About this Deaf Culture thing...

[jillio]

I have no problem with that.

I do have problems when people support people like, for example, that war veteran saying that people who communicate using ASL are unable to communicate with others. To me, by making excuses for that person's comments is allowing the audism to continue. That is what I have a big problem with.

And when page after page is dedicated to defending his calling Deaf Culture a curse.

 

[jillio]

Right, I found what he wrote to be harsh and it made me so sad for him that he had not made any connection with other deaf, couldn't see the benefit of finding commonalities in a culture that really does exists, and could only see his deafness as a loss. But I can see that from his perspective, for him it is a terrible loss, and something precious has been taken away. For my daughter, deafness is not a loss, it's a characteristic, part of who she is. I think to lose your hearing at a late age would be as devastating as an ASL user losing the use of her hands at a late age, and would be to have your primary means of communicating and interacting with the world taken. For him, learning ASL would not only be difficult, but would not make it possible to communicate with the people he knows and loves. It's not the same animal as being born deaf or losing hearing early in life.

Of course the issues of the late deafened are different. That is actually something that has been discussed quite a bit in the past. But the late deafened themselves need to understand that and not apply their perspective to those that are not late deafened. More so than the prelingually deafened not understanding that the late deafened have differences in perception and experience, it seems that it is the late deafened who are intolerant of those who are prelingually deafened. As of late, it has been the late deafened who have been very vocal in their denigration of what the prelingually deafened feel and value.

 

[jillio]

RD kept questioning ASL and insisting that SEE was more appropriate, if I remember correctly. To many of the culturally Deaf, SEE was offensive because hearing people took ASL and changed the syntax to fit their needs. I am sure hearing people wouldnt like it if Deaf people changed the syntax of spoken English to follow ASL syntax. I think that was what RD kept refusing to understand and then it became about him getting attacked by everyone when it was only a few people.

That was what happened if memory served me correctly.

Not only that, but RD also continued to ask the same questions over and over and over, and when they were answered, would go out of his way to argue with the answer without any type of support or substantiation. He was disliked more for his argumentativeness and his rudeness than anything else.

 

[drphil]

Is the "difference" between "prelingually deaf" vs late deafened"- auditory memory?

Also the number of people in each subgroup with "late deafened" being the larger number but the "prelingually deaf" "controlling" the various "cultural deaf groups"?

Where the "vocal deaf' Or those using Cochlear Implants fit in the above ?

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

 

[jillio]

Is the "difference" between "prelingually deaf" vs late deafened"- auditory memory?

Also the number of people in each subgroup with "late deafened" being the larger number but the "prelingually deaf" "controlling" the various "cultural deaf groups"?

Where the "vocal deaf' Or those using Cochlear Implants fit in the above ?

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

No.

What various cultural Deaf groups?

Your question makes virtually no sense.

 

[GrendelQ]

Of course the issues of the late deafened are different. That is actually something that has been discussed quite a bit in the past. But the late deafened themselves need to understand that and not apply their perspective to those that are not late deafened. More so than the prelingually deafened not understanding that the late deafened have differences in perception and experience, it seems that it is the late deafened who are intolerant of those who are prelingually deafened. As of late, it has been the late deafened who have been very vocal in their denigration of what the prelingually deafened feel and value.

In the article the distinction was muddied, and even here, Dr. Lane's exploration of American hereditary Deaf -- very specifically -- as an ethnic group was extended beyond to encompass all deaf, regardless of cultural background, geography, origin, heritage. That extension, an assumption of a cultural linkage where there is no connection except for the physical state of not hearing, is something I think that many late deafened and those who are not genetically deaf argue against. Not an argument against those who themselves feel a cultural connection with a shared language, customs, etc., but an argument against this as something that exists innately as a biological connection for all who are deaf.

 

[jillio]

In the article the distinction was muddied, and even here, Dr. Lane's exploration of American hereditary Deaf -- very specifically -- as an ethnic group was extended beyond to encompass all deaf, regardless of cultural background, geography, origin, heritage. That extension, an assumption of a cultural linkage where there is no connection except for the physical state of not hearing, is something I think that many late deafened and those who are not genetically deaf argue against. Not an argument against those who themselves feel a cultural connection with a shared language, customs, etc., but an argument against this as something that exists innately as a biological connection for all who are deaf.

I have read Lane extensively, and I have never seen him argue in favor of an innate biological connection between all deaf, irregardless of status. In fact, the entire concept of culture as Lane describes it is not a biological phenomena, but an environmental one that has been socially created.

 

[BecLak]

In the article the distinction was muddied, and even here, Dr. Lane's exploration of American hereditary Deaf -- very specifically -- as an ethnic group was extended beyond to encompass all deaf, regardless of cultural background, geography, origin, heritage. That extension, an assumption of a cultural linkage where there is no connection except for the physical state of not hearing, is something I think that many late deafened and those who are not genetically deaf argue against. Not an argument against those who themselves feel a cultural connection with a shared language, customs, etc., but an argument against this as something that exists innately as a biological connection for all who are deaf.

It is common knowledge that when you cross over into another culture for whatever the reason, for example, a foreign country with a language and culture totally foreign to the one you grew up in, it is expected by that country, if you come to live there whether by choice or necessity, you have to learn the native language, customs and culture, and even if you are unable to learn them for whatever reason, the least you can do is respect all these things. Deaf culture is no different. The ones who are most successful at 'fitting' into another culture are those who totally embrace and imerge themselves into it.

 

[GrendelQ]

I have read Lane extensively, and I have never seen him argue in favor of an innate biological connection between all deaf, irregardless of status. In fact, the entire concept of culture as Lane describes it is not a biological phenomena, but an environmental one that has been socially created.

In his most recent book (The People of the Eye: Deaf Ethnicity and Ancestry), he's referring specifically to a number of American Deaf founding families, a group that is genetically connected by blood and intermarriage, not to all deaf.

 

[naisho]

In his most recent book (The People of the Eye: Deaf Ethnicity and Ancestry), he's referring specifically to a number of American Deaf founding families, a group that is genetically connected by blood and intermarriage, not to all deaf.

I saw that part. In that statement, it is completely valid for pioneering the whole establishment of Deaf Ethnicity and related issues. I was saying way back earlier in the other thread - either pass it down genetically to get a valid argument in the debate, or there isn't much that can go against the current trends in the world. Martha's Vineyard was exactly one of the ways it could have succeeded in accomplishing it.

It is common knowledge that when you cross over into another culture for whatever the reason, for example, a foreign country with a language and culture totally foreign to the one you grew up in, it is expected by that country, if you come to live there whether by choice or necessity, you have to learn the native language, customs and culture, and even if you are unable to learn them for whatever reason, the least you can do is respect all these things. Deaf culture is no different. The ones who are most successful at 'fitting' into another culture are those who totally embrace and imerge themselves into it.

And this is argumentatively the same reason why we he have people who yell "Speak English!" towards foreigners who come to live in the USA. I feel inclined to state similarily, if you are to go in another nation, you should at least pick up the dominant language. That means being able to sign in KSL if you go to meet deafies in Korea, or (hearing) speak in French if you plan on touring the Eiffel tower.

 

[drphil]

Are there "countries" now which use Sign communication exclusively to speaking/hearing? Don't recall any.
Of the other "problem" all deaf( late deafened) persons who use Cochlear Implants and don't "sign"? Where does this "group" fit?

Right- seems the observation of Michael Chorost in Rebuilt" pertinent: the "old war" of getting "deaf persons to speak and not use ASL is over". Seems an electronic device-Cochlear Implant- has forever changed the dynamics of this old war. Whether his observation is true of countries other than US- not discussed by him. What other countries have the "cultural war" of the "deaf"?

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

 

[TheOracle]

Gretchen, I know who you're talking of. The problem with ethnicity is that it is so blurry. An ethnic group based on a recessive gene or congenital deafness is so hard to argue because it can be eradicated with out-breeding. Or just having two deaf people mate and have hearing children. That's why those groups don't last.

I think that in order to be an ethnic group (and no one is denying culture here), you need a history, language, geographical location or tie to one, shared values, basic family structure and some degree of homogenous relationships. What's most important is that you have to have a collective about what defines yourself.

If you read Oliver Sacks, he laments on the deaf world today, partially because of a lack of communities like Martha's Vineyard.

Why don't deaf kibbituzim exist, anyway? If the Deaf community is so connected, why not literally connect? From what I hear (er, see!!) on this board, the Deaf are separate from hearing. The Deaf have all of these same wants: good schools, safe homes, health care, jobs, community, language.

If you aren't going to move off to an island, maybe the younger generation of Deaf should start this movement. You never know. You could have 20 Deaf kibbutzim by 2050.

