[blindkid] Signs ETC

Mary Donahue braille at satx.rr.com
Wed Feb 27 03:46:11 UTC 2013


Good evening again everyone,

	The sentiment against the use of anything that stigmatizes the blind
as incapable and unable to travel safely is very much alive and well in this
organization. This was strongly evident in 1987 when we picketed the
Lighthouse of the Palm Beaches in West Palm Beach Florida during the NAC
demonstration. That year NAC met in Fort Lauderdale. In addition to
picketing the NAC meetings themselves we would picket NAC-accredited
agencies for the blind in the area. Since the Lighthouse of the Palm beaches
operated a sheltered workshop and regularly paid its blind workers less than
the Federal minimum wage and was accredited by NAC they were a target for
one of our protests that year.

	Both of us walked the picket line that year. It was quickly
discovered that in addition to the audio pedestrian signal at the
intersection near the lighthouse there were several "Blind Pedestrian" signs
throughout the area. Whenever the APS which was a bell sounded we chanted
"When the blind are taught well we don't need a bell!" we let out boos that
could be heard for miles around! Another chant that resounded through the
picket line was "Train the blind, get rid of the sign!" We know because we
were there!

	This is further proof that anything that draws unnecessary attention
to our blindness is highly undesirable and in the long run creates more
problems than it solves.    Federationists from around the country gathered
in Florida and in other locations to let our voices be heard. NAC tracking
was fun. Both of us took part in several NAC demonstrations including the
one in Florida. Those words are still true today as they were back then.
"Train the blind, get rid of the sign!"

Peter and Mary Donahue


-----Original Message-----
From: blindkid [mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Peter
Donahue
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:41 PM
To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
Subject: Re: [blindkid] Signs for Susan

Good evening everyone,

    I heard that we never could get a resolution passed concerning
dining-in-the-dark, but one was successfully passed last summer in Dallas. 
The convention ultimately decides which resolutions are adopted and which
will not. We have taken stands on other types of programs and behaviors that
stigmatize blind people and have adopted resolutions concerning many of
them. Perhaps it's time that a position concerning the use of "Blind
Child/Pedestrian" signs is brought to the convention for consideration. All
the best.

Peter Donahue


----- Original Message -----
From: "Arielle Silverman" <arielle71 at gmail.com>
To: "Blind Kid Mailing List,(for parents of blind children)" 
<blindkid at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: [blindkid] Signs for Susan


Hi all,
As my (hopefully) last post on this topic, I would just like to make
the observation that all the former blind children on this list who
chose to comment expressed opposition to putting up "blind child"
signs as opposed to "child at play" signs. That is, all the blind
adults on this list who have personal experience growing up blind
oppose use of the signs. (Albert, since you said you have only been
blind for seven years, I am assuming that you lost your sight in
adulthood-correct me if I am wrong). I think this sentiment among
former blind children is something worth considering if you find
yourself grappling with this decision. We can argue about whether or
not the signs confer benefit to a blind child or if they actually
address risks blind children experience that sighted children do not
experience. But we also need to keep in mind that the potential stigma
and self-esteem threat posed by a blind-child sign is a real problem
that former blind children have picked up on. As former blind children
we know what it is like to be told, directly or indirectly, that
blindness is an inferior condition of being, or to be labeled as
different in the eyes of others. A sign is a label saying that someone
is blind and therefore deserving of special treatment. Perhaps this is
justified in certain situations, perhaps not, but either way it is
stigmatizing and threatening to one's sense of positive identity. I
know you want to keep your children safe, but I also think you want to
raise children who are ultimately comfortable with themselves and OK
with their blindness. I think it's important to keep both of those
things in mind when deciding whether or not to get a sign or to do any
number of things that call special attention to a blind child. While I
don't personally support an NFB resolution to oppose signs and am
confident such a resolution would not pass, I do think that former
blind children need to be consulted when evaluating these kinds of
accommodations. I think that is one of the great things about NOPBC.
Similarly, I think that people in the deaf community, and especially
those who were once deaf children, are the best ones to comment on the
benefits and risks of "deaf child" signs. I'm glad this topic was
brought up as, to be honest, I didn't even know such signs existed
before we began this discussion.
Best,
Arielle

