[nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

Sun Nov 16 17:45:12 UTC 2008

At the risk of offending you -- I think your message and analogy are 
revealing.  To me you are saying it is better being visually impaired 
then totally blind.  You are obviously uncomfortable with someone 
thinking someone is totally blind when they might not be.

I would say that it is not better being blind or visually 
impaired.  They both are conditions with good and bad and we move 
forward from there.

I used to have some vision and considered myself lucky and tended to 
de vide the world into "us" and  "Them."  then I lost the rest of my 
vision and became a "them" and found out there wasn't that much of a 
difference.

Dave

>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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: 270.9.4/1791 - Release Date: 
>11/15/2008 6:57 PM