[nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology
David Andrews
dandrews at visi.com
Sun Nov 16 17:34:10 UTC 2008
Joseph:
I understand what you are saying about
politically correct o language. It can be taken
to far. On the other hand, some change in
language is the first step in bringing about
change. For example, if we still used the N
word, African-Americans wouldn't have probably
achieved much civil rights wise. People stopped
using the word even though some of them still
probably thought of blacks in terms of the N word
and all it applies. However, for most of us,
eventually our actions and and thoughts start to follow our words.
Dave
At 11:22 PM 11/15/2008, you wrote:
>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."Â 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/ma
>ilman/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/na
>bs-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/dandrews%40visi.com
></x-flowed>
>
>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
More information about the NABS-L
mailing list