On 2/26/13, Rene Harrell <rjharrell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard,
>
> I think you did an excellent job of outlining risks and concerns. :) I
> simply struggle with understanding how it translates in the practical
> reality of a sign. Unless your child is carrying a cane, her disability is
> INVISIBLE to the drivers coming down the road. They have no way to discern
> if your child is the Blind one that the sign refers to, or whether or not
> to treat every child walking down the road as if they might be the blind
> one. All they know is that there might be a blind child in the area but
> without a way of identifying a blind child, there is no way for them to 
> see
> a 10 year old walking down the street and prepare themselves for the 
> chance
> they might veer off into the road unexpectedly. As a driver then, I am not
> looking at your 10 year old and being any more careful about them than I
> would for any other ten year old, even with the "Blind Child" sign.
>
> If your child is carrying a cane, then I don't need a Blind Child sign to
> recognize that your child is blind and to be extra vigilant about her
> crossing the road. Everywhere Clare goes with her cane, and when we are
> crossing roads, when drivers see that she is carrying a cane they assume
> the responsibility of being more aware of themselves and their driving.
> Most of them probably have no idea that white cane laws exist. This is how
> we safely navigate areas with no such sign in sight.
>
> Same thing with "deaf child" and "autistic child" signs. When there is no
> way to actually differentiate the child who is the reason for the sign, 
> you
> have no way discernible way to know for whom to be vigilant *for*. The 
> sign
> then actually provides no benefit if you can't figure out *who* it is that
> is requiring this caution. If I see a 10 year old walking by the "deaf
> child sign" but he doesn't "appear" deaf to me, then I am not going to
> presume he's deaf.
>
> I am not meaning to insult any one for choosing to use such a sign, and I
> don't think any one needs to feel guilty, shamed, or browbeaten for
> choosing to something they believe protects their child's safety,  nor
> needs to apologize for it. That was in no way the intent of my original
> post on this topic, and I apologize if my words came across in that 
> manner.
> When determining this for ourselves, I ultimately concluded that people 
> may
> not be able to identify my blind child if she were outside without her
> cane, but people CAN readily identify children. As I happen to have six
> young children, it is far more practical that people know to keep aware 
> for
> little ones in general than my blind child in specific, and with her cane
> she would require no extra explanation that she is blind. Therefore, when
> the town wanted to put up a "BLIND CHILD" sign we declined, but my when
> across the street neighbor told me that he shifted a couple of signs he 
> put
> up around my next door neighbor's house back when they had four small kids
> so that they encompassed my house, I smiled and said "thank you". As it 
> is,
> we live on the corner of a half-forgotten street that dead ends into an
> even smaller and more forgotten street with only four additional houses.
> The road is so narrow that only one car can be on it at a time and if 
> there
> are two cars going in opposite directions, one needs to pull off in a
> neighbor's yard for the other one to pass by. We have a couple of 
> teenagers
> in the back who like to hot-rod their way down the road and have friends
> who like to do the same, but they know us personally because the
> neighborhood is incredibly small, and they keep a watchful eye for my kids
> in our yard. I think in reality, even the "Children at Play" sign does
> nothing practical, but as they were already there, I saw no harm in 
> keeping
> them.
>
> Rene--- mom to six amazing kids, including Miss Clare age 11 (ROP) and
> Seraphina, 8 months (ONH)
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Albert J Rizzi
> <albert at myblindspot.org>wrote:
>
>> Amen and testify Richard. Great post.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blindkid [mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Richard
>> Holloway
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 6:05 PM
>> To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
>> Subject: Re: [blindkid] Signs for Susan
>>
>> Steve, I appreciate your question. I'm happy to discuss these matters.
>>
>> Purely from a driver's standpoint, I expect different reactions from
>> different situations in a driving environment. In that specific example,
>> certainly, if the kids were going to be playing, particularly in a
>> location
>> where there were limited range of vision for a driver, either sign would
>> be
>> appropriate and helpful. In that specific case, kids are indeed playing.
>> If,
>> as a driver, you're in an alert status, looking for either "kids at
>> play",
>> or a "blind child" you'll probably react safely, so in that case I
>> suggest
>> either sign might be helpful.
>>
>> Now, put a blind child near the street in a yard or on a sidewalk. I
>> might
>> actually expect ANY two-year-old to dart in any direction virtually
>> randomly, so I would slow down, especially if I didn't see an adult
>> holding
>> such a child's hand. But make the child a bit older. 5 or 6 perhaps. A
>> kid
>> that age, I believe, would be less likely to jump out in traffic. By that
>> age, I more expect kids to be chasing balls without looking, but
>> otherwise
>> reasonably attentive. Blind kids at that age, or at least my blind
>> daughter
>> was probably MORE likely to bolt into the street than at a more docile
>> age
>> 2
>> or 3. By 6 or 7, she was much more driven to abrupt movement, yet not at
>> all
>> clear about the concept of cars coming down the street.
>>
>> Now as a 4th grader, my daughter is perhaps slightly less likely to do
>> something abrupt than at age 6, but still FAR more likely than her
>> sighted
>> peers to walk arbitrarily into the street if she looses her bearings.
>> This
>> sort of situation is NOT what "child at play" brings to mind.
>>
>> When driving, if I see a 10 or 12-year-old walking in a straight line
>> across
>> the street, I would not anticipate the child making a sharp turn or
>> reversal. Most sighted kids I know don't generally do that. My blind
>> 10-year-old daughter certainly might. Again, from a car driver's
>> perspective, my daughter's behavior is not what is typical from a child
>> her
>> age. A confused driver is, in my opinion, a good deal more likely do do
>> something dangerous in that sort of situation. I think knowing she's
>> blind,
>> might keep her safer from that driver, if only slightly so.
>>
>> Most important to me, again, as a driver, I often make eye contact or
>> exchange gestures with people on the road. I don't know how universal
>> that
>> is. Maybe it is a regional thing. Down south, we wave to say "thanks"
>> when
>> a
>> driver lets us merge in front of them, and in fact failing to wave is
>> often
>> taken as an insult. We wave people-- both kids and adults, across the
>> street
>> all the time, or the pedestrian may wave off the driver. The exchange is
>> a
>> very visual business. I slow down sometimes and wait for eye contact to
>> feel
>> as sure as I can that I'm aware of a pedestrian's intention. Well if you
>> "make eye contact with my daughter" what you inferred isn't going to be
>> very
>> accurate. I can just imagine the later discussion-- "I saw her, she
>> looked
>> right AT me, then she walked right in front of my car!!! I had no idea
>> she
>> couldn't see me! I'm so sorry!!!" I feel ill at just the notion. That's
>> what
>> I want to avoid with such signs. "Child at Play" is no help there.
>>
>> In my opinion, in my situation here, I think that if we were not on SUCH
>> a
>> quiet street, I would have already requested signs to protect my daughter
>> and minimize potential driver frustration, however, our street is really
>> VERY quiet, and we watch our daughter very carefully.
>>
>> With that said, she's old enough that at some point, I'm going to have to
>> give her a little more freedom near the road. If I decide she's not 100%
>> safe, I reserve the right to request such a sign. I don't want a lot of
>> flack if I do so.
>>
>> As I think I mentioned before, I feel like a deaf child could easily
>> react
>> differently as well. If the parents of a deaf child are worried the child
>> won't hear certain sounds and it puts them at increased risk, from a
>> driver's standpoint, I like to know that someone won't react to the
>> warning
>> of a horn, for example. In that case, I'd prefer a "deaf child" sign. The
>> information is more specific; more useful to keep the child safe.
>>
>> The differences are subtle, but important. I think this is a personal
>> choice
>> for each parent, and it really concerns me that pressure of any kind is
>> being exerted by others to avoid somehow casting aspersions on the blind
>> population by requesting these signs.
>>
>> With that said, I also think this is a personal choice for a blind adult
>> as
>> well-- a choice the adult makes for himself, mind you. I think what
>> happened
>> in Colorado was really inappropriate, because others were deciding this
>> for
>> the blind travelers. That doesn't mean if some adults feel safer with
>> these
>> signs in place that they should be prevented because it reflects poorly
>> on
>> those who don't want the signs. If others disagree, but I feel it is pest
>> to
>> err to the side of caution.
>>
>> The social connection you mention is great. If added safety, no matter
>> how
>> little it may be, from the sign helps some parents feel slightly more
>> comfortable letting kids have a little more freedom to play or otherwise
>> go
>> about their business, that does indeed increase the chance for these very
>> important connections.
>>
>> I will add one thing more as well. After giving this a lot of thought, I
>> think such signs do one thing more. After more than 10 years of observing
