[nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

Sun Nov 16 13:11:49 UTC 2008

I can't believe people are willing to let people assume they are totally 
blind just to avoid explaining what they can and can't see.  Does that mean 
I should call myself deaf and force people to use sign language by default 
just so I don't have to explain what I can and can't hear?  Of course I 
don't know sign language but the analogy is similar.  Why are people that 
uncomfortable about talking about their vision loss?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "hannah" <sparklylicious at suddenlink.net>
To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list" 
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

Sometimes it's easier for people who are not totally blind to
call themselves blind or te say they are blind.  Especially when
explaining something to someone because when you say you're
blind, then they'll get the fact that you are blind, but when you
say visually impaired, they might question you about your vission
and one thing leads to another.  It's not a bad thing when they
question you, but sometimes it can be umcomfortable because
people would either assume that you can see more than you really
could or less than you could.

> ----- Original Message -----
>From: Harry Hogue <harryhogue at yahoo.com
>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:25:25 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

>Thank you! This has always bugged me that people who are merely
legally blind or who read large print, or who are otherwise not
completely blind would call themselves blind. To me, if you have
some vision you are visually impaired. There is nothing negative
about that at all. If you have no vision you are totally blind.
Nothing wrong with that either. And if you have some light
perception? If you can't read large print, you are still blind.
But at the end of the day, it really shouldn't matter what you
choose to call it, so long as you understand and accept within
yourself that you have trouble seeing, and this is what you need
to do alternatively (use a long cane, read braille, etc). What
other people choose to call it shouldn't matter either. Just as
you pointed out, when someone says they are deaf, I think of them
as totally without the ability to hear; when they say they are
hearing impaired, I say, "well they can hear some but
> they are not totally deaf." And the same with blindness. You
can take anything too far, and I am afraid the NFB and perhaps
taken this a bit too far--the distinction needs to be made when
it comes to what people need--if someone needs a cane fo steps,
but can still read large print, what's wrong with calling them
visually impaired? Just because someone has a cane does not
automatically make them blind, although this is what most people
think. And here again, you cna't please everyone. I gave up on
that a long time ago.
>
>

>--- 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/sparklyli
cious%40suddenlink.net

_______________________________________________
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/westbchris%40gmail.com