Should the Deaf Be Considered an Ethnic Group?

[flip]

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."

Damn culture, it can be both our friend and foe! I sometimes suspect fear, in some cases, also is involved, in addition to lazinesses. Owe you a buck!

 

[flip]

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.

The wiki definition cites three different scholary sources, so issues one may have with wikipedia shouldn't matter much as long we don't discuss any flaws with the definition itself. If you have issues with the definition itself, feel free to elaborate.

I see the context with "a" and "the". I find it a bit confusing, but can accept it.

My claim is that in most scholary definitions of ethnicity, language is one of the major, main, most important and fundamental factors when deciding ethnicity. Do you disagree with that?

Regarding your claim about disability versus ethnicity, it's more than semantics to me. I think it's a valid question, though am not sure if I agree with your conclusion.

I don't know american laws, and the Schedule A, but it sounds similar to systems in some countries of europe. Germany at least have something similar I think, where tax is used.

But the problem will be the same, more protection and help as disabled verus less as an ethnic group.

My question is, who said you can't have both? I see nowhere that ethnicity rules out a shared disability. Why can't I use Schedule A as a disbled person, and still belong to an ethnic group? A deaf indian gets SSDI because the person is disabled, not because he is an indian.

 

[GrendelQ]

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?

No, I'm not saying 'all who use the same spoken language ...'. I said, 'all who use spoken languages ...' The same mode, many different languages.

I'm comparing assigning all deaf who use signed languages to one 'deaf' ethnicity with assigning all hearing people who use spoken languages to one 'hearing' ethnicity based solely on mode of communication (not language).

I don't think a shared mode of communication (sign vs. spoken) is enough of a shared element to place me in the same ethnic group as the Dalai Lama just because we both use spoken languages.

To your example: all creole-speaking people are not one ethnic group. There are some 15-20 different creole languages and very ethnically distinct peoples in Louisiana, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, Belize, Portugal. Just because they are linguistic minorities in their own countries, should a creole-speaking family that's been in Brazil for a couple hundred years be grouped together as one ethnic group with a creole-speaking family in Louisiana?

 

[naisho]

My question is, who said you can't have both? I see nowhere that ethnicity rules out a shared disability. Why can't I use Schedule A as a disbled person, and still belong to an ethnic group? A deaf indian gets SSDI because the person is disabled, not because he is an indian.

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.

As much as he endorses the concept, Pillard acknowledges several potential problems in categorizing deaf ASL users as an ethnic group. For one thing, most deaf people are elderly or became deaf later in life and are far more likely to use hearing aids than embrace ASL as another way to communicate. Identifying throughout their lives as hearing people, they may now indeed consider themselves handicapped. Also, while deaf people are in reality “no more disabled than a Ukrainian speaker would be in this country,” he says, the deaf qualify under the law as disabled, and if benefits are provided, they take the money. “You can’t have it both ways. Either you’re disabled or you ain’t.”

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.

 

[Hohtopics]

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?

I see your point. However, not all deaf people would always have such thoughts. Some will still relate to his or her own family more.

Besides the "relating to" doesn't always have to be limited to just on an "hearing to hearing" or "deaf to deaf" basis. There are usually overlaps whereas different people will relate to different people at different times and so forth.

 

[Hohtopics]

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

Of course!

 

[Hohtopics]

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?

I don't think it's as common as you're making it out to be. I think the co-workers sitting with one another would probably be more likely. Besides can we really always tell a person's ethnicity just from looking at them?

 

[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?

I see your point. However, not all deaf people would always have such thoughts. Some will still relate to his or her own family more.

Besides the "relating to" doesn't always have to be limited to just on an "hearing to hearing" or "deaf to deaf" basis. There are usually overlaps whereas different people will relate to different people at different times and so forth.

Of course. Few people know this better than I, who is quincultural (Deeply exposed to and relating to 5 different cultures) some of which overlap more than others.

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.

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.

Another thing for us to remember is time and place. I met Deaf culture almost 60 years ago. Almost 10 years before Stokoe or the founding of Fremont School let alone Galladet's "Deaf President Now" protest.

Nowdays he would have had much better examples to consider.

And one of our problems here with this discussion is the difference between the culturally Deaf perspective of FULL context versus the hearing American perspective of LOW context.

In a low context culture devoted to logic, the ultimate form of low context thinking everything that is NOT specifically stated is excluded -- and I did not bother to qualify the story with you supposition.

In a HIGh context culture, and the Deaf culture I was exposed to as a child was high context. Seen as I did not exclude the obvious, it is therefore presumed to be included.

 

[Berry]

I would like to turn this question on its head. (Something I'm fond of doing anyway.)

Instead of saying "Do Culturally Deaf people fit the criteria of ethnicity in their actions" how about "Are Culturally Deaf people treated as an ethnicity by hearing people through their actions, laws, rules, etc.?"

I believe the answer to the latter is YES.

One example stands out to me:

None of my Native American relatives spoke their own language. Why? Because they were not allowed to use their Native language in the schools.

When I was in school my CODA friend and I were suspended for three days if we dared to sign anything to each other in school.

Discrimination against Deaf in jobs they were perfectly capable of doing, both then and now, because of their difference.

I'm sure other people can add to this list.

 

[naisho]

I would like to turn this question on its head. (Something I'm fond of doing anyway.)

Instead of saying "Do Culturally Deaf people fit the criteria of ethnicity in their actions" how about "Are Culturally Deaf people treated as an ethnicity by hearing people through their actions, laws, rules, etc.?"

I believe the answer to the latter is YES.

There's a loophole with that concept, I brought it out back some pages ago.
If the above is true, does that not apply for other dominant 'cultural' groups in the US that don't have a biological distinction?

Gays technically fit under that concept, because the normal (hearing) citizens treat them similar as if they were their own ethnicity due to their actions, perseverance for laws, minor rules, and so on. Gays get mistreated in public schools, we all know this.
It has similar battles that Deaf undergo, not quite on the same issues, but definitely within the same realm. Gay families exist, and gays can identify with another gay even if they are not of the same race.

I pointed this flaw, but I recall someone denouncing it, basing on that since gays lacked the language, but I don't believe this is a proper argument that justifies the concept, language has nothing to do with why gays cannot become an ethnic group if culturally Deaf were to.

Do they not deserve that "Gay" option to tick in on a form the same as a "Deaf" does? "Blind", "wheelchair" handicapped might also want to join in too depending on how strong their cultures are. I am a firm believer of equal entitlements and rights in the USA, and I believe if one group gets their own disability considered an ethnicity, the other groups that share similar concepts have no reason not to.

.

Here's a conflicting point that strikes home on the issue:
What about a profoundly, culturally Deaf who now doesn't use ASL as a primary language, grew up in a Deaf family, got a CI or elicited to prefer hearing society? We have some of these individuals around.
If they are not technically ethnic Deaf due to their hearing status, what are they supposed to be?

You know how many cultural Deaf put down Marlee Matlin due to her ability to speak, and don't recognize her as Deaf? If she doesn't deserve the ethnically Deaf title in many pro-Deaf activists eyes, what is she supposed to go under? Does she circle the form box for "White American" than "Deaf" if this whole ethnic issue passed into reality?

 

[GrendelQ]

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?

Also, by using deaf children of hearing parents as the subject of your anecdote, you seem to be joining several here who are taking a different line of thinking than Harlan Lane, whose original specification of this argument applied to hereditarily deaf families with a common deaf culture in place (deaf of deaf). Do you think instead that the only universal commonality required for classification either as a cultural group or ethnic group (whichever you are arguing), is a physiological commonality -- whether sensorineural/conductive, genetic or acquired by accident, occupation, accident, age, etc.,: inability to hear?

