[nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology

[Harry Hogue]

Welding?  I just don't see how that's possible, but there we go with the "lines" again.
 
I think, though, that human beigns in general draw lines as to waht we can do, and that if you add some disability like blindness, deafness, a mobility impairment, etc. the attention to just lines is emphasized so you notice all the "little" things.  Does that make sense?  It's the idea that while you have something you don't really pay to much attention it but once you don't have it anymore you suddenly notice all the little/big things that you suddenly can't do anymore or that you can imagine you you coul do.  For me, my comparison has always been, "well a totally blind person couldn't... but you could if you had a little vison, etc."  A good friend o mine has RP and is losing her ability to see things in her perifery (actually she doesn't have any to speak of).  It really hit home when she told me that she can't trust her vision, that she is scared of falling, that I realized, "She really does need the cane and the training that I'm giving
 her."  She is a part of the NFB -- she is the secretary of our chapter, in fact.
 


--- On Wed, 11/19/08, David Andrews <dandrews at visi.com> wrote:

From: David Andrews <dandrews at visi.com>
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology
To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list" <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 6:57 PM

Harry:

Most of us, as blind persons feel inadequate in one way or 
another.  I think we all draw lines in our own minds -- that is, we 
say, I know a blind person can do a lot, but she can't ...  We draw 
the line somewhere as to what we can and can't do.


And ... I am 55, and keep having that line challenged, as you 
will.  There are of course blatant sight things like driving that we 
can't do, but there is much else.  As an example, at one time I would 
have said that a blind guy couldn['t do welding.  Then, I was told 
about a blind guy in Nebraska who did it for a living.  I can think 
of other examples.

Dave

At 07:52 PM 11/17/2008, you wrote:
>As for me, I'm totally blind, so visually impaired wouldn't even 
>come up, and I wouldn't ever say i.
>
>You make a lot of sense.  What really gets me is that I really am 
>not sure, deep down, if someone hwo is totally blind can do the 
>things that someone hwo has some partial vision can, and that is the 
>crux of the matter.  They say, yes, but then I always am wodnering, 
>but can they really?  Cutting Christmas trees, for example.  I don't 
>know, but can a totally blind person really cut down a Christmas 
>tree with no sighteed help?
>
>Harry
>
>P.S.  I really want to believe, I really, really do.
>
>--- On Mon, 11/17/08, T. Joseph Carter <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>From: T. Joseph Carter <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Philosophical Terminology
>To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
>Date: Monday, November 17, 2008, 3:46 PM
>
>That's your right, of course.  You're free to go on telling people
>you're
>impaired--I've got better things to do than to encourage that kind of
>thinking while simultaneously trying to change it.  If you ask the right
>person, I'm too blind to be a teacher.  How exactly does me saying,
>"But I
>am only visually impaired" change their minds?  It doesn't--their
>minds
>were made up the second they saw the white cane, if not before even then.
>
>All it does is give hem more ammunition to try and shoot me down.  And
>shoot they will, because blind people should receive special education,
>not provide it.  I'm not going to contribute to that.
>
>Joseph
>
>On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:11:22PM -0800, Harry Hogue wrote:
> >I'm sorry, I odn't know that I was very clear.  I think
>politically correct language is riddiculous, but I understand about 
>why we call
>the techniques we use alternative... and that is the only term I 
>agree with out
>of the two - blind and alternative.
> >
> >Harry
> >
> >
> >--- On Sat, 11/15/08, T. Joseph Carter
<carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
>wrote:
> >
> >From: T. Joseph Carter <carter.tjoseph 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, 11:22 PM
> >
> >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."  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/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.tjo

> seph%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/harryhogue% 
> 40yahoo.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.tjos 
> eph%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/harryhogue%40yahoo.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: 270.9.4/1793 - Release Date: 
>11/16/2008 7:58 PM


_______________________________________________
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/harryhogue%40yahoo.com