[nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

Mon Nov 17 13:28:44 UTC 2008

Thank you so much Heather. This is what I have taught Jordan to do, steer
away from exactly trying to describe the "how can you see?" as the most
important issue. I found also that if it was tried to describe, since he
could see some, the person was always still left with the idea that he could
only do whatever it was since he had some vision. That is, they went away
still thinking "well he couldn't do that if he was really blind". I also do
what you describe with teachers all the time, and teach other parents to do
the same, steering the conversation away from vision and to function. It is
amazing to me how many teachers keep wanting to come back to amount of
vision. It often is a continuing effort to bring them back to function.
Especially they want to say the child will only need some thing like Braille
in the distant future, when they are really blind. I steer them back and
talk about function and get them to understand the child is really blind
functionally right now. It works, sometimes with great effort and taking
repeated conversations, but it works.

Thanks for the practical and succinct sharing. 

Carrie Gilmer, President
National Organization of Parents of Blind Children
A Division of the National Federation of the Blind
NFB National Center: 410-659-9314
Home Phone: 763-784-8590
carrie.gilmer at gmail.com
www.nfb.org/nopbc
-----Original Message-----
From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of H. Field
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:36 PM
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
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%40gma
il.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%40gma
il.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%40comcas
t.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/carrie.gilmer%40gmai
l.com