>> and watching reactions to the "what are you doing letting your blind
>> child
>> go and do dangerous things like that" mentality-- crazy things like
>> riding
>> a
>> bike, jumping into a pool without a sighted helper holding onto her,
>> playing
>> in and around trampolines, running across the yard, going to gymnastics
>> classes or yoga classes... maybe some of us like the idea of telling
>> others
>> that our kids may be out there and we know it, and they have every right
>> to
>> be there, yet we'd appreciate it if they'd be just a little bit extra
>> careful in case their behavior or reaction to a passing car is a little
>> different. I'm not inviting a great debate on this matter, and the last
>> part
>> (this paragraph) is just a thought that recently occurred to me, but I
>> think
>> maybe there is a touch of truth in that for some of us as well.
>>
>> Thanks again for the discussion.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Steve Jacobson wrote:
>>
>> > Richard,
>> >
>> > While you and I seem to disagree on this, I would truly like to
>> > understand your position better.  Are you really saying that the
>> > two-year-old sighted kids that are racing with her child are totally
>> > responsible and in need of no protection?  If there is no separation
>> > between the street and where these kids are playing, I do not see how
>> > a blind child is going to be at a greater risk, there is some risk for
>> > all of them and a warning that there are children at play is probably
>> appropriate.  Connecting her ability to get a sign with the child's
>> opportunity to play with other kids completely baffles me.  .  The
>> solution
>> isn't in the sign, it is in making the social connections, and I, too, am
>> glad to see that Susan's child, certainly with her help, made those
>> connections, but I truly do not see that a sign is necessary to make that
>> possible.  Have I misunderstood your note?
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Steve Jacobson
>> >
>> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:09:07 -0500, Richard Holloway wrote:
>> >
>> >> Susan,
>> >
>> >> I don't see anything wrong with requesting such a sign for your child
>> >> at that age, or at any age where you, the parent, feel it
>> > is appropriate.
>> >
>> >> You did a good thing. More parents should find solutions to get their
>> >> kids, be they sighted or blind, out and playing in
>> > situations like that!
>> >
>> >> (How I wish they'd had jeeps like that when I was a kid!!!)
>> >
>> >> Richard
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Feb 25, 2013, at 8:39 PM, SUSAN POLANSKY wrote:
>> >
>> >>> We moved on to a dead end court when our son was 2. We asked our
>> >>> town for a sign at the entrance to the street. I feel it was
>> > totally appropriate to have a sign when our little one was out playing
>> > with the other kids and basically drag racing the other little ones in
>> > his toddler jeep. Would we not have asked for a sign if he had been
>> > older. Each parent needs to look at their child and their neighborhood
>> and
>> make their own decision. I think this subject has been beaten to death.
>> No
>> more "to sign or not to sign"  emails for me, any more will be deleted
>> without opening.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Susan T. Polansky
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ________________________________
>> >>> From: Bernadette Jacobs <bernienfb75 at gmail.com>
>> >>> To: "Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)"
>> >>> <blindkid at nfbnet.org>
>> >>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 8:11 PM
>> >>> Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign
>> >>>
>> >>> I am a very strong opponent of blind, deaf, Autism, or any other
>> >>> signage.  None of us needs to be put on that kind of display!  Only
>> >>> thing this says to me is, "Walking Target!" Target!" Walking Target.
>> >>> When I had my hysterectomy at an inner city hospital here, when I
>> >>> came out of surgery and into my room, my husband mentioned to me
>> >>> that there was a sign on my door, "Blind Patient!"  If I wasn't sick
>> >>> enough from just having had surgery, I sure was sickened then.  So,
>> >>> my husband tore down the first sign.  Bright and early next morning
>> >>> when he came in vack in to visit me, another signed had replaced the
>> >>> first one.  He went out to find that nurse.  Before long, suddenly I
>> >>> heard the nurse arguing with my husband.  I forced myself up out of
>> >>> bed, grabbed my cane and began walking down the hall, holding onto
>> >>> the rails for dear life and simply excused myself quietly and then
>> >>> proceeded to waste no bones about how that woman oughtta do
>> >>> something real quick.  After all, who was her bread and butta???  I
>> >>> had insurance.  I didn't feel guilty in the least.  She turned on me
>> >>> and I simply went back to my room; called my doctor at his home; and
>> >>> Hmmm!  For some strange reason I never heard from or saw that woman
>> >>> again and the sign soon disappeared.  Then when someone called weeks
