Newsgroups: bit.listserv.deaf-l
Date:         Tue, 11 Aug 1992 04:44:26 EDT
From:         Chris Hafemeister-Salage <CHSHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Educational interpreters
              7 Aug 1992 22:05:17 EDT from <sipb7@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>

On Fri, 7 Aug 1992 22:05:17 EDT -- said:
>    Cathy Brandt says:
>
>    Hearing impaired is only meant to describe the person's hearing
>    level....
>
>    [argument on why "hearing impaired" is an OK term deleted]
>
>    I really believe that people (all of us) regardless of skin
>    color, handicap, sex, physical make up HAVE TO stop being so
>    sensitive.  We waste so much time on what is the "politically correct"
>    way to say something.  Words are just that - words...
>
>My name is Seth.  If I weren't satisfied with my name, I would change it.
>
>When other people refer to me (in English, at least), I want them to
>call me "Seth".  They might believe that the word "Seth" does not fit
>me as accurately as "Social Security Number 482-00-5921".  They
>might feel that "Seth" is not an aesthetically pleasing name, and would
>prefer to call me "Lawrence" or "Michaelangelo".  They might argue
>that "Seth" is too long a name, and I should be called "S" instead.
>
>If they use these other names, I will feel disrespected.  Their
>arguments about why their choice of a name is better than mine will
>not make me feel better.  It's my name, not theirs, dammit.
>
>The vast majority of deaf and hard of hearing people I associate with
>prefer "deaf and hard of hearing" as a collective name, and
>specifically *dis*like "hearing impaired".  When I want to refer to
>them, I use the name they have chosen, because *they* have *chosen*
>it.
>
>Some deaf and hard of hearing people like the term "hearing impaired".
>Perhaps, in the future, they will convince their fellows to drop "deaf
>and hard of hearing" in favor of "hearing impaired".  But because I am
>hearing--because neither name would apply to *me*--the argument over
>these terms is none of *my* business.
>

Cathy:

I want to remind us all of something. But first;

It is true we all post to deaf-l with assistance from letters forming English
words. But I do not agree words don't have potential to harm. I want to prove
this with Esther's recent bad experience (sorry to use u for my example
Esther).

             "...One highly respected hearing man I heard lecture said
              that all hearing people who study signed languages in
              order to work with deaf people...do so out of deep sick
              inner need to feel superior and control people."

Do u think these are "...just that - words..."? I doubt it. These words hurt
her, made her question her motives and even herself - her ability to
understand her motives. We must remember the effect our words have r bec two
dynamics: - What words we choose to use.
          - How we put those words together in sentences.

So I ask u to think deeper than the surface print - Hearing Impaired - to the
meaning of each word and then the combined meaning of both words.

I also refer us to the word _Breakfast_. Easy, simple right??  But look at each
first _Break_... wht does it mean... _fast_... wht abt it? After that add
something more. Wht does it really mean when we combine the words? It has
original meaning "First stop of period of eating nothing".

So. Do we really want to say normal people have hearing and people who hear
little to no sound r defective??? I doubt it.

Now. Wht I want us to look at is this.

We r talking abt people who have a visual non English language. We shud look
how the concept of people who have degrees of sound perception is expressed
in this non English language. It is true there r a few, probably hearie
conceived, signs for this term - hearing impaired - but... the more common
signs express the concept of "EARS CLOSED". This is no better no worse than
the concept of "DOOR CLOSED". The real English equivilant of this concept is...
u guessed it ** Deaf **. Plain, simple and totally accurate.

Anyway...words for thot smile.

************* Seth:

              I do not agree the argument is none of ur business.
                          (I wanted to express that. Ha)

************************
Chris Hafemeister-Salage
CHSHC @ CUNYVM
CHSHC @ CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
************************