This blog is in response to John Egbert's recent posting of an article titled "Deaf-world an ethnic group not a disabled group". It sounded like a severe case of self-denial on Harlan Lane's part as well as John Egbert. Allow me to explain this further.
First, let's look up 'ethnic group' in Collegiate Edition of Merriam Websters. It says;
1 : Heathen
2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background enclaves b: being a member of a specified ethnic group
2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background enclaves b: being a member of a specified ethnic group
You and I do see "linguistic and/or cultural origins or background" as the grounds for Professor Harlan Lane's argument in that article. However what he has not disclosed is the fact that the status of deaf ethnic group is based on their disability, that of deafness. In this article he desperately tried to separate people's deafness away from them and make them believe that they would have belonged to this "Deaf World" ethnic group even if they were not deaf. How do you separate the two? I mean, who is he trying to kid here?
Because of our deafness (a form of disability) we developed a language (ASL) and a culture of our own, making us an ethnic group. If it were not for our deafness we would not have the need for ASL. Without ASL we would not have a culture. It's quite simple.
And lastly I do not need to remind anybody of primary definition on 'deaf' as defined by global scholars, based on the global usages. Deaf means 'lacking or deficient in the sense of hearing'. You see, it will always be identified as form of disability therefore there will never be shortage of new researches, technologies and medical solutions. And that is by no means a form of eugenics. To assist or help someone with medical solutions is not a form of eugenics.
Thank you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteExactly my sentiment, BBF. If they did not like the notion of being categorized as 'disabled' then they ought to quit calling themselves deaf. Quit calling it a deaf world. Call themselves something else!
ReplyDeleteIf you think about it, we're probably the only ethnic group that is named after a form of disability! And these so-called scholars are evidently confused as well. It might make sense to culturally and linguistically deaf people but it WON'T make much sense to the rest of the world.
Dianrez,
ReplyDeleteYour comment distorted the point of my blog so it will not be published. You're merely dodging the issue here.
Read my blog again. Pay closer attention to what I said. To help you out a bit, I said "Because of our deafness (a form of disability) we developed a language (ASL) and a culture of our own, making us an ethnic group".
You see, I acknowledged the fact that we're an ethnic group but I disagreed with the portion where Professor Harlan Lane tried to separate our deafness (disability) as the factor behind this ethnic group. To put it bluntly, it can not be done.
Kindly address this specific issue when you leave a comment here. Thank you.
Without disability no ethnicity or deaf culture. Less than 2% constitute born deaf,and how do disabled feel regarding the deaf declaration they aren't ? Is there some added Kudos in being deaf now ? and how does it apply to the deafened who claim disability, and to those cultural deaf accessing allowances and access via 'disability' law ? There are no 'Deaf' laws as such... It would seem that principles and rhetoric do not extend to refusing to take the advantage those things bring. Of course principles do not pay rents either.
ReplyDeleteBeing deaf (if it is "ethnic" in nature) would be the only ethnic group in which someone is born that their family has no part of. Also, it would be the only one that someone can choose to be or not be a part of (someone who identifies as hearing impaired and not deaf) Also, what about childen who are prelingually deaf but were born hearing? "Your child was hearing but now that they got menigitis their ethnicity has changed"
ReplyDeleteSeriously?
Good points there, Miss Kat's Parents. That was insightful. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteBarry, good point here. I do not consider deaf as enthic group. Deaf by definitation is inablity to hear is considered disabled. Therefore, deaf are disabled period.
ReplyDeleteThese "D" deny themselves as disabled and created illusion they are normal as a Deaf culture.
How can that be? If they think they're not disabled, then they should NOT accept VRS, not accept interpreter services or captioned shows because they do not consider themselves as disabled. Is that what they wanted to consider themselves normal, how about take away VRS, take away interpreter service, take away everything we take for granted and see how they can survive in this world without the benefit of services?
Principles don't pay the rent....
ReplyDeleteSo what about CODAs, HoH, and other hearing signers? Do they constitute part of the Deaf "ethnicity"? Especially the former, who actually were born and grew up in the Deaf culture and language. Are they considered ethnically Deaf despite lacking deafness, or does being Big D Deaf automatically mean that you are physically deaf, no exception?
ReplyDeleteI know of one CODA on YT who subscribes to the Deaf Ethnic view, and considers himself ethnically Deaf. It also happens to be that he has thrown in his lot with the Deafhood extremists. (Imagine that.) He COULD be using verbal language to preach the Deafhood message to the hearing American public that is their target... but no, he signs entirely in ASL and never voices, nor does he ever subtitle, meaning that his messages not only go over the heads of people who SHOULD be receiving them, but he also ends up preaching to the choir. Which is what pretty much every single one of these Deafhoodlums do anyway.
But that's just me venting again. Aaaanyway... thoughts on the role of non-deaf people in the Deaf culture/"ethnicity"?