[nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

Sun Nov 16 17:30:52 UTC 2008

Many of us in the NFB use more of a functional definition of blind, 
not a literal one.  For myself I regard anyone who uses alternative 
techniques as blind.  It has more to do with how you live your life 
and accomplish things then literal eyesight.

Dave

At 10:03 PM 11/15/2008, you wrote:
>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/dandrews%40visi.com
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1790 - Release Date: 
>11/15/2008 9:32 AM