Tim.Smith@f429.n275.z1.fidonet.org (Tim Smith) (03/12/91)
Index Number: 13860
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Well hello! I read with interest your message about the terms of HI/ HH
or deaf or whatever..
I just wanted to squeeze some of my own words in there.. Hope it's not
too way behind in the thread.. But tough.. {grin}
Personally, I perfer the term "DEAF".
Well, maybe for those deaf people who are involved in the ASL deaf
community. I can't speak for the people that have some hearing left and
are not part of the community.
Anyways, back to the subject... I feel as if "Hearing Imparied"
or "Hard of hearing" causes the society to view deaf people through
the pathological point of view.. "They just can't hear."
That is far from the truth. We are a separate cultural group with their
own LANGUAGE. We don't use a cheap imitation of the english language,
we use AMERICAN sign language which has nothing to do with English.
ASL has its own grammar, structure, syntax and in no way can it be
compared with the english language.
It's a real shame that the hearing community does not really seem to
accept that. Granted, ASL is a very different language. But it has
been proven to be the best way for the deaf indivuals. It fits the mind
procession of the visual deaf. English is too much of an oral language.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying English is not the way to go, that
deaf people can't learn it.. If I said that, I would be lying through my
teeth. {grin} For, I am deaf as a post. I can't hear a single thing,
ASL is my language. However, I've been lucky enough to accomplish at
the English written language. (excluding the usage of puncations.
uh, and spelling. {grin})
Boy, I'm ahead of myself.. I only meant to discuss the term, "deaf"..
Deaf is what we want to be called. We have pride in being deaf. We are
not ashamed of it in any way. It;s a cultural thing.
"It's a deaf thing, we can't hear it!" {{Grinning}}
Tim
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!275!429!Tim.Smith
Internet: Tim.Smith@f429.n275.z1.fidonet.orgVixen@f11.n203.z1.fidonet.org (Vixen) (03/12/91)
Index Number: 13878
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Hi Tim,
Well, I certainly have no argument with any of the thoughts you
have shared in your message to me.
I see no reason why you should not prefer "deaf" over other
terminologies, nor do I see any reason why you would feel offended
or object to being refered to as deaf. It is aftreall, only one
little part of your whole being.
It should be understood that while I have a simple "personal
preference" for "hearing impaired" over "hard of hearing." It must
be made clear, if I have not made it so before, that I do not
become angry or upset with people who refer to me as "hard of
hearing" or even "deaf." Nor do I lie in bed nights worrying over
such trivial matters. (Although, I do enjoy the dialogues we share
concerning labeling and terminologies.)
While there is "some truth" in the "images" I have previously
written about, concerning normally hearing persons and those who
are hard of hearing. I painted those portraits rather tongue in
cheek and semi-seriously. As I said to Ann, "of course, "I" know
that all hard of hearing persons are'nt little grandmothers with
ear horns."
I do not refer to myself as deaf, because I feel that is
inaccurate. First, because I do have some useable hearing using
Aids and other amplification devices and therefore "do" hear. Of
course, we can discuss to what degree I "hear" but it seems beside
the point. Now, if we discuss how I do or do not hear without these
appliances, that becomes a different matter. Even so, I can still
hear "sounds" without my aids at this point in time.
>From a second point, I am not "culturally deaf." It is true that
my diminishing hearing runs in the family, but it happens when we
are older and so we are all (mostly, not wholly) born hearing and
then become deafened later in life. So, despite the heredity
factor and because our family members become deafened later, I do
not think that "deaf culture" would embrace me as one of "their
own." I am absolutely no authority on deaf culture, but I believe I
am correct here.
So, I do not refer to myself as deaf simply because that may be
inaccurate. However, I absolutely "do not" become offended or at
all annoyed when others do "align" me with the deaf community or
when deaf persons I know "do" consider me part of that community.
As, although I can use aids and amplification systems and although
I am not "culturally" deaf neither am I totally outside of the deaf
community either.
However, when normally hearing people call me deaf, it is most
often done in a most sarcastic manner. They mean it to be
offensive. But when someone may say, "Well, Vixen wears all those
wires because she is deaf.", or somethig to that effect, I find no
offense at all. When people address me as someone "perceived" to be
a part of the deaf community, I take absolutely no offense. In
fact, I find that I am often put in a position where I can
"educate" a good many times, and help people understand that there
are a number of different types of hearing loss or deafness and
that we are not all clones.
As for hearing impaired versus hard of hearing. In application,
either are correct. I just like hearing Impaired better.
As to ASL and other Signed Language forms. You might be interested
to know that not all schools teach Sign in the form of "Signed
English" and other non ASL forms. Some do stick rigidly to proper
ASL syntax structure. I know, for such is the way I have been and
continue to be taught. The ASL instructors at my college are
comprised of both deaf and hearing instructors with the department
head being deaf. "All" adhere to the use of proper ASL syntax.
We are also educated in matters and issues concerning Deaf culture
along with learning the language. I might even go so far as to say
that some of our instructors, if not all, are staunchly opposed to
other sign forms. Of course, much will also depend upon the ability
of the student as well.
However, ASL is becoming my "second language." Proper ASL syntax
does not always come easily to me, and I expect that once in awhile
I might sign a sentence that comes out looking more like signed
English that ASL. But that "is not" the way I have been or am now
being instructed. Personally, I do not "knock" any method that will
allow persons to communicate when they otherwise not be able to do
so, even if one is a skilled ASL user and the other uses another
form.
I am not, at least at this point, an exceptional signer and so I
doubt that I would ever master the language as well as some and
especially as not as well as those who were born to it. I may
always "sign with an accent" but if the way I sign and how fast I
sign are more important to a person than "what I am saying" and
trying to communicate, then it is likely that person is not worth
my emotion for there is no concern for me as a person first and
above all.
But, you should be aware that there are both hearing and later
deafened persons like myself who "are" being taught ASL as a
recognized language of its own and in its proper syntax. The rest
is simply a matter of how well we are able to master it. By the
way, I have seen hearing non impaired signers who are as good or
superior in their "proper" use of ASL as those brought up with it.
However, that should'nt be surprising, afterall not all hearing
people are as profficient in their use, both written and oral, of
English.
You thought you could write me a long message! Well, Tim, how could
I then write you a short one? (Anyway, it is all just a bunch of
hot air! Open your window and just let float from your terminal
screen into the outdoors!)
Keepin' the faith!
. Vixen
..."Guide Dogs are Dog Guides but Dog Guides are not always Guide
Dogs!"
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!203!11!Vixen
Internet: Vixen@f11.n203.z1.fidonet.org