>> >>> after I had been released from the hospital to ask me about how I
>> >>> felt about my hospital experience, I really laid it on thick that to
>> >>> post blind signs, or any other Special Needs' sign, would only serve
>> >>> to identify those individuals as vulnerable walking targets and no
>> >>> matter what the intent, it was truly a bad idea.  After all, Seems I
>> >>> actually remember Dr. Jernigan saying once, that "The road to Hell
>> >>> is paved with good intentions."  I'm sure I need not say more.
>> >>>
>> >>> Bernie
>> >>>
>> >>> On 2/22/13, Carly B <barnesraiser at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> Hi Merry-Noel,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I've thought about this, too. There are a couple of signs on
>> >>>> streets near our own. We have not pursued trying to get a sign for
>> >>>> our neighborhood. I haven't really thought that through, I think
>> >>>> it's just a gut feeling that I don't want to put more of a spotlight
>> on
>> my child than there already is.
>> >>>> Know what I mean? I'm not really sure the benefits of having a
>> >>>> sign...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I look forward to hearing what others
>> think!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> :) Carolynn
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Merry-Noel Chamberlain
>> >>>> <owinm at yahoo.com>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>   Hi,
>> >>>>> My daughter, Ashleah, is working on a girl scout project and would
>> >>>>> like to know your thoughts about the "Special Needs" sign.  She is
>> >>>>> blind and walks to and from school independently.  Do you think
>> >>>>> having a Special Needs sign by our house is a good thing?  Why or
>> >>>>> why not?
>> >>>>> Thanks.
>> >>>>> Merry-Noel
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> blindkid mailing list
>> >>>>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>> >>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>> >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>> >>>>> for
>> >>>>> blindkid:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/barnesraiser
>> >>>>> %40gmail.com
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> blindkid mailing list
>> >>>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>> >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>> >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>> >>>> for
>> >>>> blindkid:
>> >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/bernienfb75%4
>> >>>> 0gmail.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> blindkid mailing list
>> >>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>> >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> blindkid:
>> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/sepolansky%40v
>> >>> erizon.net _______________________________________________
>> >>> blindkid mailing list
>> >>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>> >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> blindkid:
>> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/rholloway%40go
>> >>> pbc.org
>> >
>> >
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> blindkid mailing list
>> >> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> blindkid:
>> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%
>> >> 40visi.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > blindkid mailing list
>> > blindkid at nfbnet.org
>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> blindkid:
>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/rholloway%40gopb
>> > c.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindkid mailing list
>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> blindkid:
>>
>>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblindspot.o
>>
rg<http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblindspo
t.o%0Arg>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6119 - Release Date: 02/20/13
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindkid mailing list
>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> blindkid:
>>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/rjharrell%40gmail.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> " I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up
> where I needed to be."
> -- Douglas Adams
> _______________________________________________
> blindkid mailing list
> blindkid at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindkid:
>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com
>

_______________________________________________
blindkid mailing list
blindkid at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
blindkid:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/pdonahue2%40satx.rr.co
m 


_______________________________________________
blindkid mailing list
blindkid at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindkid:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/braille%40satx.rr.com





More information about the BlindKid mailing list