genetics, heritage -- based only on the physiology of not being 'hearing,' can be considered a different culture than theirs. You add that this applies to the discussion abut ethnicity as well.

Not exactly.

I am trying to encourage them to learn ASL.

In fact the child is deaf. It has no existing culture, language, or heritage. All it is is a tiny little human being watching people mouth words at it that it cannot hear. And the parents are not giving it any. In most cases the child is starved for communication.

I have been told fully 80% of hearing families with deaf children the hearing members do not learn sign language. In the remaining 20% often the hearing member who does learn is a sibling.

Recently a person told me they did not truly understand what being deaf meant until he saw a 12 year old child spring to life at the sight of my daughter -- The only person in the room who knew ASL -- Yet the child's entire family was there.

What I do NOT say, but is implied in the anecdote, is the hearing parent of a deaf child has a choice: Learn sign language, join your child on its journey, or risk losing your child to a culture you don't have a clue about.

Please note: Your signature leads me to believe you and your child share ASL and English. The natural consequence of this is that you should share culture as well. Also you are here so you should have some knowledge of Deaf Culture. I personally find Deaf Cultural values more meaningful than Standard Hearing American Culture.

You are a rare gem among parents, though you may not realize it. I've had parents tell me, "Yeah, we should learn sign language cuz our kid is deaf but we don't have the time."
and one parent in Sam's Club came over and asked me not to sign in front of their deaf child because they did not want to "contaminate it."

A lot more goes into the mix than "only the physiology of not being 'hearing,'.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I think it's beneficial for a deaf child to be exposed to and, if possible, to accept and be accepted into deaf culture. But I don't believe that such identification with a group equals a change in ethnicity without the elements of heritage or origin.

The elements of heritage and origin begin with communication and continue with identification. It happens when someone who has never belonged anywhere suddenly discovers they DO belong somewhere.

Note: It is not a "change" in ethnicity -- It is a discovery of.

Which does not apply to you because YOU do not need and will not need an interpreter to talk to your child.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

In the article mentioned by the OP, Harlan Lane spoke about hereditary deaf (specifically American deaf of deaf), culturally deaf people with a common culture that he is examining in his book and other works as possibly -- because of a common heritage -- comprising a separate ethnic group. On this thread, several have proposed that this applies not just to that small set of families, but more broadly, to deaf, regardless of geography, heritage, customs, even language. Are you introducing your anecdote for hearing parents to support this. If not, why? I'm not understanding it in this context.

First off I consider this work, and any other work that introduces a concept, to be a point of departure, not a final word. He is writing his work for a specific audience and we are being included, but it is not for us. It is written for those people who are in a position to "take his ideas seriously" or dismiss them. Thus he has to do it in a very specific way. Just as Stokoe did when maintaining ASL was a language for the first time.

I have more to say, but I believe Jillio has done an excellent job of summing up here...

Very true. And, in that vein, it would appear that the Deaf could very easily be classified as an ethnic group. Unfortunately, at least here in the states, one sees ethnicity as being dependent upon a bloodline or genetic inheritence. One only need take a look at cross cultural adoption studies to understand that genetics is a very small part of that which is encompassed by ethnicity. Without cultural values and linguistic commonalities, bloodlines are nothing in determining the way that ethnicity impacts one's life.

 

[jillio]

True, true, true, and true.




Not exactly.

I am trying to encourage them to learn ASL.

In fact the child is deaf. It has no existing culture, language, or heritage. All it is is a tiny little human being watching people mouth words at it that it cannot hear. And the parents are not giving it any. In most cases the child is starved for communication.

I have been told fully 80% of hearing families with deaf children the hearing members do not learn sign language. In the remaining 20% often the hearing member who does learn is a sibling.

Recently a person told me they did not truly understand what being deaf meant until he saw a 12 year old child spring to life at the sight of my daughter -- The only person in the room who knew ASL -- Yet the child's entire family was there.

