[nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

Sun Nov 16 06:11:22 UTC 2008

I'm sorry, I odn't know that I was very clear.  I think politically correct language is riddiculous, but I understand about why we call the techniques we use alternative... and that is the only term I agree with out of the two - blind and alternative.

Harry

--- On Sat, 11/15/08, T. Joseph Carter <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com> wrote:

From: T. Joseph Carter <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology
To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list" <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Date: Saturday, November 15, 2008, 11:22 PM

Harry,

I object to the concept of political correctness outright.  It forces 
people to say things they do not mean and mean things they do not say.  
Morally, that seems wrong to me.

I endeavor to say exactly what I think.  Not everyone likes that.  And you 
know what?  That's fine.  In fact, sometimes I'm wrong.  Thing is,
you've 
got to be willing to accept responsibility for being wrong now and then, 
or you'd best not say anything.

Too often, politically correct speech is used as an excuse to have 
everything be so nebulous that anything you say can be interpreted any 
number of ways, none of which you can be held responsible for.  Down that 
road lies the girlie-men from Joe Orozco's history lesson.  *grin*

Joseph

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 07:34:36PM -0800, Harry Hogue wrote:
>Here's an interesting thought.  We get all bent out of shape about the
word "visually impaired," or any other kind of "politically
correct "language, and insist that we call things the way they are, but yet
we also insist that the techniques we use be called "alternative."  I
understand and agree with that one, because "substitute techniques"
does sound inferior, but I just think it's interesting how strict we are on
our termonology.
>
>
>--- On Sat, 11/15/08, Chris Westbrook <westbchris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>From: Chris Westbrook <westbchris at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology
>To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
>Date: Saturday, November 15, 2008, 8:10 PM
>
>Also, I don't think that just because you call yourself visually
impaired
>you are necessarily denying your blindness.  I will use an example with
another
>disability from my own life.  I am hearing impaired.  Notice I said hearing
>impaired, not deaf.  I choose not to call myself deaf, because deafness
>generally implies profound hearing loss, sign language, the inability to
speak,
>etc.  If any of you have been around me for a while, however, you no that I
do
>not deny my hearing loss.  I wear two hearing aids.  I also accept that
certain
>things are much harder if not impossible for me, such as street crossings
and
>socializing in crowded situations.  Why is it deemed OK for me to call
myself
>hearing impaired when it is not OK for a visually impaired individual to
call
>themselves visually impaired?  after all, even if you are totally blind you
are
>visually impaired.  The more I think about these things, the more I find
myself
>struggling with some of the stricter points of NFB philosophy.
>----- Original Message ----- From: "T. Joseph Carter"
><carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
>To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
><nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 8:24 PM
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology
>
>
>> I think you are all getting too hung up on empty words.  The NFB
>philosophy is about actions and attitudes.
>> 
>> If you call me blind and mean by it that I am helpless, I will take
>offense.  If you call me impaired and mean that I just can't see much
but am
>otherwise like anyone else, I'll accept your words as respectful.
>> 
>> I can almost always tell the difference, and I bet you can too.
>> 
>> Joseph
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:06:10PM +0000, Corbb O'Connor wrote:
>>> I didn't write the subject line, but I am assuming that was a
>blanket marketing e-mail. That is, it was meant to be forwarded around.
Just as
>we want to attract new members (as has been said by me and others), we
>wouldn't want to push people toward the delete button after only
reading the
>subject line. Marketing, my friends, it's marketing. I agree with all
of you
>-- we in the Federation are blind, even those of us with some residual
vision.
>Let's not push people away from our great organization before they even
know
>who we are and why we use the words we do. I don't think we're
>undermining ourselves or our philosophy -- we're trying to find others
out
>there who don't see as well as their peers (seniors, students,
>and...well...everybody else) to show them our positive philosophy on
blindness.
>>> 
>>> -----
>>> Corbb O'Connor
>>> studying at the National University of Ireland, Galway
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 5, 2008, at 10:33 PM, Janice wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com

_______________________________________________
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/harryhogue%40yahoo.com