[nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

[Lora and Myrtle]

I usually call myself visually impaired or legally blind because it is alot
easier to explain my vision to someone. When I say I am blind people
automatically assume I can't see anything and then get really confused when
I can read large print. I also think the NFB has taken this terminology way
to far. I am fine with thinking myself as blind.

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Dezman Jackson <jackson.dezman at gmail.com>wrote:

> I'll be volunerable here and say that when dealing with people in general,
> I feel that the word blind often carries a harder punch than say the phrase
> "visually impaired". I'll take for example instances where I'm scheduling a
> job interview or trying to volunteer in the community. Although I am totally
> blind and have no problem thinking of myself as just simply blind, I
> sometimes struggle with saying such things as visually impaired in such
> situations to lighten the blow so to speak. I don't particularly have a
> problem with different phrases, but it's your motivation behind the phrasing
> and for me it was to feed into the public's perception of what James Omvig
> calls the hierarchy of sight. This is basically the belief that your success
> in life is a function of how much vision you have, the more vision you have,
> the better off you are than someone who has less vision and vice versa. Of
> course, this concept is contrary to our philosophy. Alright I'll stop
> babbling now.
>
> Cheers,
> Dezman
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Hogue" <harryhogue at yahoo.com>
> To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list" <
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:25 PM
>
> 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/jackson.dezman%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/blindhistory%40gmail.com
>



-- 
Lora and Leader Dog Myrtle