[nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

Mon Nov 17 06:48:32 UTC 2008

Thanks; this really is an excellent alternative for socializing,
especially if you don't, as you pointed out, want to divulge personal
history to virtual strangers.
Courtney

On 11/16/08, Yolanda Garcia <yvgarcia at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/liamskitten%40gmail.com
>