What I do NOT say, but is implied in the anecdote, is the hearing parent of a deaf child has a choice: Learn sign language, join your child on its journey, or risk losing your child to a culture you don't have a clue about.

Please note: Your signature leads me to believe you and your child share ASL and English. The natural consequence of this is that you should share culture as well. Also you are here so you should have some knowledge of Deaf Culture. I personally find Deaf Cultural values more meaningful than Standard Hearing American Culture.

You are a rare gem among parents, though you may not realize it. I've had parents tell me, "Yeah, we should learn sign language cuz our kid is deaf but we don't have the time."
and one parent in Sam's Club came over and asked me not to sign in front of their deaf child because they did not want to "contaminate it."

A lot more goes into the mix than "only the physiology of not being 'hearing,'.






The elements of heritage and origin begin with communication and continue with identification. It happens when someone who has never belonged anywhere suddenly discovers they DO belong somewhere.

Note: It is not a "change" in ethnicity -- It is a discovery of.

Which does not apply to you because YOU do not need and will not need an interpreter to talk to your child.





First off I consider this work, and any other work that introduces a concept, to be a point of departure, not a final word. He is writing his work for a specific audience and we are being included, but it is not for us. It is written for those people who are in a position to "take his ideas seriously" or dismiss them. Thus he has to do it in a very specific way. Just as Stokoe did when maintaining ASL was a language for the first time.

I have more to say, but I believe Jillio has done an excellent job of summing up here...

 

[Berry]

Three minutes?

You are so quick.

 

[jillio]

Three minutes?

You are so quick.

Yeah, I've heard that before.

 

[Daredevel7]

Cliff notes from this thread for those who don't want read all the wordy posts:

1. Deaf people can be an ethnic group.
2. No, they can't. Ethnicity is DEFINED as a group from the same genetic heritage.
3. But we were born deaf!
4. Yes, but there are also late deafened, HOH, etc. Too much variability.
5. But we all relate to each other!
6. Yes, but so do blind people, gay people, etc. They share common issues. What's stopping them from being an ethnic group?
7. But we share a common language, ASL!
8. Not all deaf people know ASL, some are oral and some know other sign language (BSL, etc.).
9. But we relate to each other! There's a mayor, a deaf person, and a father in a town! Who do you think a deaf boy relates to the most!?
10. Repeat #6-9 then go to #11.
11. If we make Deaf people an ethnicity, then there will be anarchy in US! No more SSDI! *Give 4 page quote from Harlan Lane*
12. Hmmm...... I still want SSDI. I just want to call myself ethnically Deaf because it sounds cool and makes us sound more powerful than simply culturally Deaf. I don't really need the legal change.

 

[Frisky Feline]

at daredevil7

 

[GrendelQ]

Cliff notes from this thread for those who don't want read all the wordy posts:

1. Deaf people can be an ethnic group.
2. No, they can't. Ethnicity is DEFINED as a group from the same genetic heritage.
3. But we were born deaf!
4. Yes, but there are also late deafened, HOH, etc. Too much variability.
5. But we all relate to each other!
6. Yes, but so do blind people, gay people, etc. They share common issues. What's stopping them from being an ethnic group?
7. But we share a common language, ASL!
8. Not all deaf people know ASL, some are oral and some know other sign language (BSL, etc.).
9. But we relate to each other! There's a mayor, a deaf person, and a father in a town! Who do you think a deaf boy relates to the most!?
10. Repeat #6-9 then go to #11.
11. If we make Deaf people an ethnicity, then there will be anarchy in US! No more SSDI! *Give 4 page quote from Harlan Lane*
12. Hmmm...... I still want SSDI. I just want to call myself ethnically Deaf because it sounds cool and makes us sound more powerful than simply culturally Deaf. I don't really need the legal change.

I wish you would do this for all the heavy threads.

 

[StSapphire]

I wish you would do this for all the heavy threads.

Well if you look at the most recent few, they all seem to have been converging onto this topic, so just copy and paste what she wrote over to the other topic, and it should be applicable