 

[jillio]

In his most recent book (The People of the Eye: Deaf Ethnicity and Ancestry), he's referring specifically to a number of American Deaf founding families, a group that is genetically connected by blood and intermarriage, not to all deaf.

But that still does not translate to making a statement that culture is innate and biologically determined. You are making a quite a leap there. And, as was stated in a previous thread, ethnicity, as in bloodline is not a factor without the social construct of culture.

 

[GrendelQ]

But that still does not translate to making a statement that culture is innate and biologically determined. You are making a quite a leap there. And, as was stated in a previous thread, ethnicity, as in bloodline is not a factor without the social construct of culture.

Right, that's my point too: I'm not making a required connection between biology and culture. But I do think that heritage /origin / customs are part of ethnicity. While Lane is advancing the idea that this group of American hereditary Deaf may be an ethnic group, and I can see that logic, I don't think that all deaf are inherently part of this ethnic group. I do think there is a Deaf culture that deaf can become part of if they share language, customs, etc., but there's just not an automatic ethnicity based on not hearing.

 

[jillio]

Right, that's my point too: while Lane is advancing the idea that this group of American hereditary Deaf may bean ethnic group, and I can see that logic, I don't think that all deaf are inherently part of this ethnic group. I do think there is a Deaf culture that deaf can become part of if they share language, customs, etc., just not an automatic ethnicity.

Agreed. It has long been accepted that there are differences in Deaf of Deaf and Deaf of Hearing groups, not to mention differences in pre-and postlingual.
Hereditary deafness accounts for a very small proportion of all deafness. However, one who is hereditarily deaf, and has many Deaf family members will generally be raised, from infancy, with Deaf culture values, standards, and language. That does not make it innate, however. But then, cultural affliation is never innate, no matter what the bloodline is.

 

[flip]

I sometimes feel I'm an ethnic deaf person. But that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is that some orals/hohs/parents on this board, and thread, say: "No no no, I don't think you are..". The mental processes behind those responses are fascinating.

Good post, Jillio.

 

[jillio]

I sometimes feel I'm an ethnic deaf person. But that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is that some orals/hohs/parents on this board, and thread, say: "No no no, I don't think you are..". The mental processes behind those responses are fascinating.

Good post, Jillio.

If you ID as an ethnically deaf person, then you are an ethnically deaf person. I think the whole thing comes down to how broad your definition of ethnicity is. Do you define ethnicity as genetic inheritance alone, or do you define ethnicity with an inclusion for cultural concerns? Personally, I see no benefit in defining ethnicity from a genetic position alone.

And

 

[flip]

If you ID as an ethnically deaf person, then you are an ethnically deaf person. I think the whole thing comes down to how broad your definition of ethnicity is. Do you define ethnicity as genetic inheritance alone, or do you define ethnicity with an inclusion for cultural concerns? Personally, I see no benefit in defining ethnicity from a genetic position alone.

And

Yes, we can argue over the definitions. What amazes me is the fact that they say no to my ID. It's like guy say, "I'm gay", and one responds with "ok, if you think so, ok, but I don't think so.". Why do they say no to the ID, that's the interesting part.

 

[Beowulf]

Yes, we can argue over the definitions. What amazes me is the fact that they say no to my ID. It's like guy say, "I'm gay", and one responds with "ok, if you think so, ok, but I don't think so.". Why do they say no to the ID, that's the interesting part.

I can take only so much of being around hearing people. I am forced to deal with them daily on the job and can never feel like I am truly a part of their groups. I look forward to being comfortable around fellow deafies after work. If that is not etnicity, I don't know what is.

 

[rebeccalj]

The bolded is a perfect example of why you are here. And I can identify with much of that. And we love having you here.

I'm still speechless at what another poster accused you of the other day -- that your determination/decision to fit in more with the deaf and not use speech "just because you have to" was ALL ONLY because of this forum.

I couldn't believe that either!! What is the point of having an online forum, where a community exists, if not to learn something along the way? Do we also not learn from people that come in and out of our daily lives, in our real life communities, also? Why should an online community be any different? They're both communities except one is more tailored to our respective interests and the other more varied and less likely to answer our many questions.

I came here for that very reason. To learn more about something that applies to me specifically. Something that I have a particular interest in and something that was denied me my whole life. I'd hate to think that finally embracing my Deaf Culture, because I understand more about it from here, is somehow wrong simply but it took me so long to find this community. A community that I can embrace and relate to fully.