[nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

Thu Nov 6 12:11:03 UTC 2008

I'll try to explain this as well as Jim Marks did for me two and a  
half years ago -- he is the man I credit with changing my view about  
the term "blind." We were at National Convention in Dallas, sitting in  
General Session. He said, "Corbb, there are probably about 3,000  
people in this room. If we assume that these people represent all  
blind people, that is all people considered to fit into the legal  
definition of blindness, then only about 3% of these folks see  
nothing. The other 97% see something -- whether that is light  
perception, what they see is blurry, they have a field restriction,  
etc. So really, if 97% of those considered legally blind are blind, it  
seems easier to just use the word blind as an adjective...to just  
treat blindness as a minor inconvenience in life, but not something  
great or something that defines us."

For me, that explanation changed my view. For somebody reading this  
who considers himself or herself visually-impaired, low vision, or  
whatever term with which you are comfortable, that explanation might  
not change your mind. I encourage you to keep asking questions. I  
appreciate the dialogue that we as an organization have about our  
organization's mission, goals, and philosophy, for it means that our  
organization is malleable, that is it can change as the times and  
circumstances around us change.

Hope that helps,
Corbb

-----
Corbb O'Connor
studying at the National University of Ireland, Galway

On Nov 6, 2008, at 12:37 AM, Harry Hogue wrote:

I am confused.  If someone could please explain this to me, I would  
appreciate it.  I am totally blind, so I am not in denial of blidness,  
but to me there is a significant difference in having 20/200 vision  
and having no vision at all.  Your vision is then impaired, not  
completely gone; you do use alternative techniques, but are those not  
alternative techniques for someone with only partial visio nrather  
than complete blindness?

I'm not trying to irritate anyone; I truly do not know why the NFB is  
so adament about saying people are blind.

Thanks!

Harry

--- On Wed, 11/5/08, Janice <snowball07 at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Janice <snowball07 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology
To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list" <nabs-l at nfbnet.org 
 >
Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 4:33 PM

Hello Karen, Terri and Listers,

Wow, Karen!! I must say, thanks for calling us, as the nabs board and as
nabs members,  out on this very interesting point. I have recently  
noticed
something like this also. I think that Terri's point can be a good  
one. It
might be important for the Federation to use terminology such as  
visually
impaired or low vision, to try to attract a larger facet of people.  
These
people might be uncomfortable with their blindness, they might not  
want to
identify as blind... so, we say- Hey you visually impaired person...  
this
group is for you too!
Once we have their foot in the door so to speak, then
we can teach them about our philosophy and educate them in the fact  
that we
are all blind individuals> We can then wow them into believing that  the
visual hierarchy does not matter. Even if you
are legally blind,    the key word is blind. One is not going to be
recognized as a legally visually impaired person, are they?

However, I do wonder in certain instances where the lines get blurred  
and if
we are sacrificing what we are as an organization to try to get these  
new
individuals into our door. For example, not  to pick on one specific
facebook group, but I will use the 411 group, since it seems to be the  
most
recent one and has sparked some debate. The salutation line- "Attention
blind and visually impaired high school students!" This makes some sense
according to Terri's argument. We want those who self identify as  
visually
impaired to come to our group. Yet, why would we need to use the  
terminology
visually impaired among ourselves and within our Federation family?

Why would we use the words low vision, visually impaired, to refer to  
other
Federationist? One such example I an talking about is the email  
subject line
:"for the sake of ne, in which the group was actually announced to the
NABS
list. the official heading was something like- Blind and Visually  
Impaired
Teen Group on Facebook. why not just use something like, "new blindness
group of facebook!
? I am definitely not trying to point fingers at any specific group or
person... I am really curious, because I have seen terms such as  
visually
impaired, low vision, and high partial , in our literature recently,  
also. I
am merely using the facebook post as the most recent and relevant  
example.
Is this a new trend in Federation philosophy? or do we believe that  
perhaps
trying to be all inclusive has caused us to become a little lax and blur
the lines of philosophy? Are the philosophical boundaries of all blind
members being equal, thus united we stand and divided we fall, not as  
solid
, and binding, now, as when I first joined the Federation...?>

I really am confused and would love to hear the philosophers among us  
debate
this observation. What are the effects of these happenings, to our
philosophy? Do we need to tighten our concepts about blindness and  
what it
stands for within the Federation, or is inclusion the matter of  
importance?

Thoughtfully yours,

Janice
----- Original Message ----- From: "Terri Rupp"
<terri.rupp at gmail.com>
To: "NABS list serve" <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:25 PM
Subject: [nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

> Karen and all,
> The NFB is using different outlets to try to reach out to nonmembers.
> Facebook is just one of them.  Although as you said, the philosophy  
> of the
> federation is based on the word "Blind", that word
"Blind" is sometimes a
> negative things to those people struggling to deal or accept their
> blindness.  It was only until a few years ago that I was one of  
> them.  I
> didn't want to associate with anything that labeled me as blind.  I
felt
> ashamed to be blind and called myself "visually impaired".  The
acceptance
> of one's blindness is a grieving process that each person goes through
> differently.  What we have to do is serve as positive blind role  
> models,
> and show that being blind is no different than being short.  It is  
> simply
> a
> characteristic.  Once we attract them to these groups, we can  
> promote NFB
> activities, scholarships, etc and reel them in with our philosophy.
>
> Yours,
> Terri Rupp, President
> National Association of Blind Students
>
_______________________________________________
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/corbbo%40gmail.com