[nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

[Mike Freeman]

Karen:

>From a philosophical point of view, I agree with you completely. 
However, in setting up chat-rooms, email lists and the like, we are 
trying to serve two gods, each of which is a jealous god. One is the god 
of purity of philosophical thought -- the god you worship -- rightly, in 
my estimation. Yet there is another god to which we must make obeisance 
if we are to increase our numbers -- the god of inclusiveness. This god, 
too, is a jealous god. And these gods are sometimes in conflict. Why? 
Because there are certain members of the blind community -- those with 
remaining vision, some of whom need our help to learn to respect 
themselves and function as blind persons -- but who at present don't 
consider themselves blind. IN fact, they shreak at the thought of using 
the B-word and of considering themselves (gasp) blind. Moreover, we 
often need them as many of them are talented people, bursting with ideas 
that could energize and assist us.

So what do we do? We must walk a tightrope between using too many 
wiesel-words and being so dogmatic that we turn people off who might 
make great members. There is no universal answer. It's a judgment call. 
So we use namby-pamby language when we think it will do more good than 
harm and we talk straight when we're trying to educate. Does it work all 
the time? Nope. But if it brings in a few members -- especially those 
that would not consider being with "those blind people", it's probably 
worth it.

I'm sure this won't satisfy you. But nothing is cut-and-dried in this 
vale of tears.

Mike Freeman, President
National Federation of the Blind of Washington

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karen Anderson" <kea_anderson at cox.net>
To: <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Cc: <nebraska-students at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:48 PM
Subject: [nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology


Hello all,



            I was looking around on facebook and noticed several new 
groups
for students affiliated with the NFB. And I must say, several of them 
look
really interesting. However, I have one concern. Since joining the
federation it has been my understanding that we encourage everyone, 
whether
they are a high partial or totally blind, to consider themselves blind. 
Our
taglines are things like, "Changing what it means to be blind," and 
"Voice
of the Nation's Blind." Yet more and more frequently I find other terms
showing up in our literature. The term "visually impaired," is used in 
the
group descriptions for both The NFB Café and Blind 411. I believe one of 
our
greatest strengths, one of the things that sets us apart from other
organizations, has always been that we do not divide people into 
categories
based on how much vision they have. We believe that those with no vision 
at
all can be just as successful as the highest partial. It seems to me 
that
using terminology such as "visually impaired," and "low vision," changes
that, and I fail to see what good can come from that division.

            I am extremely interested to see what the list, and 
particularly
the members of the NABS board, have to say about this issue.



Sincerely,

Karen

_______________________________________________
nabs-l mailing list
nabs-l at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
nabs-l:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com