Newsgroups: bit.listserv.deaf-l
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:42:54 EDT
From:         Annie Senghas <annie@PSYCHE.MIT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: D/deaf
X-To:         DEAF-L%SIUCVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

Hey there, Bryce,

Before I respond to your comment on my comment on someone else's
comment :-)  on the Deaf/deaf distinction, I should mention that this
conversation on the D/d distinction all started with your "Ear Tags"
post, which I liked very much.  One person mistakenly thought that the
D/d distinction was limited to deaf-l, and I wanted to clear up that
misinformation so that she (and others) could better understand your
point.  So, anyway, bravo for a good post!


I wrote, re: the Black/black distinction:
>
> >Hmmm.. my undergrad professor John Walter, then faculty in the Afro-Am
> >department at Smith, seemed to use the B/b distinction, so I have
> >followed suit.  .... stuff deleted...
>

Bryce replied:

> There is nothing wrong with following the protocols that
> various people use to refer to themselves when speaking of them.
> In fact, it is mere courtesy. But it is an error to assume that
> a cultural usage is universal.

Don't worry-- I don't assume the usage is universal.  I don't assume
the D/d usage is universal, either.  I just thought it was a good
comparison.  I may have assumed more people are aware of the
Black/black distinction than the Deaf/deaf distinction.  Maybe that
was a bad assumption (especially on a deaf-l list, now that I think
about it!).  Oh well.. I assume people get my point about
D/d, anyway.

Later on, I wrote:
> >"Christian," "Jew," and "Methodist" are all capitalized.  Yet "pagan"
> >is not.  If that doesn't imply that some religions are recognized, and
> >others not recognized, by somebody who is writing grammar books
> >somewhere, what explains the difference?  It is not just old
> >holdover-- Unitarian Universalists are pretty new on the scene, and
> >they get capitalized.
>

Bryce commented:

> Well, correct me if I am wrong, but 'pagan' is about as distinctive
> and denominational a term as 'gentile'. I'm not aware one
> goes around capitalizing 'Gentile' and attributing a creed to it.
> All the examples you gave definitely identify a particular set of
> beliefs, yet 'paganism' can range from no belief in god all the way
> to the people next door who happen not to go to one's own church and
> are therefore suspect heathens. The term 'heathen' is not normally
> capitalized.

I think "pagan" is a little different from "heathen" or "gentile."
There is a Pagan Club at many schools (including here at MIT); there
are Pagan Services advertised in the local papers; there are specific
pagan holidays that people get off from work; there are pagan symbols
(such as the 5-pointed star and others) which pagans wear and
attribute spiritual significance to.  There are rituals (similar to
baptism) for those who wish to convert to paganism.  It's true there
are many subgroups, and the beliefs and practices vary widely, but
Christianity varies pretty widely, too.  How widely does a religion
need to vary before it is too widely to merit a capital?

Actually, I do confess that I am cheating a little here, in that
Christians far outnumber pagans, and number means recognition, and
recognition means upper case letters.  So it really means that the
fact that hundreds of thousands of people don't know about pagans
means they generally won't be recognized.  Call this a conspiracy
theory, if any of you want to.  I just argue that it doesn't mean
there is a single, nasty person at the top saying "Group x, you are so
silly and uncultured that I refuse to allow you to have an upper case
letter!"

> Indeed, the intent of the D/deaf distinction is an attempt to
> identify people who belong to a select (and I might add, socially
> insular) cultural group that communicates mainly thru sign language.
> It seems to me that the proper nomenclature for such a group SHOULD
> denominate their most distinctive marking, namely the use of
> sign as a primary mode of communication.

I agree. That's an interesting point.  Perhaps something like "Sign
Community" would be more accurate than "Deaf Community."  It might
better include SODAs and CODAs who are part of the Deaf community, but
are not necessarily deaf.  The D/d distinction seems pretty ingrained
at this point (though not necessarily unchangeable, if someone were
really invested in working on changing it).  Some people have
preoposed the word "sighted."  I definitely disagree with using this
word, since I am sighted, too, but not deaf.  "Sighted" is already
used by blind (and sighted) people to indicate people who are not blind.

Annie:
> >Anyway, here's another good cap/nocap distinction, which is an
> >unpronounceable distinction: the difference between "catholic" and
> >"Catholic."  Maybe I should have just mentioned that one at the
> >beginning of this whole business instead!

Bryce:
> Actually, the way some people carry on about vetting people for their
> lineage purity as deaf users of ASL, the distinction between D/deaf
> does take on a certain resemblance to an inquisition.

And note that the Inquisition has nothing to do with "catholic" with a
little "c" !!  Actually, your mention of the Inquisition has turned on
my Catholic guilt a bit, being the product of a Catholic education...

I agree that it is too bad there is so much (often exclusive) lineage
purity one-upping in the Deaf communities.  Especially for a community
which many enter as adults.  It seems to be a typical feature of
smaller, marginal communities.  It can be frustratingly divisive.

> >Cheers,
> >Annie :^)
> >(annie@psyche.mit.edu)

(see, I'm flex!  I can take a hint, well, a scolding, well, an
order... :*)  )
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU