[nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

Mon Nov 17 05:44:27 UTC 2008

Wow Heather, this was fabulously written in such a lucid and succinct 
manner! Thank you for sharing this "alternative" perspective, as it's the 
first time I have ever heard of this labeling term!!! I'm definitely going 
to test this method/theory out soon and see the reaction of others!

Warmest,
Yolanda
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "H. Field" <missheather at comcast.net>
To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list" 
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

> Hi all,
> After long years of being discriminated against because of the
> hierarchy of sight beliefs, and after many various social experiments,
> by way of responses, I have come up with the following approach. And,
> I must confess that I took it from Federation literature. I do so
> because I have found that using a term for which the general public
> has no referent, no previous stereotypes or wrong ideas, it is the
> most affective way of dealing with this problem of discrimination.
>
> When I am asked how much I can see, I reply that I am, functionally
> blind. They don't have a set of stereotypes or past experiences with
> others who have used this term and so it allows me to answer their
> questions with my own positive take on it. So, when they say, "oh,
> well how much can you actually see?", I simply say "well, that's not
> really the issue, what matters is that I don't rely on my vision to
> get the job done because it's not functional vision." I then go on to
> tell them all the positive, cool ways I have of doing things without
> relying on vision. It has been my experience that, even though people
> may want to know more or discuss the matter further, that they let the
> matter lie. This is because I have demonstrated that their concerns
> about what I may or may not be able to do is not related to how much
> vision I do or don't have. They want a word they know, like blind, or
> visually impaired, so they can think they know about me and my
> abilities. However, I have not actually given them an amount of vision
> or a word which allows them to use their old, incorrect stereotypes to
> help them determine how they will relate to me. This gives me much
> more opportunity to have them treat me like they would treat others
> because they don't know what else to do.
>
> It is usually simple curiosity that makes seeing people want to keep
> asking. However, they know that it would be rude to persist and,
> because they don't want to be thought of as rude, most people stop
> asking. If we become friends then they usually ask again at some later
> date, and I am happy to share my business with my friends. If newly
> met, rude strangers actually do persist, asking "yes, but what can you
> see. I mean, can you see light, shadows, colours, faces, large print.
> What exactly?" I ask them why they are asking. If they manage to come
> up with a specific, genuine concern such as, would I see them wave to
> me or would I need people to speak to me to recognise them, I answer
> that specific question and still don't give them an amount of vision.
> It is my experience, however, that people basically, just plain want
> to know. Usually, these folks, when I ask them why they are asking me,
> confess to plain curiosity. I usually respond by politely saying "oh,
> I see, you just wanted to know, I understand." Because of what most
> people do with that kind of information, I choose to withhold it from
> them. After all, it really is none of their business, it is mine, and
> it is my choice who I tell. Of course, this is my general approach and
> if I meet someone who is genuinely enquiring because they have genuine
> reasons for asking, such as a friend or relative losing their vision,
> I'm quite happy to discuss personal details with them.
>
> But, there is a more important reason than my privacy, why the public
> doesn't need specific information on a first meeting with me, and
> Carrie explained it well in discussing her son Jordan's situation. It
> is well-known in the blindness field, that the actual numbers used to
> describe the amount of clinically, measurable vision one possesses,
> doesn't really say anything much about how functional one's vision is
> in the real world and, from one situation to another. So, the curious
> public can't do anything much useful with the information I would give
> them anyway. For example, someone may have an eye condition that
> allows them to read regular print but not see further than 3 feet in
> front of them and they have no peripheral vision. If that person (and
> this is a real person known to me) says that they are vision impaired
> they will undoubtedly be disbelieved when they pick up a newspaper and
> read it on the train. However, when they say they are functionally
> blind, this opens the discussion and allows a sharing of accurate
> information about the nature of this person's particular version of
> functional blindness.
>
> A number of my, low vision, vision impaired friends have also taken to
> using this term because it always results in allowing them to say that
> they are functionally blind but can see the following. They have
> reported to me that this has kept the seeing people from insisting
> that they should be able to see this or that, or able to do something
> or other because they only have impaired vision.
>
> This is the way I have chosen to discuss the topic of my vision when
> meeting new, seeing people. It has been refreshingly pleasant not to
> have to deal with the old stereotypes before we have said ten words.
> Yes, I truly believe it's respectable to be blind. However, I also
> believe if I've found a way to lessen the discrimination and annoying
> nonsense that the seeing carry on with, then I should use it to our
> mutual advantage.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Heather Field
>
>
>
>
> ----- 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: Sunday, November 16, 2008 6:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology
>
>
> Dezman,
>
> There is something to that hierarchy of vision thing.  That I use a
> cane
> and that I describe myself simply as blind is these days used against
> me
> on a daily basis.  There really is something to it, though.
>
> The question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not we're prepared
> for
> the consequences of being who we are or not--and no is an acceptable
> answer, if not one I prefer.
>
> Joseph
>
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 03:57:28AM -0600, Dezman Jackson 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/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/missheather%40comcast.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/yvgarcia%40gmail.com 