Any other requirements to meet the definition of whichever classification you choose? (If so, which? -- modality? specific language, geography, distinctive customs)

 

[Steinhauer]

No, I'm not saying 'all who use the same spoken language ...'. I said, 'all who use spoken languages ...' The same mode, many different languages.

I'm comparing assigning all deaf who use signed languages to one 'deaf' ethnicity with assigning all hearing people who use spoken languages to one 'hearing' ethnicity based solely on mode of communication (not language).

I don't think a shared mode of communication (sign vs. spoken) is enough of a shared element to place me in the same ethnic group as the Dalai Lama just because we both use spoken languages.

To your example: all creole-speaking people are not one ethnic group. There are some 15-20 different creole languages and very ethnically distinct peoples in Louisiana, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, Belize, Portugal. Just because they are linguistic minorities in their own countries, should a creole-speaking family that's been in Brazil for a couple hundred years be grouped together as one ethnic group with a creole-speaking family in Louisiana?

Suppose the creole speaking people in Louisiana are the "sub-culture" I am referencing. Are they an ethnic group? If not, what other aspects should be considered when deeming a sub-culture an ethnic group?

Traditions? Food?

 

[Reba]

Suppose the creole speaking people in Louisiana are the "sub-culture" I am referencing. Are they an ethnic group? If not, what other aspects should be considered when deeming a sub-culture an ethnic group?

Traditions? Food?

I vote food!

How about music, arts and crafts, dances?

Religion? Coming of age rituals? How their elderly are treated?

 

[naisho]

Steinhauer, they ought to be technically classified as Creole-Americans, Creole-Louisiana if another state were to develop a different Creole group. The overseas Creole seem to be respective in their own areas, designate that as the country. Such as: Creole-Haitian, Creole-Sierra Leone. Some ethnic groups don't have the means to establish themselves as a group, either due to lack of people, activism, and so forth.

Those look to be an actual ethnicity (Creole-Haitian exists as Kreyol, so does Creole Lousiana)

 

[GrendelQ]

I vote food!

How about music, arts and crafts, dances?

Religion? Coming of age rituals? How their elderly are treated?

Right, I think these all go into defining people who share a particular creole language (not all creole-speaking people in general) as a distinct cultural group.

To define them as an ethnic group, a shared heritage comes into play, so in Louisiana, those creole-speaking people with common customs and religion who are descended from French and Spanish colonists, mixed as they have become, are a distinct ethnic group. But I don't think that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie -- even if they happen to live in New Orleans, have French heritage, and have learned to speak French creole -- are ethnically Louisiana creole just because they share some of these elements.

 

[Beowulf]

Right, I think these all go into defining people who share a particular creole language (not all creole-speaking people in general) as a distinct cultural group.

To define them as an ethnic group, a shared heritage comes into play, so in Louisiana, those creole-speaking people with common customs and religion who are descended from French and Spanish colonists, mixed as they have become, are a distinct ethnic group. But I don't think that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie -- even if they happen to live in New Orleans, have French heritage, and have learned to speak French creole -- are ethnically Louisiana creole just because they share some of these elements.

I tend to agree. I was born in and spent time in the Allegheny Mountains in Virginia, but that doesn't make me a highfalutin' hillbilly.

 

[Reba]

I tend to agree. I was born in and spent time in the Allegheny Mountains in Virginia, but that doesn't make me a highfalutin' hillbilly.

No, you're just a lowfalutin' hillbilly wannabe.

j/k

 

[Beowulf]

No, you're just a lowfalutin' hillbilly wannabe.

j/k

But I can pluck a turkey's eyelashes with a squirrel rifle from 100 yards.

 

[GrendelQ]

I tend to agree. I was born in and spent time in the Allegheny Mountains in Virginia, but that doesn't make me a highfalutin' hillbilly.

I'm a central VA Blue Ridge hillbilly wannabe, myself.

 

[Beowulf]

I'm a central VA Blue Ridge hillbilly wannabe, myself.

Shucks, you already got my respect, maam. Yee hahh!!!